» WELCOME
» AN INTRODUCTION
» PROFILES
» LM WATCH
» CONTACT
» LOBBYWATCH LINKS
»


Scientists complain GM debate was mishandled (1/11/2003)

"The best scientists will work with industry," proclaims Prof Chris Leaver below. If he's right, then Tony Blair has certainly heard from the very best scientists, as most of the signatories are up to their ears in commercial conflicts of interests.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1674

Both history and science tell us, however, that meaningful assessments of cost and benefit issues are unlikely when the assessment of technologies and products is provided by proponents with a clear vested interest in their adoption.

In the words of Dr Richard Smith, Editor of the British Medical Journal, "These competing interests are very important. It has quite a profound influence on the conclusions".

For more on this issue:
http://www.lobbywatch.org/p2temp2.asp?aid=57&page=1&op=1
---
Scientists complain GM debate was mishandled
Tim Radford, science editor
Saturday November 1, 2003
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,2763,1075602,00.html

More than 100 scientists have signed a letter to Tony Blair, complaining about the way the debate on GM crops was handled.  Public meetings had been hijacked by anti-GM groups and "misleading" reports in the press had not been corrected, they complained. The same method of public consultation could put other technologies at risk of "prejudice and procrastination".

The letter was triggered by the outcome of an elaborate exercise in consultation which seemed - in the eyes of some scientists - simply to widen the gap between researchers and protesters.

This was followed by a report that after four years of large-scale trials, genetically modified rape and beet had turned out to be "worse" for wildlife than conventional varieties. This verdict was greeted with delight by the GM protesters, but in fact the government's own expert advisory committee has yet to report on the evidence.

The complaint to the prime minister said scientists felt "thoroughly demoralised". Derek Burke, one of the signatories, told Radio 4's Today programme: "We want arguments based on evidence and what we are getting is arguments based on opinion. We are saying to Tony Blair loud and clear that the science community is disaffected."

Christopher Leaver, professor of plant sciences at Oxford, and another of the signatories, said yesterday that this disaffection could cost the country dearly. Only one plant biotech company now remained in Britain.

"We are a small offshore island. We have no natural resources except our education system and our brains to use science to develop raw materials and make products we can sell and make money for our pensions," he said.

"We are having significant problems recruiting people into science teaching. The industry is rapidly leaving. We are having problems recruiting science graduates... to some extent because of the public attitude that science is not a good thing, that science is potentially a bad thing."

But because of scientific research, life expectancy, quality of life, and the safety of food and medicines had improved astronomically, he said.

"I think of myself as a servant of society. I am paid by the taxpayer. We have been encouraged by successive governments to become involved in industry. We are now told that if we work with industry we are not allowed to comment or be involved in advice which forms the basis of political decisions - which is stupid. The best scientists will work with industry."

But Greenpeace told the Press Association: "The biotech industry and its cheerleaders have lost the debate because science has gone against them. The government and biotech-funded scientists have tried hard to foist GM on to an unwilling public but the case against it just keeps on mounting, and sour grapes from its supporters won't change that."

The Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said advice from the government's Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment would inform any decision on whether GM crops should be grown commercially in Britain. "We recognise that the biotechnology industry is a vital part of the country's economy. However, our approach to GM is based on the precautionary principle. Each GM crop application is considered on a case-by-case basis."

Go to a Print friendly Page


Email this Article to a Friend


Back to the Archive