May 25, 2012

experts comment on planned “decontamination” of GM crop trials

In reaction to the planned destruction of a GM wheat field trial at Rothamsted Research, quotes from the scientific establishment were sent out, following the launch of the trial at the SMC and the publication of an open letter from the researchers imploring the protesters to engage.

Dr Julian Little, Chair of the agricultural biotechnology council (abc), said:

“Today’s reaction to the anti-science protests at Rothamsted is a welcome demonstration of the pragmatic and open-minded attitude of the silent majority towards vital agricultural research.

“Most people are fully aware of the challenge posed to the global food supply by climate change and an increasing world population, and polls show that UK consumers recognise that we need as many tools as possible to help us grow more food in a sustainable way. A recent IGD poll, for example showed that five times as many people believed that GM crops can help feed a hungry planet, than those who thought they did not.

“Along with advanced conventional breeding techniques and better agronomic practices, biotechnology is just one of many ways we can try to improve yields while reducing pesticide use, cutting carbon emissions from agriculture and conserving water.

“Threats of crop vandalism from groups like ‘Take the Flour back’ hold back UK science, and clearly demonstrate that they have no interest in the very real challenges of improving global food security.”

Sir Paul Nurse, President of the Royal Society, said:

“Scientific discoveries can be unsettling and their application for societal benefit complicated to implement. That is why we must have informed public debate on these issues, free from hype and fear. The debate about GM crops is a case in point. We need to do scientific experiments to find out if genetically modified crops are safe and if they deliver genuine public benefit. If they fail on either score, they should be put to one side. That is why the trial at Rothamsted should be allowed to go ahead. However, we cannot ignore public concern about GM crops and that is why the Royal Society is keen to investigate ways to facilitate open, well informed debate.”

Imran Khan, Director, Campaign for Science and Engineering, said:

“It’s profoundly depressing and internationally embarrassing. In terms of future employment and investment, our society can’t rely on cheap labour or digging oil out of the ground – we have to focus on becoming a ‘knowledge nation’. That becomes so much harder if, as a society, we think it’s ok to vandalise intellectual activity just because we don’t agree with it. What ever happened to debate?”

Professor Guy Poppy, Professor of Ecology, University Of Southampton, said:

“These GM plants represent a use of the technology which many people have suggested is acceptable – working with nature to control pests. In order to ensure there are minimal risks of growing such crops, we need evidence and thus please allow this carefully controlled and highly regulated trial to be conducted – we can then make objective based decisions.”

Dr Giles Oldroyd, John Innes Centre, said:

“The wheat lines being tested at Rothamsted show great promise for reducing the use of chemical insecticides during wheat cultivation. This work represents the next generation of GM crops that are addressing issues such as improving the sustainability of agriculture or improving the nutritional content of the food. This work is being done at publicly funded institutions and focuses on traits that can benefit the environment and the consumer.”

Sir Roland Jackson, Chief Executive British Science Association, said:

“What we are seeing here is as much a clash of values as a debate about the science, though the threat of violence is deplorable. The welcome approach by scientists to engage and explain the scientific evidence also needs to be extended to more open dialogue about agricultural systems and research priorities.”

Professor Ottoline Leyser, Sainsbury Laboratory, University of Cambridge, said:

“Current agricultural practices can’t deliver a sustainable and secure supply of safe food. I, for one, am not willing to pass up any approaches that might contribute to improving the situation. Even a small contribution is worth having, and I don’t see how anyone who really cares about food and the environment could think otherwise.”