Biotech Expert's New Job Casts a Shadow on a NAS ge crop study

New York Times August 16, 1999
By MELODY PETERSEN

[W] ASHINGTON -- A scientist directing a
crucial study on genetically
engineered crops at the prestigious
National Academy of Sciences left last
month for a job with the biotechnology
industry, angering environmental
scientists who fear that the final
report will be biased toward the
industry's points of view.

E. William Colglazier, the executive
officer of the academy, said the
scientist, Dr. Michael Phillips,
violated the organization's ethical
rules, which require staff members to
report any conflicts they might have
with industries affected by the
academy's studies.

Dr. Phillips did not tell academy
officials until a few days before he
left that he had been hired by the
Biotechnology Industry Organization, a
trade association in Washington that
represents more than 800 biotech
companies.

"We had no knowledge until he left that
he was taking a job with the
Biotechnology Industry Organization,"
Colglazier said. "If we had known, we
would have not had him work on that
committee." But he also said the
undisclosed conflict had not biased the
study.

A spokeswoman for the Biotechnology
Industry Organization said that neither
Dr. Phillips nor the association wished
to comment.

The controversy is another setback for
the closely watched study, which is
expected to have a profound impact on
how regulators decide to oversee the
hundreds of new organisms that the
biotechnology industry is creating. Soon
after the panel of scientists was formed
in March, some environmentalists said it
contained too many experts with direct
ties to the biotechnology industry, so
the composition of the committee was
altered to better reflect the
environmentalists' concerns.

The study by the academy, which is the
leading dispenser of scientific advice
to the Federal Government, will be one
of the first comprehensive efforts to
examine the risks and benefits of the
relatively new development of
genetically modified crops. The panel is
focusing on plants that have been
engineered to produce their own
pesticides, and whether Federal
regulators are properly monitoring the
new plants.

The biotech industry maintains that the
products are safe for the environment
and for the humans who consume them, but
there is not enough data to verify that
claim.

Colglazier said he did not think that
Dr. Phillip's undisclosed conflict had
biased the study. Members of the
scientific panel are reviewing a draft
of the report, he said, adding, "The
committee members are free to make
whatever changes they want."

The study is expected to be completed
this fall.

Dr. Phillips told panel members on July
6 that he was leaving, but he did not
say where he would be working, said Dr.
Rebecca Goldburg, a scientist at the
Environmental Defense Fund who is on the
biotech panel.

On July 20, the Biotechnology Industry
Organization, based in Washington,
promoted its hiring of Dr. Phillips in a
news release. The association said Dr.
Phillips would have a "key role in
representing the agbiotech industry on
domestic policy and international trade
issues."

Dr. Goldburg and other environmental
scientists said they thought Dr.
Phillips had been discussing a job offer
with the association while he was
directing the study.

"Dr. Phillips had a serious conflict of
interest," Dr. Goldburg said, adding
that she was concerned that the
integrity of the panel's report would be
tainted.

The scientists on the panel are
investigating a form of the biotech
crops that have been genetically altered
to produce their own pesticides. The
most popular of these is a corn plant
that contains a toxin in its tissues
that kills corn borer pests.

This spring, American farmers planted
millions of acres of this
pesticide-producing corn. Some
environmentalists have warned that the
new crops could kill insects that are
not pests. Some of those fears were
verified recently in a laboratory
experiment when researchers found that
monarch butterflies died when they ate
pollen from the modified corn.

The Environmental Protection Agency
requires biotech companies to perform
certain studies to determine what
effects their products will have on the
environment. While some scientists say
that Federal regulators are not doing
enough to protect the environment,
others say the regulatory burden is too
great.

Dr. Phillips, who was director of the
Board on Agriculture and Natural
Resources at the academy, helped to find
outside experts to sit on the panel. He
also participated in all of the panel's
meetings, Dr. Goldburg said.

"We have always had this revolving door
between Government and the biotech
industry," Dr. Goldburg said, "but now
we have a revolving door between the
industry and the academy. Given that the
academy is supposed to play a
dispassionate role in the making of
public policy, I think this is very
unfortunate."