Authors of two articles published in The BMJ in 2013 have withdrawn statements about the adverse effects of statins. Editor-in-Chief, Dr Fiona Godlee has also asked an independent expert panel to decide whether the articles should be retracted. read more
The journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, has reportedly requested for Gilles-Eric Séralini to withdraw the study that purported to show that GM maize and the pesticide Roundup could lead to a high incidence of cancer in rats. read more
The Guardian and Today programmes’ revelations that Richard Doll was paid to do research for the chemicals industry (Friday 8th December) are the latest in … read more
75% of the British public have no idea what ‘peer review in scientific publications’ means, or can’t define it correctly according to a new MORI poll commissioned by the Science Media Centre and Nature.
However the survey also shows that the vast majority (71%) of the public favour replication or the kind of scrutiny provided by peer review – the process by which scientists review and criticize each others’ work before they make it public.
When asked what scientists whose research raises concerns about the possible risks to human health and safety should do, 30% opted for something along the lines of peer review. 41% want an even more rigorous system where results are replicated by other scientists and results confirmed before going public.
Fewer than one in ten people believe that scientists whose findings had raised concerns about possible risks to human health and safety should issue these straight to the media.
The director of the Science Media Centre, and other people involved in the dissemination of scientific research findings or the canvassing of public opinion, commented on this story. read more