If you can鈥檛 change the science, change the scientists. This is what nine groups opposed to genetically modified organisms want to do according to their to the incoming President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, urging him to scrap the role of his chief scientific adviser (CSA).
The groups 鈥� including Greenpeace 鈥� disagree with the advice that British professor of biology , the current CSA, has given to the commission on the issue of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
They told Juncker that the commission should take its advice 鈥渇rom a variety of independent, multidisciplinary sources with a focus on the public interest鈥� and that Glover shouldn鈥檛 be listened to because hers is just one opinion.
Advertisement
Scientific consensus
No matter that Glover is herself advised by hundreds of European research organisations and the Joint Research Council, academies and learned societies from across the sciences and across the world, universities, expert committees, science associations and citizen science. No matter that her job is to independently assess the totality of evidence for questions the commission鈥檚 president asks her to answer. No matter that Glover has faithfully and accurately represented the strong scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs 鈥� that, in the words of a commission report, are 鈥渘o more risky than conventional plant breeding technologies鈥�.
This is a position supported by every major scientific institution in the world, and all the scientific academies of countries and regions, but denied by the anti-GMO lobby, which promotes its own alternative 鈥渃onsensus鈥� of a small ragtag group of academics out on the fringes of the mainstream.
The groups describe the adviser鈥檚 role as 鈥渦naccountable, intransparent and controversial鈥� but haven鈥檛 set out what they mean by that. Glover, who was formerly Scotland鈥檚 chief scientist, is the first person to hold the role of European chief scientific adviser. It was introduced by the outgoing president, Jos茅 Manuel Barroso, to 鈥減rovide independent expert advice on any aspect of science, technology and innovation as requested by the President鈥�.
Reduce uncertainty
Barroso wanted to transform how European policy-makers use expert advice especially where there鈥檚 uncertainty and where policy-makers are trying to answer big questions society is facing. If those groups opposing this role have another way to ensure that evidence trumps lobbying clout when it comes to shaping and scrutinising policies then they should tell us what that is.
We signed a letter to Juncker yesterday along with other organisations and individuals who share a commitment to improving the evidence available to policy-makers. We want to make sure Juncker feels our outrage at any attempt to undermine the integrity and independence of scientific advice received at the highest level of the European Commission.
In polarised and divisive policy debates, as we have seen with climate change, it is all the more important that scientifically accurate and rigorous advice is given freely and without fear or favour. Policy-makers or lobbyists who seek to remove scientists because they don鈥檛 like their findings or advice do so at the peril of their citizens.
