Anti-GMO research may be based on manipulated data
Authors appear to have reused data, pretended it was from different experiments.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/anti-gmo-research-may-be-based-on-manipulated-data/
"...
Veterinary scientist Frederico Infascelli led these contested GMO experiments. The findings of his studies included conclusions that the ingestion of GMO-based crops influenced the chemical composition of a nursing goats milk and consequently affected the biology of the baby goat that drank this milk. This conclusion, if true, would certainly be alarming, as it would imply that portions of the modified DNA had remained undigested and may be altering the gene expression within a developing mammal.
However, this finding is not generally supported in the literature, and it now appears to have come from manipulation of this groups experimental data.
The papers published by Infascellis included problematic images of DNA analysis. Some of the papers appear to have duplicate images that are captioned as presenting different data but actually portray the same information, as evidenced by unique visual artifacts in the images. Additionally, it appears that some data may have been selectively analyzed or destroyed in the DNA analysis process, which would surely have influenced the outcome of these experiments. In these cases, other researchers allege that the images were deliberately manipulated to show a desired result and to hide sample contamination.
In addition to these accusations of data tampering, one of the papers published by this group in the journal Food and Nutrition Sciences was recently retracted due to issues of self-plagiarismthe group copied something from another article that it had published. The journals editors, however, believe the results of the retracted paper are valid and that the self-plagiarism issue appeared to be an honest mistake and not a deliberate manipulation.
..."
--------------------------------------------------------
Once again, the anti-GMO crowd is found to be, very likely, unethical.