11-29-2013, 04:35 AM
I'll add some pointless controversy:
http://www.nature.com/news/study-linking...ed-1.14268
Long story short: the researchers refused to withdraw their paper, so the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology retracted the paper shortly after appointing a former Monsanto biologist to its editorial board.
Seems to me that if it's a "science" problem, you would argue the point with more/different science until the relevant points are either proven or refuted, rather than withdraw the paper after a convenient staff change. GMOs are safe, Monsanto has nothing to hide, and I've got a bridge for sale...
http://www.nature.com/news/study-linking...ed-1.14268
Long story short: the researchers refused to withdraw their paper, so the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology retracted the paper shortly after appointing a former Monsanto biologist to its editorial board.
Seems to me that if it's a "science" problem, you would argue the point with more/different science until the relevant points are either proven or refuted, rather than withdraw the paper after a convenient staff change. GMOs are safe, Monsanto has nothing to hide, and I've got a bridge for sale...