About Us
Write for Us
Media Info
Advertising Info
Seralini study

Elsevier journal boycott announced; sign the petition to end Seralini GMO study censorship

Thursday, April 24, 2014 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer
Tags: Seralini study, science censorship, boycott

Most Viewed Articles

(NaturalNews) The publisher of the scientific journal that retracted Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini's study on tumor-ridden rats fed Monsanto's genetically modified (GM) corn is the subject of a new academic boycott. Hundreds of members of the scientific community in support of honesty and transparency are calling on researchers everywhere to stop purchasing, publishing in and supporting the Elsevier group, which owns the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT), until the Seralini study is reinstated and a formal apology issued.

In case you missed it, Wallace Hayes, FCT's Editor-in-Chief, recently made the decision to pull Seralini's study after the establishment made its disapproval of the paper's findings publicly known. Though the science behind Seralini's study was sound -- Hayes admitted that its "inconclusive" nature was the reason for its retraction -- industry pressures led to its widespread maligning by the mainstream media, and ultimately to its unsubstantiated removal and censorship from the scientific literature.

This major injustice has prompted a groundswell of outrage among scientists who support free speech and honest scientific inquiry, who are now calling for a boycott of the publisher. A recent open letter issued in response to the retraction calls on both Hayes and Elsevier to reverse the retraction and issue an apology to Seralini and his team, as well as to the general public who has suffered much confusion as a result of this politically motivated attempt at scientific censorship.

"Your decision to retract the paper is in clear violation of the international ethical norms as laid down by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), of which FCT is a member," reads the letter. "According to COPE, the only grounds for retraction are (1) clear evidence that the findings are unreliable due to misconduct or honest error, (2) plagiarism or redundant publication, or (3) unethical research."

Elsevier admits Seralini study is perfectly valid, but retracts it anyway

Since Hayes has already publicly confessed that none of these violations are true about Seralini's paper, there is simply no excuse for its being arbitrarily barred from the journal as if it is somehow invalid. Keeping this important information from the public not only threatens public health but also abuses the scientific process and calls into question the legitimacy of Elsevier's role as a purveyor of honest science.

"The retraction is erasing from the public record results that are potentially of very great importance for public health," explains the letter. "It is censorship of scientific research, knowledge, and understanding, an abuse of science striking at the very heart of science and democracy, and science for the public good."

Though other scientists are the intended signatories for this open letter, members of the general public can also sign onto it and leave their comments at the following form link, which Natural News readers are encouraged to do:

"We urge you to reverse this appalling decision, and further, to issue a fulsome public apology to Seralini and his colleagues," concludes the letter. "Until you accede to our request, we will boycott Elsevier, i.e., decline to purchase Elsevier products, to publish, review, or do editorial work for Elsevier."

Since his paper was retracted, Seralini has vowed to republish his important findings elsewhere. He also recently gave an interview about his original findings and what they entail, which you can access in transcript form here:

"The suppression of scientific evidence for commercial gain should be punishable by criminal charges," wrote one outraged scientist, Dr. Bob Abell, about the illicit retraction. "The tobacco companies got away with this for nearly 30 years before the world woke up to the problem, and even then the response was insufficient."

"The risks posed by the epigenetic response of plant DNA to foreign genes is potentially catastrophic, and the precautionary principle should apply. Censoring science is playing with peoples lives."

Sources for this article include:







Receive Our Free Email Newsletter

Get independent news alerts on natural cures, food lab tests, cannabis medicine, science, robotics, drones, privacy and more.

comments powered by Disqus

Natural News Wire (Sponsored Content)

Science News & Studies
Medicine News and Information
Food News & Studies
Health News & Studies
Herbs News & Information
Pollution News & Studies
Cancer News & Studies
Climate News & Studies
Survival News & Information
Gear News & Information
News covering technology, stocks, hackers, and more