Eric McArthur
13-05-2010, 09:51 PM
>
> http://www.e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2273
>
>
>
> In February 2009, frustrated by industry restrictions on independent research into genetically modified crops, two dozen scientists representing public research institutions in 17 corn-producing states told the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that the companies producing genetically modifiinhibit public scientists from pursuing their mandated role on behalf of the public good" and warned that industry influence had made independent analyses of transgenic crops impossible.
>
> Unprepared for the scientists' public protest and the press accounts that followed it, the industry, through its American Seed Trade Association (ASTA), met with crop scientists. Late last year, ASTA agreed that, while still restricting research on engineered plant genes, it would allow researchers greater freedom to study the effects of GM food crops on soil, pests, and pesticide use, and to compare their yields and analyze their effects on the environment.
>
>
> Since the first GM crops were planted some 15 years ago, the companies that developed them have claimed broad control over their use. Farmers don't simply buy a bag of GM seed from Monsanto, Syngenta, or DuPont.
>
> Instead, they enter into a "Technology/Stewardship Agreement" with the company that developed it, the fine print of which lays out, among other things, the terms under which the seed can be used, where it can be grown, where it can be sold (many international governments do not allow the sale of GM crops or products made with them), and the brand of herbicides that can be used. This "bag-tag," as it's known, also specifically restricts any use of the seed for research.
>
> > "We used to be able to go into any farm store and buy seeds, test them in the field, and publish our results," said one researcher. With the advent of GM crops, however, even scientists working in public land grant institutions, whose extension services have long provided farmers with independent analyses, found their research ultimately subject to seed company approval.
>
> If a scientist wanted to compare brands of seeds, for instance, or their environmental impact, he or she had to seek permission from each seed company or gene patent holder. Open access to the study’s data and the right to publish that data had to be secured, while, for their part, the companies sought to protect their patents and intellectual property rights. Even if the companies did not object, contract negotiations, made on a case-by-case basis, could be extended and onerous. Making things worse was that with fewer public monies available for farm research, scientists, and their universities, found themselves increasingly dependent on the seed companies for funding.
>
> The companies were not loath to press their advantage.
>
> "I have talked to dozens of scientists who have gone through incredible machinations to do their research," says Charles Benbrook, the chief executive director of the National Academy of Sciences Board on Agriculture. And when their data presents a challenge to the companies, he says, these scientists "have found themselves under personal and professional threats." Among research that has faced industry disapproval, says Benbrook, are studies on evolving weed resistance, on plant pathogens, and on susceptibility of non-pest insects to the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt)-derived toxins that protect the GM plants against insect pests.
>
> "Scientists are clearly intimidated," says Doug Gurian-Sherman, senior scientist for the Union of Concerned Scientists' Food and Environment Program.
>>
> In a paper co-authored (non anonymously) by nine of the 24 researchers and published last month in GM Crops, the scientists elaborated upon their grievances. Research restrictions, they wrote, preclude public scientists "from meeting their obligations to the American crop producer and ultimately the consumer." The system, as it now stands, "sets up an uneven relationship where industry partners may unduly influence the way research is designed and disseminated." Even once an agreement has been successfully negotiated, they wrote, there's no guarantee the company won't withdraw its participation if the results appear to be unfavorable to its product.
>
> Their statement, they wrote, was "meant as a warning that the assumption of independence is not longer valid under current company-imposed restrictions on public sector research."
>
> "We were just looking to pursue the questions that need to be answered," says Elson Shields of Cornell University's Department of Entomology, one of the formerly anonymous twenty-four.
>
> For 10 years, Shields says, he and his fellow scientists worked around the companies' restrictions. But they felt that too many scientific issues were not being addressed. In particular, scientists could not be certain that multi-year studies would be renewed or that they'd be allowed to follow up on unexpected findings "which reflects the very essence of scientific inquiry." Such uncertainties, says Shields, meant that many experiments were never initiated.
>
>
>
> When they submitted their letter to the companies, Shields says, "We didn't plan or anticipate the strength of the response." The industry, too, seemed to be caught unprepared.
>
> "I think each company was hearing a little bit from relationships they had from individual universities and researchers," says Andrew LaVigne, president and CEO of the American Seed Trade Association (ASTA), the industry's trade organization. "But we were a little surprised."
>
>
> At a meeting in December 2009, the companies said that while they would not agree to remove the bag-tag restrictions on research "for reasons of
> competitiveness in the marketplace," they would agree to enter into blanket research agreements called Academic Research Licenses (ARLs) with public institutions. These ARLs would make it unnecessary for scientists to apply to do research on a case-by-case basis. The language in these agreements - approved by the companies, ASTA, and the Biotechnology Industry Organization — would supersede that of the bag-tag.
>
>
>
> In a statement on the scientists' concerns, Monsanto said that it had for years had ARLs in place with universities and that although it believed the company's relationships with researchers had been "overwhelmingly positive," it realized "we can do more to communicate... the freedom they have to conduct wide-ranging research" on their GM crops. Monsanto said its intention was to "assure that the public sector research community is free to design robust, scientifically sound experimental protocols... derive independent conclusions," and "is free to publish findings... with reasonable notice to companies."
>
> What is not included in the agreement with ASTA and the companies, are studies related to the patent-protected genetics of the plant itself, such as breeding, reverse gene engineering, and modifications to the genetic traits.
>
> Universities must still negotiate terms of the ARLs with each company. Each company remains free to decide how fully it will adopt the principles. A single "non-player," the scientists wrote last month, could still prevent comparative studies or restrict entire categories of research. A divide already exists between those companies that will allow scientists to develop insect-resistant colonies for research purposes and those that will not.
>
> "The agreement is broad and vague," says Gurian-Sherman. "It's voluntary, and there's no meaningful enforcement. I'm concerned that industry will allow scientists it favors to have seeds - which in itself will be some improvement - but that scientists industry is wary of will still have problems getting those seeds."
>
> The result, he said, may be the illusion that research is now open to all, while creating a divide among scientists and the dilution of science on transgenic crops.
>
> For instance, he points out that conducting experiments that test the yields provided by GM crops against yields using the original non-GM variety, or against crops grown using sustainable farming methods, will remain difficult. In a report for the Union of Concerned Scientists, Gurian-Sherman recently questioned the validity of industry claims that increased crop yields are the result of increased planting of GM crops. Improvements made by conventional breeding, he says, have had more effect on yield than any engineered genes.
>
> "That a company with an interest in the outcome of a study should make itself arbiter of what's good science and what's not good science, I find offensive as a matter of principle," says Gurian-Sherman. "The scientific process is much more subtle than that."
>
> Benbrook, too, remains unconvinced that the agreement will alter the research landscape.
>
> "If you don't expect to still face vigorous challenges to the quality of your science," he says, "you're just naive."
>
> Bill Freese, science policy analyst for the Center for Food Safety, said the ASTA agreement, even if implemented, affects only already commercialized crops. It's vital, he says, to perform studies on GM seeds before they receive federal approval, because once a crop is approved it's almost impossible to get it pulled from the market.
>
> Despite these concerns, Cornell's Shields is willing to see what happens as, over the next months, agreements are brokered between companies and universities.
>
> "If the companies relinquish their gatekeeper role, if they don't decide to pick and choose who they want to negotiate with, if I publish a paper they don't like and I don't become a 'bad scientist,'" then, he says, he'll be optimistic.
>
> As for his named and unnamed cohorts?
>
> "We're scientists," he says. "We like to be left alone. Right now it's spring and we're just thinking of getting out into the fields."
>
>
>
>
> http://www.e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2273
>
>
>
> In February 2009, frustrated by industry restrictions on independent research into genetically modified crops, two dozen scientists representing public research institutions in 17 corn-producing states told the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that the companies producing genetically modifiinhibit public scientists from pursuing their mandated role on behalf of the public good" and warned that industry influence had made independent analyses of transgenic crops impossible.
>
> Unprepared for the scientists' public protest and the press accounts that followed it, the industry, through its American Seed Trade Association (ASTA), met with crop scientists. Late last year, ASTA agreed that, while still restricting research on engineered plant genes, it would allow researchers greater freedom to study the effects of GM food crops on soil, pests, and pesticide use, and to compare their yields and analyze their effects on the environment.
>
>
> Since the first GM crops were planted some 15 years ago, the companies that developed them have claimed broad control over their use. Farmers don't simply buy a bag of GM seed from Monsanto, Syngenta, or DuPont.
>
> Instead, they enter into a "Technology/Stewardship Agreement" with the company that developed it, the fine print of which lays out, among other things, the terms under which the seed can be used, where it can be grown, where it can be sold (many international governments do not allow the sale of GM crops or products made with them), and the brand of herbicides that can be used. This "bag-tag," as it's known, also specifically restricts any use of the seed for research.
>
> > "We used to be able to go into any farm store and buy seeds, test them in the field, and publish our results," said one researcher. With the advent of GM crops, however, even scientists working in public land grant institutions, whose extension services have long provided farmers with independent analyses, found their research ultimately subject to seed company approval.
>
> If a scientist wanted to compare brands of seeds, for instance, or their environmental impact, he or she had to seek permission from each seed company or gene patent holder. Open access to the study’s data and the right to publish that data had to be secured, while, for their part, the companies sought to protect their patents and intellectual property rights. Even if the companies did not object, contract negotiations, made on a case-by-case basis, could be extended and onerous. Making things worse was that with fewer public monies available for farm research, scientists, and their universities, found themselves increasingly dependent on the seed companies for funding.
>
> The companies were not loath to press their advantage.
>
> "I have talked to dozens of scientists who have gone through incredible machinations to do their research," says Charles Benbrook, the chief executive director of the National Academy of Sciences Board on Agriculture. And when their data presents a challenge to the companies, he says, these scientists "have found themselves under personal and professional threats." Among research that has faced industry disapproval, says Benbrook, are studies on evolving weed resistance, on plant pathogens, and on susceptibility of non-pest insects to the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt)-derived toxins that protect the GM plants against insect pests.
>
> "Scientists are clearly intimidated," says Doug Gurian-Sherman, senior scientist for the Union of Concerned Scientists' Food and Environment Program.
>>
> In a paper co-authored (non anonymously) by nine of the 24 researchers and published last month in GM Crops, the scientists elaborated upon their grievances. Research restrictions, they wrote, preclude public scientists "from meeting their obligations to the American crop producer and ultimately the consumer." The system, as it now stands, "sets up an uneven relationship where industry partners may unduly influence the way research is designed and disseminated." Even once an agreement has been successfully negotiated, they wrote, there's no guarantee the company won't withdraw its participation if the results appear to be unfavorable to its product.
>
> Their statement, they wrote, was "meant as a warning that the assumption of independence is not longer valid under current company-imposed restrictions on public sector research."
>
> "We were just looking to pursue the questions that need to be answered," says Elson Shields of Cornell University's Department of Entomology, one of the formerly anonymous twenty-four.
>
> For 10 years, Shields says, he and his fellow scientists worked around the companies' restrictions. But they felt that too many scientific issues were not being addressed. In particular, scientists could not be certain that multi-year studies would be renewed or that they'd be allowed to follow up on unexpected findings "which reflects the very essence of scientific inquiry." Such uncertainties, says Shields, meant that many experiments were never initiated.
>
>
>
> When they submitted their letter to the companies, Shields says, "We didn't plan or anticipate the strength of the response." The industry, too, seemed to be caught unprepared.
>
> "I think each company was hearing a little bit from relationships they had from individual universities and researchers," says Andrew LaVigne, president and CEO of the American Seed Trade Association (ASTA), the industry's trade organization. "But we were a little surprised."
>
>
> At a meeting in December 2009, the companies said that while they would not agree to remove the bag-tag restrictions on research "for reasons of
> competitiveness in the marketplace," they would agree to enter into blanket research agreements called Academic Research Licenses (ARLs) with public institutions. These ARLs would make it unnecessary for scientists to apply to do research on a case-by-case basis. The language in these agreements - approved by the companies, ASTA, and the Biotechnology Industry Organization — would supersede that of the bag-tag.
>
>
>
> In a statement on the scientists' concerns, Monsanto said that it had for years had ARLs in place with universities and that although it believed the company's relationships with researchers had been "overwhelmingly positive," it realized "we can do more to communicate... the freedom they have to conduct wide-ranging research" on their GM crops. Monsanto said its intention was to "assure that the public sector research community is free to design robust, scientifically sound experimental protocols... derive independent conclusions," and "is free to publish findings... with reasonable notice to companies."
>
> What is not included in the agreement with ASTA and the companies, are studies related to the patent-protected genetics of the plant itself, such as breeding, reverse gene engineering, and modifications to the genetic traits.
>
> Universities must still negotiate terms of the ARLs with each company. Each company remains free to decide how fully it will adopt the principles. A single "non-player," the scientists wrote last month, could still prevent comparative studies or restrict entire categories of research. A divide already exists between those companies that will allow scientists to develop insect-resistant colonies for research purposes and those that will not.
>
> "The agreement is broad and vague," says Gurian-Sherman. "It's voluntary, and there's no meaningful enforcement. I'm concerned that industry will allow scientists it favors to have seeds - which in itself will be some improvement - but that scientists industry is wary of will still have problems getting those seeds."
>
> The result, he said, may be the illusion that research is now open to all, while creating a divide among scientists and the dilution of science on transgenic crops.
>
> For instance, he points out that conducting experiments that test the yields provided by GM crops against yields using the original non-GM variety, or against crops grown using sustainable farming methods, will remain difficult. In a report for the Union of Concerned Scientists, Gurian-Sherman recently questioned the validity of industry claims that increased crop yields are the result of increased planting of GM crops. Improvements made by conventional breeding, he says, have had more effect on yield than any engineered genes.
>
> "That a company with an interest in the outcome of a study should make itself arbiter of what's good science and what's not good science, I find offensive as a matter of principle," says Gurian-Sherman. "The scientific process is much more subtle than that."
>
> Benbrook, too, remains unconvinced that the agreement will alter the research landscape.
>
> "If you don't expect to still face vigorous challenges to the quality of your science," he says, "you're just naive."
>
> Bill Freese, science policy analyst for the Center for Food Safety, said the ASTA agreement, even if implemented, affects only already commercialized crops. It's vital, he says, to perform studies on GM seeds before they receive federal approval, because once a crop is approved it's almost impossible to get it pulled from the market.
>
> Despite these concerns, Cornell's Shields is willing to see what happens as, over the next months, agreements are brokered between companies and universities.
>
> "If the companies relinquish their gatekeeper role, if they don't decide to pick and choose who they want to negotiate with, if I publish a paper they don't like and I don't become a 'bad scientist,'" then, he says, he'll be optimistic.
>
> As for his named and unnamed cohorts?
>
> "We're scientists," he says. "We like to be left alone. Right now it's spring and we're just thinking of getting out into the fields."
>
>
>
>