The National Academy of Sciences needs to urgently address its one-sided work on GMOs, say public-interest groups, farmer organisations, and academics. In a letter sent to the Academy’s president this week, dozens of stakeholders drew attention to what they called a “troubling trend” at the prestigious scientific institution and its work on agricultural biotechnology.
The letter cites a lack of balance, perspective and independence among experts chosen to carry out a taxpayer-funded National Academy study. These experts will advise the federal government on how to overhaul regulations concerning GMOs — including novel biotechnology products developed using synthetic biology and other techniques, such as DNA “editing”. The new study is being conducted by the National Research Council’s (NRC) Committee on Future Biotechnology Products and Opportunities to Enhance Capabilities of the Biotechnology Regulatory System.
The Academy’s findings will likely shape how food is produced in the future. However, at least six of the 13 committee members chosen have financial conflicts of interests with the biotech industry, four of which are not publicly disclosed. Several other committee members have backgrounds advocating biotechnology development, including a representative of Dow AgroSciences and Richard Johnson of Global Helix LLC. Johnson, according to their report of 2014-2015, is also head of the United States Council for International Business committee on biotechnology.
The National Research Council’s work on this project meets the definition of a Federal Advisory Committee. According to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, government agencies can only use scientific opinions from the National Academy of Science if they emanate from “fairly balanced” committees. These should be free of conflicts of interests — “unless such conflict is promptly and publicly disclosed and the Academy determines that the conflict is unavoidable…”
In contrast to the large presence of industry supporters in the Academy’s work, no strong advocates of the precautionary principle or critics of industry practices were invited to participate as committee members, even though many were nominated. Likewise, no farmers or farmer groups — nor consumers or consumer groups — were invited, even though the focus of the Academy’s work is on agricultural biotechnology and food products.
The complaint comes on the heels of a Food & Water Watch report (Under the Influence: The National Research Council and GMOs) showing structural conflicts of interests at every level of the National Academy. The Academy receives millions of dollars in donations from biotech companies and allows industry representatives to sit on high-level boards overseeing operations.
For decades, scientists and public-interest groups have raised questions about conflicts of interest and potential bias in the Academy’s work on GMOs.
According to Tim Schwab, Senior Researcher at Food and Water Watch “Congress’s instructions are clearly designed to compel the Academy to avoid bias in its scientific work. The Academy cannot expect the public — or policy makers — to view its work as independent given how one-sided this scientific committee is.”
“If you are not at the table you are on the menu” says Allison Wilson, Science Director of the Bioscience Resource Project which is also a signatory to the letter.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.