L’affaire Séralini
L’affaire des OGM, qui déferle sur l’Europe en ce moment, résulte d’une collusion inédite entre un chercheur – Gilles-Éric Séralini, dont les positions idéologiques anti-OGM agricoles sont connues, et la carrière parsemée de controverses – et un grand média, Le Nouvel Observateur. Pourquoi collusion? Parce que, selon Sylvestre Huet de Libération, l’auteur de l’article a exigé et obtenu du seul média autorisé à lire son étude avant publication une entente d’embargo sans précédent. Cette entente interdisait au journaliste de montrer l’article à d’autres scientifiques dans le but d’obtenir une contre-expertise. Une entente explicite entre un chercheur financé par des lobbies anti-OGM et un journal qui accepte de ne pas vérifier l’exactitude de sa source. Le scoop duNouvel Observateur valait-il ce prix? Une réponse affirmative aurait de quoi donner froid dans le dos.
Érosion de la confiance du public
On pourrait tenter d’excuser Le Nouvel Observateur et croire qu’il aurait été manipulé par un chercheur trop convaincu de la justesse de sa cause. Mais qu’il s’agisse de collusion ou de manipulation, le résultat est le même : l’érosion de la confiance du public envers la science. Car il y aura certainement des articles pour contredire cette étude. Évidemment, la science n’est jamais définitive, et elle n’est jamais rapide ni claire. Un résultat scientifique, même lorsque les tests statistiques le déclarent « significatif », peut toujours n’avoir été que le fruit du hasard. Après tout, le seuil d’acceptabilité n’est que de 1 sur 20. Une seule étude ne peut donc jamais en soi être définitive et totalement convaincante. C’est pour cela que la science exige des réplications, la critique par les pairs et les contre-expertises. Ce n’est pas rapide certes, mais l’erreur est évitée....
@ L’affaire des OGM : les dangers de la collusion entre chercheurs et média | Acfas | magazine Découvrir | octobre 2012:
h/t Olivier Le Gall @Olivier_LG on Twitter
See also the very French trio:
- L’affaire Séralini
- Il y a 3 sortes de mensonges : les mensonges, les foutus mensonges, et les mensonges "anti-OGM"
- GMO: a debate hijacked by rumours. Deja vu all over again (July 2007)
 |
| Marianne 29-9-2012 |
Pre-publication translation of submission version of the Marianne Polemic captured above
SHOCK STUDY ON GMOS TRIGGERS A WORLD OUTCRY*
"A communication gambit", "a methodology leading to scientific fraud in support of pre-ordained results". These are a few of the reactions from the scientific community from various parts of the world to the results of Pr. Gilles-Eric Séralini in the September 19, 2012 issue of the Nouvel Observateur.
Marianne published a comments column written a few days after the publication and signed within a few hours by dozens of internationally renowned researchers, some of whom are listed below. They forcefully express their skepticism regarding the scientific approach and their anger at the use of the results by the sponsors of the study.
Multiple scientific studies for extended periods (2 to 3 years) on animals (rats, cattle, pigs and poultry) have not, so far, revealed any negative effect from "GMO" plants on their health. For the past 15 years, millions of animals around the world have been fed with plant produce issued from genetically modified plants. No clinical signs of disease have ever been reported by veterinarians, even in elderly breeding animals.
So the latest announcement by the CRIIGEN (Comité de recherche et d'information indépendantes sur le génie génétique), the Independent Committee of Research and Information on Genetic Engineering, which reported that NK 603 genetically modified corn, doubtlessly triggered tumors on rats, caught the scientific community by surprise. The resulting media frenzy reopened the debate on whether GMOs are harmful to health and stirred public opinion, which rightfully is concerned about the conclusions of the study.
Stupefaction of the scientists
The extraordinary media coverage of the study led to an exceptionally quick and highly criticized reaction on the part of the scientific community worldwide. American, Australian, Swiss and British researchers, as well as the AFBV (Association française des biotechnologies végétales), that is, the French Association of Plant Biotechnologies, expressed numerous reservations regarding the methodology used : the limited number of rats per group which does not lead to the drawing of serious statistical conclusions; the lack of specifications regarding the content of the food given to the rats, etc. Moreover, many scientists wonder how the authors of the study could use the Sprague-Dawley/Harman type of rat. That choice of type of rat, which spontaneously develops tumors with a very high frequency, is incompatible with groups of 10 animals for a toxicology study which tried to highlight a carcinogenic effect. The lack of provision of raw data from this study increases doubt within the scientific community about the conclusions drawn by the authors.
Puzzled countries
We are also very surprised by the reactions of the countries concerned by the conclusions of the CRIIGEN study. Following such dramatic and peremptory conclusions, wouldn’t we normally expect the government of the producing or importing countries of that GMO to have imposed an immediate moratorium, as dictated by the precautionary principle ? Yet none of them has made such a decision, not even the French authorities who are normally overzealous in this regard. Did they expect that the study would be invalidated by authorities in the field, as was the case with regard to previous studies conducted by the CRIIGEN ?
Supermarket distribution pays and makes a profit
The study was partially financed by Carrefour and Auchan. The managements of these two firms have been aware of the terrifying results for several months. So, why did they not immediately remove from their French and foreign shelves all the food products likely to contain traces of the specific GMO ? Do they question the results ? The only known reaction is that of Carrefour, which launched a new advertising campaign in France to market their products as being "without GMOs", on the day following the disclosure of the conclusions of the study... certainly this timing was pure chance.
The sacrificed scientific debate
This study must be considered more as a publicity gambit than as a disclosure of scientific results. Informed of results only, but without access to the underlying data, a large number of journalists and politicians simply echoed the perfectly "orchestrated" message : a revealing study, two books coming out simultaneously after the publication in the Nouvel Observateur, a film... Such an approach is neither ethical nor correct scientifically. As Sylvestre Huet, a journalist at Libération, wrote, "This operation is a disaster for the public debate, its quality, its capacity to generate sound policy and democratic decisions."
Let's calmly await the French and European authoritative scientific review of that study.
Researchers from INRA, CNRS, INSERM, universities (France, Belgium, Canada, Italy, U.S.A., Australia, Brazil):
Yannick Andréol, Dominique Anxolabehere, Francine Casse, Gérard Corthier, Yvette Dattée, Alain Deshayes, Michel Dron, Dusco Ehrlich, Marc Fellous, Christian Ferault, Claude Gaillardin, Patrick Gaudray, Pascal Genschik, Rosine Haguenauer-Tsapis, Danièle Hernandez-Verdun, Dominique Job, Philippe Joudrier, Claudine Junien, David Klatzmann, Hubert Laude, Olivier Lemaire, Pierro Marandini, Bernard Mauchamp, Claude Mawas, Jean-François Morot-Gaudry, Wayne Parrott, Gérard Pascal, Alain Pavé, Georges Pelletier, Georges Periquet, Jean-Claude Pernollet, Dominique Planchenault, Francis Quetier, Catherine Rameau, Hubert de Rochambeau, Pascal Simonet, Lucia de Souza, Maxime Schwartz, David Tribe, Daniel Vaiman, Marc Van Montagu, Robert Wager.
* The titles, insert titles and introductory paragraphs are from the editorial staff of Marianne.
No comments:
Post a Comment