GM Crops & Food

Biotechnology in Agriculture and the Food Chain

ISSN: 2164-5698 (Print) 2164-5701 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/kgmc20

Flawed scientific studies block progress and sow

confusion

Kathleen L. Hefferon & Henry I. Miller

To cite this article: Kathleen L. Hefferon & Henry I. Miller (2020): Flawed scientific studies block
progress and sow confusion, GM Crops & Food, DOI: 10.1080/21645698.2020.1737482

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/21645698.2020.1737482

Published online: 10 Mar 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=kgmc20
GM CROPS & FOOD
https://doi.org/10.1080/21645698.2020.1737482

COMMENTARY

Flawed scientific studies block progress and sow confusion

Kathleen L. Hefferon and Henry I. Miller

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Abstract Research in crop science in recent years has advanced at an unprecedented rate, and the Received 10 January 2020
intermingling of old and new crop breeding technologies has made the term “genetically Revised 27 February 2020
modified” – and its variant, Genetically Modified Organism, or “GMO” – virtually obsolete. Accepted 27 February 2020
A kind of pseudo-category, it is primarily used pejoratively to refer to the use of the newest,
most precise, most predictable, molecular genetic techniques. Prodigious amounts of time, effort
and care have been expended to ensure that crops developed for commercialization using
molecular techniques are safe, and that new traits are beneficial. Â Yet, despite these advances,
some skepticism persists about them, partly due to the publication of fraudulent, poorly designed,
and biased studies by a few “rogue scientists” whose intention is to contaminate the scientific
literature and sow mistrust about molecular genetic modification among regulators and the
public. We discuss how such flawed studies make it to publication and how the scientific
community can combat such disinformation.

What would you think if a few “research” groups
repeatedly claimed to have evidence that protein,
not DNA, was the carrier of hereditary information,
and their findings were consistently debunked? And
what about the claim of an association between
measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine and aut-
ism, which has been repeatedly and convincingly
repudiated.1 Eventually, you’d probably conclude
that either the concept was flawed, or that the
researchers were dishonest, or both.
Well, that is exactly what has been happening for
at least two decades, as one article after another that
supposedly reveals some harm or unexpected out-
come of “genetic modification” to produce “geneti-
cally modified organisms,” or “GMOs,” has been
exposed as having flaws in methodology or interpre-
tation. In many cases, these reports are “advocacy
research,” which appear to cross the line from care-
lessness or honest errors to professional misconduct.
First, what is a GMO? That’s a key question, and
an accurate but perhaps unhelpful answer might be
that everything is, or nothing is. By that, we mean
that genetic modification to improve microorgan-
isms, plants and animals has been with us for mil-
lennia. The term GMO is often used pejoratively, to
refer to organisms made with precise molecular
techniques which have been around since the
1970s. However, discussions of which techniques
should be included seem to us irrelevant, if not
ridiculous, not unlike discussing whether taping
a plastic cone to the forehead of a horse makes it
a unicorn.
Genetic modification is accomplished by
a seamless continuum of techniques,2 including
selection/hybridization, mutagenesis, and wide
crosses (in which plants from different species or
genera are made to hybridize); and for almost half
a century, molecular techniques have been applied to
microorganisms, plants, animals, and even humans.
The newer techniques have created stunning scien-
tific, economic, and humanitarian successes, from
crop plants that kill insects and are drought-
resistant to gene therapy that cures genetic diseases.3
Some would even cite “natural genetic modifi-
cation” as resulting from the movement of genes
in the wild. Genetic engineering using molecular
techniques has been around for almost half
a century, initially as a technology that could
modify bacteria and advance our ability to make
life-saving drugs such as insulin and hepatitis
B vaccine. While many of these technological
advances have been readily welcomed by an appre-
ciative public, the same cannot be said for geneti-
cally engineered plants and animals.

CONTACT Kathleen L. Hefferon klh22@cornell.edu

© 2020 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 K. L. HEFFERON AND H. I. MILLER
The genetic engineering of plants has adhered to
a trajectory that is similar to that of microorganisms.
Today’s crops are the accomplishment of
a continuum of techniques, and their products can
be found in any grocery store, from broccoli, kale
and cauliflower (selective breeding) to ruby red
grapefruit and barley (mutagenesis) to several stone
fruit varieties (wide-cross hybridization). Many of
these adorn dinner tables the world over, and we
consume them with hardly a second thought.
As our technologies became ever more sophis-
ticated, we are able to produce an even greater
diversity of fruits and vegetables. With this solid
and robust history of plant breeding behind us, we
continue to develop new breeding technologies
that are more refined, precise, and predictable,
including, most recently, genome editing of food
crops. We are now on the cusp of growing
a plethora of new crops that will make farmers’
lives easier, are better tasting, and more nutritious.
To get to this point, scientists have accumulated
a body of evidence that demonstrates that the new
breeding technologies do not confer incremental
risk, and that they are highly precise and predict-
able. It is only when the products (organisms) are
shown to be safe and functionally successful that
they are made commercially available.
Today’s mixture of old and new crop breeding
methods has blurred the term “genetically modi-
fied.” With the exception of wild berries, wild
mushrooms, seafood and wild game, all of our
food has been genetically modified in some way.
Therefore, how odd it is that we find ourselves in
a quagmire of over-regulation and activists’ antag-
onism toward crops modified with molecular
techniques.
Even more perplexing is that the science itself
behind these new plant breeding methods is being
questioned, and why our uninterrupted pathway of
technological breakthroughs and improvements in
crop breeding that have become a hallmark of civi-
lization as we know it is now suddenly being chal-
lenged. An answer to this can be found in the
unethical behavior of a few rogue players, scientists
who have concocted research findings that suppo-
sedly contradict the voluminous evidence of the
safety of genetically engineered plants. Not only do
these rogue scientists confuse nonexperts, but they
also waste valuable resources as the scientific
community is forced to address and disprove their
spurious findings.
The infamous paper by G.E. Seralini and collea-
guesis the prototype of these kinds of flawed anti-
genetic engineering studies.4 The paper contained
claims that genetically engineered corn was linked
to the growth of tumors in rats, with the authors
parading hideous photos of the “results” of their
study – at a press conference, before the publication
of the paper. Severely flawed, it was eventually
retracted, only to be republished in a different jour-
nal and without peer review. The methodological
shortcomings of the study were obvious. The strain
of rat used is predisposed to tumors and the small
sample size made it impossible to draw any statistical
conclusions. Although multiple replications of the
Seralini studies by reputable investigators, requiring
time, energy, and funds, demonstrated that the ori-
ginal findings were false, they continue to be cited by
anti-genetic engineering activists and propagandists.
Then, there is Federico Infascelli’s research group
at the University of Naples, which questioned the
safety of genetically engineered soybeans fed to
rabbits.5 Among other things, the journal that pub-
lished the work eventually voiced concerns about
analytical gels in some of the figures that had been
manipulated in an effort to demonstrate that GE
soybeans were harmful. Elena Cattaneo, an Italian
senator and scientific researcher who prompted
investigations into this and other publications
authored by the same researchers, did in fact succeed
in obtaining a retraction. [For her heroism in having
her investigative team generate a 1,500-word compi-
lation of available scientific evidence regarding the
safety of GE crops, Sen. Cattaneo was demonized in
the Senate as a “lobbyist for Monsanto.”) Another
Infascelli article, in Nutrition and Food Science, was
also retracted for fabrication of results; this time, his
study made claims that modified genes could wind
up in the blood and organs of the young offspring of
mother goats who had been fed GE soybeans.
A particularly egregious example of the failure of
editorial and peer review occurred in a,6 articlein the
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
(“PNAS”]. The authors claimed to show that pollen
from genetically engineered corn was injurious to
insects called caddisflies in a laboratory aquatic eco-
system, but the conclusions were not justified by the
data. Inexcusably, the authors failed to measure the

actual levels of pollen from the genetically engi-
neered corn, and thus the two pillars of toxicology –
exposure and dose – were both unknown. It is per-
fectly possible, and, in fact, highly likely, that the
caddisfly larvae in question were not exposed to
any genetically engineered component at all.
Equally important, the researchers had reported
elsewhere that they failed to find these same effects
in studies in the field – which they neglected to
reveal in the PNAS article. This is a critical omis-
sion because laboratory studies are designed to
mimic what happens in the “real world.” In other
words, even if the laboratory studies had been
performed correctly and carefully, positive results
arguably would have been irrelevant because they
don’t mimic what happens in the field.
A particularly atrocious paper that embodies two
kinds of scientific misconduct appeared in Critical
Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition in 2009.7 The
article, “The Health Risks of Genetically Modified
Foods” by Dona and Arvanitoyannis of the
Universities of Athens and Thessaly, respectively,
cited non-peer-reviewed “evidence” and myths
found on anti-technology websites, as well as some
long-discredited papers such as those described
above; at the same time, it systematically omitted
numerous key references that, contrary to the
authors’ conclusions, establish the safety of geneti-
cally engineered crops.
Even if the authors were simply unaware of the
references that contradict their views [which is
highly unlikely), this kind of bias is considered
unethical in science. Worse than such ignorance,
the review article was extensively plagiarized, with
large blocks of text lifted from other papers with-
out quotation marks or attribution.
The list goes on and on. A,8 publicationin
Reproductive Toxicology by Aris and Leblanc claims
to have detected traces of the Bt toxin (a protein
from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis] used in
GE crops in maternal blood (including in umbilical
cords). The article has numerous problems, however.
The authors conveniently ignored that Bt proteins
could actually have come from use in organic farm-
ing. (Intact, non-engineered B. thuringiensis bacteria
are widely applied to crops, in both organic and
conventional farming.) The assay examined in the
study was, in any case, inappropriate for measure-
ments in humans. In fact, a pregnant woman would
GM CROPS & FOOD 3
have to consume kilograms of corn a day to achieve
the measurements claimed to be detected in blood.
Moreover, humans do not have the receptor for Bt,
and the toxin is active only in an alkaline environ-
ment (such as the gut of an insect), not in humans’
stomach acid.
Another example is the study that linked animal
feed containing GE grain to stomach inflammation
in pigs.5 The data were cherry picked so that
inflammation also found in the non-GE control
group was not addressed. Compositional varia-
tions between the test GE and control non-GE
feed were also not considered, as were the unu-
sually high rates of pneumonia found in the pigs,
a red flag that something with the study was awry.
These significant problems were flagrantly disre-
garded by the authors, in order for them to con-
clude inappropriately that their analysis impugned
the safety of the GE feedstock.
Although the scientific community can see
through such chicanery and rejects the work of
these fraudulent studies (although occasionally,
sloppy or corrupt peer-reviewers do not), the gen-
eral public are not as well versed on scientific
methodology, and the damage can be severe and
lasting. Advocacy research that supports certain
ideological ends or financial interests [in this
case, the organic agriculture and “natural pro-
ducts” industries, which reject molecular genetic
engineering and see it as a threat) continues to
reverberate in the social media echo-chamber.
By far the most important, systematic review of
articles in the scientific literature that claim to
have found potentially harmful effects of GE tech-
nology or organisms was publishedin9,by Miguel
Sanchez and Wayne Parrott. They found that
about five percent of studies related to the safety
of GE plants show adverse effects that are a “cause
for concern and tend to be featured in media
reports.” Most significant, they found that “a
close examination of these reports invariably
shows methodological flaws that invalidate any
conclusions of adverse effects,” and that the 35
studies “tend to come from just a few laboratories
and are published in less important journals.”
Finally, Sanchez and Parrott concluded that
“twenty years after commercial cultivation of [GE]
crops began, a bona fide report of an adverse health
effect due to a commercialized modification in
4 K. L. HEFFERON AND H. I. MILLER
a crop has yet to be reported.” That brings us back
to the analogy to the claims that protein is the stuff
of heredity, or that MMR vaccine causes autism.
Deliberate fraud, poor design, ignorance of con-
travening data, and biased interpretation of results
are the playbook of opponents of molecular
genetic engineering. As we and Sanchez and
Parrott have discussed, occasionally such work
somehow makes its way to publication, either
through gaps in the editorial/peer review process
or by taking advantage of the rise of pay-to-play
predatory journals, which will publish virtually any
paper, no matter how flawed, for a hefty fee and
often with no peer review at all.
Once published in a predatory journal, it is a short
step for an intentionally misleading study to be
picked up by a journalist with an agenda and to be
broadcast on social media; and then the damage has
been done. Even if the unscrupulous paper is even-
tually caught, condemned, and retracted, activists
will continue to cite the work for their own purposes,
and even arrange to have it republished elsewhere in
another disreputable journal.
Via shoddy or agenda-driven journalism, the
publication of flawed “scientific” studies sets the
stage for activists to amplify the message they want
the public to see. We should note that this strategy
is not limited to genetic engineering but is also
a staple of propaganda related to products and
activities disfavored by various activists, such as
chemical pesticides, vaccines, e-cigarettes, and
nuclear power. The goal of activists is eventually
to make use of the weaknesses in the scientific
publication process to garner sufficient public
and political support to spur public policy changes
that further their own agendas, as is currently the
case for attempts to ban the important agrichem-
icals glyphosate and neonicotinoids.
Studies to confirm or discount the validity of
such research are sometimes performed, but they
divert time, energy, and funding away from other,
important scientific endeavors.
How can these problems be addressed? There
are many ways that the scientific community can
fight back and prevent the promulgation of flawed
research studies:
● The “business” of science, from the securing
of funding to publication, has become too
porous and must be tightened to safeguard
against this form of abuse.
● Improve the reliability of results (including
insisting on the use of appropriately large
sample sizes and careful selection of controls]
to avoid misrepresentation of data.
● Establish large international research consor-
tia, so that accountability between research
groups will strengthen study design and the
interpretation of results and make it more
difficult for malfeasance to occur.
● Establish a set of norms surrounding the statis-
tical analysis of research data, how independent
replication studies are to be conducted, and
perhaps even data-sharing among independent
research groups.
● Encourage more rigorous peer review (which
should have blocked the most egregious exam-
ples of flawed research reported in legitimate
journals, such as Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s infa-
mous paper about MMR vaccine causing aut-
ism, and some of the others discussed above)
● Researchers should identify and discuss in
their articles any form of uncertainty that is
inherent in their results, including limitations
in statistical significance, the number of vari-
ables, and even the overall complexity of the
system under analysis. (This could even be
implemented by including a new section
within each journal article, in addition to
abstract, methods, results, and discussion.)
Predatory journals are a significant part of the
problem, and journalists should be made more
aware that their reports are unreliable sources of
information. Science communicators can provide
a “heinous hundred” list of them, which would help
not only journalists but also the public and university
tenure committees to identify when they are being
misled. Research institutions should penalize inves-
tigators for publishing in predatory journals.
Some red flags are easy to spot. They include
obvious conflicts of interest between researchers and
stakeholders who may have skin in the game, which
can create an inherent bias. Other warning signs
include results that conflict with the current body of
research literature or scientific topics that are particu-
larly controversial, such as GE crops; and those should
be examined thoroughly by journalists with particular

care to confirm their validity. Although trust in scien-
tists in general remains high, fewer than a quarter of
the public understand the scientific method, which
makes it difficult for the public and media alike to
find the flaws in a study of questionable merit.
Journalists should therefore make an effort to engage
the topic of fraudulent scientific behavior with their
audiences and identify issues of concern such as agen-
das or conflicts of interest, in order not to misrepresent
the significance of a study.
Because science is (or is supposed to be) self-
correcting – a thesis is put forth, tested, and
ultimately revised on the basis of new data –
misinformation conveyed to the scientific com-
munity distorts the entire process. It disrupts the
planning of follow-up experiments, retards pro-
gress, and confounds societal decision-making
about a vast spectrum of critical issues.
As the effective arbiters of what represents scien-
tific “truth,” the editors of scientific journals have
a responsibility to be rigorous and diligent about
detecting and punishing the misconduct of authors
and the incompetence of their peer-reviewers.
Journalists also have an important role – the
responsibility to cite only legitimate research find-
ings from respectable sources.
The undeserved attention given to a handful of
poorly designed research studies or deliberately
misleading analyses of genetically engineered
crops and other scientific subjects is a menace
that must be addressed, if the scientific community
is to receive public support of their efforts to
address some of the planet’s greatest challenges.
We allow the distortion and pollution of the scien-
tific literature at our peril.
GM CROPS & FOOD 5
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
1. Rao TSS, Andrade C. The MMR vaccine and autism:
sensation, refutation, retraction, and fraud. Indian
J Psychiatry. 2011 Apr–Jun;53(2):95–96. doi:10.4103/001
9-5545.82529.
2. Goodman RM, Hauptli H, Anne Crossway A, Vic C,
Knauf VC. Gene transfer in crop improvement D STOR
® science. New Ser. 1987 Apr 3;236(4797):48–54.
3. University of Pennsylvania success of gene therapy for
a form of inherited blindness depends on timing.
Science News. September 9, 2019
4. Hayes WA. Editor in chief of food and chemical tox-
icology answers questions on retraction. Food Chem
Toxicol. 2014;65:394–95. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2014.01.006.
PMID24407018.
5. Abbott A. Italian papers on genetically modified crops
under investigation. Nature. 2016 January 21;529:268–69.
doi:10.1038/nature.2016.19183.
6. Rosi-Marshall EJ, Tank JL, Royer TV, Whiles MR, Evans-
White M, Chambers C, Griffiths NA, Pokelsek J,
Stephen ML. Toxins in transgenic crop byproducts may
affect headwater stream ecosystems. Proc Natl Acad Sci
U S A. 2007;104:16204–08. ://WOS:000250128800043.
doi:10.1073/pnas.070717710.
7. Dona A, Arvanitoyannis IS. Health risks of genetically
modified foods. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2009;49
(2):164–75. doi:10.1080/10408390701855993.
8. Aris A, Leblanc S Maternal and fetal exposure to pes-
ticides associated to genetically modified foods in
Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada. Reprod
Toxicol. 2011 May;31(4):528–33. Epub 2011 Feb 18.
doi:10.1016/j.reprotox.2011.02.004.
9. Sánchez MA, Parrott WA Characterization of scientific
studies usually cited as evidence of adverse effects of GM
food/feed. Plant Biotechnol J. 2017 Oct;15(10):1227–34.
Epub 2017 Aug 16. doi:10.1111/pbi.12798.