Many discrepancies and malpractice of following the scientific methods take place in “Biological impact of feeding rats with a genetically modified-based diet.” One discrepancy is that the control rats are fed non-GM wheat(unaltered genetically wheat), the others where feed GM corn( corn genetically altered with the Neomycin phosphotransferase II and CaMVP-35S/glyphosate-tolerant enzymes), these are two totally different food groups that could have diversely different effects, genetically modified or not. This lack of a good control group automatically discredits the rest of the paper, for their paper compares the GM-Corn group to the Wheat diet group saying that GM-Corn has a higher chance of giving cancer than non-GM wheat. A good control is when the item tested compared item resemble each other as much as possible, by not feeding both groups the same kind of food there exist no control. Another mishap in the scientific method is the images and tissue samples are “cherry picked” from the rat cadavers, and there is no mention on when the control group of rats were dissected, being the others were dissected on a 30, 60, 90 day scale. Cherry picking happens when the scientist or whoever does the testing picks out their favorite result/images, instead of methodically picking some from each part. Yet another flaw with the paper not mentioning when the control rats were dissected,the test …show more content…
One mishap is the article 's uses a blanket term for genetically modified organismss “In conclusion, the results of the present work indicate that there are health hazards linked to the ingestion of diets containing genetically modified components.” (ORABY, 271) drawing causation from correlation, and then applying it to all genetically modified organism, is not just an exaggeration it is wrong. For one thing they only tested corn genetically altered with the Neomycin phosphotransferase II and CaMVP-35S/glyphosate-tolerant enzymes. Both non-Gm Wheat and GM-corn Rats had negative health effects from their diet, and the results were not indicative of either one being worse. Contributing to the mathematical errors at several points "Biological Impact Of Feeding Rats With A Genetically Modified-Based Diet" roughly rounds decimal points and skews its data and leaves out other important information “diet of mainly 60% yellow maize and 34% soybeans” it fails to mention what the other 6% of food even is (ORABY, 266) for all readers know the rats could of eaten aliens. Another fault in the math is the rate of which GM-Rats got cancer, the 60 day rats had substantially more cancer than the 90 day rats (ORABY, 266) and chromosomal aberrations (ORABY, 270) that is does not comply to GM causing cancer, because it goes down a lot on the 90 day rats, the paper does not explain this. A Critical error in