National Post | October 8, 1999 | John E. Foster | Op-Ed
The British journal Nature is, according to this op-ed piece, at it again. In its Oct. 7 issue, it scored another publicity coup by publishing an attack on government standards for genetically modified foods that - to its editors' delight - received prominent coverage around the world, including both the National Post and Globe and Mail. The commentary's arguments are more than a little suspect, as the accompanying letter from biotechnology scientists attest, but its appearance in Nature will provide activists with another round of ammunition.
In a previous issue, Nature summarized a laboratory study conducted at the University of Arizona concerning the potential for bollworms to develop resistance to genetically modified cotton, and before that, a Cornell University study resulting in public declarations that the Monarch butterfly could be wiped out by genetically modified corn. Nature hyped both in press releases. Predictably, both were exploited by activists, and both left the erroneous impression that science had overlooked something important in reviewing the potential risks of biotechnology. The butterfly publicity has had serious impact on the acceptability of biotechnology.
But neither of the laboratory studies gave a complete picture of what would be expected in a natural or field setting. The result has been a disservice to science, unnecessary concern among the public, a discrediting of a valuable technology and a lot of work for conscientious scientists who have to mop up the mess.
I have no quarrel with the quality of the laboratory work, and no one is suggesting the results were not accurate. But I deplore magazines releasing snippets of information out of context, with the implication that they are surprising and have great importance.
The September issue of Consumer Reports is a good illustration of how a series of little studies, including the University of Arizona's and Cornell's, gets portrayed as something significant. Time, Newsweek and The New York Times also weighed in, citing the studies without providing balancing information.
In the case of Monarch butterflies, there probably was not an entomologist in the world who was not aware that corn pollen containing the Bt gene could harm the larvae of butterflies - if the larvae ate corn pollen, which they don't. Most entomologists understood that there is very little potential for Monarch populations to be exposed in a natural setting. Scientists and regulators took this into consideration in developing strategies for the safe use of crops that have been genetically modified to control insects.
But it seems that a few scientists, who apparently don't want to accept the general consensus of the scientific community, are willing to use questionable methods to take their case to the front of the line. The quickest way to get attention is to conduct a laboratory study, knowing what the outcome will be, and then find accomplices to make a big deal out of it. I call it the hand grenade syndrome: If someone lobs a hand grenade into a room, he's going to get everyone's attention very fast.
The dumbing-down of science journals is recent. Like other media, science journals have begun competing for readers by calling attention to themselves. They have learned that simple little studies get big headlines. They try to cover the fact that the studies are misleading with wiggle words like, "this is only a laboratory study and it makes no conclusions about what would happen in a natural environment." That's like trying to put the pin back in the grenade after you lob it into the room.
When grenades go off, they make a mess. Demands for "more study" come from all corners. So university researchers, with limited resources, end up dropping what they were doing to devote attention to providing the data demanded by a concerned public and regulators under pressure. This is a poor way to set priorities for scientific research, but it's what happens when we conduct science by press release. If the emerging trend toward publicizing little laboratory studies - and toward seeking publicity, instead of truth - is not reined in quickly, scientific credibility will be the casualty.
Dr. John E. Foster, a full professor of entomology at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, has 30 years of experience in working with insect issues. He is a collaborator with NC205, a panel of leading entomology experts studying insect resistance management.
