O que é este blog?

Este blog trata basicamente de ideias, se possível inteligentes, para pessoas inteligentes. Ele também se ocupa de ideias aplicadas à política, em especial à política econômica. Ele constitui uma tentativa de manter um pensamento crítico e independente sobre livros, sobre questões culturais em geral, focando numa discussão bem informada sobre temas de relações internacionais e de política externa do Brasil. Para meus livros e ensaios ver o website: www.pralmeida.org. Para a maior parte de meus textos, ver minha página na plataforma Academia.edu, link: https://itamaraty.academia.edu/PauloRobertodeAlmeida;

Meu Twitter: https://twitter.com/PauloAlmeida53

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/paulobooks

Mostrando postagens com marcador retratação. Mostrar todas as postagens
Mostrando postagens com marcador retratação. Mostrar todas as postagens

sábado, 30 de novembro de 2013

Anti-OGMs: os reacionarios e retardatarios, os regressistas e anticientificos perdem um aliado de peso

Cientistas sérios submetem suas pesquisas a mais de um experimento, de preferência independente, antes de publicar resultados que já partem de uma hipótese pré-concebida...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

GM tumors study withdrawn
Shanghai Daily, November 30, 2013, Saturday

The publisher of a controversial and much-criticized study suggesting genetically modified corn caused tumors in rats has withdrawn the paper after a yearlong investigation found it did not meet scientific standards.
Reed Elsevier’s Food and Chemical Toxicology journal, which published the study by French researcher Gilles-Eric Seralini in September 2012, said the retraction was because the study’s small sample size meant no definitive conclusions could be reached.
“This retraction comes after a thorough and time-consuming analysis of the published article and the data it reports, along with an investigation into the peer-review behind the article,” the journal said in a statement.
“Ultimately, the results presented — while not incorrect — are inconclusive, and therefore do not reach the threshold of publication for Food and Chemical Toxicology.”
At the time of its original publication, hundreds of scientists across the world questioned Seralini’s research, which said rats fed Monsanto’s GM corn suffered tumors and multiple organ failure.
The European Food Safety Authority issued a statement in November 2012 saying the study by Seralini, who was based at France’s University of Caen, had serious defects in design and methodology and did not meet acceptable scientific standards.
Within weeks of its appearance in the peer-reviewed journal, more than 700 scientists had signed an online petition calling on Seralini to release all the data from his research.
In its retraction statement, the magazine said that, in light of these concerns, it too had asked to view the raw data.
Seralini “agreed and supplied all material that was requested by the editor-in-chief,” it said.
The journal said that, while it had received many letters expressing concerns about the findings, the proper use of animals and even allegations of fraud, its investigation found “no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data.”
However, it said there was legitimate cause for concern regarding both the number of animals in each study group and the particular strain selected.
Seralini, who works with a group called CRIIGEN, the Committee for Research and Independent Information on Genetic Engineering, said the journal’s criticisms of his work were “unacceptable.”
“Were FCT to persist in its decision to retract our study, CRIIGEN would attack with lawyers, including in the United States, to require financial compensation for the huge damage to our group,” he said in a statement.
Other scientists, however, welcomed the journal’s decision.
“The major flaws in this paper make its retraction the right thing to do,” said Cathie Martin, a professor at the UK’s John Innes Centre. “The strain of rats used is highly susceptible to tumors after 18 months with or without GMO (genetically modified organisms) in their diets.”

Professor David Spiegelhalter, of Cambridge University, said it was “clear from even a superficial reading that this paper was not fit for publication.”