Scientific journal flags GMO paper due to manipulated data concerns

A 2006 research piece on the safety of genetically modified foods (GMO’s) has been flagged by a scientific journal named animal due to concerns over the potential for manipulated data.

Retraction Watch reveals that a manuscript of a scientific study headed by University of Milan animal nutrition researcher Federico Infascelli who tested the blood of hares fed genetically modified soybeans. However, beginning in 2015, concerns were issued over Infascelli’s figures differing from the thesis associated with the study and that a data set appeared to be altered.

Unfortunately, this is not the first time Infascelli’s work has been the subject of controversy. Three studies he did were found to contain manipulated data which lead to disciplinary action from the University of Naples though the institution did conclude the image manipulations did not constitute a breach of scientific integrity.

During 2015, the scientific journal Food and Nutrition Sciences retracted a research piece co-authored by Infascelli due to data manipulations. Next year he and 10 other scientists were reprimanded by the University of Naples for manipulating images showing GMO’s were harmful when consumed.

It is looking like Infascelli is a man similar to Gilles-Eric Seralini who is best known for his 2012 research piece alleging that rats that consumed GMO corn contracted cancer. The manuscript was retracted later due to faulty methodology.

The shrewdness of environmentalists is such that they will identify and support the research of scientists ideologically in line with them and then do what is necessary so a study that covers a particular issue they favor or oppose (like GMO’s or pesticides) gets published in a peer reviewed journal and its results replicated in other studies.

With scientists already questioning the results of and later retracting research done by people, like Franco Infascelli, hopefully he and other researchers like him will be fired or reassigned. However, it won’t stop environmentalists from trying again since they only see failures as temporary set backs.