应该是撤稿后又重发的。这位“科学家”在科学界“声名远扬”

After the paper was published, scientists and regulatory agencies concluded that the conclusions of the paper to be invalid on the basis of the experimental design; each arm in the study had too few rats to obtain useful data in a lifetime study of Sprague-Dawley rats, which get cancer at a high rate over their lifetime. Other publicly funded long term studies uncovered no health issues.In general, the scientific community doesn't think Séralini's results is sufficient to support his claim that GMO product is toxic!

所有跟帖： 

• 2014年6月《欧洲环境科学》重新发表了该项研究。真相始终都是压制不住的。 -医者意也- ♂ (485 bytes) () 12/08/2015 postreply 11:43:49

• 主要的原因是在其它杂志碰壁，只好退回大本营；) -吃与活- ♂ (0 bytes) () 12/08/2015 postreply 11:46:35

• 至少我认为，这个研究的重新发表，不是因为“真相始终压抑不住” -Joyluxf- ♀ (74 bytes) () 12/08/2015 postreply 11:52:31

• 75%的质疑来自转基因作物公司：研究确实受到很多阻碍和压力。孟山都带头联名写信反对。 -医者意也- ♂ (1854 bytes) () 12/08/2015 postreply 12:00:29

• 可是那些质疑真的不是没有道理的 -Joyluxf- ♀ (68 bytes) () 12/08/2015 postreply 12:09:40

• 瑕不掩瑜。转基因公司本身的研究也千疮百孔，没有资格去指责他人。 -医者意也- ♂ (179 bytes) () 12/08/2015 postreply 12:14:38

• 这个实验设计和数据分析真会影响结论。 -Joyluxf- ♀ (206 bytes) () 12/08/2015 postreply 12:38:53

• 这只是见仁见智的问题。和转基因公司的研究相比，质量远比他们的要高。 -医者意也- ♂ (298 bytes) () 12/08/2015 postreply 12:48:26