GMOIreland

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