This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Template:WikiProject Genetics
|
Changes being proposed by 205.178.101.170
So 205.178.101.170 has been adding content to the article claiming that the affair is known as "Seralini vs Monsanto", claiming that the study was done "by the French government" and that the study "proved" that roundup and "artificial" corn are "toxic". None of these things are true or are documentable. Please stop edit warring and please discuss. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 11:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- I've been watching these edits, and I agree entirely with Jytdog with respect to the content. The edits made by 205 seem to me to be without substantiation in any reliable source material. By chance, the times that I have been logged in have meant that the edits by 205 have always been reverted by the time that I got here (reverted mostly by Jytdog, and once by Roxy). Jytdog, please let me point out in a friendly way that you, like 205, have been edit warring over it, and WP:There is no deadline. Lest you fall afoul of WP:3RR, please let me suggest that you stop reverting, and rest assured that I, Roxy, or someone else, will shortly take care of the revert. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Trytpo. I am aware that I am at the limit. Jytdog (talk) 00:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed ;) -Roxy the dog (resonate) 01:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Trytpo. I am aware that I am at the limit. Jytdog (talk) 00:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Come on 205.178.101.170 You just reverted again and have still not left a single edit note, nor responded here nor on your user Talk page. Please talk. Jytdog (talk) 16:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'm guessing that a ping to an IP does not work. But talk page messages do, and I just added a formal warning about WP:3RR. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Balance needed
The article currently says:
- "The article was republished in June 2014 in the journal Environmental Sciences Europe, without further peer-review."
That version results from a revert with the edit summary "Appears as undue weight for Seralini; need to be mindful of WP:PROFRINGE. Could be worth discussing at talk to see what others think." The article previously said:
- "The article was republished in June 2014 in the journal Environmental Sciences Europe, without further peer-review, accompanied by a commentary from the authors.[1]"
- ^ Gilles-Eric Séralini, Robin Mesnage, Nicolas Defarge and Joël Spiroux de Vendômois (2014). "Conflicts of interests, confidentiality and censorship in health risk assessment: the example of an herbicide and a GMO". Environmental Sciences Europe. doi:10.1186/s12302-014-0013-6.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
My opinion is that suppressing mention of the authors' response is not in line with WP:BALANCE. What do others think? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- I think you are probably correct in that balance is needed. We should remove the sentence mentioning republication from the lead, as it is undue, and properly covered in the body text. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 12:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed, the lead section is too long; about half that length would be good for readability, I think. The republication is a major component of the story, though, so I'd suggest that the sentence should be trimmed to "The article was republished in June 2014 in the journal Environmental Sciences Europe". Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- I think you are probably correct in that balance is needed. We should remove the sentence mentioning republication from the lead, as it is undue, and properly covered in the body text. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 12:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'd point out that WP:BALANCE does not mean two opposing ideas, people, organizations, etc. get equal WP:WEIGHT. This is a problem a lot of editors have if they haven't edited in controversial subjects, especially dealing with science and with a viewpoint they are passionate about. Since we're dealing with a fringe view in terms of the scientific consensus, we need to be especially careful about giving a false balance (i.e., undue weight) to some statements by Seralini. WP:PROFRINGE covers my concerns pretty well, but the lede of WP:FRINGE covers a bit more, "And for writers and editors of Wikipedia articles to write about controversial ideas in a neutral manner, it is of vital importance that they simply restate what is said by independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality." At this point we have a commentary by Seralini, but we don't have an independent reliable secondary source stating whether those claims are valid or not (i.e., not way to assign weight). As has been mentioned before, try reviewing the archives of this talk page and reviewing the fringe guideline for how we handle issues like this. It's very common for proponents of fringe views to result to things like red herrings, conspiracy theories, etc., so we need to be especially careful assigning any weight if any when dealing with the fringe viewpoint. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- There is a huge difference between giving something equal weight, and completely omitting it as has been done here several times. So while you are correct that there is no need to present both sides as equally valid. completely omitting all accusations of censorship and conflict of interest accusations is in fact ironically enough the same type of censorship and conflict of interest activity !!!! Ironic in the extreme. In some ways by censoring the very accusation of censorship, it is censorship and proves the accusation correct right here at wiki.Redddbaron (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- again, please stop commenting on contributors. I'm not going to respond further with that going on. make your arguments about content, based on policies and guidelines, and i will be happy to discuss. Jytdog (talk) 19:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- I could care less about contributors. I haven't even paid attention who did it. Content that should be on the page was removed. That's all that matters.Redddbaron (talk) 20:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- again, please stop commenting on contributors. I'm not going to respond further with that going on. make your arguments about content, based on policies and guidelines, and i will be happy to discuss. Jytdog (talk) 19:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- There is a huge difference between giving something equal weight, and completely omitting it as has been done here several times. So while you are correct that there is no need to present both sides as equally valid. completely omitting all accusations of censorship and conflict of interest accusations is in fact ironically enough the same type of censorship and conflict of interest activity !!!! Ironic in the extreme. In some ways by censoring the very accusation of censorship, it is censorship and proves the accusation correct right here at wiki.Redddbaron (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
What is the most important aspect of this article?
I didn't think to add this in the section above when asking for others' opinions, and that discussion has now proceeded beyond where it would make sense to insert this. I think it is important to ask what is the most intriguing aspect of this affair, considered as an incident in the history of science. In my view, that is the allegation that the paper was retracted although there was no problem with the data. In science, data is gathered at huge cost, and is precious. If there is a problem with the analysis of the data, the article that presents the data isn't retracted, it is reanalyzed, usually by subsequent workers, who may or may not add more data. Science is about reaching consensus by testing and re-testing. If one study produces a result that others doubt, then more studies are done. Retracting papers is for cases of fraud. For that reason, I think that the authors' tale of what happened to their paper after it was published is an important part of the story. Unless what they say is proven to be untrue, then it is the most important part of the story. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- Please see WP:INDY. Jytdog (talk) 13:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'd point out that the paper was retracted for an extremely poor study design and drawing improper conclusions from that data among other issues. Inconclusive findings are a reason to retract a study in some cases. There is a difference between having a study that has doubtful results that needs further research, and having a paper that should not have passed peer-review. This source outlined why the study was actually retracted pretty well. [1] Hopefully that gives a little background as to how things developed. To answer your question, the most important aspect of this article is documenting the controversy from a neutral point of view with reliable sources. That requires careful crafting of content and knowledge about WP:NPOV for a topic like this. The article is sitting pretty well in terms of NPOV at the moment as it does a pretty good job of properly weighting ideas from the Seralini side of things. Folks who are convinced his ideas were correct may not like that, but WP:VALID addresses that pretty well. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
tag re confidentiality agreements being normal
In this dif, Sminthopsis84 added a "clarification needed" tag with a note "had the paper been published before the press conference? If not, then confidentiality would be a normal requirement of both the authors and the publisher." I reverted. Sminthopsis, please actually read the sources provided in the article - especially the one from Nature and Carl Zimmer's comments. making journalists sign confidentiality agreements is absolutely not normal and science journalists who signed them were utterly irresponsible. If you don't know that coming into this, I suggest you slow down a lot. I understand you feel intensely about this but you need to read and respond to what the article and sources actually say. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
missing the point?
This page is about the Seralini affair. In other words the controversy and bad dealings, improper actions, conflict of interests etc... from both sides surrounding the Seralini et al study. Yet you guys removed this? Conflicts of interests, confidentiality and censorship in health risk assessment: the example of an herbicide and a GMO from the page? Seriously? I think you guys are missing the whole point and topic of the page and actually engaged in the "Conflicts of interests, and censorship" that is part of the Seralini affair. This page clearly has become part of that scandal. Everyone needs to step back and take a deep breath and realise this is wikipedia, an online reference guide. Not a platform for POV pushing, and certainly not supposed to be engaging in the very same unscrupulous and unethical actions of a scandal that it references. This link needs put back..and actually probably needs discussed more in the article. http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/13Redddbaron (talk) 16:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- please comment on content, not contributor. the source you mention is from one of the participants and it is not reliable for anything other than for he-said-she-said-like content. Per the policy, WP:NPOV, particularly the section of NPOV on controversial subjects - Wikipedia stands with the scientific consensus and discusses things from that perspective. Jytdog (talk) 16:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- Here is a perfect example of what I mean. A scientist who doesn't agree with the conclusions of Seralini et al the study, but has commentary on The Seralini affair which is not the same thing.
The republication of the Séralini study raises a number of important issues to do with the scientific process. It must be noted that the paper being published is identical to the first one, which was initially attacked on methodological bases.
The paper is being republished because the authors feel it was unfairly retracted from Food and Chemical Toxicology. I think that the problem here is the controversial nature of the original paper.
This was a publication that gave some interesting results, but that needed to be replicated with larger numbers of rats in the experiment and, perhaps, a more statistically robust analysis. The paper was, in my mind, inconclusive, but pointed a direction in which future research could go.
After much public discussion the paper was withdrawn by the journal against the wishes of the authors. This is unusual. Even more unusual is the notice of retraction that states that the study was inconclusive, but there was no flaw or fraud in the original paper. Inconclusive data is no reason to retract a peer-reviewed and published paper.
The republication of this paper, and the rebuttals presented, have not changed my opinion. I am not convinced that the original paper indicates any danger of genetically modified food. I do think, however, that this research needs to be continued.
I am also convinced that retracting the original paper in this unusual way has not served the scientific process well. All good science is a debate, and one that should be held publicly in published journals. Only through open publication, replication and exchange of scientific data can we use science effectively.
Controversial studies should not be buried because of public argument. They should be investigated, repeated, and new data published to either disprove or support the original findings. Only then do we get a clear and robust argument.
Peter Dearden, associate professor and director of Genetics Otago, Laboratory for Evolution and Development at the University of Otago
This quote any many like it can be found in many secondary sources. Just pick one.Redddbaron (talk) 19:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- please cite specific sources so we can discuss them. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:38, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- http://www.sciencemediacentre.co.nz/2014/06/25/controversial-gm-study-republished-experts-respond/Redddbaron (talk) 19:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- blogs are generally not reliable sources. And believe me, zillions of blog sites commented on this controversy while it was going on and afterwards. There is no end to the tit for tat back and forth. Jytdog (talk) 19:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- It is not a "blog", it is a media resource that does not take sides on the issue. It is both accurate and bias free.Redddbaron (talk) 19:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, you are right on that. it is a useful roundup of opinion. i just read through that whole thing - it is basically a rehash of the 1st controversy. nobody changed their mind, but now there is more discussion of the controversy over the retraction. there is no need to rehash everyhing. i changed the last section accordingly. i think the quote that was stuck in there was a bit of piling on so i removed it. Jytdog (talk) 20:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- Much better. See what you think of the change I just made.Redddbaron (talk) 20:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- massive copyvio. hell no. again there is no point in rehashing everything. there is nothing new in that site except criticism of the journals from every side imaginable. no new issues there. nothing new to write. Jytdog (talk) 20:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- It is not a "blog", it is a media resource that does not take sides on the issue. It is both accurate and bias free.Redddbaron (talk) 19:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- blogs are generally not reliable sources. And believe me, zillions of blog sites commented on this controversy while it was going on and afterwards. There is no end to the tit for tat back and forth. Jytdog (talk) 19:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- http://www.sciencemediacentre.co.nz/2014/06/25/controversial-gm-study-republished-experts-respond/Redddbaron (talk) 19:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeah..I actually agree. After I posted it I saw myself too much. What about this? I started where the quote refers to the republication..which is the topic of that section. Significantly shorter and more to the topicRedddbaron (talk) 20:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- ok, let's step back. you are still pushing to get the original idea that you stated in your first post into the article. please stop. the seralini affair is primarily about a) the scandalous way the publication of the study was publicized and b) the unsupportable nature of its conclusions. the article focuses on those issues. everything else - his defense, the retraction by the journal and the criticism for that, and the republication and the criticism that followed that, is all a side show. do you see that? Jytdog (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- Absolutely I see that part. How could I miss it. A whole page of it. But very little to no mention at all of the scandalous unethical behavior of many in the scientific community who had undisclosed conflicts of interest. One fairly level headed quote at the very bottom of the page that explains how this is harmful to the whole scientific process surely is warranted. I even started at "The republication of this paper, and the rebuttals presented, have not changed my opinion." so it couldn't be taken out of context.Redddbaron (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- see that is where we have a problem. "the scandalous unethical behavior of many in the scientific community who had undisclosed conflicts of interest." is your POV, I get that. That is not the mainstream scientific perspective. Seralini acted scandalously and over-reached in his conclusions in the paper. The circus of a press conference where he publicized his irresponsible conclusions - where no journalist had the chance to review the work with other scientists and prepare questions, where he had huge pictures of rat tumors (although it was "not a cancer study"), and where he announced a book and a movie about his work, and all timed for the Calfornia referendum, was just a perversion of the scientific process. And yes he got a firestorm of criticism for that. Yes some of that was perhaps too harsh. Sure, some of the critics had financial interests. But it is the studies flaws that is the mainstream story. The focus of this article. Jytdog (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- It is a referenced fact, not a POV, important people that were named had undisclosed conflicts of interest and were commenting or acting in this whole affair critical to Seralini. It is an ethical violation. The POV pushing for this article comes into play when all mention of it is excluded. I picked the absolute mildest citation about it I could possibly find. It barely mentions it and in the gentlest of manner and without any weighted language at all. Something very difficult to find in this highly charged issue. This is about content or lack there of. Cherry picking only one side and excluding anything that doesn't fit ones personal views is just as bad a way to POV push as piling on. The quote I gave comments on both the republishing and the commentary published at the same time. It is a fair assessment. It needs to be included. And if not the quote in a block quote, then what Dr.Peter Dearden said, but summarised and cited to him and others who also have that opinion. There are plenty more.Redddbaron (talk) 21:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- please provide a very reliable source that the mainstream response was primarily driven by COI. strong claims need strong evidence. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- Why do I need a VERY reliable source when it is not an opinion but something anyone can easily check? For example: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23430588?dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000,f1000m,isrctn There is the criticism...... Here is the disclosure: Author information
- please provide a very reliable source that the mainstream response was primarily driven by COI. strong claims need strong evidence. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- It is a referenced fact, not a POV, important people that were named had undisclosed conflicts of interest and were commenting or acting in this whole affair critical to Seralini. It is an ethical violation. The POV pushing for this article comes into play when all mention of it is excluded. I picked the absolute mildest citation about it I could possibly find. It barely mentions it and in the gentlest of manner and without any weighted language at all. Something very difficult to find in this highly charged issue. This is about content or lack there of. Cherry picking only one side and excluding anything that doesn't fit ones personal views is just as bad a way to POV push as piling on. The quote I gave comments on both the republishing and the commentary published at the same time. It is a fair assessment. It needs to be included. And if not the quote in a block quote, then what Dr.Peter Dearden said, but summarised and cited to him and others who also have that opinion. There are plenty more.Redddbaron (talk) 21:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- see that is where we have a problem. "the scandalous unethical behavior of many in the scientific community who had undisclosed conflicts of interest." is your POV, I get that. That is not the mainstream scientific perspective. Seralini acted scandalously and over-reached in his conclusions in the paper. The circus of a press conference where he publicized his irresponsible conclusions - where no journalist had the chance to review the work with other scientists and prepare questions, where he had huge pictures of rat tumors (although it was "not a cancer study"), and where he announced a book and a movie about his work, and all timed for the Calfornia referendum, was just a perversion of the scientific process. And yes he got a firestorm of criticism for that. Yes some of that was perhaps too harsh. Sure, some of the critics had financial interests. But it is the studies flaws that is the mainstream story. The focus of this article. Jytdog (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- Absolutely I see that part. How could I miss it. A whole page of it. But very little to no mention at all of the scandalous unethical behavior of many in the scientific community who had undisclosed conflicts of interest. One fairly level headed quote at the very bottom of the page that explains how this is harmful to the whole scientific process surely is warranted. I even started at "The republication of this paper, and the rebuttals presented, have not changed my opinion." so it couldn't be taken out of context.Redddbaron (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
1Departament de Medicina, Universitat de Lleida-Institut de Recerca Biomèdica de Lleida (IRBLleida), Lleida, Spain. Nothing about a COI mentioned. and here is one of the the COIs:http://www.google.com/patents/US6096523 Wayne Parrott is both a Co author and a patent holder with a fiscal COI. He has other COIs as well. and other coauthors have similar undisclosed COIs but this was easy enough to find by anyone fact checking Seralini commentary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redddbaron (talk • contribs) 22:40, October 4, 2014 (UTC)
- This discussion has become a wall of text, but if I understand correctly, the main issue being discussed is the lengthy block quote from Dr. Dearden. It seems to me that he is discussing both sides of the coin, as it were, and as such, he isn't really expressing a clear position on the controversy so much as saying there were a lot of problems with the paper but it is good to have a discussion of those problems. I'm having trouble seeing what it would really add to the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- The context is, censorship. Seeing as how the original study was retracted and any unethical behavior by people with undisclosed COI's covered up. Of course Dearden takes the high road and instead of saying it is unethical to have been retracted...he states it is good the study was republished. It is more tactful than Seralini's commentary. Seeing as how it is more tactful, it is also more appropriate here.Redddbaron (talk) 00:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- i said this before but let me try again. redbaron you are making an extraordinary claim, that the scientific establishment came down on Seralini due to COI. You need a strong source to back that up. A very reliable source. Not some guy on his blog. Please put one up or drop this argument. (for instance, it is mainstream knowledge today that smoking is bad. But that was not true in say 1950. Real evidence began to build, and organization and after organization joined in, with the tide really turning with the Surgeon General's report in 1964, so that by the late 1960s the scientific consensus was very clear that the smoking was bad. (see [http://ash.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/full-report.pdf this report, esp 19-22). The Surgeon General's report of 1964 was an extraordinary claim, made by very strong source, that the scientific consensus was changing. Very strong.. appropriate for an extraordiary claim. And people took it seriously. ) So - you are saying that the scientific community has just buried a valid study with valid conclusions. Please bring your very strong source. Jytdog (talk) 01:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Not making that claim. Nor does the content I added make that claim. Not even does Seralini make that claim. Only an extremist would claim that COI problems from a couple dozen key people = scientific establishment. Even Seralini is careful to make specific well referenced claims about specific people. And Deardon doesn't even go that far, calling it "unusual" which is VERY diplomatic and tactful.Redddbaron (talk) 02:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- i am sorry but that makes no sense. the key thing here, as trypto wrote above, is that there is nothing new after the republication. Jytdog (talk) 10:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Not making that claim. Nor does the content I added make that claim. Not even does Seralini make that claim. Only an extremist would claim that COI problems from a couple dozen key people = scientific establishment. Even Seralini is careful to make specific well referenced claims about specific people. And Deardon doesn't even go that far, calling it "unusual" which is VERY diplomatic and tactful.Redddbaron (talk) 02:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- i said this before but let me try again. redbaron you are making an extraordinary claim, that the scientific establishment came down on Seralini due to COI. You need a strong source to back that up. A very reliable source. Not some guy on his blog. Please put one up or drop this argument. (for instance, it is mainstream knowledge today that smoking is bad. But that was not true in say 1950. Real evidence began to build, and organization and after organization joined in, with the tide really turning with the Surgeon General's report in 1964, so that by the late 1960s the scientific consensus was very clear that the smoking was bad. (see [http://ash.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/full-report.pdf this report, esp 19-22). The Surgeon General's report of 1964 was an extraordinary claim, made by very strong source, that the scientific consensus was changing. Very strong.. appropriate for an extraordiary claim. And people took it seriously. ) So - you are saying that the scientific community has just buried a valid study with valid conclusions. Please bring your very strong source. Jytdog (talk) 01:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- The context is, censorship. Seeing as how the original study was retracted and any unethical behavior by people with undisclosed COI's covered up. Of course Dearden takes the high road and instead of saying it is unethical to have been retracted...he states it is good the study was republished. It is more tactful than Seralini's commentary. Seeing as how it is more tactful, it is also more appropriate here.Redddbaron (talk) 00:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)