Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

roseBudd

(8,718 posts)
8. It is a fraudulent study, and it is the only one
Sun May 26, 2013, 07:42 AM
May 2013
http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2012/09/25/scientists-smell-a-rat-in-fraudulent-genetic-engineering-study/

There is so much wrong with the experimental design that the conclusion is inescapable that the investigators intended to get a spurious, preordained result. Here are a few of the criticisms that have been raised by the scientific community:

– the investigators used a strain of rats that were bred to develop tumors as they aged (a detail they failed to disclose). Significantly, mortality rates and tumor incidence in all experimental groups fall within historical norms for this strain of laboratory rats. Therefore, the claim that the genetically engineered corn component of the diet or the herbicide caused the tumors is insupportable.

– there is no documentation of the rats’ food intake, which strongly affects the incidence of tumors in this strain;

– the experiment included 180 rats (9 groups of 20) fed the genetically engineered or herbicide-containing diets (the “treated rats”), while only 20 rats were fed a standard (control) diet. Both common sense and a rudimentary understanding of statistics tell you that even if there were no actual differences between the groups, the greater numbers of animals in the pooled treated groups increases the odds that one of the treated rats would die first (one of the parameters reported in the paper);

– the statistical methods employed were unconventional and appeared to be selected specifically in order to give a certain result. Tom Sanders, head of the nutritional sciences research division at King’s College London, called the treatment of data “a statistical fishing trip”;

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

BRAVO! Voice for Peace May 2013 #1
haha oops Voice for Peace May 2013 #2
How is this different than climate denier Lord Monkton's bad science? roseBudd May 2013 #3
Some art is bad. randome May 2013 #6
Peer reviewed research is the gold standard roseBudd May 2013 #13
Study linking GM crops and cancer questioned roseBudd May 2013 #4
One fucked up study does nothing to make them less evil. TalkingDog May 2013 #5
It is a fraudulent study, and it is the only one roseBudd May 2013 #8
Um.... your point? TalkingDog May 2013 #15
And if you want some science on damage done, here's an article for you. TalkingDog May 2013 #16
I really like this article.... Now I don't feel so bad that I have so many dandelions in my yard... midnight May 2013 #20
GMOs are a big problem, but not why you might think Lordquinton May 2013 #7
I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with promulgating bad science roseBudd May 2013 #9
Thank you! Scuba May 2013 #10
How rigorous are the studies that get this stuff approved in the first place? rucky May 2013 #11
You suspect. Shouldn't you do the research before roseBudd May 2013 #12
I would, but I don't have a lab. n/t rucky May 2013 #22
My sister just went to a Monsanto protest Bonx May 2013 #14
Only one flawed if not fraudulent study that claims GM corn causes cancer roseBudd May 2013 #18
Thanks ! -nt Bonx May 2013 #19
I Fucking Love Science, too. And here's what I know - jazzimov May 2013 #17
Ahem.... hedgehog May 2013 #21
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»I succumbed to peer press...»Reply #8