Scientists for global responsibility disagree with pro GM scientists.

Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) is an organisation of some 600
UK scientists concerned by the use and misuse of science and technology,
and we would like to comment on some of the points made by the 114
biotechnology scientists in their letter to Tony Blair ("Scientists
complain GM debate was mishandled", 1st November), with which we disagree.

Genetic modification of crops was introduced by multinational companies as
an initiative for making potentially huge profits, leading ultimately to
the control of the food chain. It has been seized upon by the Government
as a significant contributor to the British economy. Unfortunately, the
products were developed and then sold to American farmers and put upon the
plates of the American public without making clear the nature of the
technology that had been used. By the time these companies were ready to
repeat their marketing operations in Europe, many of the scientists and the
general public in Europe were already informed about the technology. They
had also gathered information about the uncertainty, unreliability and the
many failures of the modification process itself and of the performance of
genetically-modified crops in the field. Europeans said 'No' to allowing
such crops to be grown here. Free-marketeers might ask why a new kind of
food should be inflicted on a population if some 90% does not want to buy it.

Scientists who have spent the last several years pointing out the dangers
of genetic engineering, only to have their warnings dismissed by Government
advisory bodies, will be surprised that the signatories to the letter feel
that the Government has not been doing enough to support them. The
Government has, in fact, been keen to promote genetic modification, even
appointing a Science Minister who has made great contributions to the
industry and who has himself a large vested interest (in a blind trust) in
its success. Advisory and regulatory bodies are weighted with pro-GM
members with close connections to the GM industry and, as recently seen
with the GM Science Review Panel, members sympathetic to arguments against
GM crops may be subjected to harassment.

It is understandable that scientists who have for several years enjoyed a
bonanza of funding for research on genetic engineering should be dismayed
when a threat to the continuation of their good fortune suddenly emerges.
In response to public disquiet about the entire issue of GM crops and
foods, the Government that was their patron and which provided enormous
sums of money for their work, commissioned studies designed to allay the
fears of the public and to convince them of the benefits of accepting GM
technology. Unfortunately for the pro-GM scientists, and to the surprise
and embarrassment of the Government, the studies have provided evidence
supporting many of the arguments made by anti-GM campaigners. The letter
from the 114 scientists is a plea to the Government to save them, in spite
of ever more evidence of the damage resulting from their research.

Science has reached a point where the imagination and technical
capabilities of scientists are running ahead faster than society can
evaluate and control the outcome of their achievements. The perception of
many scientists is that all that can be done in science should be done -
and if we do not do it, a competitor will. But their theoretical models of
the natural world do not encompass the complexities of the real natural
world. Nature works in profoundly subtle, intricately balanced and
interconnected ways that the human race does not yet fully appreciate. It
is for this reason that independent scientists urge caution before we
release into the environment and into our own bodies, crops and foods that
have been developed by crossing not only dissimilar species but even
kingdoms. The long-term consequences cannot be predicted.

We have already begun to see some of the adverse effects of genetic
engineering, such as the creation of several kinds of superweeds with
multiple herbicide-resistance in Canada (a fact, not a 'claim'); spread of
GM genes to wild plants in the United Kingdom; damage to organs and the
immune system of experimental animals given GM feed; transfer of GM DNA to
bacteria in the human gut. Experiments showing harm to animals and
transfer of GM material in human gut have not been repeated or carried
further. This is not surprising, as scientists who present evidence of
harm of a controversial process have been pilloried in the past. This has
been true not only in the case of GM crops but also in the crises of BSE
and foot-and-mouth disease, for example.

The obligation of the Government must not be to protect the interests of
the 114 (and other) scientists who have unfortunately been led up an
unfruitful path but rather to look beyond and to step back from a rush to
engage fully in a technology that already shows signs of threatening human
health and the environment. Let the molecular biologists turn their
attention to genuinely advantageous uses of their knowledge and abilities
in ways that do not invade the genome. Scientists must work in partnership
with nature, avoiding further stress and disruption of life and the
environment on which life depends. Only under such conditions can we be
confident that science will lead us to a better future.

Yours sincerely

Dr Eva Novotny (Co-ordinator on GM issues), Dr Stuart Parkinson (Director) &
Dr Philip Webber (Chair)

Scientists for Global Responsibility