The NRC is releasing a report today on risks posed by genetically engineered foods. Media coverage suggests different interpretations of what the report says.

A New York Times story today suggests some confusion about whether or not the report says that GE crops are more risky than foods modified using other techniques:

“Genetically engineered crops do not pose health risks that cannot also arise from crops created by other techniques, including conventional breeding … the report said that genetic engineering and other techniques used to create novel crops could result in unintended, harmful changes to the composition of food … The report said that genetic engineering was more likely to cause unintended effects than the other techniques used to develop plants except for the mutation-inducing technique.”

An A.P. story in the Washington Post characterizes the study as follows:

“Federal regulators should look more closely at the potential health effects of some genetically modified plants before they can be grown as commercial crops, a scientific advisory panel said yesterday. It also said regulators should check for potential food safety problems after people eat the products. The report by a committee of the National Research Council and Institute of Medicine said regulators should target tighter scrutiny at genetically engineered varieties that have greater levels of biological differences from current plants.”

The report release will be carried via a webcast today at 11AM Eastern.

For the past several weeks a Buffalo grand jury has been investigating the bio-artist Steven Kurtz, and in the end, as reported in the NY Times, indicted him on 4 counts of mail and wire fraud for illegally obtaining samples and equipment.

Is this a case of bio-terrorism concerns pushing a case further than needed? Kurtz is a well-known artist and professor, who’s legitimate use of biological samples and equipment seems clear. However, how should authorities react upon finding a working lab within a suburban home?

After following the case for a couple weeks now, I’m surprised at the indictments and somewhat surprised that the case made it to a grand jury at all. An investigation was clearly in order, though the amount of effort put into this one seems a waste of time and money. Regardless, the story is sure to continue and spark debate on the appropriate use of science in art and society and what biosafety is all about (see today’s post).

The Science Times of the New York Times has an interesting new feature called “I Beg to Differ.”  I assume that it is focusing on some perspective that is somehow out of the mainstream related to science or science policy.

In this week’s column, William J. Broad profiles Dr. Richard H. Ebright of Rutgers’s Waksman Institute.  Dr. Ebright’s perspective can be gleaned from this excerpt:

“The government and many security experts say one crucial step is to build more high-security laboratories, where scientists can explore the threats posed not only by deadly natural germs, but also by designer pathogens – genetically modified superbugs that could outdo natural viruses and bacteria in their killing power. To this end, the Bush administration has earmarked hundreds of millions of dollars to erect such laboratories in Boston; Galveston, Tex.; and Frederick, Md., among other places, increasing eightfold the overall space devoted to the high-technology buildings.  Dr. Ebright, on the other hand, views the plans as a recipe for catastrophe. The laboratories, called biosafety level 4, or BSL-4, are costly, unnecessary and dangerous, he says.  ”I’m concerned about them from the standpoint of science, safety, security, public health and economics,” he added in an interview. “They lose on all counts.”  Dr. Ebright has no illusions about the likelihood of biological warfare. “I think there’s a very real threat of bioweapons use,” he said.”

The article does a nice job of laying out policy alternatives and why they matter.  Good for the Times for breaking some new ground in science policy journalism.  I am looking forward to future stories.

Robert Lee Holtz of the Los Angeles Times reviews a new book in American Scientist titled “Science in the Private Interest: Has the Lure of Profits Corrupted Biomedical Research?” by Sheldon Krimsky. Here is an excerpt from the review:

“Many scientists, particularly those doing biomedical research, are no longer looking solely for the truth—they are also seeking their fortunes. And when the pursuit of commercial advantage compromises scientific integrity, the public safety and public trust suffer.

As arbiters of technical disputes, scientists in America contribute almost as much to public policy, regulation and law as to basic research. For example, they regularly testify in front of legislators, who are now grappling with cloning, genomics and stem cell biology. Advances already on the horizon promise a control over human biology and behavior that makes today’s innovations seem primitive. Yet it is becoming increasingly hard for Congress, the courts, the general public and the media to find knowledgeable scientists without any financial stake in a biomedical controversy or regulatory debate.

That difficulty is what so concerns Sheldon Krimsky, a policy analyst at Tufts University who for two decades has been one of the country’s leading experts on the consequences of the commercialization of science. Krimsky has distilled a professional lifetime of experience as a skeptical scholar of the changing scientific culture into a new book, Science in the Private Interest. Shrewd, unsparing and never shrill, this book ought to be obligatory reading for anyone who values the role that science plays in the political life of the United States.”

The whole review is here.

Dan Sarewitz, director of the Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes at Arizona State University (and a visiting scholar at our Center here at the University of Colorado) authored a provocative op-ed in Newsday yesterday titled Hiding Behind Science. Here is an excerpt:

“We all know that the current White House thinks that protecting embryos is more important than protecting the environment and that the profitability of chemical companies should take precedence over the potability of drinking water. No surprise here. But even if the manipulation of science at the hands of the Bush government is more egregious than in previous administrations, the real problem is the illusion that these controversies can and should be resolved scientifically, and by scientists…

… the problem with these attacks on the Bush administration is that they hide behind the sanctity of science to advance an agenda that is itself political. What we do, or don’t do, about global warming (or stem cell research, regulation of toxic chemicals, protection of endangered species . . .) will be a reflection of how we choose among competing values, and making such choices is not the job of science, but of democratic politics. Science can alert us to problems, and can help us understand how to achieve our goals once we have decided them; but the goals themselves can emerge only from a political process in which science should have no special privilege.

But neither the Bush administration nor its scientific critics want to give up on the pretense that these controversies are about science. To do so would be to abandon the high ground created when one can claim to have ‘the facts’ on one’s side. The resulting charade, where everyone pretends that science can save us from politics, undermines science by turning it into nothing more than ammunition for opposing ideologies. Even more dangerously, it damages democracy by concealing what is really at stake – our values and our interests – behind a veil of technical language and competing expertise.”

Read the whole thing here.

This week the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization issued a report that said “Biotechnology holds great promise for agriculture in developing countries, but so far only farmers in a few developing countries are reaping these benefits.” In a press release FAO Director-General Dr Jacques Diouf said:

“Neither the private nor the public sector has invested significantly in new genetic technologies for the so-called ‘orphan crops’ such as cowpea, millet, sorghum and tef that are critical for the food supply and livelihoods of the world’s poorest people. Other barriers that prevent the poor from accessing and fully benefiting from modern biotechnology include inadequate regulatory procedures, complex intellectual property issues, poorly functioning markets and seed delivery systems, and weak domestic plant breeding capacity.”

On May 10, Monsanto announced that it was shelving for the time being its plans to develop genetically modified wheat. In a press release Carl Casale, executive vice president of Monsanto said:

(more…)

In an April 22, 2004 article (subscription required) The Economist suggests that U.S. biodefense science policies and biodefense technology policies are sorely lacking.

The article notes of the challenges of biodefense:

“If terrorists had placed smallpox, rather than explosives, on the Madrid trains that blew up last month, tens of thousands, maybe millions, could have died instead of the 190 people who did…. America’s bioterrorism experts reckon that close to 100 new diagnostics, vaccines and treatments are needed urgently. By most estimates, building these biodefences will take at least 5-10 years and $50 billion. And if America’s highly innovative drug industry does not rise to the challenge, such efforts that are underway elsewhere will not fill the gap.”

On the biotechnology industry:

“Few firms are attracted by the meagre development grants doled out by the Pentagon, which largely oversees America’s biodefence effort, nor by the accompanying paperwork and bureaucracy. “

(more…)

With southern Africa facing its fourth consecutive growing season of low crop yields and food insecurity, genetically modified crops and food aid are sure to be front-burner issues for yet another year.

For the past three years, southern Africa has faced debilitating drought and a resultant demand for both food aid and drought-resistant crops. Consequently, the EU-US led debate over genetic modification (GM) has spread to Africa, thereby engaging African leaders and diverting attention from other severe agricultural problems like poor soil, a failing transportation infrastructure, and unwelcoming markets for crops from subsistence farmers.

At its core, this is a technology policy debate about willingness to accept risk. Yet as both sides politicize the issue within Africa, they drag African leaders into what the New York Times called “an undeclared trade dispute between the EU with its powerful environmental activists and the US and its influential biotechnology industry.”

The result is an African GM debate as politically charged as ours. On one side lie leaders calling for agricultural biotechnology as a means to end hunger altogether. And on the other lie leaders who see agricultural biotechnology as “poison” sent to exploit the third world, even in the form of
food aid.

As this politicization continues, African agricultural development lies in limbo, waiting for an unlikely solution to the bickering. And yet, it cannot wait. African soils are severely nutrient depleted such that they can barely provide the crops necessary for a single season, let alone a surplus for seasons of drought.

(more…)