In a recent "New Scientist" Editorial we were treated to the following: "Pusztai's rat test, we now know, were irrevicably flawed. Yet their legacy lives on." We find similar statements about Ewen and Pusztai's "discredited research" over and again in newspapers and scientific journals, and it is obvious even to the most innocent amongst us that this nonsense is being fed to the media quite cynically and systematically by bodies such as the Science Media Centre and even by the Royal Society.

What is going on here? Why does the scientific establishment feel so threatened by one relatively small research project that it has to continue, more than three years after the publication of the paper in question, with its campaign of vilification and refutation? The answer may be that the results thrown up in the study were so inconvenient to the establishment's ruling hypothesis (ie that GM foods are perfectly safe) that they are still in a state of denial. It goes without saying that this state of denial suits the biotechnology multinationals -- and their research teams -- extremely well.

In seeking to assess the relative merits of the pro-GM literature and the literature produced by scientists who urge caution, it is almost impossible to come to a balanced view. That is because there is no balance in the GM research field, or in the peer-review process, or in the publication process. For this we have to thank the corporate ownership of science (or at least this branch of it) and the obvious intolerance of "inconvenient" or "dissenting" research findings. Scientific integrity is one loser, and the public interest is another.

A reminder of some of the features of the current GM publication scene:

1. A none-too-subtle attempt by senior academics including Patrick Bateson to marginalise or discredit the work done by scientists who may be viewed by the establishment as mavericks or dissidents, no matter how sound their science may be. The Royal Society's Working Party on Peer Review appears to have as part of its agenda the "tightening up" of peer review procedures, to ensure that inconvenient research results simply never see the light of day. The prevention of academic fraud is one matter; the suppression of uncomfortable research results is quite another.

2. A huge imbalance between the funding of pro-GM research (both by the Government and the biotechnology industry) on the one hand, and independent research into the health and safety aspects of GM foods and crops on the other. This imbalance is reflected in the published literature. According to Tony Trewavas (New Scientist letters, 15 Feb 2003) there are about 200 publications listed on the International Life Sciences Institute Bibliography on GM safety investigations:
www.ilsi.org/publications/pubslist.cfm?pubentityid=60&publicationid=348

Trewavas says that none of these gives any credence to concerns about the impact of GM crops and food on anumal or human health. Well, for a start, the Ewen/Pusztai paper is listed there, and that paper gives rise to major concerns. I have looked at the list, and it is not at all easy to assess the extent to which the papers listed have been peer reviewed. Very many of them are lab reports, in-house publications, and literature reviews; very few of them involve genuine GM feeding trials involving animals, and none of them, so far as I can see, involves feeding trials on humans. It is therefore not surprising that the Environment Minister himself went on the record recently to express his concern at the manner in which the GM research effort is "controlled" by the GM industry itself, with hardly any fully independent research into GM health and safety funded by the Government. He realises full well that the industry may well be in possession of a wide range of of research results which could lead to the demise of their entire industry; and naturally enough, since the health and safety of the public does not come at the top of their list of priorities, they will ensure that this material never sees the light of day.

3. The increasing use of media manipulation and spin-doctoring in science in order to exaggerate the significance of selected "good news" stories and in order to diminish the impact of stories that might be uncomfortable. The 1999 Ewen/Pusztai episode illustrates this perfectly, with a peer-reviwed paper published in The Lancet in spite of a concerted attempt by senior scientists to pressurise the Editor, to vilify the authors, and to discredit the research itself. The campaign by the Royal Society and by the GM industry involved a multitude of quite disgraceful acts, including the forced departure of Dr Pusztai from his job, the pre-publication leaking of peer review information, and a massive damage-limitation campaign which goes on to this day. The Royal Society is still heavily involved in the promotion of GM technology and in the denigration of Pusztai and Ewen. This would not be so bad if the Royal Society position was founded on good science; but it is not. It is based largely on the "science" contained in three papers, which are cited in a manner which is tantamount to scientific fraud. One of those papers (Gasson and Burke, 2001) contained no new science at all, another was a Chinese paper (Chen et al) which has been neither peer-reviewed nor published, and the third was a Japanese article (Teshima et al, 2000) which described the feeding of cooked GM soymeal to rats and mice in conditions which would never have been tolerated in the UK.

This is all very reminiscent of what happened when Chapela and Quist published their "Nature" paper on the GM contamination of maize landraces in Mexico. This paper was peer-reviewed, processed and published in the conventional way. Again the authors were vilified and threatened, and George Monbiot has described how a Monsanto-affiliated organization coordinated such an effective Email campaign (involving many scientists who were figments of somebody's fertile imagination) that the Editor of the journal was forced to disown or discredit a paper which he had personally decided to publish. Subsequently Chapela and Quist have of course been vindicated by further research showing that the GM contamination of Mexican maize varieties is much more severe than they had indicated.

4. The ownership and corporate control of publication vehicles. One of the journals which has led the assault on the reputation of Arpad Pusztai is "New Scientist", which consistently refuses him any space in which to defend either his own reputation or his research findings. Other independent scientists working in the GM field similarly find that they are effectively "black listed" by the very journals which should provide the natural outlets for their work. As with "Nature", the owners -- rather than the Editors -- of popular science journals now apparently decide what should be published and what should be suppressed.

5. The manipulation and promotion of "friendly" research. While the dismal and dangerous activity of selective publishing is going on, it is matched by effusive media coverage of relatively insignificant pieces of work which happen to suit the corporate agenda. In recent months two pieces of work from the Brooms Barn Research Station have been lauded to the skies by the compliant media, with tame journalists only too happy to write about the miraculous return of birds and insects to GM sugar beet fields, and the impending transformation of the UK farming economy if only sugar beet growers will grow GM beet and spray it in the recommended fashion. Nonsense, all of it. The two papers in question, by Dewar et al (2002) and by May (2003), make such extravagant extrapolations from such a small piece of work, and involve such extraordinary assumptions about the extent to which farmers are likely to "sign up" to their proposed herbicide spraying regime, that questions have to be asked about the peer review processes to which the papers were subjected prior to publication. In both cases the Royal Society and other supposedly reputable academic bodies have taken an active role in the promotion of the Brooms Barn work, leaving NGOs and independent scientists shaking their heads in disbelief.

6. The choice of the "soft option" for the publication of FSE research results. Apparently not satisfied with the furore created by the Christmas Eve "burial" of the NIAB Report on GM OSR contamination, DEFRA and the Scientific Steering Committee chaired by Prof Chris Pollock have now decided to use the Royal Society's Phil Trans as the medium for the publication of the key findings from the FSE research programme. Prof Pollock quotes "logistical reasons" for this choice, and this has done little to reduce the barrage of criticism from NGOs who complain that there is a friendly deal going on here, with one pro-GM body (the Royal Society) doing a little service for another pro-GM body (DEFRA).

7. The use of "debates" in which no debating occurs, and "open meetings" which are in effect closed meetings dominated by carefully-selected scientists, in order to flag up (through written reports) the scientific consensus that all is well on the GM front. The Royal Society is practised in the organisation of such meetings, and indeed John Vidal of the "Guardian" was moved to report recently that the Royal Society's "open meeting" on GM foods and health (10th February 2003) revealed almost complete consensus between the panel and the chairman on almost everything. That must indeed have been a fascinating and stumulating event for all those who were lucky enough to attend.

Some of the above may spring from the conviction on the part of many NGOs that the pro-GM agenda is being pushed forward by a gigantic conspiracy involving the biotechnology multinationals, a scientific establishment populated by senior academics who have personal stakes in the promotion of GM, a number of shadowy organizations which pretend to promote good science but which in fact promote corporate science, and an "inner circle" of trusted science media correspondents and reporters.

Are the NGOs, and the consumer organisations, and the general public, all suffering from paranoia? Are we all Luddites, criminals and "doomsday activists" intent upon the destruction of some great and good scientific enterprise? Far from it. Many of us are scientists ourselves, and we do not like what we see. What we want is some respect from the scientists instead of vilification, arrogance and complacency. What we want is openness and transparency, and due respect for scientists whose findings happen to be inconvenient. What we want is good science instead of bad science.

What we want, above all else, is a return to that old-fashioned thing called scientific integrity.

Brian John

Appendix:

Here is a view of the bizarre world of GM science -- courtesy the ngin report on "Bad Company".

Some features of modern science in the UK:

* evidence of aggressive corporate deception involving government, researchers and the media
www.netlink.de/gen/Zeitung/2000/000409.html
www.newsunlimited.co.uk/smoking/Story/0,2763,156849,00.html

* evidence of widespread industry pressure on scientists to tailor their research findings and advice to suit sponsors
http://members.tripod.com/~ngin/fix.htm

* evidence of the falsification of data to suit commercial objectives
www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,2763,194211,00.html

* evidence that even indirect industry-linked funding can critically distort researchers' findings and published opinions on issues relevant to public safety
www.nejm.org/content/1998/0338/0002/0101.asp
http://members.tripod.com/~ngin/fix.htm

* evidence of misrepresentation of research to the public and the media to suit commercial objectives
www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/sugar-beet-paper-commentary.htm
http://members.tripod.com/~ngin/pb.htm

* evidence of government coordination of scientists' contributions to the media to support its pro-biotech line and rebut scientific and political criticism
http://members.tripod.com/~ngin/rs.htm

* evidence of pressure to suppress publication of unfavourable research evidence
http://members.tripod.com/~ngin/rs.htm

* evidence of pressure on journalists to under-report unfavourable research evidence
www.foxbghsuit.com

* evidence of heavy corporate influence over research funding, research agendas, and top-level appointments
http://members.tripod.com/~ngin/scigag.htm

* evidence of the use of silencing agreements to gag scientists
http://members.tripod.com/~ngin/scigag.htm

* evidence of scientists' self-censorship and of the direct suppression of dissenting scientists
www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/99rsppp.html

* accumulating evidence of corporate bias in the science base of regulatory bodies charged with protecting the public interest
http://members.tripod.com/~ngin/pblinks.htm
http://members.tripod.com/~ngin/fsa.htm

* evidence that patents and other financial interests may be influencing researchers' behaviour in ways which could place the public at risk
http://search.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1999-12/31/141l-123199-idx.html

* evidence of suppression of unfavourable research evidence into product safety
www.geocities.com/Athens/1527/text4.html

* evidence that the withholding of unfavourable research evidence into product performance may have led to thousands of deaths
www.the-times.co.uk/news/pages/tim/1999/10/01/timnwsnws01005.html?999