Editorial

Towards a "pseudoscientfic world order"?

Dependence on the industry

In the last few decades changes have occurred that are precipitating a serious crisis for science. A major reason for this crisis is that research has become increasingly expensive and consequently it has become more and more difficult for the state to finance it. As a result research, even in the universities, is increasingly being funded by industry .

Warnings from scientists that this may corrupt science have essentially been ignored.

An example of flawed science : Global acceptance of a useless principle for food safety assessment

A drastic example of how seriously flawed scientists may become is illustrated by the decision to accept the principle of "Substantial Equivalence" for the assessment of the safety of Genetically Engineered foods. In brief, the principle means that if a genetically engineered food appears to be similar to its natural counterpart it can be assumed to be as safe as the natural variety.

The concept of "Substantial equivalence" was invented by lawyers working for the Biotech industry with the openly declared purpose of facilitating rapid approval of GE foods in the US. It has no tenable scientific basis, as explained in the document "Inadequate safety assessment of GE foods". In spite of its obvious lack of scientific backing it was officially supported by scientific expert committees for food safety appointed by the United Nation organ FAO, as well as by the European Union (EU) and the United States. Governments consequently adopted it and integrated it into their laws for regulating GE foods.

"Substantially equivalent" foods were allowed by law to be put onto the market without any thorough testing of their safety, although it has been established in the laboratory that GE may induce the appearance of unexpected and potentially harmful substances (see "The safety of GE foods").

Opposition suppressed

Scientists who openly questioned this practice have been ridiculed or seriously harassed, the most famous example being the case of Arpad Pusztai, a leading world food safety expert who was suspended and later fired in a humiliating and dishonest way (as it was revealed later) when he publicly said he would not eat GE foods because of the insufficient testing (see " World renowned scientist lost his job when he warned about GE foods"). At a recent conference on GE food safety he was attacked during sessions and was denied almost any opportunity to respond, see Report from the OECD/Edinburgh Conference.

Many scientists who are critical to the use of genetic engineering on foods have not dared to express their opinion, fearing that it may threaten their job, their career opportunities, their possibilities of obtaining research grants or their possibilities of getting their research published. They know that the same experts who sit in the governmental expert committees may sit in the committees of research funds and international journals. And these experts may have a decisive influence on their career possibilities.

So, in practice, because of the hierarchal power-concentration which has developed in the internationalised scientific society, a few top people are in a position to effectively influence the behavior of large numbers of scientists in important issues. Ensuring the cooperation of such influential "opinionmakers" and powerholders is, according to bussiness experts, part of normal long term "marketing strategy". Means that have been used for achieving "constructive cooperation" are for example research grants, consultancy fees and support of patent development (several molecular biologists have become millionaires from patents).

Transformation into a totalitarian "pseudo scientific" world order?

What we are witnessing in the present rush to legitimise food biotechnology is reminiscent of decision processes in a totalitarian state where those in power decide what is the "official truth" and suppress the opposition.

That this situation has arisen is a result of the enormous financial strength and political influence of TNC: s. There are reasons to believe that these companies misuse their power to force governments to act in accord with their desires, a/o by using the compelling argument that they may otherwise move the job opportunities they provide to other countries. In the numerous countries where corruption is a tradition, it is easy to buy key politicians or even whole governments. During recent years corruption by multinationals has been increasing greatly according to a recent report (see footnote 1) . The rules of WTO also favor the interests of TNC:s, see for example Corporate Rights vs. Human Need . For an explanation of the mechanics of the behavior of multinationals, see Corporate behavior.

This threatens to lead to a situation where the application of new technologies tends not to be dictated by responsible considerations about their safety and usefulness for mankind. Instead the needs and interests of the TNC:s would dictate what products should be launched. This is especially serious as the world ecological situation is so unstable and disturbed that most environmental experts agree that greatest precaution has to be applied at the release of any new product that may further contribute to deterioration, see The Precautionary approach to the safety of new products and Scientists Say Future is in the Balance

The successful launch of genetically engineered foods with the aid of a useless safety assessment principle endorsed by leading scientists in national and international expert committees is a very serious warning signal. It indicates that we may already be well on the way towards a "new pseudo-scientific world order" where the short term interests of powerful industrial corporations override global long term ecological and health safety considerations. - Scientists in this scenario are degraded to voluntary or involuntary hostages exploited to provide pseudo-scientific legitimacy for the industry’s release of products regardless of long term safety.

Listen to facts instead of experts

The tradition of governements to let scientific experts decide what is proper and true has contributed importantly to the situation in the GE food case. Here, the opinons of experts about substantial equivalence were uncritically accepted by governments and international organizations like FAO without any requirements for scientific rigor.

Obviously this practice has to be abandoned. Completely new routines need to be developed that ensure impartial and full interdisciplinary evaluation of the safety of new products and technologies.

Basically, it is necessary to establish routines that ensure thorough and impartial evaluation of facts. To achieve this, completely transparent, public and open investigations should be held, see "A suggested procedure for ensuring impartial and reliable safety assessment of commercial applications of science". No room should be left to the personal and not always reliable opinion of experts to influence the evaluation or subsequent governmental decisions. To ensure impartiality and freedom from industrial and governmental influences, the evaluations should be made by independent non-governmental scientist organziations.

It was because of this insight that our organization PSRAST was created (see About us ). Its purpose is to be an independent interdisciplinary body of scientists for critical and impartial assessment of new technologies.

It is ironic that extremely rich companies threatening the ecology of the world and endangering the health of mankind, are supported by governments and have unlimited access to media and effective lobbyists, while the independent defenders of the safety of the world often are poor, without any governmental support and with little media access, therefore having difficulties to make their message heard properly. There is a great need for a thorough reorientation of governmental policies in this respect.

Conclusion