Discussions about genetic engineering with the general public inevitably lead a to concern that scientists cannot necessarily be trusted. It seems that to successfully make decisions on how to use GE for the betterment of humankind and the environment, the public will need to understand the scientific process and learn to distinguish high-quality scientific research that has stood the test of time and can largely be relied on from simple assertions or unsubstantiated rumors.

Jim Holt, a writer for the New York Times Magazine, cites a survey indicating that less than 10% of adult Americans possess basic scientific literacy. For nonscientists, it may be the sheer difficulty of science, its remoteness from their daily activities, “that make it seem alien and dangerous” (Holt 2005). Yet, the societal values that science promotes—free inquiry, free thought, free speech, transparency, tolerance, and the willingness to arbitrate disputes on the basis of evidence—are exactly the qualities needed when debating the future use of GE in generating new plant varieties. In the words of Ismail Serageldin, Director of the Library of Alexandria and past Vice President for Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development of the World
Bank, an understanding of the scientifi c process is important “not just to promote the pursuit of science, but to yield a more tolerant society that adapts to change and embraces the new” (Serageldin 2002).

Misrepresentation of science for ideological or political purposes simply muddies the debate, and sadly, with respect to the GE foods, this often occurs. For example, to suggest that genetic engineering is dangerous, proponents of the California initiatives to ban the process often cite a book called Seeds of Deception (Smith 2004), written by a former Iowa political candidate f or the Natural L aw Party with no scientific training. This book is the likely source for information on another Sonoma county flyer suggesting that “Lab animals fed GE food develop stomach lesions,” in reference to a fundamentally fl awed experiment carried out in 1999 that was never confirmed (Ewen and Pusztai 1999). To lend credence to those irreproducible results, Smith cites the experiment of a seventeen-year-old student who fed mice genetically engineered potatoes. According to the referenced Web site, “ . . . [the mice] fed GM ate more, probably because they were slightly heavier on average to begin with, but they gained less weight.” In addition, “ . . . marked behavioral diff erences” were observed though the boy admitted, “these were ‘subjective’ and not quantitative.” Smith argues that this experiment demonstrates that GE food may have negative eff ects on the “human psyche” and concludes that the boy “has put the scientists to shame.” The implication is that the public can trust this experiment carried out by a student, unhampered by scientific training but not those of the scientific community who pointed out the flaws in the original experiment. Smith ignores the fact that this experiment conducted by a teenager was not subjected to the rigorous methods that are inherent to the scientific process.

So how can the public distinguish rumors from high quality science, determine what an established scientific “ f act” i , and what is still unknown? Here are some useful criteria:

1. Examine the primary source of information. Is there a reference to the source of information? If not, it cannot be verified. If so, is the source reputable? In the case of the boy and the mice, I found that the reference given for the boy’s work was to another Web site, and that that web site referred to even another Web site (Ho 2002). It turned out that the only documentation of this “experiment” was a chance meeting with the boy’s mother, who was the source of the “scientific information.” “Mum Guusje is very proud of her son. . . .” Why would someone would cite a conversation with a boy’s mother as a good scientific reference? Either the authors of the book and the Web site lack a basic understanding of science and cannot assess the accuracy of the work, or they
simply do not care, or both. But they should care; for this kind of deception only confuses and frightens people. And laws are being passed based on this kind of information.

2. Ask if the work was published in a peer-reviewed journal. Peer review is the standard process for scientific publications. Peer-reviewed manuscripts have been read by several scholars in the same field (called peers), and these peers have indicated that the experiments and conclusions meets the standards of their discipline and are suitable for publication. In the absence of peer-review the significance and quality of the data cannot be assessed. With no peer-reviewed, published record of the boy’s subjective experiment, it is doubtful that normal standard scientific methods were applied.

3. Check if the journal has a good reputation for scientific research. If a peer-reviewed paper is cited, where was it published? Is the journal widely respected? One tool that is commonly used for ranking, evaluating, categorizing, and comparing journals is the frequency with which the “average article” in a journal has been cited in a particular year or period. The frequency of citation reflects acknowledgment of importance by the scientific community. High-impact and widely respected journals include Science and Nature. Therefore, a citation in Science generally suggests scholarly acceptance, whereas publication in a nonscientific or little-known journal does not.

4. Determine if there is an independent confirmation by another published study. Even if a study is peer-reviewed and published in a reputable journal, independent assessment is critical to confirm or extend the findings. Even the best journals or scientists will occasionally make mistakes and publish papers that are later retracted. Sometimes there may be outright fabrication that is overlooked by the reviewers and not detected until later (Kennedy 2006). In other cases, the scientific report may be accurate but its significance may be misrepresented by the media. A good example is that of genetically engineered corn and the monarch butterfly controversy that erupted in 1999. A Cornell entomologist, John Losey, published a short paper in the scientific journal Nature reporting that monarch butterfly larvae died after eating milkweed plants dusted with pollen from GE corn (Losey et al. 1999). The paper generated intense national and international news coverage transforming the monarch butterfly overnight into a dramatic symbol of what some consumers saw as the dangers of agricultural biotechnology. Subsequent scientific studies, including field trials, showed that the exposure of monarchs to GE corn is fairly small and that the threat to monarchs pales in comparison to risks presented by conventional pesticides (Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology 2002). Such misrepresentations or errors are usually discovered by other researchers because most reports, especially if it is exciting news such as a suggestion that genetic engineering kills monarch butterflies or makes mice sick, will be rapidly retested by other scientists. If the data are challenged, the first author then has the opportunity to write another paper refuting the challenge.

Although it is a slow process to establish a scientific “truth,” a particular scientific conclusion will eventually either gain broad acceptance or be discarded.

5. Assess if a potential conflict of interest exists. Most people would agree that a mother usually believes the best about her son, and that pesky details such as lack of scientific training may not bother her. Therefore, a mother’s recommendation represents a clear conflict of interest in such a case. Studies tainted by such undisclosed conflicts of interests are a major concern in the debate about genetic engineering. If governmental regulators were to rely solely on data supplied by parties whose primary concern is not the public good but private interest, then the public would have reason to question the integrity of the research. Similarly, if a person with a strong stance on the use of GE in agriculture is an employee of a for-profit biotechnology or organic industry, such employment should be disclosed because a conflict of interest may exist. . Transparency is a wonderful disinfectant when honesty is needed. (Full disclosure: neither Raoul nor I presently have financial relationships with for-profit food biotechnology or organic industries; nor have we for the last 10 years).

6. Assess the quality of institution or panel. Does the report emanate from a University accredited by the U.S. Department of Education or equivalent society? Such information is generally more reliable than that issued from a single individual putting information out on the web. In the United States, government research arms such as the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Health and professional scientific societies generally provide up-to-date, high-quality information. For example, the American Society of Plant Biologists is a nonprofit professional society devoted to the advancement of the plant sciences. It publishes two world-class journals and organizes conferences and other activities that are key to the advancement of the science. K e National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is “an honorific society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientifi c and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare.” (NAS 2006). Election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a U.S. scientist or engineer. These types of nonprofit organizations provide a public service by working outside the framework of government to ensure independent advice on matters of science, technology, and medicine.

7. Examine the reputation of the author. Do the author(s) have training in science?
If so, have they had formal training leading to an advanced degree such as a Master’s degree or doctorate, and have they published widely in reputable journals? If not, then are they working with a reputable scientist(s) to evaluate the data? In the case of the boy and the mice, a university affiliation is hinted at, but it seems that the “experiment” was carried out at home and reviewed primarily by his mother.

You, the consumer, are now ready to delve into issues surrounding genetic engineering.
Applying these tips about the scientific process, you can now more easily assess the accuracy of media reports. Checking scientific sources can be time consuming, but it is worth the effort because such sources will get you closer to accurate facts about GE than rumor or unconfirmed reports.

Ewen, S.W.B., and A. Pusztai. 1999. Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine. The Lancet 354:1353–1354.
Holt, Jim. 2005. The Way We Live Now: “Madness A bout a Method.” New York Times
Magazine, December 11. www.nytimes.com (accessed March 29, 2006).
Ho, Mae-Wan (ed.). 2002. Mice Prefer Non GM. Institute of Science in Society: Science
Society Sustainability. ISIS 13/14 (February). w ww.isis.org.uk/Mice Prefe rNonGM.php?
(accessed March 31, 2006).
Kennedy, Donald (ed.). 2006. Retraction of Hwang et al., Science 308:5279.
Re traction of Hwang et al., Science 303:1669. Editorial Re traction. Science
(Letters) 301:335.
Losey, JE, LS Rayor, ME Carter. 1999.Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae. Nature 399:214.
NAS (National Research Council and Institute of Medicine of the National Academies).
2006. Washington D.C.: < e National Academy Press. www.nasonline.org/site/
PageServer?pagename=ABOUT_main_page (accessed May 2, 2006).
Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology. 2002. “Three Years Later: Genetically
Engineered Corn and Monarch Butterfl y Controversy.” University of Richmond, < e PEW
Charitable Trusts. pewagbiotech.org/resources/issuebriefs/ monarch.pdf (accessed May 8,
2006).
Serageldin, Ismail. 2002. The rice genome: world poverty and hunger—the challenge for science.
Science 296(5565, April 5): 54-58.
Smith, Jeffery M. 2004. Seeds of Deception. Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You Are Eating. Portland: Chelsea Green Ltd.