THE ETHICS OF SCIENCE AND ITS REPORTAGE

[Guest guest]

GMW: THE ETHICS OF SCIENCE AND ITS REPORTAGE - DR SUMAN SAHAI

" GM WATCH " <info

 

 

Sat, 30 Apr 2005 17:43:02 +0100

 

 

 

 

GM WATCH daily

http://www.gmwatch.org

------

 

 

In light of the new paper by Qaim and Zilberman seeking to undermine

all the studies showing problems with Monsanto's GM cotton in India, here

is a comment from Dr Suman Sahai on Qaim and Zilberman's earlier paper

in Science where they attempted to show spectacular results for Bt

cotton. Dr Sahai's comment was published in Current Science, 2003.

 

EXCERPTS: What is really disturbing is that this paper extolling the

outstanding performance of Bt cotton is based exclusively on data

supplied by the company that owns the Bt cotton variety in question;

Monsanto.

 

....The paper of Qaim & Zilberman reports unprecedented yield increase,

(upto 87%) which strains credibility. Such spectacular performance has

not been reported from anywhere else in the world where Bt cotton is

cultivated.

 

....Given the contradiction between the exuberant projections of two

foreign scientists publishing from an American university and the ground

reality of a failed cotton crop in India, one must question the possible

motivation for scientists to write up such an unsubstantiated report

and for a reputed science journal like Science to publish it.

 

One reason of course could be genuinely bad science on the part of the

scientists and shoddy editorial work on the part of the editorial team

of 'Science'. There are however lingering suspicions of other

motivations, something along the pattern of what happened with the

tobacco

industry and medical journals. Science journals have been misused

before by

vested interests to promote their products in the garb of scientific

evidence.

 

GM crops are seen to be high profit items and the control is in the

hands of big business. These are crops facing great opposition in Europe

and now increasingly in the US. Add to this scenario the potentially

large markets that an agricultural country like India offers. If India

accepts and promotes GM technology, other countries in Asia are likely to

accept it too. If GM technology could be accepted and implemented in

the vast agricultural markets of Asia, it would neutralize quite a large

part of the difficulties the GM industry faces in other parts of the

world and turn in a handsome profit. Science must not fall victim to

these plans and machinations.

------

THE BT COTTON STORY: THE ETHICS OF SCIENCE AND ITS REPORTAGE

 

Comments on the paper 'Yield effects of Genetically Modified Crops in

Developing Countries' By Matin Qaim & David Zilberman [science 299,

900- 902 (2003)]

 

Suman Sahai,

 

Gene Campaign, New Delhi, India , genecamp

 

The paper published recently in Science by Qaim & Zilberman, purporting

to show a dramatic increase in the performance of Bt cotton in India

has attracted a lot of attention. At the same time, the paper raises

serious questions about ethics in the application of science and the

societal context of such applications and reportage.

 

Qaim & Zilberman draw rather sweeping conclusions about the " Yield

Effects of Genetically Modified Crops in Developing Countries " based on

meager and selective data from one single genetically modified crop,

cotton, derived from just one country, India. The title is misleading,

claiming far more than the scope of the study permits.

 

On the basis of a single set of trial data of Bt cotton from one season

in India, the authors project high yields for all GM crops in all

developing countries. They base this rather unorthodox prediction, not on

any peer-reviewed evidence but on " crop protection theory " . This amounts

to speculative and poor science. Crop yields are known to be

multifactorial and have differing dynamics in different countries,

based on a

number of local factors, which have to be studied for a correct

estimation.

 

The paper of Qaim & Zilberman reports unprecedented yield increase,

(upto 87%) which strains credibility. Such spectacular performance has

not

been reported from anywhere else in the world where Bt cotton is

cultivated. Bt cotton does show an advantage in the US and China, but

these

are in the range of 10 to 15 percent increase in yields reportedly

because of better protection against cotton pests found in the region.

 

Bt cotton, the first GM crop to be grown in India was given approval

for commercial cultivation in March 2002, so this is the first GM crop

harvested in the country. The sensational data presented in this paper

are however not based on this harvest, as would be the case in a proper

scientific investigation. The data in this paper are derived only from

selected field trials plots of Mahyco-Monsanto. No data from farmers'

fields or from the All India Coordinated Varietal trials conducted by

ICAR (Indian Council of Agricultural Research) have been included in the

study. What is really disturbing is that this paper extolling the

outstanding performance of Bt cotton is based exclusively on data

supplied

by the company that owns the Bt cotton variety in question; Monsanto.

 

Qaim & Zilberman attribute the 87 % yield increase they report as being

" entirely " due to crop losses avoided by the presence of a single copy

of the Bt gene. Yield in plants is known to be polygenic and there is

no known evidence for a single gene being largely responsible for yield.

Attributing such large effects on yield to just one copy of the Bt

gene, is untenable and unscientific.

 

Actually, to get any real idea about the success or failure of Bt

cotton in the field, one will need to wait and see the results of at

least

another two harvests. The authors of this sloppy paper have done a great

disservice to science by jumping the gun in this fashion and so have

the editors of the journal Science, by letting this paper through. These

sensational data have led to a spate of media reports about the

'superlative' performance of Bt cotton. Such misleading reports can

end up

influencing policy makers in a direction that could be ultimately

detrimental to farmers.

 

Publishing a paper only using the data provided by the industry whose

product is being studied, is clearly unethical. In fact the vested

interest getting its own experimental data reported in this way, is

reminiscent of the old days of the tobacco industry when a spate of

'scientific

publications' published in prestigious medical journals reiterated over

and over again that nicotine was not harmful, that it was not

addictive, that it was not connected to cancer, that there was no

correlation to

cardio-vascular disease…. After a point, leading medical journals took

a decision to stop corporate interests from promoting their wares

through 'scientific papers' in their journals.

 

Science journals publishing in the field of food and agriculture would

do well to follow this example and place strictures on corporates using

a peer reviewed forum for promoting GM crops. Given the aggressive

marketing of GM products by the industry, this would be a timely

precaution. GM crops are high profit items and their control is in the

hands of

big business. These are crops facing great opposition in Europe and now

increasingly in the US. The moratorium on cultivating GM crops in

Europe continues despite the threat of retaliatory action from the US.

Add

to this scenario the potentially large markets that an agricultural

country like India offers. If India accepts and promotes GM technology,

other countries in Asia are likely to accept it too. If GM technology

could be accepted and implemented in the vast agricultural markets of

Asia,

it would neutralize quite a large part of the difficulties the GM

industry faces in other parts of the world and turn in a handsome profit.

Science must not fall victim to these plans and machinations.

 

Interestingly, even as the scientific community is debating this

controversial paper, results of the first commercial crop of Bt cotton

have

come in. The indifferent performance has been reported at length in the

media. The Bt crop in Maharshtra and Andhra Pradesh appears to have

failed. The state government in Andhra has admitted, " Farmers have not

experienced very positive and encouraging results " . Farmers, even the

keen

supporters of GM technology have recorded their dissatisfaction with Bt

cotton.

 

Given the contradiction between the exuberant projections of two

foreign scientists publishing from an American university and the ground

reality of a failed cotton crop in India, one must question the

motivation

of scientists writing up such an unsubstantiated report and a reputed

science journal publishing it. One of course could be genuinely bad

science on the part of the scientists and shoddy editorial work on the

part

of the editorial team of 'Science'. There are however lingering

suspicions of other motivations, something along the pattern of what

happened

with the tobacco industry and medical journals.

 

There is an overall concern about science and scientific research

losing its innocence. Now the talk is about patents, market shares,

corporate dominance and keeping the competition out. It is less about

putting

out the best varieties and about growing food to feed the hungry, rather

more about producing high tech commodities for the market and about

maximizing profit. Scientists and the public need to be alert to these

new

developments in what can be properly called the political economy of

food and agriculture and the scientific research associated with it.

Science journals have been misused before by vested interests to promote

their products in the garb of scientific evidence. The vigilance of the

scientific community is needed to make sure that this does not happen in

the crucial sector of food and agriculture.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-------------------