(B)
The scientific establishment is playing a key role in research and development of genetic engineering biotechnology and in actively defending the industry under the banner of “sound science” and “scientific progress”. Scientific advice to the government is heavily biased in favor of the industry. Lord Sainsbury, current Minister for Science, was formerly chairman of the Sainsbury family’s supermarket chain, closely involved with the development of GE foods. Another prominent scientist, Derek Burke, advisor to the Parliamentary Committee on Science and Technology and formerly chairman of the Advisory Committee on Novel Food Products, was a key participant in the UK Government’s Technology Foresight exercise, and in a follow-up group that determined the pro-biotech funding policy of the BBSRC. Derek Burke is an outspoken and staunch defender of the industry. The public are being informed uncritically by scientists like Burke and others, consciously or unconsciously serving commercial interests, and legitimate concerns about safety are caricatured as irrational fear arising out of ignorance.
The credibility of science and scientists has been steadily diminishing over the years as science has become more and more absorbed into the commercial sector. Science education at every level is being subverted to corporate aims: its chief purpose is to provide skilled but uncritical workers for industry. The UK Government has even run a competition for science students on how to commercially exploit scientific research. There has been no major open debate on genetic engineering within academic institutions, that has been organized by the academic staff. With very few exceptions, students are not encouraged to ask questions about the ethics or the hazards of genetic engineering on either side of the Atlantic.
Scientific evidence of actual and potential hazards, which has been steadily building up over the past ten years, is being ignored and dismissed. More seriously, independent scientists reporting findings damaging to the industry are gagged and victimized. Within the UK, Dr. Arpad Pusztai, senior scientist of the publicly-funded Rowett Institute, and his collaborators were awarded a 1.6 million pound grant to carry out systematic safety testing of GE food. They found that the GE potato lines tested were toxic to young rats, and Pusztai informed the public in a brief interview which was part of a TV documentary. A few days later, he was removed from his job, denied access to his data, and forbidden to speak on the subject.
The suppression of scientific findings is nothing new; it has been happening more and more within the past decade. Since the 1970s, scientific fraud has been increasing, as has the proportion of peer-reviewed scientific papers retracted. We have moved far away form the traditional ideals of science as science loses innocence and independence.
What is the author’s attitude toward the role the scientific establishment is playing?
我
