Date: 28 June 2002
Subject: Life Sciences, Environmental

Should scientists socially publish disturbing theories with insufficient evidence? Who can make dispassionate judgments on such issues?

On November 29th 2001, the prestigious scientific journal, Nature, published research which reported finding transgenic DNA in maize grown in Oaxaca, Mexico, the centre of origin and diversity for the staple crop.

The paper by, Ignacio Chapela and David Quist of the Department of Environmental Science at the University of California, Berkeley, roused environmentalists who demanded an immediate moratorium on transgenic trade. Since Mexico had a moratorium on growing GM crops, US food and feed maize imports were the suspected source of the rogue transgenes.

However, in February 2002, the journal Transgenic Research published an editorial attack on Quist & Chapela's research, concluding no evidence is presented to justify any of the conclusions presented in the paper?. A vigorous and often scathing debate ensued, with pro-GM figures arguing the science was seriously flawed, and anti-GM that science was being nobbled by corporate paymasters.

On April 4, Nature published online two scientific critiques (by Metz, Kaplinsky et al) of their earlier article, a response with more data from the authors and the following editorial comment:

The authors have now obtained some additional data, but there is disagreement between them and a referee as to whether these results significantly bolster their argument, the editorial read. In light of these discussions and the diverse advice received, Nature has concluded that the evidence available is not sufficient to justify the publication of the original paper.

As, however, Quist and Chapela wished to stand by the available evidence for their conclusions, Nature simply published the critiques and asked readers to judge the science for themselves.

Two issues are of interest to us as Christians. The first is the balance needed between useful research and dangers of human error and misuse. Maize containing anti-insect genes could be beneficial as an alternative to insecticide, but could also have a bad effect on ?friendly? species within an ecosystem. Our reaction should neither be hysteria nor carelessness. There is nothing more inherently "anti-Christian" in direct genetic modification than genetic modification by selective breeding which has been used in farming for centuries. It is just that unforeseen effects can now be more sudden. Many people believe that US Department of Agriculture proposed buffer time and area zones between GM and other crops are insufficiently researched and based on guesswork.

The other point of interest is that it shows that dispassionate ?value-free? science can be hard to achieve whether or not what could strictly be called ?religious? issues are involved. As with so many past controversies, there are Christians on both sides ? and the heat of the debate because people think it is about something important makes neutral "objectivity" difficult to discern. Publishing "scientific" assertions without due evidence is now seen as reprehensible and ?anti-science? by similar kinds of people who would have denounced "the church", for example, for wanting Galileo to have proper evidence before publishing his disturbing theories. Interesting isn't it?