# Seralini, Would You Please Just Go Away? (Anti-GMO crackpot republishes shit paper) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 25, 2014, 9:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seralini-would-you-please-just-go-away-anti-gmo-crackpot-republishes-shit-paper/691597 "2014-06-25T09:06:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2014, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seralini-would-you-please-just-go-away-anti-gmo-crackpot-republishes-shit-paper/691597/21 "2014-06-25T16:49:53Z")
> [@hotflungwok](#): > > Wait, RoundUp, the plant killer? Rats that drank it straight lived _longer_? šŸ˜• Not only that, rats that drank Roundup-club soda cocktails on the rocks added 30 points to their I.Q. and had glossier fur. ---
**Author:** ![KarlGauss](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/karlgauss/32/3713_2.png) [@KarlGauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGauss)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2014, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seralini-would-you-please-just-go-away-anti-gmo-crackpot-republishes-shit-paper/691597/22 "2014-06-25T16:58:31Z")
> [@Smeghead](#): > > Statistically. Though Iā€™m guessing this wasnā€™t corrected for multiple testing. That is, when you have a big pile of data and start comparing this number to that number over and over again, then just due to chance, youā€™ll start seeing links that seem significant. Good statisticians correct for this effect. Were ANY statistical comparisons even made? Were basic statistical results even presented (such as SEMs, etc.)? In my 15 second scan, I donā€™t think I saw a single ā€˜pā€™ value although I may have missed it/them. If it is actually the case that NO statistical analyses were done, the article doesnā€™t even merit review, let alone publication. ---
**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2014, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seralini-would-you-please-just-go-away-anti-gmo-crackpot-republishes-shit-paper/691597/23 "2014-06-25T17:33:59Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Can we all agree that open-access journals donā€™t count? Please? Or at least that theyā€™re guilty until proven innocent? Academic librarians everywhere, and everyone who knows anything about academic publishing and is not in the pay of the big, commercial price-gouging publishers, most fervently wish ignorant, prejudiced turds like you would just go away!. Your issues with M. Seralini, whatever the merits of that case (not that I see many on your side - you just seem to want to silence research whose conclusions donā€™t fit your prejudices) certainly do not justify this gratuitous and ignorant slur on what is almost undoubtedly the only way that academic publishing can be both democratized and saved from the profiteers. There are issues and problems surrounding open access publishing models, but their resolution sure as hell will not be solved this sort of ignorant mud-slinging. ---
**Author:** ![Rachellelogram](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rachellelogram/32/8689_2.png) [@Rachellelogram](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rachellelogram)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2014, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seralini-would-you-please-just-go-away-anti-gmo-crackpot-republishes-shit-paper/691597/24 "2014-06-25T17:59:05Z")
I think itā€™s a worthwhile pit, regardless of the source. The general anti-GMO sentiment is to actively campaign against food that would alleviate mass starvation in the third world. These tards have figurative blood on their hands, and a \*\*lot \*\*of it. Iā€™d say they have empty stomachs on their hands, but that argument doesnā€™t carry much weight. wink. > [@Jackmannii](#): > > Not only that, rats that drank Roundup-club soda cocktails on the rocks added 30 points to their I.Q. and had glossier fur. Forsooth! Thou hast slain mine keyboardeth. ---
**Author:** ![Smeghead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2014, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seralini-would-you-please-just-go-away-anti-gmo-crackpot-republishes-shit-paper/691597/25 "2014-06-25T18:22:02Z")
> [@Labrador\_Deceiver](#): > > Nobody doesnā€™t like him. This deserves acknowledgement. Manly head-nod and grimace toward you, good sir. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2014, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seralini-would-you-please-just-go-away-anti-gmo-crackpot-republishes-shit-paper/691597/26 "2014-06-25T18:22:17Z")
> [@njtt](#): > > Academic librarians everywhere, and everyone who knows anything about academic publishing and is not in the pay of the big, commercial price-gouging publishers, most fervently wish ignorant, prejudiced turds like you would just go away!. Oh, Iā€™m sorry, I couldnā€™t hear you over the sound of _how shitty open-access journals are_. And it makes sense, too - when thereā€™s no financial interest in keeping readers, you can publish whatever the hell you want without worrying about people saying ā€œfuck this journal, itā€™s terrible, Iā€™m not gonna read it any moreā€ - after all, your income is from the people publishing, not your readers, and while some scientists will probably opt for a journal with a higher reader base, you can always find desperate hacks like Eric-Giles Seralini or Niels H. Harrit willing to pay to be able to claim ā€œlook ma, my paper was peer-reviewed!ā€. Does that mean all open-access journals suck? No. Just most of them, and they should be treated as unreliable until proven otherwise. > [@](#): > > Your issues with M. Seralini, whatever the merits of that case (not that I see many on your side - you just seem to want to silence research whose conclusions donā€™t fit your prejudices) Are you shitting me? The Seralini paper was panned by all but a handful of biased crazies. Itā€™s so transparently flawed, with so little ambiguity as to the nature of the errors that I do not believe you spent even 5 seconds researching it. Dude, youā€™re defending the GMO equivalent of the Wakefield vaccine paper or the Regnerus gay parenting paper. I want it out of the literature not because it doesnā€™t fit my prejudices but because itā€™s a deliberately dishonest piece of shit, of which the sole aim is to further a political agenda. > [@](#): > > certainly do not justify this gratuitous and ignorant slur on what is almost undoubtedly the only way that academic publishing can be both democratized and saved from the profiteers. There are issues and problems surrounding open access publishing models, but their resolution sure as hell will not be solved this sort of ignorant mud-slinging. Yes, there are _tons_ of problems! How 'bout you fix the fact that 99% of open-access journals are crap before criticizing me for taking the obviously rational stance that we should _treat_ them as though 99% of them were crap? Look, itā€™s really simple. PLOS ONE is a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Itā€™s open-access. Itā€™s also currently the only open-access journal Iā€™d trust. If I found others who published work of similar consistent quality, then I would trust them too. Iā€™d welcome you to recommend them to me but what you said about Seraliniā€™s paper throws that out the window. But in a market saturated with shit like Bentham Publishers, my first reaction to something published in an open-access journal is going to be ā€œYeah, sorry, donā€™t know that journal, itā€™s open-access, not interestedā€. Itā€™s like if solar panels had a high chance of exploding violently. Itā€™s a wonderful technology with a lot of promise but Iā€™m not about to bet that the one I have isnā€™t a turd. > [@KarlGauss](#): > > Were ANY statistical comparisons even made? Were basic statistical results even presented (such as SEMs, etc.)? In my 15 second scan, I donā€™t think I saw a single ā€˜pā€™ value although I may have missed it/them. > > If it is actually the case that NO statistical analyses were done, the article doesnā€™t even merit review, let alone publication. I know, right? Youā€™d think that your average journal would realize that thatā€™s _kind of fucking important_! In fact, the paper contained absolutely no statistical analysis whatsoever. Which makes sense - you couldnā€™t hit decent p-values from the data anyways! :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Drunky\_Smurf](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drunky_smurf/32/449_2.png) [@Drunky\_Smurf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drunky_Smurf)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2014, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seralini-would-you-please-just-go-away-anti-gmo-crackpot-republishes-shit-paper/691597/27 "2014-06-25T18:44:11Z")
> [@Mr.Miskatonic](#): > > Even just a less vauguebooking title might help. I know who Seralini is but a title like this might be more helpful: > > \*\* > Seralini, Would You Please Just Go Away? (Anit-GMO crackpot republishes shit paper)\*\* I think the title **ā€œAnti-GMO crackpot republishes shit paperā€** would be best. I still wouldnā€™t give a shit but at least Iā€™d know what I wasnā€™t giving a shit about. ---
**Author:** ![Astroboy14](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/df705f/32.png) [@Astroboy14](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Astroboy14)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2014, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seralini-would-you-please-just-go-away-anti-gmo-crackpot-republishes-shit-paper/691597/28 "2014-06-25T20:28:55Z")
> [@Drunky\_Smurf](#): > > I think the title **ā€œAnti-GMO crackpot republishes shit paperā€** would be best. I still wouldnā€™t give a shit but at least Iā€™d know what I wasnā€™t giving a shit about. I find it easier to not give a shit about anything. ---
**Author:** ![Drunky\_Smurf](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drunky_smurf/32/449_2.png) [@Drunky\_Smurf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drunky_Smurf)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2014, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seralini-would-you-please-just-go-away-anti-gmo-crackpot-republishes-shit-paper/691597/29 "2014-06-25T21:47:35Z")
That is a wise policy. ---
**Author:** ![voltaire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voltaire/32/313_2.png) [@voltaire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/voltaire)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2014, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seralini-would-you-please-just-go-away-anti-gmo-crackpot-republishes-shit-paper/691597/30 "2014-06-25T22:27:06Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Iā€™m pretty sure European farmers produce as much if not more GM crops as the US. GM foods have been controversial in the UK since well before anyone in the US was talking about them ([mostly thanks to](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/7557644.stm) His Royal Jugearedness Prince Charles, I think.) Iā€™m no expert, so I welcome any corrections, but Iā€™m pretty sure youā€™re wrong. > [@](#): > > [Genetically modified crops - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_crops) > In the US, by 2009/10, 93% of the planted area of soybeans, 93% of cotton, 86% of corn and 95% of the sugar beet were genetically modified varieties. > > \ > > Europe has relatively few genetically engineered crops[107] with the exception of Spain where one fifth of maize grown is genetically engineered,[108] and smaller amounts in five other countries.[109] The EU had a ā€˜de factoā€™ ban on the approval of new GM crops, from 1999 until 2004;[110] in a controversial move.[111] GM crops are now _regulated_ by the EU.[112] Developing countries grew 50 percent of genetically engineered crops in 2011.[48] > > \ > > There are differences in the regulation of GM crops between countries, with some of the most marked differences occurring between the USA and Europe. Thereā€™s also a handy chart in the above wiki listing specific crops and giving the percentage of that crop thatā€™s GM in the U.S. and the percentage thatā€™s GM in the whole world. Takeaway: The U.S. has a much higher proportion of GM crops than does the rest of the world. Many developing countries are increasingly adopting GM crops, as well. The primary worldwide area of resistance to GM crops is in Europe. With such a high percentage of staple crops in the U.S. being GM, itā€™s no surprise that in Europe (with its regulations, labeling laws and much more prevalent popular opposition to GM), ā€œGM foods are a comparatively small %ā€ is probably a fair assessment. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seralini-would-you-please-just-go-away-anti-gmo-crackpot-republishes-shit-paper/691597/31 "2014-06-26T03:16:42Z")
> [@voltaire](#): > > With such a high percentage of staple crops in the U.S. being GM, itā€™s no surprise that in Europe (with its regulations, labeling laws and much more prevalent popular opposition to GM), ā€œGM foods are a comparatively small %ā€ is probably a fair assessment. [It looks like thatā€™s about to change](http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/gm-crops-could-be-planted-in-uk-from-next-year-as-eu-relaxes-laws-9535139.html), since EU nations have voted to allow member countries to decide for themselves whether to allow GM crops (till now the opposition of some nations has largely prevented their use). Once the European Parliament signs on, GM crops should be much more commonly grown in Britain and elsewhere in Europe. > [@njtt](#): > > Academic librarians everywhere, and everyone who knows anything about academic publishing and is not in the pay of the big, commercial price-gouging publishers, most fervently wish ignorant, prejudiced turds like you would just go away! Itā€™s hard to make a case that the new wave of open-access journals is reducing ā€œprice-gougingā€, since many of them seem to be in business [chiefly to gouge fees out of authors](http://scholarlyoa.com/2012/12/06/bealls-list-of-predatory-publishers-2013/). At the same time, their standards are often [ridiculously low](http://www.sott.net/article/267150-Corruption-in-Science-Whos-afraid-of-peer-review) (not that traditional journals donā€™t sometimes fall down on proper peer review, but the open-access model has made things worse). ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seralini-would-you-please-just-go-away-anti-gmo-crackpot-republishes-shit-paper/691597/32 "2014-06-26T03:51:41Z")
> [@njtt](#): > > Academic librarians everywhere, and everyone who knows anything about academic publishing and is not in the pay of the big, commercial price-gouging publishers, most fervently wish ignorant, prejudiced turds like you would just go away!. > > Your issues with M. Seralini, whatever the merits of that case (not that I see many on your side - you just seem to want to silence research whose conclusions donā€™t fit your prejudices) certainly do not justify this gratuitous and ignorant slur on what is almost undoubtedly the only way that academic publishing can be both democratized and saved from the profiteers. There are issues and problems surrounding open access publishing models, but their resolution sure as hell will not be solved this sort of ignorant mud-slinging. Wait, what? Maybe you arenā€™t aware of the Seralini case, and thatā€™s OK. But you can look up the, um, ā€˜studyā€™ yourself, or if you donā€™t want to do that the Wiki page gives a decent summary. The paperā€™s garbage, and I donā€™t know how it got published- thereā€™s a broad scientific consensus that itā€™s garbage. ---
**Author:** ![voltaire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voltaire/32/313_2.png) [@voltaire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/voltaire)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seralini-would-you-please-just-go-away-anti-gmo-crackpot-republishes-shit-paper/691597/33 "2014-06-26T05:26:54Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > [It looks like thatā€™s about to change](http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/gm-crops-could-be-planted-in-uk-from-next-year-as-eu-relaxes-laws-9535139.html), since EU nations have voted to allow member countries to decide for themselves whether to allow GM crops (till now the opposition of some nations has largely prevented their use). Once the European Parliament signs on, GM crops should be much more commonly grown in Britain and elsewhere in Europe. Thanks. That only serves to reinforce my conspiracy theory (which I only spontaneously considered upon originally reading this thread and its links) that there might be more to this than just bad science. With the regulatory environment opening up, there may be a concerted effort by some interested parties to maintain the status quo as much as possible, for as long as possible. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seralini-would-you-please-just-go-away-anti-gmo-crackpot-republishes-shit-paper/691597/34 "2014-06-26T12:21:52Z")
> [@voltaire](#): > > Thanks. That only serves to reinforce my conspiracy theory (which I only spontaneously considered upon originally reading this thread and its links) that there might be more to this than just bad science. With the regulatory environment opening up, there may be a concerted effort by some interested parties to maintain the status quo as much as possible, for as long as possible. For sure there are commercial interests on both sides (and money to be made by proclaiming your products are ā€œGMO-freeā€\*), but Iā€™d be wary of going down the conspiracy rabbit-hole. The anti-GMOers have made it pretty crowded down there. šŸ™‚ \*there are products on the market now that proudly announce themselves to be non-GMO, including things like beer that donā€™t _have_ any GMO counterparts. An outfit called the Non-GMO Project collects fees to certify products as ā€œGMO-freeā€, including [this hilarious example](http://www.science20.com/cool-links/nongmo_salt_i_cant_wait_see_whole_foods-111929) of Himalayan rock salt. Thank goodness thereā€™s an alternative for those of us who are wary of having our chromosomes jangled up by using GMO Himalayan rock salt! This tendency for non-GMO labeling brings up the question of why anti-GMOers are still insistent on labeling GMO content in foods, when there are now many non-GMO alternatives. Think it might be so they can force GM foods off the market through scare tactics? Naahā€¦ ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seralini-would-you-please-just-go-away-anti-gmo-crackpot-republishes-shit-paper/691597/35 "2014-06-26T12:42:05Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Itā€™s one of those things I happen to really give a damn about. And you ought to as well. This shit matters. But apparently it doesnā€™t matter enough to write a coherent OP. Unless you are only interested in preaching to the choir. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seralini-would-you-please-just-go-away-anti-gmo-crackpot-republishes-shit-paper/691597/36 "2014-06-26T13:44:18Z")
> [@voltaire](#): > > Iā€™m no expert, so I welcome any corrections, but Iā€™m pretty sure youā€™re wrong. It seems I am. Withdrawn. What happened to the ā€œembarrassedā€ smiley? ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seralini-would-you-please-just-go-away-anti-gmo-crackpot-republishes-shit-paper/691597/37 "2014-06-26T14:58:02Z")
_But donā€™t you understand? GMO = corporate profit, and corporate profit = Evil! And science must fight Evil by any means necessary!_ As what in the USA would be considered a hopeless liberal, it makes me giddy to have typed the above line, but as someone whose education started in science I believe it is counterproductive to use \*\*\*junk \*\*\*science when fighting Corporate Evil. \*\* OTOH, HOWEVER:\*\* By itself, merely coming up with results adverse to corporate profits **does NOT create a presumption of junk science** NOR does it create a presumption that the scientists are in some sort of \*ideological \*anti-corporate crusade. It just means you had better have your ducks in a row when doing the research and publishing the results. Oh, and Iā€™m sorry, but just like ā€œnaturalā€ or ā€œchristianā€ or ā€œAmericanā€ or ā€œe-ā€ or ā€œliteā€, prefixing something with ā€œopenā€¦ā€ does not impart upon it any special aegis of virtue. ---
**Author:** ![voltaire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voltaire/32/313_2.png) [@voltaire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/voltaire)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seralini-would-you-please-just-go-away-anti-gmo-crackpot-republishes-shit-paper/691597/38 "2014-06-26T18:36:01Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > For sure there are commercial interests on both sides (and money to be made by proclaiming your products are ā€œGMO-freeā€\*), but Iā€™d be wary of going down the conspiracy rabbit-hole. The anti-GMOers have made it pretty crowded down there. šŸ™‚ Yeah, I pretty much agree, which is why I deliberately labeled my suspicions as a conspiracy theory and noted how much research and thought I put into it. (very little) > [@](#): > > ā€¦ This tendency for non-GMO labeling brings up the question of why anti-GMOers are still insistent on labeling GMO content in foods, when there are now many non-GMO alternatives. Think it might be so they can force GM foods off the market through scare tactics? Naahā€¦ See? Now youā€™re feeding my inner conspiracy theorist again! But seriously, I wouldnā€™t \*completely \*write off my (largely baseless and unsupported) suspicions. When you look at what could possibly motivate such unabashed, blatantly bad science and then consider _cui bono_ in an industry with so much money at stake, it really is a plausible scenario that someone commissioned some relatively cheap, phony research they can cite in their completely self-interested campaign against the ā€œhorrorsā€ of everything GM. Itā€™s not like most people actually check for reliable sources, anyway - they see a claim with a citation to some research supposedly backing it up, and they figure that itā€™s established fact. In this scenario, said research doesnā€™t have to convince actual scientists or other reasonably intelligent people, it only has to convince some politicians and a certain amount of the voting public, while providing a fig-leaf of an excuse to maintain the status quo in order to (not) ā€œproceed with caution.ā€ ---
**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seralini-would-you-please-just-go-away-anti-gmo-crackpot-republishes-shit-paper/691597/39 "2014-06-26T20:17:32Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Oh, Iā€™m sorry, I couldnā€™t hear you over the sound of _how shitty open-access journals are_. And it makes sense, too - when thereā€™s no financial interest in keeping readers, you can publish whatever the hell you want without worrying about people saying ā€œfuck this journal, itā€™s terrible, Iā€™m not gonna read it any moreā€ - after all, your income is from the people publishing, not your readers, and while some scientists will probably opt for a journal with a higher reader base, you can always find desperate hacks like Eric-Giles Seralini or Niels H. Harrit willing to pay to be able to claim ā€œlook ma, my paper was peer-reviewed!ā€. Does that mean all open-access journals suck? No. Just most of them, and they should be treated as unreliable until proven otherwise. You are very ignorant. It is true that there are some open access journals that are predatory and will publish anything for a fee (just as there are vanity book publishers), but there are also ones that do not charge authors any fee at all, but get their financing from other sources, and yet others that do ask publication fees, but also enforce peer review quite as rigorous as any traditional subscription-financed journals (and this is not just the PLoS journals, of which PLoS One is only one - and probably the least rigorously reviewed - out of a large stable). It is very much in their long term financial interest to do so, if they want to to survive and remain profitable. The predatory ā€œvanity pressā€ journals will not survive very long. Authors will soon realize (as they mostly have with ā€œvanityā€ book publishers) that a publication there is worse than useless on their CV. Please stop ignorantly slinging mud around you stupid little twat. ---
**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seralini-would-you-please-just-go-away-anti-gmo-crackpot-republishes-shit-paper/691597/40 "2014-06-26T20:25:16Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > Wait, what? > > Maybe you arenā€™t aware of the Seralini case, and thatā€™s OK. But you can look up the, um, ā€˜studyā€™ yourself, or if you donā€™t want to do that the Wiki page gives a decent summary. The paperā€™s garbage, and I donā€™t know how it got published- thereā€™s a broad scientific consensus that itā€™s garbage. As I said, ā€œwhatever the merits of the caseā€. I know nothing about the Sealini paper and have no interest in defending it. It may well be rubbish (as many perfectly legitimately published scientific papers are.) However, the case **Budget Player Cadet** makes against it is terrible, and seems to be based on little besides his prejudice in favor of GMOs (which I suspect he does not really know very much about). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seralini-would-you-please-just-go-away-anti-gmo-crackpot-republishes-shit-paper/691597.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seralini-would-you-please-just-go-away-anti-gmo-crackpot-republishes-shit-paper/691597.md?page=3)