Scientific results in conflict with business and state interests

by Arpad Pusztai

14 June 2000

This talk by scientist Arpad Pusztai was presented at a Conference in Stockholm, 14-18 June 2000. Pusztai puts his views on some of the issues facing scientists who stand for objective science against profit-driven corporate domination.

In 1995 the Scottish Office Agriculture Environment and Fisheries Department commissioned a three-year multi-centre research programme under my coordination with the main task to establish credible methods for the identification of possible human/animal health and environmental hazards of genetically engineered/modified (GE or GM) foodstuffs which could then be used by the regulatory authorities for risk assessment.

In our studies we used potatoes transformed with the gene of Galanthus nivalis agglutinin, GNA, a natural insecticidal lectin-protein from snowdrop bulbs as a model. After regeneration and appropriate selection steps two agronomically excellent transformed potato lines were obtained. As expected, these GM potatoes showed increased resistance to aphid and nematode pests. Unfortunately and unexpectedly, we also found two potentially negative effects which were the result of genetic engineering and which indicated that the GM potatoes could harm beneficial, non-target insects such as ladybirds, damage the gut, other organs and immune system of mammalian species such as rats.

The question was what a conscientious scientist should do with a finding of such great and potentially far-reaching consequences for the society and the environment, particularly in the circumstances when it was known that the public have been eating untested GM foodstuffs for almost two years.

There were but two choices:

• to keep quiet to enable us to continue our research work
• to publicly indicate my concern over the possible health hazards of untested GM food

My appearance in Granada ‘World in Action' TV programme on 10 August 1998 was followed by a media explosion, condemnation by the scientific establishment and gagging by the Rowett and an unprecedented campaign of vilification by the scientific and political establishment ever since. It has since become clear to many, including myself, that the reason and motivation behind this attempt to destroy a scientist who took seriously the idea of ‘academic freedom' and spoke out according to his conscience, was the intolerance of a profit-driven establishment. It appears that with the rapidly diminishing state-funding, financing of scientific research has largely been taken over by venture capital-funded huge transnational corporations promoting genetic engineering-based biotechnology that promises to bring huge profits and previously unimaginable power in the 21st century, the age of the ‘biotechnology revolution'. In this the interest of governments and the biotechnology industry has become intertwined, pursuing their goals with the fervour of missionaries of this quasi-religious crusade.

In our age, the scientific, industrial and political establishment feel justified to use all means, power and money at their disposal to crush anyone standing in their way because they have managed to convince themselves that genetic engineering is the future and only salvation for mankind and those opposing it or even caution against its unquestioning adoption must be modern-day luddites

It is instructive to examine the methods used by the scientific establishment to publicly destroy the scientific credibility of the scientist whose results are in conflict with the intertwined interests of business and the state: The establishment selects some or all the following options:

• Silence the scientist by referring to his/her contract not to disclose anything without permission
• Confiscate all data and deprive him/her the possibility of doing more research work
• Set up a committee of local ‘senior scientists' to investigate his/her ‘misdemeanour'
• Release the damning findings of the committee to the press but without publishing them in full
• Repeat the above at the national level with most high-power scientific committees of the land
• Recruit senior establishment figures to tell the media why they should not believe the scientist
• They then declare that the results of the scientists cannot be trusted because:
• The design of the experiments was flawed
• The methods used were unsatisfactory and/or biased
• Inappropriate controls were used
• The conclusions were not supported by the results
• The results were unpublished or published in a journal of low scientific standing
• There are other better (unspecified) data which contradict the results
• The results are not statistically significant or obtained using poor statistics
• The results are unrepresentative

Accordingly, the whole study will have to be repeated with more refined design and methodology

In any case, the scientist whose results are in question is untrustworthy because he/she is:

• Unreliable, too old and confused
• Not properly qualified
• Driven by ulterior motives of seeking publicity and fame
• Dishonest as he/she misappropriated data not belonging to him/her
• Dishonest as he/she falsified some crucial data
• Dishonest as he/she fabricated data

Accordingly, it will be necessary to repeat the study under the guidance and control of higher scientific authorities and with scientists of higher qualifications

The question is how many honest scientists have been silenced and destroyed who had tried to be true to their scientific ideals by reporting their findings to society regardless whether these were liked by big business and the state or not? How many of them are around to tell their tale? Unfortunately, far too few to the detriment of us all.

The question is whether there is any way out of this predicament? I am sure there is! For this, in my opinion, we must help the public to understand if they want high-quality, honest and independent advice in this complex technological age, they will have to pay for it from the public purse. It is in fact not so long ago that biological sciences were relatively free from the clutches of big business. Before the introduction of gene-manipulation based biotechnology and patenting new life forms promising huge financial returns, most biological and nutritional investigations were financed from the public purse. As a result University departments and state-funded institutes carrying out such research were public watchdogs. By acting on behalf of the community and being free from commercial interests the advice scientists provided for the community was accepted and highly regarded by society. Returning to this role would be the only way to release the scientists from their servitude to big business and state interests which is all the more important because a democratic society which suppresses academic freedom and the inventiveness of the individual de facto writes its own death warrant.