GM Science Review Panel - Meetings

[This document is also available in Adobe Acrobat format (30kb) for downloading and printing.] Further information is available on our Help page about downloading or reading Adobe Acrobat documents.

GM SCIENCE REVIEW PANEL MEETING
MINUTES OF THE FIRST MEETING
TUESDAY 10 DECEMBER 2002
THE ROYAL SOCIETY, 6-9 CARLTON HOUSE TERRACE, LONDON

Present

Professor David King (Chair)
Dr Mark Avery
Professor Janet Bainbridge
Dr Chitra Bharucha
Professor Dianna Bowles
Dr Simon Bright
Dr Andrew Cockburn
Professor Mick Crawley
Professor Philip Dale
Professor Mike Gale
Professor Mike Gasson
Professor Pat Heslop-Harrison
Ms Julie Hill
Dr Brian Johnson
Professor Chris Leaver
Professor Carlo Leifert
Professor Jules Pretty
Revd. Professor Michael Reiss
Professor Bert Rima
Professor Bernard Silverman
Dr Andrew Stirling
Professor William Sutherland
Professor Michael Wilson
Professor Peter Young

Secretariat

Dr Adrian Butt - Secretary - OST/DEFRA
Judy Britton - OST
Maia Gedde - OST
Richard Pitts - OST

THE MEETING WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC TO OBSERVE

Apologies

1. Apologies for absence had been received from Professor Alan Gray and Professor John Gray.

1. Chairman's welcome and opening remarks

2. Professor King welcomed Panel members and observers from the public to the first Science Review Panel meeting. He re-iterated that the principal function of the Panel is to critically review the current state of scientific knowledge on GM issues, taking into account group uncertainties and to oversee the review to ensure that it is delivering its stated aims.

3. He emphasised that to succeed, members must come to the table not as representatives of any group but as open minded individuals willing to be persuaded by evidence, analysis and discussion, and recognising that to do otherwise would not help to move the national dialogue forward.

4. He reminded the Panel that it should not be too inward looking as it needed to help the Review in its wider ambition to foster a dialogue within the scientific community and to respond to the issues and concerns raised by the general public. Professor King went on to say that scientific and intellectual rigor is central to the review's credibility but so too is engaging with the public's concerns.

2. Member's introductions

5. Members of the Panel briefly introduced themselves (see members interests page of the Science Review website for details).

3. The Science: what are the issues and how do we review them? (Secretariat paper SRP/01)

Science community issues: are they represented on the website?

6. There was agreement that the five topic pages on the website broadly reflected the issues of current interest and concern to the scientific community. Some changes were suggested and the Secretariat agreed to amend the pages (detailed below under each section). There was agreement too that the structure of the website should be flexible and reflect any new issues that emerged during the national dialogue.

Importance of peer review

7. There was discussion about allowing non-peer reviewed evidence into the review process. It was agreed that the review would not be limited to peer reviewed material, but peer reviewed material (where available) was nonetheless absolutely essential and would form the spine of the review report that emerged from the review process.

Treatment of uncertainty

8. The treatment of scientific uncertainty was discussed and members rejected a proposal that uncertainty should be a distinct topic area. In coming to this decision, the potential advantages of the approach were first discussed - these were that it would give prominence to an issue that was a key concern to the public and allow the establishment of a framework for a systematic and consistent approach to the treatment of uncertainty in all areas of the review. However, most others disagreed with this proposal. In their view, whilst it was important to give uncertainty prominence in all sections of the Review, to separate it out like this would appear to give it prominence in one section and less importance or relevance to individual topic areas.

9. Professor King emphasised that the review of the current state of GM science would lead to the identification of knowledge gaps and uncertainties where they existed.

Science is international

10. Members agreed that it would be foolish to restrict the Review to UK based science. It was important to see where science stood internationally on the issues.

The Review needs to anchor discussions in science

11. There was brief discussion about the precautionary principle: its definition (people use it inexactly and differently), that it is not new and that it is applied to other technologies too. Professor King reminded the Panel that it was important that they should not get caught up in policy issues. He reminded members that this was the Science Review and the focus of the Panel is to ask what does science currently have to say taking into account group uncertainties.

12. But it did mean that good communication with the other two strands was needed to ensure that the three strands of the national dialogue covered the broad range of issues that will emerge.

Don't treat GM in a bubble

13. The Panel agreed that GM should not be treated in isolation from other technologies and should be viewed within the context of existing practices.

Scope is unrestricted, but focussed on crops and food

14. Professor King explained that the Review was focussed as a starting point on GM crops and foodstuffs, but that if other important issues emerged from the public debate then it might well be appropriate for them to be included in the Review. Although the Panel was constituted to consider GM crops and food issues, additional expertise could be brought onto the panel if public issues ranged beyond these areas. In addition, where research in other fields of science shed light on their discussions on crops and food then this should be included in the Review process and comments encouraged.

15. Some members mentioned that by focussing on GM food there was a danger of leaving out GM yeasts and GM enzymes that are widely used in the food processing industry. GM rennet, for example is used widely. It was agreed that areas such as this, that might help to shed light on food safety issues, might be included if they were relevant to the main themes of the Review.

The Farm-Scale Evaluations (FSEs) and the Science Review

16. The issue of why the results of the publicly commissioned FSEs were not included in the Review was raised. There was a view that it was important to start the Science Review now but there was a danger that if it finished before the FSEs results this would reduce trust in the output of the Science Review Panel and its significance in the eyes of the public because it was perceived as being a little peculiar that a significant piece of science - a prominent part, was missed by the public dialogue.

17. Professor King explained that current thinking on the results of the FSEs was that they will not be included in the Review because there was concern it would dominate the Review and divert attention from the many other important science issues to consider such as the environmental impacts of gene flow. He explained that the results of the FSEs would be peer reviewed, considered by an independent scientific steering committee before being passed to the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) for advice to Ministers. Ministers would therefore receive the Science Review report and advice from ACRE on the outcome of the FSEs to assist them in any decision making process.

18. An important principle emerged during discussions: that the science discussion process does not have an end point - the Science Review, for example, will finish but the work of the science process will continue. Science is always moving forward and all reviews can only provide a picture of the current state of knowledge.

19. 19. On this basis, the Panel agreed that it was important not to delay the Review and that the timetable for the Science Review (to report in early summer) should remain. As the FSEs will not be published until later in the year, the Panel thought that an interim report should be produced with the final Review report, which will take other work into account, later in the year. It was felt that in this way there was less chance that the public would sideline the importance of the report.

GM food safety

20. There was general agreement that the review process should take into account the regulatory framework; should be issue focussed; and needed to be cognizant of other work to avoid duplication (also see paragraph 43). It also needed to consider the soundness of the science underpinning regulation.

21. An additional issue raised to include in the Science Review was allergenicity.

22. There was a view that issues surrounding GM food safety were not as prominent on the website as other topic areas and this could be improved. The Secretariat agreed to revise this page of the website.

Gene flow and detection

23. It was agreed that the title of this topic of the Review should be re-titled to "gene flow detection and impact". Gene-flow impact (e.g. the effect on wild relatives) was a critical issue that did not seem to be adequately represented in this section or in the section on environmental impact of GM crops. It was widely regarded that whether gene flow matters in terms of impacts on population genetics and ecology was a key consideration to the review. Inconsistencies in the use of the terms "transgenes" and "modified genes" appeared in the text; the Secretariat agreed to correct this on the website and use the term transgene.

24. The economic and legal (liability) dimensions to gene flow, exemplified by recent experience of the farming community in the USA, were raised. The Panel was clear that this issue should be passed on to the economics strand of the national dialogue for their consideration (see also paragraph 37-40).

25. Also raised in this section was why the publicly commissioned farm scale evaluations were not included in this part of the review (see paragraph 16).

26. There was agreement that the potential cumulative effects of transgenes should be reviewed.

27. Members thought that it was important to consider gene flow in the context of the extent to which it already happens in environment.

28. Selection pressure on organisms was another area to explore in relation to, for example, target insects and GM crops that expressed insect resistance genes.

Environmental impacts of GM crops

29. Members felt that another issue not represented on the website to any great extent was the issue of potential environmental impacts brought about by changes in the management of the GM crops. The Secretariat agreed to add this to the issuers to be addressed in the Review.

30. In addition, members felt that impacts should not be restricted to effects on biodiversity but potential impact on water systems might be considered too.

31. An emerging theme in discussions under this agenda item was the importance of considering what happens under current practices to establish a base-line for comparing GM.

32. It was agreed that concerns about the potential allergenic effect of GM pollen should feature in the Review.

33. Overall, there was a view that impacts should cover both considerations of potential harm and potential benefits and that there was a need to focus on what GM might contribute one way or another through the incremental changes brought about by its introduction.

34. One Member expressed some concern over the confusion about process and product throughout the text, and thought that it was important to compare products produced by non-GM processes (see GM in a bubble, above).

35. Another Member thought that it was important in answering these questions to identify what assumptions were behind how the Panel answers the questions. Professor King remarked that this was a very complex question and that scientists relied heavily on going back to the real world and experimentation.

Future developments

36. The Panel felt that it was important to consider future developments in the Review. However, there was a concern that it was not clear what this part of the Review would be aiming to establish. The present text indicated an interest in the acceptability of the technology. It was thought that this section of the review was less well defined than the others, and this was reflected by the paucity of information on the website.

37. The Secretary explained that the purpose of this page was in part, to consider technological advances that may offer solutions to minimise uncertainty, and also to scan the horizon for oncoming traits that might have regulatory implications for the future. He agreed to make these points clearer.

38. The Panel agreed that it was therefore important that a bullet point was added "what are the potential future developments that could impact substantially on aspects covered in the Review?"

39. There was a discussion about how far ahead it might be reasonable to look to the future. It was recognised that predicting future developments is very difficult, for example herbicide tolerance is used in many more ways today than could have been predicted 10 years ago. Many thought that it should centre on the next 3 to 5 years. There were two different aspects to this: the technologies that would be possible in next 3 to 5 years and the technologies that would be commercially available.

40. Many members thought it would be wrong to ignore the global context in the review of this section.

41. It was agreed to place the AEBC study on future developments on the website.

Regulatory process

42. One member mentioned that there was a lot of scientific information in the public domain but not readily accessible. So it would be helpful to put this detailed science material on the website to elicit very specific comments beyond what was presented by ACRE. For example, the recent seed listing hearings.

4. Public interests and concerns - how do we incorporate the science relevant to these into the review and how do we make deep science accessible? (Secretariat paper SRP/02)

The GM Dialogue

43. Professor Phil Dale who has overlapping membership with the Public Debate Steering Board, conveyed the Board's thoughts on the Science Review to the Science Review Panel. The Board felt that it was important the Panel did not give the impression of being self-serving or that the Review was too deep for the public to understand. Their questions should be taken seriously and with genuine empathy.

44. Professor Dale mentioned that that the results of the foundation discussion workshops would be published on 17 December 2002 and would give an indication of "grass roots" GM issues of interest to the general public which would provide a valuable resource for the Science Review.

45. The Panel agreed to include the outcome of the foundation discussion workshops in the Review process.

Complex issues

46. Professor Dale observed that many of the questions from the public would be wrapped up in other issues, (the power of multinationals, who funds research, patenting, liability etc.) and mechanisms across all three strands would be needed to handle such complex issues from the public. It was important that the concerns are addressed.

47. The Panel agreed with this sentiment and added that it was important to communicate to the public in some way that some issues science cannot address; this would help to avoid any unrealistic expectations and unfair criticism of the science review process.

48. Members also felt that it was important that incorporation of the public issues to the science review was conspicuous.

Guidance for contributions to the website

49. There was agreement that the general approach of the Science Review was correct. That is, it allows any Review contribution to be placed on the Science Review website provided it is not defamatory.

50. Professor King stressed that Review report would only be valuable if it was a critical review and that judgements were made on the quality of the arguments and science supporting the conclusions. It would be important to make distinctions between speculation, opinion, and fact. The Panel supported him in this assessment.

51. Members discussed the protocol for rejecting contributions. It was agreed that in such circumstances the Secretary should refer the matter to one panel member for a second opinion before taking action.

Shaped or driven by public concerns?

52. It was agreed that the review would be one of the current state of science shaped by public concerns and those of the science community.

Existing reviews

53. It was agreed that the Review could cross reference to other reviews.

Personal views

54. Journalists and others will approach members about their views on the Science Review. Members requested guidance on rules of procedure in this situation. Professor King made it clear that only he could speak on behalf of the Panel but members could speak freely provided they made it clear that they were offering a personal viewpoint.

Reporting to Ministers

55. Professor King indicated that he would give independent advice to the Prime Minister; taking into account the outcome of the Review.

5. Any other business

56. The Secretariat raised the possibility of members working in mentor subgroups to help take the Review process. Members agreed to work in mentor subgroups with Secretariat support.

6. Date and time of next meeting

57. 18 February, 11am to 4pm - The Royal Institution of Great Britain, 21 Albemarle Street, London W1S 4BS.