Talk:Gilles-Éric Séralini

Brother

Why is there this sentence about his brothers illness? How is this even marginal relevant to the person bio? prokaryotes (talk) 12:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

read the source. it was important on a few levels. Jytdog (talk) 14:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, republished under peer-review

To say the article 'was not peer-reviewed' when republished in the journal Environmental Sciences Europe, is an absurdity, and shows the writer does not understand science. Those scientists at the Environmental Sciences Europe, are independent peer-reviewers of the peer-reviewed research. They checked it, it was properly conducted. That's peer-review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Two Wrongs (talk • contribs) 04:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• Not exactly. According to Nature, "ESEU conducted no scientific peer review, he adds, “because this had already been conducted by Food and Chemical Toxicology, and had concluded there had been no fraud nor misrepresentation.” The role of the three reviewers hired by ESEU was to check that there had been no change in the scientific content of the paper, Hollert adds." [1] Everymorning (talk) 14:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Awards

I noticed this content has been added recently. Over at the Seralini affair article, it was decided not to include the source.[2]. The main concern was WP:WEIGHT as the group giving the award was not prominent enough for sufficient weight on Wikipedia and can be considered undue promotion of the subject per WP:BLPFRINGE. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

While i agree this honor does not belong on the Seralini Affair article, it belongs in this article, since it it's the persons page. Removing it is very silly way to enforce his own views.The Federation of German Scientists was founded 1959 by Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker, member of one of the most prominent German families. It doesn't get much more prominent then this. prokaryotes (talk) 23:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The source is used on other pages as well, see for instance here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden#German_.22Whistleblower_Prize.22 prokaryotes (talk) 00:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

RFC regarding Awards/Honor section

Recently admin JzG (also known under the nickname Guy) (DIF) and editor Kingofaces43 (DIF), removed the mention of Seralini as the recipient of the 2015 German Whistleblower Prize. JzG has concerns with a primary source, which has been addressed, and you can read Kingofaces43 opinion about his removal action in above section. Currently this BLP article includes 2 paragraphs on controversies, the lede as well mentions the Seralini Affair. Therefore the article gives undue weight to related controversies and his critics, when award/honor/recognition are left out. prokaryotes (talk) 01:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• 1. Do you support the inclusion of an award/honor/recognition section?

Do not include Possibly include, if sourced to Zeit Online as below. Undue. As it was included it was also a mini coatrack for the jury's inexpert opinion that Séralini was on to something. If he gets a substantial award, or if there's substantial coverage of an award then things would be different of course. Alexbrn (talk) 07:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC); amended 09:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

We have a content dispute and 5 minutes later you post unsupportive on all my recent edits. Now i must ask, what is a substantial award for you? This award goes back until 1999, coverage in print and online media, is used on other WP pages. prokaryotes (talk) 08:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Ordre national de la Légion d'honneur, Nobel Prize etc ... or lesser awards with good coverage. And it seems this award is on "other WP pages" because you're adding it (not that OTHERSTUFF should determine what we do here). Alexbrn (talk) 08:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, look at the page of Edward Snowden, which you can read also in above section, and what i was referring to. How hard is it to not read that when you edit here? prokaryotes (talk) 08:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Well for Snowden there is reasonably significant mainstream media coverage of the award, which is why it's due. Here, not. Alexbrn (talk) 08:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• Do not include unless we have reliable independent sources establishing the significance of the awards and the nature and significance of the awarding bodies (which do not appear to me to be notable). Guy (Help!) 08:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment There are now independent sources, from the German main stream media which covered the award discussed here. FAZ, SZ, ZEIT, ARD, SWRprokaryotes (talk) 09:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Excellent. Zeit online is a strong source (the others are more parochial). It could be used to support something like this to be placed in the existing Controversies section,, which also keeps us clean in WP:FRINGE terms:

In 2015 Séralini was awarded the "whistleblower" award by the Federation of German Scientists. Die Zeit noted the irony of this, said that Séralini was not a whistleblower but an "anti-GMO activist who leads a campaign by questionable means", and compared him unfavorably to Edward Snowden, the award's co-recipient, whom Die Zeit thought an example of a genuine whistleblower.

- Alexbrn (talk) 09:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Why do you cherry pick data which only serves your views, i.e. leave out that your quote is in response to the award we discuss here (at least on the article)? Apparently the ARD, is the world's second largest public broadcaster. All these sources linked above add up the majority of Germany's media landscape. prokaryotes (talk) 10:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The Die Zeit piece is utterly damning of Seralini, no need to cherry pick. We must of course avoid any kind of framing that looks like it might lend credence to his discredited research (as unfortunately happened here), per WP:FRINGE. Alexbrn (talk) 10:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

His science is so much discredited that several peer-reviewed journals offered to re-published the study you referring to. A circumstance you ignore as well. Per WP:Neutral. prokaryotes (talk) 10:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Alex, that is a good source, it establishes the context. Prokaryotes, beware the trap of assuming that anybody who supports your POV must be a saint and anybody who opposes it must be the enemy. Séralini's work is junk, that is unambiguously established. That doesn't make glyphosate good (or bad), it just means that this man's work, for all that it is shouted from the rooftops by anti-GMO activists, is useless in establishing the facts. As Zeit notes, he is not a brave maverick whistleblower, he is an activist who has allowed his agenda to overcome any attempt at objectivity. That is a behaviour that, if discovered, generally wrecks a career. Look at Jacques Benveniste, for example. The canonical example of course is Blondlot's n-rays. Guy (Help!) 11:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Discredit means you refer to the rat species he used, which his critics claim make the conclusions not significant enough (sample size, time frame). However, what you ignore is that Monsanto's own studies use the same species. Also your claim that he is an activist, or his entire work is junk, on a BLP page is rather at odds with Wikipedia guidelines, an admin should know better. Additional you ignore that recent findings by authorities such as ICAR, WHO or even the EFSA overlap with some of his conclusions (probable carcinogenic, or according to EFSA genotoxic when used in co formulations). prokaryotes (talk) 11:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

As the Sérlini Affair article makes clear, it goes a lot further than merely the species of rat. And as I have pointed out before, someone can publish fraudulent research and still not be completely wrong. The point is that Séralini's work is worthless in forming any judgment, because it is agenda-driven and because his conclusions are not supported by the data. And that is career suicide for a scientist. And it's not an accident. His subsequent claims about GMOs in all lab animal food somehow skewing the results, that seriously undermines any claim he might have to objectivity. His reputation is, at this point, toast - and I am afraid that however much you might wish it were otherwise, it's not Wikipedia's problem to fix. Guy (Help!) 11:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Notice that DS and 1RR apply to this page

Per the recent Arb case: Genetically modified organisms, all related pages are subject to discretionary sanctions and a strict 1 RR. I noticed that JzG (talk · contribs) has made more than 1 revert in this article today and made numerous reverts to other articles in the topic area today and yesterday. There may have been other editors who crossed that boundary as well - Please follow the restrictions that Arb has put in place for this topic area, or editors could find themselves sanctioned at AE. Thank you, Minor4th 08:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I have made more than one revert. I'm just cleaning up some stuff that has no reliable independent sourcing, per WP:FRINGE. Guy (Help!) 08:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Whatever your rationale, you have made more than one revert. Just keep in mind that even if your edits are "correct" - you are still subject to 1RR like everyone else. And for the record, I think a revert is removing content from an article. But I will look it up to be sure. Minor4th 08:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't think you are right. More than one edit, yes, but each edit made only once, as far as I can tell. And I did go back and check. Guy (Help!) 10:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

PLOS ONE

We include a link to the 2015 PLOS One study, but no commentary re the correction noting the previously undeclared COI, or the stinging rebuke from Science Media Centre or the comment from EFSA that pplication of the ADI concept to claim the existence of a health risk in rodents or to demonstrate background levels of diseases or disorders in rodents has no scientific justification. That seems to me to be a failure of WP:FRINGE. I have no problem with either excluding this study, or including it with the critical response, but including the study on its own without the commentary that shows it to be junk? Bit of an issue. Guy (Help!) 13:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd ditch the list of articles since we're WP:NOT a bibliography, and particularly not a bibliography of dodgy papers. Any articles that have got sound secondary coverage can be described in the narrative text in the context of that sound coverage. Alexbrn (talk) 13:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I am content with that, please feel free to make the edit. Guy (Help!) 14:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with that edit, since it is not following Wikipedia guidelines, WP:Neutral and per WP:BLP- prokaryotes (talk) 14:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Seems like a good plan. Academic BLPs are not a CV, so we can't go adding the various studies someone was authored unless there is extensive secondary coverage. The means it has to go beyond the standard press releases the author or journal might send out to media and reach some commentary above that threshold. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Kingofaces43, are you suggesting we should extend the article with the related coverage, since there is a lot of coverage of his studies in reliable secondary sources. Sounds like a good plan. prokaryotes (talk) 15:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

No, that should be clear at this time from my last comment. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Yet, above you wrote "...unless there is extensive secondary coverage". prokaryotes (talk) 15:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I qualified what extensive secondary coverage is in my post. We currently don't have such coverage relevant to the BLP that wouldn't be a WP:COATRACK for other topics from a weight perspective. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Which study you referring to now, in my search at least the studies published this year yield extensive coverage in reliable secondary sources. prokaryotes (talk) 15:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

At this point, please read the context of my replies in the threading. That will answer your questions. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Recent removal of info about Seralini's work by admin JzG

In this edit, the admin JzG (Also known under the name Guy) removed a large chunk of article content, which outlined the studies of scientist Seralini. The admin stated in the edit summary that the removal is related to the studies being primary sources. However, it is common usage to use scientific study papers of a scientist when explaining his work. Therefore the content should be readded to the article about scientist Seralini. prokaryotes (talk) 13:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

In general we don't just relay research, we seek secondary commentary to determine weight and provide a reliable basis for citation. But we especially can't just relay discredited science in our article without corrective commentary - that would be a violation of WP:NPOV. Alexbrn (talk) 14:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

As I said in the edit summary, and as Alex notes, and as last time we went over exactly the same problem, the reason is that it was all sourced from the WP:PRIMARY source. X wrote a study saying Y, source, X's study saying Y, is just about acceptable for uncontroversial facts, but for controversial or disputed findings we need reliable independent secondary sources, and in fact any use of primary sources is formally deprecated on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 14:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Then i suggest you make yourself familiar with WP:BLPSELFPUB. There is also a guide for scholar papers, which i cannot find right away.prokaryotes (talk) 14:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

We are not citing his blog or some other self-published source to support a statement of his beliefs on something, we are citing a research paper that purports to support a statement of the research paper's findings. Scientific studies are not supposed to be opinion pieces, though I agree that most of Séralini's work does appear to be based more on opinion than empirically established fact. These are not trivial biographical details, they are questionable papers promoting a fringe view, and we should not include them without reliable independent secondary sources - just as we would not include a contended fact about someone based solely on their own writing. You are, of course, free to propose a specific edit here and see if it achieves consensus. Guy (Help!) 15:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

"...they are questionable papers promoting a fringe view" Citation needed. Why do I have the impression that you are not here to improve Wikipedia? prokaryotes (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:

1. it is not unduly self-serving;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Items 1 and 3 apply. The claims re GMOs are not directly related tot he subject (i.e. this is not biographical detail). WP:UNDUE also applies.

As to why you don't think I'm here to improve Wikipedia, I would suggest you give urgent consideration to the possibility that the issue may be in your definition of what constitutes improvement. Guy (Help!) 15:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

You missing the point, the large chunk of material, part of the page for ages, you removed earlier cited his studies to explain the sciences he studies. And why don't you explain your claim that all these studies a fringe, still waiting for that. And how is his work his own publications in reputable journals, not related to his work.....??prokaryotes (talk) 15:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Haven't you noticed that of the opinions above, only you are in favour of all this content? Does that not suggest to you that you should allow for at least the possibility that you are wrong? Me, I am prepared to be proved wrong if someone comes along with credible sources that back Séralini. I don't have any strong opinion on the question of whether glyphosate or GMOs are good or bad, I only have an opinion on the abuse of science to promote a scientifically erroneous belief, and the sources to date make it pretty clear that Séralini is doing exactly that.

You wanted references for these being questionable papers promoting fringe views. The following are adequate to meet the standards of talk page debate, and some are actually citable sources for Wikipedia content.

• http://www.economist.com/blogs/feastandfamine/2013/12/gm-maize-health-and-s-ralini-affair
• http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-study-investigating-content-of-and-contaminants-in-laboratory-rodent-diets/
• https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/07/02/scientists-react-to-homeopathy-funded-seralini-study-claiming-all-gmo-tests-contaminated/
• http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/seralini-gmo-study-republished/
• http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/11/29/belated-retraction-of-seralinis-bad-anti-gmo-paper/
• https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-seralini-gmo-study-retraction-and-response-to-critics/
• http://www.popsci.com/blog-network/our-modern-plagues/gmos-and-s%C3%A9ralini-redux
• http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2012/09/30/does-the-seralini-corn-study-fiasco-mark-a-turning-point-in-the-debate-over-gm-food/

I could go on, but all I need to do is to establish sufficient grounds for caution, and that I think is clear enough by now. Guy (Help!) 16:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Then how is it that besides all this fringe you see with Seralini, that the WHO, the CARF, the state California now consider Glyphosate a possible carcinogenic? Somehow Seralini's view that Roundup is creating cancer is echoed by reliable sources. Thus, not at all fringe. Why do you ignore this? prokaryotes (talk) 16:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with anybody stating that glyphosate is possibly carcinogenic, the issue is with the abuse of that category to assert that it is carcinogenic, which experience indicates is the inevitable result of a listing like that in California. The thing is, being carcinogenic, probably carcinogenic, or possibly carcinogenic, is meaningless in isolation. Alcohol is definitely carcinogenic. Smoking cannabis very likely causes cancer as the smoke contains many of the same compounds as tobacco smoke. Using a mobile phone almost certainly does not cause cancer. Radiotherapy can cure cancer, but may also introduce a risk of other cancers in future. It's all about dose, exposure, route of intake, lifetime exposure and so on. It's not a simple question of does X cause cancer or not. Most of the problem with GMOs generally is people trying to portray complex issues as simple black-and-white ones, IMO. And most of the problem with Séralini is trying to produce evidence to support one of these black-and-white views. Guy (Help!) 16:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

So why is it that his critics only focus on his 2012 paper, ignore the recent papers, even though they are accessible online under open access? On the opposite, all the studies which Monsanto conducted are withold under patent laws from the public, but you trust Monsanto more, even knowing that they hire PR dudes to discredit the work of scientist who work with full transparency. Somehow your arguments don't add up JzG. prokaryotes (talk) 16:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Eh? They don't only focus on the 2012 paper. There is extensive commentary about the 2015 paper, for example, especially around its withdrawal and republication with details of substantial conflicts of interest. The 2012 is the most discussed because it was the one that was launched by press release, feted by anti-GMO campaigners, analysed, found wanting, retracted, and republished, again by press release, with quite singular arrangements for review. The 2012 paper is what constitutes the Séralini affair and is what makes Séralini himself notable - it's the sources of the early mainstream commentary on him, but that commentary has not stopped, it's just that "producer of shoddy anti-GMO research publishes another shoddy anti-GMO paper" is not the headline that "anti-GMO paper retracted" is, not least because it's the 2012 paper that was career-limiting, not the subsequent ones. Martin Fleischmann continued to publish after 1989, if I recall correctly. Guy (Help!) 16:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Just 1 point, above you link to the Genetic Literacy Project blog, the page makes a big deal about the funding. Then, what the article doesn't disclose is that some of the authors have worked for Monsanto, ie. Dr. Richard Goodman, which is a huge red flag COI. Also read with emphasis added "...expert opinions from independent researchers", right. prokaryotes (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)