What determines the acceptability of genetically modified food that can improve human nutrition?

It has been predicted that by 2025 there will be an annual shortfall of cereals for feeding the human population of 68.5 million tones. One possible solution is the use of genetically modified (GM) crops, which are already grown extensively (59 million ha of GM crops were planted in 2002) in the USA, South America, Africa and China. Nevertheless, there is considerable disagreement about the advisability of using such crops, particularly in Europe. Obviously, the safety of the food derived from the GM crops is a primary consideration. Safety assessment relies on establishing that the food is substantially equivalent to its non-GM counterpart and specific testing for allergenicity of proteins and toxicity of metabolites and the whole food. There appears to be international agreement on the principles of safety assessment. Safety to the environment is equally important, but will not be covered in this presentation. The public's perception of the risk of new technology is critical to its acceptance. Perception of risk, in turn, depends on the credibility of the source of the information and trust in the regulatory process. In many countries, the public appears to have lost its trust in the scientists and government dealing with GM food, making the acceptability of GM crops uncertain. Of equal importance are the socio-economic factors that impinge on the viability of GM produce. These include intellectual property protection, trade liberalization (through subsidy and tariff barriers in developed countries) and the intensity of bio safety regulations. The socio-economic interests of developed and developing countries may diverge and may even be contradictory in any one country. Acceptance of GM crops will thus depend on detailed issues surrounding particular crops and economies.

Fraud, errors and gamesmanship in experimental toxicology.

We expect moral behaviour from scientists. Morality implies being a good person and being good at one's profession. The general view appears to be that the vast majority of scientists aim to achieve these high standards. Science prides itself on the 'self-correcting' mechanism in the scientific method, namely the requirement to reproduce findings before they are taken seriously. However, when findings are related to the adverse effects of chemicals there are several features that make this less effective than in some other fields of science. First, is the perception that everyone is exposed to chemicals and observations about chemical danger are immediately applicable to many people. Second, it is often easy to summarize adverse findings in attention-getting headlines seen by the lay public before the slow process of replication and interpretation has time to work. Third, most regulatory toxicology studies on a particular compound are only done once to minimise cost and the use of animals. Finally, the question posed about chemicals--are they safe?--is easy to ask but more difficult to test with appropriate studies. Fabrication of data in regulatory studies was found to occur in several contract laboratories in the 1960s and this lead directly to the introduction of Good Laboratory Practice regulations. Now studies submitted for regulatory purposes must comply with GLP regulations and this has virtually eliminated flawed studies due to fraudulent or careless behaviour. It is possible to discern different ways in which the expected standards have not been met. The first is in the intention of the work. Thus reports that the Roodeplaats Research Laboratory in South Africa was seeking to identify toxins that would kill without trace is an example where the intention is unacceptable. The second is in the conduct of the studies. Here the examples of William McBride and Michael Briggs who falsified data are pertinent. The example of the retraction of reports on the toxicity of ecstasy because the wrong compound had been administered indicates a degree of carelessness in the conduct of the study. The third is in the design and interpretation of studies. The report that genetic modification per se could render potatoes toxic has been criticised because of the inappropriate design and interpretation of the studies. Finally, that the reports of studies are biased because of conflicts of interest. Journals often require a declaration that the author has no financial conflict of interest. However, there are many other conflicts of interest with just as large an impact on the author's impartiality which are omitted from consideration. Gamesmanship has also entered the practice of toxicology, for example where strong assertions about conflict of interest are used to justify particular points of view. The main casualty from fraud, errors and gamesmanship is the perceived status of science itself. It is only gamesmanship that is on the increase. The remedies for these activities are explored.

Ethical issues for bioscientists in the new millennium.

The scientific understanding of biological processes is developing extremely fast, providing opportunities for changing people's lives in many ways-through health care, food and the environment. The speed with which these changes are occurring means that even bioscientists can only keep up with their own narrow field of science. It is not surprising that members of the public are frightened about the rapidity and impact of the changes arising from the biological revolution. These concerns are often expressed in ethical terms. Decision making about the direction of research and its application is becoming more transparent. This means that bioscientists will have to engage in the debate about their work with members of the public, including those who are opposed to it, in order to create acceptance of their work and its products. At the moment, bioscientists are often ill equipped to enter this debate because of their lack of training in ethics and lack of understanding of the impact of ethics on their work. A better understanding of bioethics will be necessary for entering this debate with vigour. A comprehensive ethical analysis is outside the scope of this text. Some of the principal arguments about the ethics of two aspects of bioscience research-genetically modified crops and the use of experimental animals-will be discussed to illustrate a few of the issues that derive from ethical analyses. I hope that this will encourage toxicologists to take a greater interest in bioethics.

The impact of the introduction of the ethical review process for research using animals in the UK: implementation of policy.

Nearly all establishments in the UK regulated under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 had introduced an ethical review process (ERP) within 9 months of its formal requirement, although quite a high proportion of more junior staff were not familiar with it. A significant proportion of those questioned believed that the ERP has improved the quality (particularly the ethical quality) of project licences. A smaller proportion of respondents believed that the ERP has had a beneficial impact on animal work and training. Nearly all the respondents viewed animal care and accommodation as good or excellent.