GMOIreland

Nature Biotechnology 27, 602 - 604 (2009) doi :10.1038/nbt0709-602

http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v27/n7/pdf/nbt0709-602.pdf

Lessons in biopolitics

Shane Morris1 1. Genetics and Biotechnology Laboratory, Department of Biochemistry, University College Cork, Ireland.

Stefan Rauschen's personal account of genetically modified (GM) plant research in Germany1 is a worrisome outcome of what is termed 'biopolitics'. GM crop biopolitics can be defined as the process of political risk management, whereby policy makers base their decisions (for instance, whether a given crop harbors potential risks for human health or the environment) on more than just the scientific evidence2.

Biopolitical impacts on European Union (EU; Brussels) policy and its regulatory instruments are not new3, 4, 5. Indeed, it can be argued that the elaboration of GM crop policy within the EU has significantly relied on policy narratives driven by discourses and epistemic communities that deliberately disregard evidence generated by the scientific community2. These narratives, which simplify complex situations, are often used by policy makers to guide their decision-making6. This decision-making occurs at the science-policy interface where there are undeniable tensions in the relationship between scientific evidence, regulation and political decision-making7. Although no single model for the science-policy interface exists, a few points that scientists should remember include the following:

* Availability of information does not necessarily translate into policy action; scientific information must also be received, believed, found relevant and useful to the appropriate decision makers. Policy makers must subsequently make the choice to translate the scientific information into action, as well as have the capacity to do so8.

* Although scientists are familiar with the concepts of technical risk and uncertainty in a complex world, the public and policy makers often seek certainty and deterministic solutions. Political decision makers tend to want absolutes and certainty (e.g., the desire for the scientifically nonsensical terms '100% safe' or 'risk free'). An example of this is the EU Commission's publicly funded marketing campaign for organic food that directly states organic farming is "good for you." This campaign has preprepared radio advertisements, TV commercials and glossy print flyers but is very short on scientific evidence (http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/organic/toolbox/messages-slogans_en), as not all organic food is good for you (e.g., organic ice cream or recalled organic product).

* In today's political world, the abundance of unbounded scientific information or data creates at the same time knowledge deficits, as it becomes increasingly difficult to sort and translate the surplus of available science information into politically organized conduct10.

* The idea that scientific data are entered into a risk assessment that is free, or nearly free, of policy considerations is considered beyond the realm of possibility11. The reality seems that such policy considerations are often biopolitical, and easily based on a fear of negative political fallout or media coverage.

* Political hazards are a real and tangible concern. At the GM crop science-policy interface, the risks of political fallout are now considered alongside the other risk areas of health, environmental, economic and ethical risk12. With relative ease, such political hazards can be amplified by anti-GM technology groups and business sectors that commercially benefit from marketing strategies that emphasize 'GM-free' products and practices, such as the organic farming industry and its associated investment community.

In fact, the reason why the EU ignores its own policy on the precautionary principle and focuses its GM regulations so narrowly on the process of genetic engineering rather than on the actual product is predominantly driven by the effort to manage political risks relating to the manufactured GM stigma2. This has ultimately led to an unsustainable regulatory framework that is currently facing severe limitations in its ability to regulate new and equivalent risks posed by other, sensu stricto non-GM-based, approaches that can elicit similar effects, varieties and products. Such approaches include inter alia, the selection of spontaneous mutants (sports); classical chemical and radiation-induced mutagenesis; selection of somaclonal variants13; interspecific hybridization, somatic hybridization and cybridization14; mutagenesis owing to naturally occurring mobile DNA elements (transposons)15, 16; novel targeted mutagenesis approaches, including TILLING17, zinc-finger nuclease (ZFN) strategies18 and allele replacement via homologous recombination19; heritable epigenetic modifications, such as gene silencing20; grafting of non-GM components on genetically modified rootstock21, 22 and cisgenesis23.

Although many politicians show little hesitance in entering the realm of scientific discourse, scientists are traditionally more reluctant to enter the policy arena. This may be due to the old paradigm that 'science and policy should never interact' and that the relationship between technical expertise and policy-making should be conceptualized as a linear conformity between expert knowledge and policy decision24. Even so, a new paradigm is needed based on the notion that 'science and policy do and should meet' and the state and scientists need to recognize that science and policy making are two arenas that are not "cognitively and culturally distinct" but are "engaged in processes of constant exchange and mutual stabilization"25.

Policy does not change on its own; it is engineered. Similar to genetic transformation, there are 'promoters' (e.g., nongovernmental organizations (NGO) and industry) and 'vectors' (e.g., media) that are used to obtain the desired and stable policy 'expression'. As a result, scientists should speak 'truth' (that is, best available evidence) to power, even if that power is professional, political, the media or an aggressive NGO. This, of course, comes at a price. As Rauschens outlines, a scientist's reputation quickly becomes a target when he confronts GM mis- or disinformation1.

In my own case, speaking up as a public servant scientist who only has ever accepted public funds led to letters to my employer, intimidating e-mails, defamation (and retractions), comments regarding my wife on an anti-GM website and even a British 9/11 conspiracy theorist politician using the protection of Parliamentary privilege to make false statements to which one has no recourse. These are the daily trials and tribulations that the average politician faces and, though distasteful to most scientists, are ultimately short lived with no real impact. In fact, one only needs a thick skin, knowledge that this is the political norm and an understanding that your actions are legitimate because sense and sensibility will not prevail on their own.

If the science community's goal is to effectively apply scientific evidence and the scientific process to solving global problems, we need to not only recognize that it cannot be an insular polity but also realize those scientists who enter the world of public policy, government, law, and so forth are not deserting science26. Moreover, the next generation of scientists needs to be better prepared for realpolitik biopolitics by including policy course work, case studies and government and/or political work experience in formal science training. In the meantime, EU biotech scientists would do worse than to remember Leo Szilard's quote: "When a scientist says something, his colleagues must ask themselves only whether it is true. When a politician says something, his colleagues must first of all ask, 'Why does he say it?'"27.

References

1. Rauschen, S. & German, G.M. Nat. Biotechnol. 27, 318–319 (2009).

2. Morris, S.H. & Spillane, C. EMBO Rep. 9, 500–504 (2008).

3. Nuti, M., Felici, C. & Agnolucci, M. Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 100, 189–202 (2007).

4. Morris, S. & Adley, C. Trends Biotechnol. 18, 325-326 (2000).

5. Morris, S.H. Trends Biotechnol. 25, 2-6 (2007).

6. Roe, E. World Dev. 19, 287–300 (1991).

7. Taylor, G. Irish Studies in International Affairs 17, 99–114 (2006).

8. Lahsen, M. & Nobre, C.A. Environ. Sci. Policy 10, 62–74 (2007).

9. Bradshaw, G.A. & Borchers, J.G. Conserv. Ecol. 4, 7 (2000).

10. Bertilsson, T.M. Sci. Stud. 15, 3–16 (2002).

11. Covello, V.T. & Merkhofer, M.W. Risk Assessment Methods: Approaches for Assessing Health and Environmental Risks. (Plenum Press, New York 1993).

12. Shelton, A.M., Zhao, J.Z. & Roush, R.T.E. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 47, 845-881 (2002).

13. Arun, B., Singh, B.D., Sharma, S., Paliwal, R. & Joshi, A.K. Field Crops Res. 103, 62-69 (2007).

14. Guo, W.W. et al. Plant Cell Rep. 22, 752-758 (2004).

15. Lai, J., Li, Y., Messing, J. & Dooner, H.K. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 102, 9068-9073 (2005).

16. Morgante, M. et al. Nat. Genet. 37, 997-1002 (2005).

17. McCallum, C.M., Comai, L., Greene, E.A. & Henikoff, S. Nat. Biotechnol. 18, 455-457 (2000).

18. Lloyd, A., Plaisier, C.L., Carroll, D. & Drews, G.N. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 102, 2232-2237 (2005).

19. Tzfira, T. & White, C. Trends Biotechnol. 23, 567–569 (2005).

20. Cubas, P., Vincent, C. & Coen, E. Nature 401, 157–161 (1999).

21. Gal-On, A. et al. Transgenic Res. 14, 81-93 (2005).

22. Kelley, K.T. et al. International Symposium on Biotechnology of Temperate Fruit Crops and Tropical Species 738, 749–754 (2005).

23. Schouten, H.J., Krens, F.A. & Jacobsen, E. Nat. Biotechnol. 24, 753 (2006).

24. Hellström, T. Technol. Soc. 22, 499-512 (2000).

25. Jasanoff, S. States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order (Routledge, New York 2004).

26. Alberts, B. Science 324, 13 (2009).

27. Szilard, L. The Voice of the Dolphins and Other Stories. (Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA 1992).

The science-policy interface is one of the most interesting places to find yourself.

For elected representatives the science-policy interface is often a place where they find their notions of science being black and white quickly fade into a murky grey of uncertainty easy stirred by political rhetoric (e.g. MMR vaccination). In fact, the idea that science will always say, without uncertainty, if something is right or wrong is a fallacy as the scientific process constantly rechecks and challenges itself and its previous results. Uncertainty is inherent to the scientific endeavor. However, facing and dealing with this in a political context where the public and their representative cry out for certainty is often difficult, inconvenient and politically challenging but exceptionally important.

Below is a statement from Avril Doyle, one of Ireland longest serving MEPs in the European Parliament. Ms. Doyle is to retire from European politics this summer and is not seeking re-election. As a result her frank and direct comments below strike to the heart of the problems encountered at the science-policy interface that need to be examined and worked on by scientists, policy experts and politicians together.

Avril Doyle MEP: Madam President, I welcome the revision of the Novel Food Regulation, which must stimulate innovation in the food and drink industry. It must protect the functioning of the internal market and public health and, at the same time, facilitate market access for novel foods.

However, I have some concerns generally about what I will call the scientific antipathy and distrust of this European Parliament and, indeed, of our national parliaments which has become a matter of serious concern on a whole range of areas at this stage. We do not do justice to ourselves with emotive, hysterical or populist responses to the latest peer-reviewed scientific developments, and we do not do justice to our democratic mandate. When GM products, cloning and nanotechnology are mentioned in this House, then it is belt-and-braces and the answer is - no; then, we slowly open up and delay authorisation.

I am concerned with EFSA, Madam Commissioner, and whether it has the resource capacity to process dossiers under this regulation in a timely but thorough way. If our embarrassing experience with the GM food and feed authorisations and rate of progress thereon are anything to go by, the answer must be, no. Why do we respond as if we are scientific illiterates on any new aspect of this area? Why do we distrust peer-reviewed science to such an extent? Have none of us, or very few of us, scientific backgrounds in this Parliament at all? The same question can be asked of national parliaments. We must base legislation on thorough, serious science and accept that. If not, our credibility as legislators is in question.

Text of speech can be found HERE

As someone who gets quite a number of questions on GM issues from folks in Africa and Asia I get to see and hear some of the more extreme disinformation and scare mongering that goes on. Last year in the Philippines there was the terrible attempt by Greenpeace to say GM crops caused miscarriages HERE. More recently from India we have had folks promulgating yet more scare...

"Devinder Sharma, food policy analyst and columnist, said GM foods were known to have caused allergy, respiratory and intestinal problems and kidney diseases in humans." The Hindu, March, 20, 2009 see HERE

Of course this is not true, GM food have never been confirmed to have caused any such impacts in humans. I think I will start offering an annual prize for the most extreme/erroneous scare attempt on GM.....

I always liked Italy - the food, the climate, and especially the passionate people. In fact, Italy was the first (and only) place I have seen anti-GM graffiti....(similar to the above but with a big NON added)

As a result, I was interested to come across an Italian newspaper citing one of our published GM policy research papers. I have no idea if the newspaper is a large, small, liberal or conservative. Anyway from my very bad Italian I think they liked the research...the article is HERE

nice to know that the Italian for our department is "dipartimento di Biochimica e Bioscienza"

those interested in a useful, dynamic info source on GM in Italian see <http://biotecnologiebastabugie.blogspot.com

Having seen numerous GM food stories in Irish media develop, reshape and be immortalized in the print it is often hard to explain the real process of the 'meeja' to fellow scientists and the problem I see with science in the meeja. However, Dr. Ben Goldacre, who writes for the Guardian, does an excellent job explaining the issues in this interview....
Ben Goldacre of Bad Science talks about Sensationalised Science Reporting from Conrad on Vimeo.

Professor Patrick Wall, Former Chair of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), had a large article on GM crops in the Irish Farmers Journal published this weekend (Jan 10, 2008)....

The link below is a copy of Professor Wall's text as submitted to the Irish Farmers Journal....

PWall on GMO.pdf

The Sunday Times

January 4, 2009

Blight fears spark call for GM potato

Scientists step up bid to create variety resistant to new aggressive strain

Lynne Kelleher

A genetically modified variety of spud may have to be produced in Irish laboratories because of the growing threat from blight.

The fungal disease that wiped out the potato crop in the mid-19th century, causing more than 1m deaths, is posing a renewed menace after a more aggressive strain arrived, according to a leading scientist. This has prompted experts to intensify work, including using GM technology, to find a blight-resistant variety.

Dr Ewen Mullins, a research officer with Teagasc, the agriculture and food development authority, said the risk of blight has become more serious in the past two years.

He said: 'Its primarily our geographic location. We have humid, damp summers and the past two years have seen outbreaks of blight, probably the worst on record.

'That's a significant challenge to the industry. Our research shows a new strain has come in. It migrated westward across Europe probably in the past 12 to 18 months. It was in the UK about two years ago and in the eastern counties of Ireland in 2008. It's a highly aggressive strain.'

read more at full article:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article5439525.ece

Everyone agrees: Cuba is fascinating.

Irrespective of your view on Cuban politics all agree it is an interesting place. It is an ideological crossroads where Marx, Castro, Che Guevara and many others on the left have met. A communist country in the shadow of the U.S., the central icon of the free market. How Cuba has invested in GM crop technology is often overlooked by those claiming GM technology is a multi-national corporate take over of our food supply.

The level of Cuban research and development into GM crop technology is staggering considering the size of the country.....a quick look at the forthcoming agenda of "Biotecnologia Habana 2008" reveals the scope and depth of Cuban public investment into GM technology in the agricultural field.....see http://bh2008.cigb.edu.cu/download/programa_BH2008.pdf

The Cuban Government's dedicated GM research center: the "Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology" is a world leader in GM technology. It is the pivotal point for Cuba who knows that public led technology is one of the answers to the huge challenges they face. No wonder the title of the upcoming conferences is: 'AgBiotechnology: facing huge challenges with new approaches'.... Hope the talk I have been invited to give goes down well.....

Anti-GM and anti-nuclear advocates need to be challenged

DR WILLIAM REVILLE

The Irish Times, Thu, Sep 25, 2008

UNDER THE MICROSCOPE:Scientists should be as passionate and determined in debate as anti-GM or anti-nuclear activists

I RECENTLY attended a press conference called by anti-GM (genetically modified) protesters at an agricultural biotechnology scientific conference (ABIC2008 in UCC- addition).

Three people, none of whom are scientists, ran the press conference and each made detailed statements. The audience was a mixture of anti-GM activists, none of whom (to my knowledge) were scientists, and a selection of scientists experienced in the GM field.

I myself have little experience in the GM area. The arguments presented by the amateurs at this press conference were completely at odds with the positions outlined by the experienced scientists. Both sides liberally cited "scientific research" to support their positions. What is the general public to make out of this?

This scene is typical of what happens nowadays, particularly in environmental areas. As I said, I am no GM expert, but I do have some professional expertise in another environmental area - the effects of low-level ionising radiation. The press conference described above perfectly mirrors many meetings I attended over the years organised by anti-nuclear groups. A main plank of the anti-nuclear argument is that the low-level radiation emitted by nuclear power plants, and ancillary processes, is very dangerous. Mainline science holds that risk from exposure to radiation is proportional to the dose received and because the leakage of radiation from nuclear power plants under normal circumstances is tiny, the risk to the health of those exposed is correspondingly tiny. Of course, the situation is very different in the event of major accident.

Both sides quote scientific evidence to back their claims. The difference between the sides is that the mainline science position is based on a lot of high quality research published in the best peer-reviewed journals, whereas the anti-nuclear position on low-level radiation is supported by very little research, much of which is not published in high quality peer-reviewed journals.

When pressed on the paucity of their underpinning scientific support, the anti-nuclear people say that all "independent" scientists back their position. But, when you look at the credentials of these few scientists who support the anti-nuclear position it is completely unclear in most cases how they merit the title "independent" any more than most of the scientists who come to opposite conclusions.

Some of the "science" put forward by the anti-nuclear side is farcical. For example, they went through a phase of claiming that risk of ill-health from exposure to low-level radiation is negatively correlated to dose - that is, the less you received, the more dangerous it is. In fact, there is now good evidence to show that exposure to the lowest level of radiation is not dangerous at all but, on the contrary, it is good for you. This is the phenomenon of hormesis, which I described here on September 11th.

So, why was the anti-nuclear argument about low-level radiation not dismissed out of hand in the face of massive contrary evidence from mainline science? Probably the main reason was the timid approach adopted by mainline scientific spokespersons. The anti-nuclear people speak with absolute confidence. They assure the public that every nuclear power plant spreads a deadly cloud of cancers in its vicinity and that they have scientific proof of this. Mainline scientists deny this and say that studies consistently show that risks are small, although not zero. The anti-nuclear people would challenge them with the question, "Can you guarantee the public that nuclear emissions are absolutely safe?"

The mainline scientists reply, "There is no such thing as zero level of risk". This is where the argument is lost with the public. The anti-nuclear people have no problem giving guarantees of danger and cancer, the mainline scientists will not guarantee safety, preferring to talk of low levels of probability.

Of course, in cases like this mainline science should declare a process to be safe. Safe here means safe in the sense understood in everyday life. For example, is it safe to walk down the stairs? The commonsense answer is yes, provided the stairs is sound and you look where you are going. The strict scientific answer will quote you the probability of having a fall.

Another problem is that the media tends to give every voice, amateur and professional, equal weight. This is not fair to the general public. The media has a responsibility to ask tough probing questions of all who seek a platform for their views. When questions can only be answered by science, scientists have an even greater responsibility to stand firm on issues where the scientific evidence is persuasive. Environmental activists who take a position on issues contrary to the evidence of mainline science always speak with confidence and passion and often try to shout down opposing voices. They should be opposed with matching vigour. Only then can science win out.

A Classic!

interesting piece....will wait and see what exactly the Dail transcripts say...

Use of GM foods inevitable in EU- expert

DICK AHLSTROM, Science Editor

Fri, Jul 18, 2008

IT IS inevitable that EU states will accept genetically modified foods, despite the fact that 70 per cent of people are opposed to them, the Government's chief scientific adviser has stated. Foods containing modified ingredients are already on our supermarket shelves and livestock here is being fed genetically modified feeds. Prof Patrick Cunningham answered questions about the safety of genetically modified (GM) foods yesterday while attending the Oireachtas Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment. He also handled questions on a range of subjects including future energy supplies, risks posed by overhead power lines and waste incineration and climate change. Prof Cunningham issued a formal report to Government on GM foods last summer. It looked at safety, benefits and risks and, after assessing a range of studies on the issue, he believed GM was of value to Ireland. "The answer has to be yes," he told the Committee. "[ GM] is not going to go away and it is advancing at a hell of a rate," he said. Countries around the world were growing about 100 million hectares of GM corn, cotton, soyabean and rice. Genetic modifications impart resistance to herbicides and insect attack, providing cost and yield improvement for the farmer, he said. "This has given a tremendous competitive advantage to those using [ GM]." We are already consuming foods with GM content, he said. About 60 per cent of products contain either corn or soya ingredients. "In fact, GM products are on the supermarket shelves," he said. "We are using approved GM corn in pig feed in Ireland today." The safety of these products was a key element of the report, he said. The results of a survey of the limited literature on the subject suggested that the consumption of GM foods did not pose a health risk.