Controversy over Seralini Affair: A Critical Analysis

This paper presents a critical analysis of the Seralini affair, covering the publication, withdrawal, and republication of a science journal article. It delves deeper into the case to present a discussion on the debatable aspects of the research topic.

Running head: NURSING
NURSING
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author Note:

1NURSING
Background:
The Seralini affair is one of the most talked about controversies that covers the
publication, withdrawal and the republication of a science journal article. The journal was
authored a French molecular biology researcher Gilles-Eric Seralini. The journal was first
published in the journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology in September, 2012. The research
paper critically presented a two year long feeding intervention study on rats. Interestingly the
findings of the research suggested that rats that fed upon Roundup tolerant genetically
modified maize were most likely to be affected with increased tumours (Séralini et al. 2014).
The paper was heavily critiqued by scientists and research scholars all over the world for its
poor sample size that did not permit generalization of the findings. In addition to this, the
strain of rat that was used for conducting the research study was Sprague Dawley and the
evidence base shows that the strain is most likely to develop tumours over a complete life-
span. Most importantly the research study was critiqued by the researchers for the use of poor
sampling that led to the retrieval of statistically insignificant results (Seralini.fr 2019). This
paper intends to conduct a rigorous search on the evidence base in order to develop a clear
overview about the research journal and then delve deeper into the case so as to present a
discussion on the debatable aspects of the research topic.
Literature Review:
As has already been mentioned, the research study was first published in the journal
of Food and Chemical Toxicology in the year 2012 but was later retracted after a rigorous
process of thorough investigation and peer review analysis. Soon after the publication of the
article in the journal, a number of letters were addressed to the editor by different researchers
who questioned the validity and credibility of the research paper (GMO Seralini 2019). In
order to address the concerns raised by other researchers, the Editor-in-chief, made a formal

2NURSING
request to the corresponding author to forward the original data for evaluating the validity of
the data that was used in the research study for analysis of the results. All important data and
information was forwarded to the Editor-In-Chief by the corresponding author and the
evaluation revealed no signs of data manipulation (Seralini et al. 2012). However, the major
limitation of the study was marked by the number of animals that were included in each
group and the choice of the rat strain. A group of eminent researchers questioned the
credibility of the research on the basis of the poor sample size included in each study group,
however, upon scrutinising the peer review process, this limitation was ruled out and it was
stated that despite the poor sampling, the research still had merit. Further steps of analysis
suggested that the research findings could not lead to definite conclusions on account of the
poor sample size and the role of glyphosate or NK603 in the tumour incidence and mortality
of the rats. According to Hayes (2013), the rat strain Sprague-Dawley is highly susceptible to
develop tumours. A number of research studies have also validated the findings that the
Sprague Dawley strain is susceptible to develop neoplastic tumours spontaneously (Xia et al.
2015 & GMO Seralini 2019). This accounts for the reason why the normal variability cannot
be eliminated as the cause of a rise in mortality and incidence of tumour within the treated
strain of rats.
The research article was major retracted because the results and findings were
inconclusive even if the considered data set was authentic and was not manipulated or
incorrect in any form. It is on account of these factors that the research article did not satisfy
the eligibility criteria for publication in the Food and Chemical Toxicology journal. The
journal was therefore retracted and the post publication peer review process played a
significant role in analysing the credibility and authenticity of the research study. Post the
retraction of the journal, it was mentioned by the Editor-In-Chief that this research study

3NURSING
would be considered as a guideline and the editor board would stringently analyse every
research journal before approving the journals for the publication process.
It was in the year 2014 that the same research study was republished in the
Environmental Sciences Europe Journal. The republished research journal comprises of extra
resources that include responses to critic comments that forced the retraction of the research
study in November 2012 (Seralini.fr 2019). The overall results and findings of the research
study remain unchanged, however, the republished paper comprises of the raw data that
constitute the overall findings (Resnik, 2015). In addition to this, the conclusions of the paper
also remain unchanged. The republished study also comprises a separate commentary section
of Professor Seralini’s team of experts who have shed light on the effort of the GMO crop
supporters that had compelled the Editor of the FCT journal to retract the paper.
Debate and discussion:
The republication of the research paper critically portrays that the research study had
unravelled an important aspect of incidence of cancer and intake of genetically modified
crops. However, on account of unethical and lobbying efforts of the GMO supporters the first
publication of the research study was forcibly retracted. The recurrent publication is also a
proof that Science has the ability to overpower forced decision making and emerge
victorious.
This section of the paper intends to present an overview on the what exactly went
wrong that led to the retraction of the paper and that more than Scientific arguments media
played an integral role in the decision making process related to retraction. The subsequent
publication in the year 2014 was only possible after the completion of three rounds of the
peer-review process. The first round of peer-review commenced soon after the first
publication in the Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology. The first round of peer-review

4NURSING
successfully approved the research study with minor revisions. The second review was one of
the rigorous peer-reviews which spanned over months. This phase however as per the authors
of the research study was extremely non-transparent and sceptical as the paper was reviewed
by a secret team of scholars whose identities were not disclosed. It was during the second
peer review process that professor Seralini and his team was asked to submit the raw data of
the research study and post evaluation, the scholars could find nothing incorrect or
manipulative with the findings of the research study but criticised the paper on the basis of its
inconclusive nature on the aspects of tumour and mortality observations (Xia et al. 2015).
The primary reason sighted for the decision to retract the paper included a baseless
argument on the choice of the rat strain and the inconclusive nature of the paper that did not
shed much light on certain aspects of the paper. The decision was manipulative and seemed
more like safeguarding the interests of the GMO industry. The decision pertaining to the
retraction of the research paper was heavily criticized by International scholars. A number of
researcher argued that inconclusive findings could no way serve as a parameter that could
testify the credibility of a research paper. A group of scientists also argued that a gamut of
research papers are published in reputed journals every year that comprise of inconclusive
findings. In order to back the argument, Monsanto’s short study (90 day experimental study)
was sighted as an example that was conducted on genetically modified maize but did not
comprise of proper conclusive findings but was not retracted (Resnik 2015). In addition to
this, it should also be noted that one of the former editorial board member of Food and
Chemical Toxicology also condemned the decision of the board to retract the paper
(DeFrancesco 2013).
The paper in the following years underwent a third peer review that was arranged by
the journal Environmental Sciences Europe and it was post the third review that a unanimous

5NURSING
decision was taken by the board of the researchers to republish the research study in the
journal of Environmental Sciences Europe.
The republication of the research article was supported by eminent scientists who did
not support the decision of retracting the research study after its first publication in the FCT.
Dr. Michael Antoniou, an eminent molecular biologist based at London supported Dr Seralini
and stated that very few research studies could be credible enough to survive three
subsequent peer review process (Resnik 2015). Dr. Antoniou further mentions that even after
the third peer-review process, if the group of scholar still present objection of the findings of
the paper, the objecting researchers must literally analyse the paper and not find baseless
loopholes with the paper (Xia et al. 2015). Other researchers also supported the republication
of the paper and criticised the poor spirit of the scientific community that could not come to
terms with the uncomforting findings about GMO products such as Roundup tolerant
genetically modified maize that has already been integrated within the ecological food chain
for over years.
The primary objective of the research study was to test the effect of the genetically
modified maize, Monsanto’s NK603 and the herbicide Roundup that the maize has been
tailored to tolerate. Post the first publication, the research paper was extensively criticised for
its inconclusive findings that resulted in the retraction of the paper. The research study
created an upheaval among the group of researchers that advocated the benefits of genetically
modified crops and testified that genetically modified crops were safe to consume. In pursuit
of maintenance of the stance, the group of researchers undertook manipulative efforts to
demolish the credibility and authenticity of the research paper (Hayes 2013) This resulted in
criticism of the paper and articulating a public image that the findings of the paper were not
credible to be published in the journal. The primary factors that resulted in retraction of the
paper after its initial publication could be mentioned as conflict of interests of the

6NURSING
corporations, individuals and regulators as well as the financial stake involved against the
evidenced harm of a commodity that generated revenue and profit (DeFrancesco 2013).
However, the republication post the third peer review process proved that science and
humanity would triumph over unethical manipulative actions.
Conclusion:
Therefore, to conclude, it can be mentioned that the research study titled; ‘Long term
toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize’ presents
an in depth insight into the ill effects of genetically modified organisms on the normal
physiology of rats. The revelations of the research study findings stated that rats upon feeding
on genetically modified Round up tolerant maize were most likely to develop tumours. The
findings of the research study was largely criticised by the proponents of the genetically
modified organisms committee which resulted in forceful retraction of the paper. However,
the subsequent peer review process overpowered the malicious and unethical interest of the
GMO proponents and was republished again for the greater cause of humanity.

7NURSING
References:
DeFrancesco, L., 2013. How safe does transgenic food need to be?. Nature
biotechnology, 31(9), p.794.
GMO Seralini (2019). Republication of the Seralini study: Science speaks for itself. [online]
GMO Seralini. Available at: https://www.gmoseralini.org/republication-seralini-study-
science-speaks/ [Accessed 3 Aug. 2019].
Hayes, D.D.W., 2013. Comments on ‘‘Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a
Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize’’. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 53, pp.443-
444.
Resnik, D.B., 2015. Retracting inconclusive research: lessons from the Séralini GM maize
feeding study. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 28(4), pp.621-633.
Séralini, G.E., Clair, E., Mesnage, R., Gress, S., Defarge, N., Malatesta, M., Hennequin, D.
and de Vendômois, J.S., 2014. Republished study: long-term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide
and a Roundup-tolerantgenetically modified maize. Environmental Sciences Europe, 26(1),
p.14.
Séralini, G.E., Clair, E., Mesnage, R., Gress, S., Defarge, N., Malatesta, M., Hennequin, D.
and De Vendômois, J.S., 2012. RETRACTED: Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide
and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize.
Seralini.fr (2019). [online] Seralini.fr. Available at:
http://www.seralini.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Novotny-JBPC-2018-On-Seralini-FCT-
retraction.pdf [Accessed 3 Aug. 2019].

8NURSING
Xia, J., Song, P., Xu, L. and Tang, W., 2015. Retraction of a study on genetically modified
corn: Expert investigations should speak louder during controversies over safety. Bioscience
trends.