Here’s an excellent summary by ENSSER of how fraudulent and irresponsible “Food and Chemical Toxicology” is being in retracting the Seralini study.
ENSSER points out how pathetically bogus are the reasons given by FCT’s editor-in-chief, how the alleged “objections” are flimsy and were already dealt with by the original peer review committee, how FCT is violating Committee on Publication Ethics (of which it is a member) guidelines for retraction, the lack of transparency about who was involved in the retraction decision and what their methods were, and how this action seeks to suppress science and knowledge about GMOs, as part of a general pattern of secrecy and enclosure of information. The system keeps corporate research secret, except for the cherry-picked parts it chooses to disseminate. It restricts access to critical materials on “proprietary” grounds, thus imposing prior restraint upon science and free speech. It demonizes all independent research which does manage to take place. And as we see here, it tries to censor and suppress this independent, truly scientific research.
As ENSSER sums it up, the retraction “is a flagrant abuse of science and a blow to its credibility and independence.”
The refutation includes the technical reason why this study’s number of animals was sufficient to support its results. A principle of this kind of experimentation is that the reason you may need a larger sample size is to guard against false negatives, not false positives. If a smaller sample size finds a significant correlation between a variable and a health hazard, this is sufficient to be noted and published, if only to call for further study. The principle is that if we’re to err, we should do it on the side of caution regarding human health, rather than on the side of negligence. This is related to the precautionary principle and supports it.
This principle, of course, assumes that the purpose of a scientific study is to support human well-being, not to give the corporate imperative the benefit of the doubt. In principle, science is supposed to assess the safety of variables for human health, not exonerate corporations of responsibility and bolster their lies.
But in practice, the “scientific” establishment is now increasingly dedicated to the latter. FCT’s despicable and cowardly action here is a typical example, albeit with a higher profile than most. But this result of corporate capture and corporate coordination is becoming more the norm than the exception among so-called “peer reviewed” science. As we see in this case, when the “peers” are corporate cadres and flunkeys, we can expect, not science, but the trampling and strangling of science.
But as the ENSSER statement avows, this “will not succeed in eliminating critical independent science from public review and scrutiny. Such days are over.”
Since the establishment has abdicated all responsibility and disavowed even the most basic standards of fidelity to scientific truth and simple human decency, where it comes to such dire threats to human health, we the people shall have to take back science from the hands of those who only abuse and repress it. We must expose corporate scientism for what it is and rout it from the earth. We must rebuild science from the soil up, as we, the true scientific practitioners, spent thousands of years doing in the first place.
Fortunately, the great work of human science is still intact and at our service, as soon as we the people choose to regain control of it. This control, exercised as part of reclaiming our politics and our economies, is the only thing we really need to rebuild here. To do so all we need to do is rescind our confidence in the elitist technical establishment and revoke all political and economic support for it. This is part of fighting for the abolition of GMOs, and this abolitionism in turn is part of driving out the traitors to science and redeeming science as servant of the democratic people.