應該是撤稿後又重發的。這位“科學家”在科學界“聲名遠揚”

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《歐洲環境科學》重新發表了該項研究。真相始終都是壓製不住的。 -醫者意也- ♂ (485 bytes) () 12/08/2015 postreply 11:43:49

• 主要的原因是在其它雜誌碰壁，隻好退回大本營；) -吃與活- ♂ (0 bytes) () 12/08/2015 postreply 11:46:35

• 至少我認為，這個研究的重新發表，不是因為“真相始終壓抑不住” -Joyluxf- ♀ (74 bytes) () 12/08/2015 postreply 11:52:31

• 75%的質疑來自轉基因作物公司：研究確實受到很多阻礙和壓力。孟山都帶頭聯名寫信反對。 -醫者意也- ♂ (1854 bytes) () 12/08/2015 postreply 12:00:29

• 可是那些質疑真的不是沒有道理的 -Joyluxf- ♀ (68 bytes) () 12/08/2015 postreply 12:09:40

• 瑕不掩瑜。轉基因公司本身的研究也千瘡百孔，沒有資格去指責他人。 -醫者意也- ♂ (179 bytes) () 12/08/2015 postreply 12:14:38

• 這個實驗設計和數據分析真會影響結論。 -Joyluxf- ♀ (206 bytes) () 12/08/2015 postreply 12:38:53

• 這隻是見仁見智的問題。和轉基因公司的研究相比，質量遠比他們的要高。 -醫者意也- ♂ (298 bytes) () 12/08/2015 postreply 12:48:26