GM Science Review Panel - Meetings

[This document is also available in Adobe Acrobat format (30kb) for downloading and printing (updated 26 March 2003)] Further information is available on our Help page about downloading or reading Adobe Acrobat documents.

GM SCIENCE REVIEW PANEL
MINUTES OF THE SECOND MEETING
Tuesday 18 February 2003
The Royal Institution of Great Britain, 21 Albemarle Street, London

THE MEETING WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC TO OBSERVE

Present

Members

Secretariat

Apologies

1. Apologies for absence had been received from: Professor Diana Bowles, Ms Julie Hill, Professor Carlo Leifert, Professor Jules Pretty and Professor Michael Wilson.

Chairman's opening remarks

2. Professor King welcomed Panel Members, and members of the public who had come to observe, to the second GM Science Review Panel meeting. He reminded members of the public that they could send any comments on the meeting to the Secretariat afterwards.

3. Whereas the first meeting had identified GM issues, this meeting would begin the process of reviewing some of these, based on the proposed framework and workplan. Engaging with the science issues that were of concern to the public would be vitally important to the success of the Review and some approaches would be explored later in the meeting. Professor King thanked those Members who had given particular thought to these aspects of the Review since the first meeting.

4. Three very useful meetings (two formally part of the Science Review) had been held so far and Professor King thanked the organisations and the Panel members that had been involved. He would personally write to the speakers to thank them for their contributions.

5. The Science Review website was gathering contributions and Professor King thanked those who had already contributed. However, the number of contributions from scientists had so far been disappointing. He said that it was important that scientists engage with public concerns and it might be necessary to think about how better to reach them.

1. Minutes of the first meeting

6. The minutes of the first meeting were confirmed as an accurate record, subject to a few minor editorial changes. Concern about their speed of production was noted.

2. Matters arising and Secretary's update

7. The Secretary provided an update on developments since the last meeting.

The website

8. At present, the website lists contributions under five subject headings. There had been twelve contributions on GM food safety, ten on gene flow, nine on environmental impacts, eight on future developments and eight on the regulatory process. One contribution had been held back, but was now on the website after the author had agreed to make some amendments and resubmit it.

Open meetings

9. In the last month three meetings had been held, two as a formal part of the Review: at the Science Museum on GM food safety and at the Royal Society of Edinburgh on gene flow; and another meeting at the Royal Society on GM crops, modern agriculture and the environment. All the meetings were well attended and a total of 16 scientists had given presentations. Abstracts of meetings are posted on the Science Review website beforehand and verbatim transcripts and reports by science writers would follow.

10. There were future meetings, organised by the British Association, planned for Belfast on 11 March and Aberystwyth on 17 March.

11. Two Members had heard reports that the public meeting at the Royal Society could have presented a more balanced and comprehensive picture of all the science that was available on some aspects. Professor King pointed out that this meeting was organised by the Royal Society and that this was an issue for the organiser. But the Science Review would learn from the experience of any public meeting.

The timing of future work

12. Professor King said if the Public Debate strand of the national GM Dialogue was extended, then the implications for the science strand would need to be evaluated. However in this situation, he thought that it would make sense to extend the Science Review to be able to take account of the later outcome of the Public Debate. He proposed therefore that the Panel should press on with the existing timetable to deliver a report in June, pause over the summer, and reconvene in the early autumn to take account of the further output of the Public Debate and any further scientific developments, including the results of the Farm Scale Evaluations (FSEs) if available. This approach was agreed and Professor King said that he would discuss the proposal with Government.

3. Reviewing the Science: a proposed framework and workplan (Paper SRP/P04)

The framework for reviewing the issues

13. Professor King explained that this agenda item, and paper SRP/P04, covered two aspects: the framework for reviewing the issues and concerns, and the workplan. A framework for assessing each issue had been developed, based on the criteria previously agreed as being important by the Panel. It was proposed to test this approach out with a number of issues. Specific Panel members were asked to talk to particular concerns, with the framework criteria in mind. The issues were then discussed around the table so that the expert views and different perspectives were captured including the regulatory, industrial and public viewpoints. The aim was to develop a shared understanding of how the Review would operate and to make a start on the actual review process. Professor King emphasised the comparative nature of the Review, considering the GM and non-GM situations.

14. The following concerns were introduced by the Panel member indicated prior to a general discussion on each one:

• "Once the Genie is out of the bottle can we put it back?" "We can't control transgenic gene flow." [Professor Alan Gray]
• "Horizontal gene transfer of transgenes to gut bacteria will be detrimental to human health." [Professor Mike Gasson]
• "The introduction of herbicide tolerant crops in the UK will be damaging to the environment." [Dr Brian Johnson]
• "Transgenes are intrinsically more unstable that ordinary genes and the technology for incorporating them is imprecise and can lead to unintended effects." [Professor Phil Dale]
• "The risk of suffering food allergies is greater in GM food." [Professor Bert Rima]

Professor Mick Crawley was not present to introduce the topic: "GM crops will be invasive", but some aspects of this were covered in discussions under the other topics.

15. The framework was endorsed with the proviso that additional criteria be included based on a short checklist developed by a working group for the Panel and presented by the Secretariat

• What is the evidence on this issue, what is its quality and what remains unknown?;

16. All were agreed that the discussion had been very useful. It was agreed that the minutes would provide a summary note of the proceedings and that a full record of the discussion of the science issues would be taken forward in sub-groups and made available as part of the review process.

The workplan

17. The Secretary introduced the second half of paper SRP/P04. This proposed the establishment of three 'mentor drafting groups' and indicated which Panel Members might join each one. These three sub-groups would cover 'GM Food Safety', 'Gene Flow and Detection', and 'Environmental Impact of GM Crops' (other than gene flow). They would support the Secretariat in drafting outline papers for the Review and would work largely remotely. The Secretary emphasised that the other two subject headings on the website, 'the regulatory system' and 'future developments' had not been neglected. These were important cross-cutting aspects that would be considered by all three sub-groups.

18. Paper SRP/P04 also included a review of the scientific evidence on the environmental impacts of growing GM herbicide tolerant crops relevant to the UK, submitted as a contribution to the website by Dr Brian Johnson and Ms Anna Hope of English Nature. Members were asked whether this had features that might be useful in structuring the Panel's final report.

19. It was agreed that the second sub-group should be retitled 'gene flow, detection and impact' and that the sub-groups should just be called drafting groups. The Review needed to be comprehensive; building on the various themes at the academic/scientific level (bottom-up) and considering, academically, what is required from the regulatory perspective (top-down). It was agreed that the characterisation of the drafting groups might change with time, depending on the nature of contributors' comments and other inputs.

20. The review by Dr Johnson and Ms Hope was well received. There was some concern that it strayed a little from the science focus of the Review, but Professor King said that the considerations of the Review should err on the broader side, taking a generous view of 'science'. It was emphasised that this was a contribution and would be placed on the Science Review website as such.

21. The Secretariat would produce a follow-up paper on the framework and the workplan and Members were asked to contact the Secretariat to confirm their involvement in the drafting groups. Otherwise, the workplan was endorsed.

4. Public engagement (Paper SRP/P05)

22. The Secretary of the Public Debate Steering Board, Mr Richard Abel, joined the meeting for this agenda item.

23. The Secretary introduced paper SRP/P05 on public engagement, which addressed the following two aspects, where the advice of the Panel was sought:

• extracting the science relevant to the public concerns and questions, as set out in the Corr Willbourn report on the outcome of the foundation discussion workshops held under the Public Debate strand; and
• providing information accessible to the public and supporting the wider aims of the national GM Dialogue.

Extracting the science relevant to public concerns

24. Professor Dale, Dr Stirling and Ms Hill had considered the first aspect and proposed a strategy, reiterated in the Paper, that was based on the Corr Willbourn material and that centred on placing this report on the Science Review website. Mr Abel explained that it was planned to place debate 'toolkit' materials on the Public Debate website which would draw on stimulus material based on the Corr Willbourn questions. Associated with this would be a moderated discussion forum, possibly run by BBC On-line.

25. It was felt that the questions arising from the public in the Corr Willbourn report did have value for the Science Review, but there was also much that was of less relevance to the science. It was agreed that in due course the Science Review website should be clearly linked to an enhanced Public Debate website alongside a discussion forum and that the Corr Willbourn report, and in due course other materials arising from the Public Debate, should inform the Review and the work of each drafting group.

Providing information accessible to the public

26. The Panel agreed to the proposal that a 'public' branch of the Science Review website be developed to help provide accessible information on biotechnology to support the wider aims of the GM Public Dialogue. The glossary of terms that English Nature had recently developed for the Encyclopaedia of Life Support Systems (on the web) might be used. It was agreed that the GM Public Debate Steering Board could lead on the appointment of a science writer to explain GM terminology in a readily accessible way.

5. Any other business

27. Clarification was sought on the role of the Food Standards Agency (FSA) in the GM Science Review, as they had their own separate programme of activities to assess people's views on GM food. Professor King said that the FSA was a part of the Science Review process and would contribute in much the same way as other individuals and organisations. But it is an independent body and their involvement in the Science Review did not preclude it from taking its own actions and publishing its own material or issuing its own advice to Ministers.

28. It was agreed that at future Panel meetings, everyone present would be invited to join Panel Members for lunch. Professor King thanked The Royal Institution of Great Britain for hosting the meeting.

6. Date and time of next meeting

29. The next Panel meeting is 11.30 am to 4.00 pm on Wednesday 19 March in the Devon Room of the New Connaught Rooms, 61-65 Great Queen Street, Covent Garden, London.

GM Science Review Secretariat
February 2003