>Written answers to Parliamentary Questions
>House of Commons
>Hansard
>Thurs 30 Oct 03
>
>http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/cm031030/text/31030w
>18.htm#31030w18.html_sbhd4
>
>GM Crops
>
>Alan Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural
>Affairs pursuant to her answer of 23 October 2003, if she will list the
>scientific studies published on
>(a) horizontal gene transfer,
>(b) the effect of growth promoters on gene suppression and gene hot
>spotting and
>(c)allergenicity;
>and where these studies have been peer reviewed. [135074]
People of the Book should ask whether he said 'whether these
studies ...' and has been misreported by Hansard; but since the q was
pre-stated in writing (if the House of Commons is like the NZ Parlt in this
method), we may take it he did actually say 'where these studies have been
peer reviewed'.
Amidst swelling controversy, science has maintained for many
decades the principle of *anon* peer reviewing before pubn of papers in
good journals. This is not the place to traverse the pros & cons of this
system. The point is that papers pubd in the most respectable jnls have
been refereed by leading scientists - for some jnls, often selected from
a list submitted by the authors. The idea is that you know your MS has
been reviewed by an expert who is best placed to be candid. Comments come
to the authors on plain paper. The editor will not normally disclose the
identities of any referees. It is improper for Simpson MP to ask, and it
would be more improper if the Minister attempted to use state power to
inquire.
Let us note in passing that exceptions can occur - e.g the unique
immoral flurry around the Pusztai/Ewen _Lancet_ paper - but generally
referees undertake to give frank comments on the assurance they will remain
anon, and v strong special reasons would be needed to overrule this
retroactively in a particular case.
I see no reason why this convention should be breached regarding
the papers in question.
If Simpson meant 'at which institutions these studies have been
peer reviewed', I would dismiss such a concept - a peer is a person, not
the Rowett Inst or Arthur D Little or Science Applications Inc, or J Arthur
Anderson, nor a university dept whether or not dominated by gene-jockeys.
Heisenberg headed an 'institute', founded on the incentive of Himmler,
dedicated to the proposition that the stars are made of ice. But if he'd
been sent a confidential MS from Z. Phyzik asking his anon opinion of this
proposition, he'd have been better placed to tell the truth. If however
his 'institute' were sent an official inquiry it would probably issue a
rubber-stamped document congenial to the Nazi regime. On the whole, I
support the main refereeing system, and would want to resist political
interference in it.
>
>Mr. Morley: The GM Science Review (at
>http://www.gmsciencedebate.org.uk/report/default.htm) published in July 2003
according to my browser, twice: no such DNS
>reports the current state of knowledge on horizontal gene transfer,
>allergenicity and the potential for generating recombination hot spots, and
>lists relevant publications and scientific studies.
Since I can't access this, perhaps Unca Joe could give us some
account of this bold claim to "report the current state of knowledge".
>The Science Review does
>not cover in depth the effect of growth promoters on gene suppression as
>this issue is not relevant to the GM crops currently under consideration for
>approval.
Any comment from other scientists please?
>We do not maintain a list of such publications.
This is such a bombshell its significance should be carefully examined.
If he means "don't bother us again with any q's asking for specific
refs", I have some sympathy in that written q's should handle that type of
inquiry.
To use oral q's (known to have a market value of £10^3) just to
imply some contentions by Ho, may prove a useful stunt. But it should be
reinforced by more straightforward efforts. The RS will wish to recover
its fallen fortunes, and might soon convene a suitable private gathering of
scientists who grasp some large part of "the current state of knowledge" on
the themes sounded in Mr Simpson's q.
Meanwhile, of course that Minister's dept does maintain a list -
however incomplete or ill-judged - some version of "the current state of
knowledge" as a basis for advising the Minister on GM regulatory options.
R
|