Why Europeans Have Lost Faith in GE and other
Corporate-Based Science--Nature Magazine

Nature magazine (UK) 5 August 1999
Commentary

How to restore public trust in science

BENNY HAERLIN AND DOUG PARR--Greenpeace

The relationship between the scientific community and the general public
has never been worse in living memory. The commercialization of research is
largely responsible, but scientists can still act on the problem.

The scientific community has a credibility problem. In a recent survey, for
example, 26% of European citizens named environmental organizations when
asked whom they trusted most to tell the truth about genetically modified
(GM) crops1. Only 6% named universities, 4% national public authorities and
1% industry.

Such dwindling credibility of scientific institutions has been attributed
to the disaster over bovine spongiform encephalopathy. But previous events
had followed similar patterns: the debate about CFCs and the ozone hole in
the 1980s, for example, the health and environmental assessment of toxic
substances, global warming, and even smoking. The role of corporate
scientists in these cases has not been admirable, and the attitude of
industry and scientific institutions, in demanding conclusive proof to
justify preventative action, has rightly not reassured the public about
scientists' trustworthiness.

Such experiences led to the development of the 'precautionary principle' by
legislators around the world to shift the burden of proof from protectors
to perpetrators. It is unfortunate that many use 'sound science' as a
battle cry against this principle, and erroneously dismiss environmental
and ethical concerns as 'anti-scientific'.

Sound science is about the best possible way to answer a given question; to
present with rigour the certainties and uncertainties of knowledge, and the
assumptions underlying certain conclusions. But, crucially, it is not a
method for deciding which questions should be posed, or for determining the
acceptable risks and desirable benefits of technologies.

There are no clear answers to many of the 'big picture' scientific
questions asked by the public, in many cases because we lack the knowledge,
but in others because arbitration between different answers is beyond
scientific competence. When asked about impacts on diversity and evolution,
the shape of future agricultural landscapes, and the changing perception of
food and health, honest scientists will frequently have to answer: 'We
don't know', 'We cannot know' or 'These are our guesses'. Such honest
answers could help a great deal to raise credibility and to return the
responsibility for decision-making from corporate interests to its rightful
place: public bodies.

Arguing that science is the sole arbiter of policy action undermines trust
in the concept of scientific analysis. The main culprits in the devaluing
of scientific authority are not necessarily scientists themselves but
corporations and politicians, keen to rely on the illusory picture of
authoritative scientific arbitrators. Scientists are no longer perceived
exclusively as guardians of objective truth, but also as smart promoters of
their own interests in a media-driven marketplace.

This changing role can be seen in molecular biology, where the line between
fundamental science and applied technology appears particularly thin, and
where corporate funding has become the driving force of research.
Privatization of science has become official policy in all industrialized
nations since the early 1980s. Not only has public spending on research in
Europe, particularly in biology and agriculture, been dwindling over the
past decade but, as Richard Strohman bluntly observed, "academic biologists
and corporate researchers have become indistinguishable, and special awards
are given for collaborations between these two sectors for behaviour that
used to be cited as a conflict of interest"2.

Integration of academic research into the market, however innovative,
demands a price on the role and credibility of scientists. Critics should
first address governments that believe that the market should be their
prime adviser on science policy. Not only is it unfair to blame scientists
for losing their independence, but it stifles an urgently needed open and
honest dialogue between scientists and the public.

One prerequisite for such a dialogue might be a reliable scheme of
transparency on patents, financial interests and corporate affiliations.
The first laudable steps being taken by journals and public authorities
must lead to clear rules that can be checked by the public. Codes of
conduct should be extended to compel companies and institutions to
communicate information on environmental and health impacts of products,
and to oblige individual scientists to communicate relevant findings. Such
an analogy to the Hippocratic oath would strengthen the position and
responsibility of scientists within corporate and institutional systems.

Beyond scientific independence and conflicts of interest, worries stem from
an explosive increase in available data and specialization, and the
likelihood is of increasing fragmentation of scientific knowledge and
perception. Failures of science to predict negative outcomes seem to arise
when a reductionist method encounters situations of high complexity.
Interdisciplinary and holistic understanding about highly complex issues
will not come from individual scientists, but will require entirely new and
innovative approaches.

Who cares about this 'big picture', and who is responsible for the
integration of knowledge? Corporations see little use in investing in
integrated scientific concepts: their integrating forces are product
development and marketing. Where are the scientific authorities and the
editorials in journals challenging public and corporate research strategies
and perspectives? Where are the scientific authorities to insist that the
identification and patenting of individual genes of interest are not good
enough to develop sound scientific understanding? Who dares to say that
further specialization is a recipe for disasters?

Inevitably, the framing of these questions is affected by value judgements.
The UK Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution advises that decisions
on environmental issues "must be informed by an understanding of people's
values", and that "The public should be involved in the formulation of
strategies, rather than merely being consulted on drafted proposals."3

In the case of genetically engineered crops, surveys in Europe have
consistently shown broad rejection of GM food. The governmental and
corporate reaction has been to spend millions to 'educate' people about the
perceived benefits of an 'inevitable' technology. The result has been
greater understanding of the technology combined with firmer rejection of
it. Instead of rethinking their research and develoment strategies and
looking at the alternatives, most companies and governments still treat
public acceptance as just an additional challenge to be overcome by
asserting the safety of the technology. They are out of touch with the
values of society, and that cannot be overcome by means of any scientific
risk assessment.

Benny Haerlin is at Greenpeace International, Chausseestrasse 131, D-10115
Berlin, Germany. Doug Parr is at Greenpeace UK, Canonbury Villas, London N1
2PN, UK.

References

European Commission DG XII Eurobarometer 46.1, 77-78 (1997). Links
Strohman, R. Nature Biotechnol. 15, 194-200 (1997). Links
Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution Setting Environmental Standards
(HMSO, London, 1998). Links