Dear Charles,
As I said at the inauguration of the Collier chair for the public understanding of science at Bristol this week, the UK presents an interesting spectacle of a nation apparently hysterical about all forms of technology. No other nation is on the rampage against GM foods. And all the hype about risks from mobile phones has been very muted elsewhere.

What is happening? While the UK media milk the GM and mobile phone stories all they can, supported by uninformed public figures there is a lack of reasoned debate. Why? There is no corroborated evidence to suggest a real risk. We have been growing and eating GM foods for millennia, and mobile communication has been with us for over 50 years with much greater power than that of a modern cellular phone

Could it be that witchcraft is taking over from science, and that with it we are witnessing a complete inversion of the value set? The X-Files mentality now seems to be with us in large measure: if you cannot prove there isn?t a problem there must be one!

So why are we worried about the potential impact of the GM flowers and grass in our gardens or the radiation from microwave ovens? Why not panic about them, and everything else, too.

Peter Cochrane
Collier chair for the public
Understanding of sciences,
Bristol University.
Chief Technologist, BT

Anyone would think, reading your letter that BT has something to worry about. Let's not pretend that this is a discussion between those who favour technology and those who don't. I am writing this letter on a computer. I use fax, e-mail and the Internet every day. I like technology.

But we need to be careful. As a technocrat, you dismiss evidence that excessive use of mobile phones can damage the brain as "hype". Speaking as a mobile phone user, that worries me. You claim that Britain is "on the rampage" against GM food. It's true that people are outraged at the government's blind promotion of GM crops. In fact, FoE along with the British Medical Association, the government's own conservation advisors and the great majority of the public believe that the scientific research about health and environmental effects should be completed before we let the stuff into our food chain. Do you really disagree with that?

Technology isn't some pure thing stolen from the gods by Prometheus and given as a gift to man. It is owned by corporations. It is regulated or not by governments. It can be used for good or ill. How it is used is a matter of political choice and value judgements as much as cost-benefit analysis. Such decisions cannot be made by scientists alone, however eminent, or by politicians acting in secret. The people's voice needs to be heard. It's our job to see that it is.

Yours sincerely

Charles Secrett
Executive Director
Friends of the Earth

My input to this debate is from my position at Bristol University and nothing to do with BT.

I am both amused and bemused by those professing to have the public good at heart, while their understanding of science parallels an alchemist trying to turn lead into gold for personal gain. The scientific principles we live by, and are responsible for, have been tried and tested over hundreds of years. And they do not include belief, jumping to conclusions, or acting on insufficient evidence.

This is not about loving or hating technology, or blindly casting something as good or bad, it is about being objective and methodical, and weighing all the evidence before making decisions that could be very expensive. I think you will find our government conferred with the Food and Drug Administration in the US, who are very conservative, have completed extensive studies, and overseen widespread deployment of GM crops for 242 million Americans who are not panicking.

To date there is no evidence that either mobile phones or GM foods pose any health threat. The weight of evidence would suggest quite the reverse: the problem seems to lie with irresponsible and emotive media terms such as "Frankenstein Foods", and pressure groups seeing themselves as judge and jury.

I am writing from the USA, using a mobile phone and eating GM food!

Peter

Thank you for your letter. I am glad you find it so easy to separate your university and commercial interests.

I thought your letter was a bit muddled. There is plenty of scientific evidence to show why we should worry about the environmental effects of GM crops. With your many interests, you may not have had time to keep up with the GM debate. Our web site sets out the evidence. You should read it.

But scientific knowledge isn't the only basis for decision-making. We have to consider the effects that GM food will have on our economy and on food production and consumption. You can't have GM crops and organic farming, you know. Which way do you think we should go?

People are not stupid. They distrust GM foods and official GM policy because FoE and others have repeatedly exposed the scientific and moral flaws in the government?s case, and the many regulatory failures. They want issues sorted out before company pressure turns avoidable risks into irreversible threats. As for America - turn on your telly, and learn about mounting farmer and public opposition to GM crops as they start to realise the threats.

Who do you think should shoulder the burden of proof that any new technology is safe and reliable? We believe it is the governments and companies who want to develop and profit from it - not an unwilling public acting as guinea pigs. We also believe that morality and value judgements are a crucial part of good public decision-making. Do you?

In a democracy, the public are judge and jury. The people can out-vote even big companies like BT. FoE fights for citizens to have their say as active consumers, shareholders and voters. Because we do that well, governments, companies and the public listen. Why don't you?

Yours fraternally,

Charles

In the last two days I have traversed the US from Boston to San Francisco scouring radio, TV and press to find not a jot of interest in GM foods or mobile phones. I have also talked to groups and individuals. On mobile phones the response is "oh we did that scare three years ago" On GM foods: yes the US has over 900 patents on this technology and it means cheaper and better food. By the way, some of the patents are brilliant and offer tremendous benefit whilst others are worrying.

While in Boston I visited your web site and did a quick (unscientific) trawl of many others. They fell into two distinct classes. About 80% were the objectors simply made the case against everything. Much of the information was of doubtful origin and grossly biased and it was impossible to gain any balanced view. Your FoE site was pre-eminent in this class.

About 20% gave a far broader and more useful view with arguments for and against. Try www.fao.org and www.geneinfo.hightide.net.au, for example. Some sites had interesting economic and social impact arguments relating to the implications for the first and third world.

You ask me which way we should go. We should edge forward cautiously by experiment, modelling, and verified results rather than by knee-jerk reaction and one-sided dogma. It is worth remembering that engineers, scientists, farmers, managers and politicians are people with families, and they are not stupid. But people and organisations are fallible, and there is no such thing as a no risk option in anything we do.

In a democracy, companies should be responsible for their products, while government should look after regulation, control and decision making for society. Should the man in the street have a voice other than through the elected government? Definitely. But that voice has to be informed. Otherwise, we go back to the dark ages!

Peter

I'm sorry our web site didn't help you more. Perhaps less jetting around and more time for reflection would make our case easier to absorb. I'm glad we can agree that it is essential to proceed cautiously with new technologies that have the potential to change the world, using good science. I wish, though, that you recognised that there is more to sound decision-making than the scientific method. Don't you see that companies like Monsanto like GM agriculture because GM patents buy further intensification and market control?

You still also seem very muddled about the rules of the GM, or any other similar, debate. Let me spell them out.

We set out our stall through our web site, public meetings, research and campaign work. Our case is based on facts, none of which you even try to refute.

The public listens to what we say and to what you and Monsanto and Tony Blair and BT say. Then they make their minds up. Then they decide what they want to do, and what they want government and industry to do. I know the outcome is often really annoying if you are Monsanto, the Prime Minister or someone from BT. But it's called democracy.

I like it. You don't. Maybe that's because the market for GM foods has collapsed. Consumers, retailers, doctors, farmers, and food manufacturers don?t believe the Government acts in the public interest. They see biotechnology companies as a cartel of selfish interests driven to make profits by doing whatever they can get away with.

May the best set of arguments win.

All the best,

Charles Secrett

The Guardian
Saturday review
Saturday, June 12 1999