Butterflies Bearing Grenades

(An alternative view of the recent Bt-Corn/monarch debate)

(September 20, 1999, The Washington Times)

Dr. John E. Foster, a Professor of Entomology at the University of Nebraska - Lincoln with 30 years of experience in working with insect issues and a collaborator with NC205, a panel of leading entomology experts studying insect resistance management, writes in this op-ed piece that the emerging trend toward publicizing little laboratory studies is going to cause big problems for scientific credibility if it is not reigned in quickly. The most recent example was a laboratory study conducted at the University of Arizona concerning the potential for bollworms to develop resistance to genetically modified cotton. Before that, a Cornell University study resulted in public declarations that the Monarch butterfly could be wiped out by genetically modified corn. Both works were summarized in the British journal Nature, both were released to the media ahead of publication, both were hyped by activists and exploited for headline values, and both left the erroneous impression that science had overlooked something important in reviewing the potential risks of biotechnology. But, says Foster, neither of the studies, which were conducted in laboratories, gave a complete picture of what would be expected in a natural setting. The result has been a disservice to science, unnecessary concern among the public, a discrediting of a valuable technology and a lot of work for conscientious scientists who have to mop up the mess.

In the two most recent instances, here is what happened: Researchers set up a laboratory experiment to prove what nearly every entomologist knew to be fact. When the experiment was completed, the researchers sent a correspondence to the journal Nature. The journal assigned a reviewer to look at the work, then printed the author's summation in the "scientific correspondence" section. And, realizing the potential to generate media attention, the journal sent out advance notice about the upcoming publication. The media took the bait and anti-technology activists had a field day.

These correspondences, which are not much more than a letter to the editor, would not be published in credible scientific journals, which publish full-fledged studies after they have been peer reviewed anonymously by at least three scientists with expertise in the field. Foster says he has no quarrel with the quality of the laboratory work, and no one is suggesting that the results were not accurate. But he is very concerned about snippets of information being released out of context with the implication that they are surprising and have great importance. In the case of Monarch butterflies, there probably was not an entomologist in the world who was not aware that corn pollen containing the Bt gene could harm butterflies - if butterflies ate corn pollen. Likewise, with the recent bollworm study, all entomologists know that insects exposed to toxins develop more slowly than unexposed insects. These realities have been taken into consideration by scientists and regulators in developing strategies for the safe use of crops that have been genetically modified to control insects. But it seems that a few scientists, who apparently don't want to accept the general consensus of the scientific community, are willing to use questionable methods to take their case to the front of the line. The quickest way to get attention is to conduct a laboratory study knowing what the outcome will be and then find accomplices to make a big deal out of it.

Foster calls it the hand-grenade syndrome. If someone lobs a hand-grenade into a room, he's going to get everyone's attention very fast. Professor Mick Crawley, who wrote an editorial in Nature to accompany the bollworm article, was quoted in news articles as saying: "These little studies are interesting because they show the things that could happen but they don't resolve the problems because they don't consider the effect over the whole life cycle (of the insect)...What people are doing with these little snippets are fanning the flames." Exactly. So why publish the study in the first place, much less create a media event around it? The answer is obvious: Journals, seeking to make a name for themselves, want to publish the little studies because they are interesting. And research authors get around the fact that the studies are misleading with wiggle words like, "this is only a laboratory study and it makes no conclusions about what would happen in a natural environment." That's like trying to put the pin back in the grenade after you lob it into the room. When grenades go off, they make a mess. Demands for "more study" come from all corners. So university researchers, with limited resources, end up dropping what they were doing and devote attention to providing the data demanded by a concerned public and regulators under pressure. This is a poor way to set priorities for scientific research, but it's what happens when we conduct science by press release.

Co-Editors: Bill Hutchison, Department of Entomology, University of Minnesota, hutch002@tc.umn.edu
Jeanne Ciborowski, IPM Program, Minnesota Department of Agriculture, jeanne.ciborowski@state.mn.us
Production Editor: Suzanne Wold, Research Specialist, University of Minnesota, woldx018@tc.umn.edu

Disclaimer
Reference to products in this publication is not intended to be an endorsement to the exclusion of others which may have similar uses. Any person using products listed in this publication assumes full responsibility for their use in accordance with current directions of the manufacturer

Last Revised November 11, 1999.
The University, including the Minnesota Extension Service, is an equal opportunity educator and employer.©1999 Minnesota Extension Service, University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. Contact copyright@extension.umn.edu for information on reproduction or use of this material.