To:             	fastnet@igc.topica.com
From:           	Sclove@Loka.org
Subject:        	Fw: ISIS condemns suppression of scientific debate on genetic engineering
Date sent:      	Fri, 12 May 2000 05:26:58 -0700
Send reply to:  	Sclove@Loka.org

----- Original Message -----
> Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 14:15:26 -0500
> From: lsalzman@aba.org (Lorna Salzman)
> Subject: ISIS condemns suppression of scientific debate
>
> I apologize for any cross posting of this important statement from Mae Wan
> Ho. I believe that it is being issued as a press release by the three
> signers below.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The following posting is of great import and urgency. It signals the
likely
> establishment of a global conspiracy of establishment scientists
comparable
> to the judicial panel of the WTO, a "WSO" as it were, to inundate the
> media, the public and government officials with pro-genetic engineering
> propaganda.
>
>  It is likely that this campaign will be as intense, as corrupt and as
> fevered as the response elicited from the pro-nuclear gang in the 1970s.
> The higher the stakes, the more frenzied and duplicitous the response.
This
> pro-GE tidal wave will displace the corporate response, at least in the
> higher decision-making and academic circles. The corporations will put
> their multi-million dollar public relations campaign out in popular media,
> and the scientists will start twisting arms at higher government levels
and
> making threats to discredit the critics.
>
> We are in for a long dirty battle, headed by the US scientific
> establishment, which has already, in the 20th century with the nuclear
> power issue, given science a bad name by prostituting the scientific
method
> in the interests of status, political connections, money and clout. This
> makes it all the more imperative that scientific critics of GE start
> speaking out with a unified voice and that they reach out to the decision
> makers with the information that the pro-GE gang is trying to denigrate or
> suppress. We activists need these scientists in our work. I hope they will
> not fail us. Science needs to be reclaimed in the interests of the public
> and of democracy. We cannot allow it to be contorted by self-interested
> scientists pretending to be impartial and objective. This is the battle of
> the 21st century..and perhaps of all time.
>
> Please save Saturday Sept. 9th for the ESF and Club of Rome teach in on
> genetic engineering.
>
> Lorna Salzman
> Genetic engineering education project director,
> Earth Society Foundation
>
>
> Biotech Activists (biotech_activists@iatp.org)    Posted: 05/11/2000  By
> M.W.Ho@open.ac.uk
> ============================================================
>
> The following letter, which gives a good insight into how corporate
science
> works in the global arena behind closed doors, has been rejected from
> Science magazine despite three requests for reconsideration from Dr.
Samuel
> Epstein. The issue at stake is democracy and the social control of science
> and technology, which is all the more urgent, as technologies become more
> powerful and uncontrollable.
>
> This is not the first time that magazines such as Science, Nature and New
> Scientist have refused to give voice to scientists dissenting from the
> corporate view, to which they give undue and apparently unlimited access.
> Nature Biotechnology even published a long article attempting to discredit
a
> scientific review  - on the potential hazards of the cauliflower mosaic
> viral promoter (now published) - in the worst style of gutter journalism,
> and only gave a very grudging right to reply after a delay of three to
four
> months. I have long cancelled my personal subscriptions to these
magazines,
> and I suggest others might consider doing the same.
>
> We can have no confidence in the International Academy Council being
> proposed, unless and until the composition of this Council has gone
through
> the necessary open democratic process. Scientists like us have tried our
> best to engage the scientific community as well as the general public in
> open debate. Some, like Dr. Arpad Puztai had lost his job and bore the
brunt
> of vilification from the scientific establishment. We have all had our
lives
> and work ruined, not the least of which by being forced to read boring
> scientific papers and documents that we would never have volunteered to
read
> if we didn't think it was so important for the public to be informed of
what
> corporate science has in store for us. This is what democracy is all
about.
> We have repeatedly invited and challenged those real scientists who
disagree
> with us to debate the science in public and in terms that the public can
> understand. They have turned us down again and again.
>
> At the recent World Economic Forum in Davos, the President of the U.S.
> National Academy of Sciences (NAS), Bruce Alberts, and an unheralded group
> of a dozen other presidents of national science academies, quietly
gathered
> behind the scenes to propose the creation of an International Academy
> Council (IAC) as a global science advisory board.  The object of the IAC,
> expected to be formalized this month, is to provide "impartial scientific
> advice" to governments and international organizations on issues such as
> genetic engineering, threatened ecosystems, and biodiversity. While most
> would agree with Alberts "that the world needs much more advice from
> scientists," there are serious questions on reliance of advice from an
> NAS-modeled IAC.
>
>         Through its huge think tank, the National Research Council (NRC)
> chaired by Alberts with a full-time staff of 1000 and a $200 million
budget,
> the NAS conducts studies and prepares about 200 reports annually, largely
> under contract to federal agencies.  However, in flagrant violation of
> governmental openness rules (the 1972 Federal Advisory Committee Act)
which
> Alberts still vehemently opposes, NRC committees and panels meet secretly
in
> closed sessions, fail to disclose their minutes and conflict of interest
> statements, and fail to require that their membership reflects balanced
> representation of divergent interests and viewpoints.  Illustrative is the

> conduct of the NRC committee on "Comparative Toxicity of Naturally
Occurring
> Carcinogens" which issued the 1996 report on "Carcinogens and
> Anticarcinogens in the Human Diet."  This report trivialized concerns on
> cancer risks to infants and children from food contaminated with
> carcinogenic pesticides, as these were alleged to "occur at levels far too
> low to have any adverse effects on health."  Acting on behalf of an ad hoc
> coalition of about 100 leading independent experts in public health and
> cancer prevention, and representatives of a wide range of labor and
citizen
> groups, one of us (SSE) warned Alberts that this committee was grossly
> unbalanced and "disproportionately weighted with industry consultants;" it
> should further be noted that no pediatrician was invited to serve.
Alberts
> responded admitting "that some of the committee members have performed
some
> consulting for industry," but dismissed  these concerns as "the same
members
> have also advised or consulted for regulatory agencies."  Other concerns
> were expressed that the composition of the NRC Committee could "be used to
> discredit or undermine" the previous NRC report on "Pesticides in the
Diets
> of Infants and Children," which explicitly warned of cancer risks to
> children.
>
>         A more blatant conflict of interest is evidenced by the
composition
> of the March, 1999 NRC biotechnology panel with its disproportionate
> representation of experts directly linked to the industry.  This conflict
> was compounded by the subsequent discovery of a revolving-door
relationship
> between the industry and NRC.  Unknown to the panel, its executive
director
> Dr. Michael Phillips was secretly negotiating for a senior position in the
> Biotechnology Industry Organization.  He joined the industry some 3 months
> later.
>
>         As federal support is beginning to shrink, the NAS plans to
increase
> funding from non-federal sources, which currently account for some 15% of
> its budget.  The NAS is also planning to extend its influence to major
> national policy concerns.  However, characteristic of his penchant for
> secrecy, Alberts has refused to release a pending report recommending
> reorganization of NAS policies and procedures.
>
> Evaluation of global concerns, particularly on public health and
> environmental integrity, should not be entrusted to a non-transparent and
> unaccountable cabal of self-appointed experts, such as the proposed IAC,
> whose views may reflect special interests rather than the public.
Instead,
> highly qualified independent scientists acceptable to or working with
> non-governmental organizations (NGO's) should play a major role in any
> international science advisory body.  These include the recently proposed
> World Academy of Science in Society, The Physicians and Scientists for
> Responsible Application of Science and Technology (PSRAST), and the group
of
> some 300 "World Scientists."
>
>
> Samuel S. Epstein, M.D.
> School of Public Health, University of Illinois at Chicago and
> Chairman, Cancer Prevention Coalition
> 2121 W. Taylor St.
> Chicago, IL 60612
> (312) 996-2297
>
> Edward Goldsmith, M.A.
> The Ecologist
> 46 The Vineyard, Richmond, Surrey, U.K.
> (011) 44-181-332-6963
>
> Mae Wan Ho, Ph.D.
> Department of Biology
> The Open University
> Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, U.K.
> (011) 44-1908-653-113
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> How to Use this Mailing List
> ============================================================
>
> You received this e-mail as a result of your registration on the
> biotech_activists mailing list.
>
> To unsubscribe, please send an email to listserv@iatp.org. In the body of
> the message type:
> unsubscribe biotech_activists
>
> For a list of other commands and list options, please send email to
> listserv@iatp.org.
> In the body of the message type:
> help
>
> Please direct questions about this list to: mritchie@iatp.org
>
> Please direct technical questions about this service to: support@iatp.org
>
> Lorna Salzman
> 718-522-0253; 631-653-3387
> lsalzman@aba.org
>
> "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having
> been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and
> that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of
> gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most
> wonderful have been and are being evolved" (Charles Darwin, The Origin of
> Species).
>
> "Evolutionary history should provide the primary basis for assessing
> biological integrity". (Paul Angermeier & James Karr, "Biological
Integrity
> vs. Biological Diversity...Protecting biotic resources", BioScience, vol.
> 44 #10, Nov. 1994)
>
>


___________________________________________________________
T O P I C A  The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics