http://www.nature.com/news/study-linkin ... ed-1.14268
This is that flawed study that GMO fearmongers constantly refer to that used the tumor-prone Sprague-Dawley rats to show that GMO maize was bad for human consumption. The paper has been relentlessly criticized since it was released, often ridiculed by those that understand the science -but the publisher finally caved to the pressures of the overwhelming majority of the scientific community and retracted the paper published in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology
. And this was despite the objections of Gilles-Eric Séralini, the lead author of the study.
I think I have mixed feelings about it being withdrawn. On the one hand, it was clearly bad science and withdrawing the paper sends that message. But should bad science be withdrawn from a journal? Hell, this wasn't even possible until the digital age. That's where I'm at with the other hand: was this bad science or pseudoscience?
Did the authors simply conduct a poorly designed experiment (one they still stand behind, by the way), or did (do) they know full well that there were flaws and chose to overlook them?
It's one thing to withdraw or retract a paper that was about a study that used fabricated data or was misleading in some way. But if a paper is poor science, shouldn't that researcher's peers be the ones to rake him/her over the coals (which is precisely what happened)?
It seems to me that the editorial and referee process for that publisher is what should really be looked at. Referees and reviewers should be the ones to catch the problems and make recommendations to the editor regarding publication. If that didn't happen, I'd wonder why. Did the editor not pick knowledgeable or unbiased (as much as is possible) refs?
Still, I like the blow it sends to GMO fearmongers.