This week, a well-respected academic has come in for criticism for writing an article at the behest of a large multinational company (Harvard professor failed to disclose connection). The main problem was that the company was Monsanto, regularly vilified by activists for what they consider to be a range of sins, including farmer exploitation and attempted dominance of the agricultural supply chain. The academic was Calestous Juma, director of the Science, Technology and Globalization Project and Professor of the Practice of International Development at Harvard.
Unsurprisingly, though disappointingly, this publication has unleashed a flurry of critical comments from NGOs and commentators, the main thrust of which is to encourage people not to believe anything from even the most prestigious scientist if they are in any way tainted by association with the company. As for the article itself, it appeared on the Genetic Literacy Project website (tagline: Science trumps Ideology) under the title Global Risks of Rejecting Agricultural Biotechnology in December last year.
Professor Juma has made no secret of his support for the use of genetic modification in the developing world. In May last year, he had a similarly pro-GM piece published in the Guardian – Feeding Africa: why biotechnology sceptics are wrong to dismiss GM – welcomed by Monsanto (Monsanto Europe-Africa blog). However, critics point to links between industry and researchers which, in their view, undermine the credibility of their arguments.
There is always a supposition that he who pays the piper, calls the tune. In this case, however, there is no suggestion of payment, merely that the company in effect commissioned a series of free articles which supported their point of view and then promoted them. In a world of blacks and whites, that is quite enough for anti-GM activists to damn the messenger.
Independence and credibility are important issues, and cannot be ignored. But criticism purely on the basis of contacts and sympathies misses the point; what is really important is the qualification and competence of the writer. And why should money changing hands automatically reduce credibility? We all have to earn a living, and the great majority of us apply our professional skills as objectively as possible, not simply to confirm an employer’s or client’s preconceptions. In the long run, no-one gains from an inaccurate analysis of the facts (arguably other than politicians and lawyers).
Everyone has an opinion on a given issue, and that is largely shaped by each individual's broader world-view. In principle, the sifting of evidence by scientists should mean that objective judgements can be made and shared by all. However, as we know, scientific disputes can be as fierce as in any walk of life. Thomas Kuhn’s view of one established scientific paradigm only being replaced by another after a period of turmoil, crisis and then revolution seems more realistic than the purist view of Karl Popper that a theory could be disproved by a single (repeatable) contradictory piece of evidence.
While some researchers may indeed find a theory disproved to their satisfaction by a single experiment, overturning the existing paradigm is never as easy as that, especially when so many scientists have built their careers on creating and reinforcing it. So, far from the idealised world of polite scientific discourse, heels are dug in, wagons are circled and each side takes every opportunity to rubbish the arguments of the opposition.
To an extent, this may be defensible, because evidence is seldom so black and white that only one possible interpretation is possible. There are also a host of perfectly reasonable "yes, buts" because most observations take account of a single aspect of a problem. It's not surprising, then, that radical changes in scientific thought can take many years to be accepted.
And if professional scientists behave like this, the arguments are of course magnified many-fold when activists get involved. Researchers want to have their own point of view accepted, often in a fairly narrow field of science, but campaigners usually have a broader agenda. To them, the end justifies the means, and any arguments are valid in their fight to achieve their goal.
For the anti-GM movement, the motivation may be anything from a real distrust of the science itself to an anti-capitalist stance which objects to multinational dominance of crop biotechnology. Since there is a pretty broad scientific consensus on the potential benefits of genetic modification (if not necessarily for all its current applications) scientific evidence does not often underpin the criticism. In many cases, the tactic is instead to question the credibility of the messenger rather than argue with what he is saying.
The problem is that, in the strict sense, no-one is truly independent. We all have our views and organisations who want supportive messages amplified will naturally approach scientists with known sympathetic views rather than those who are critical. The fact that a study has been suggested by a company is immaterial as long as the individual conducting it would have put forward the same views independently. What would clearly be wrong is for a scientist to take money to promote views he or she does not in fact subscribe to.
But we are where we are. People will continue to try to undermine the credibility of people they disagree with. This is a pity, but it's human nature. What it means is that we should read any story with a sceptical eye, trying to make our own judgement on the facts rather than taking someone else's word for it. If we find someone we consider consistently twists the truth, we can decide for ourselves that they lack credibility. The Royal Society motto sums this up nicely: nullius in verba (take nobody's word for it).
Martin Livermore
The Scientific Alliance
St John’s Innovation Centre
Cowley Road
Cambridge CB4 0WS
______________________________________________________