GMW: Eminent scientist behind illegal GM rice/Science blase on terror

[Guest guest]

GMW: Eminent scientist behind illegal GM rice/Science blase

on terror

" GM WATCH " <info

Fri, 15 Jul 2005 10:46:41 +0100

 

 

 

 

GM WATCH daily

http://www.gmwatch.org

------

1.Seeds of ignorance

2.Science blase on terror

 

COMMENT

 

This article (Seeds of ignorance) from China is hugely important.

 

Ignore all the hype that clearly emanated from GM proponents about

" magic seeds " , " a nice technology " , " farmers just can't wait " etc., and

what is left is an unambiguous confirmation of how this technology is

being introduced into our fields and our food supply with a ruthless

disregard, and even contempt, for biosafety, for the interests and

concerns

of society at large, and even for the law.

 

According to the article, " Mainland farmers are continuing to grow GM

rice against both Chinese law and the advice of concerned critics, due

in part to the efforts of an eminent scientist. "

 

The article indicates clear collusion between GM scientists and a

commercial company to sell farmers GM seeds without indicating either

that

the seeds were gentically engineered or that it was illegal to plant

them. This apparently started some five years ago and the GM seeds

concerned had not gone through the necessary biosafety assessment and had

commercial approval from the Chinese government.

 

The man at the centre of this extraordinary scandal is Zhang Qifa, who

is described as " China's leading biotechnology scientist " . According to

the article, " Most investigations identified Professor Zhang - who

works at the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and the Huazhong (Central

China)

Agricultural University - as the source of the illegal grain. "

 

Testing has shown that the GM traits in the illegally grown rice are

identical to those long researched by Professor Zhang. And Zhang cannot

claim to have been unaware of what was going on - the investigations and

testing only started after he himself referred in Newsweek to how GM

rice was being grown commercially in China. He told the magazine, " A

local company got some of the GM rice seed and began selling it to local

farmers " and then used their cultivation and consumption of the rice as

the basis of a claim for its safety.

 

If Zhang, as the article appears to suggest, is actually the man behind

this illegal proliferation of an unapproved GM rice over a five year

period, what could be his motivation? According to the article, Professor

Zhang's national plant gene centre has received big funding from the

Ministry of Science and Technology and, the article implies, this scale

of investment " puts pressure on scientists " to make sure that their

products are used so that this kind of spending on biotech research does

not dry up.

 

Scientists quoted in the article also suggest that what is occuring is

part of a wider international strategy in which GM scientists have been

implicit. As one scientist puts it, " In some countries, popularisation

happened before there were standardised regulations. "

 

What this means is that scientists are deliberatly colluding in the

illegal proliferation of unapproved GM seeds in order to force

governments

into a situation where it becomes easier to legalise the illegal trade

than to take forceful and costly action to rigorously detect and

destroy the illegal crops and seeds - something that will bring them into

conflict with the farmers who are growing the seeds.

 

This strategy has proven effective as a means of forcing legalisation

in a series of countries, including most noticeably India and Brazil.

The example of India is quoted in the article. " Indian authorities had

long refused to commercialise anti-pest GM cotton, but scientists

deliberately gave the cotton seeds to farmers and it was soon widely

grown

across one province. " From there the seeds " quickly spread out of

control " . For the government, as one expert puts it, " it looks

embarrassing,

given that you can't enforce regulations, or you're persuaded that since

farmers want it, you should just let them have it. " (It's perhaps

comparable to, say, pharmaceutical scientists encouraging the

proliferation

of an unapproved drug to the point where the government will have to

either confront the patients who have become reliant on it or back down

and give it approval.)

 

This article has just gone out on CS Prakash's AgBioView e-mail list.

This list of choice for GM scientists has continually railed against

those with concerns about GM crops, often in the most extreme terms. When

it comes to those who have taken any form of non-violent direct action

to protest or oppose the release of GMOs, it has labelled them

criminals and terrorists and applauded any resort to the criminal

courts in an

effort to punish them. Recently, it prominently reported the use in

Denmark of anti-terrorism laws, introduced after 9/11, against Greenpeace

after some of its campaigners had gone into a building and hung up a

banner as part of a protest against GM.

 

This article from China (item 1) which suggests an eminent GM scientist

may have colluded in not just serious illegality but something which

could have unpredictable consequences for the safety of China's main

staple food crop - something which truly prove be an act of

bio-terrorism -

had pride of place in the AgBioView bulletin with no accompanying

commentary or expression of any concern about its contents.

 

The second article below suggests that a dangerous and uncaring

arrogance and disregard for the possible consequences of scientists'

behaviour

may be an integral part of the current culture within the life

sciences. It suggests that even researchers working with the most deadly

infectious diseases are likely to view with resentment efforts to make

them

conform to a Hippocratic style oath stressing the need for " rigour,

respect and responsibility " in their actions. Interviews with 600 life

scientists suggested that the majority failed to taken into account the

possible consequences of their research and believed that if their

research was made use of for purposes of terrorism that was " not their

problem " .

 

No wonder Winston Churchill was of the opinion that " scientists should

be on tap, not on top " .

------

1.Seeds of Ignorance

Lin Gu

South China Morning Post

http://www.truthabouttrade.org/article.asp?id=4129

 

'Mainland farmers are continuing to grow GM rice against both Chinese

law and the advice of concerned critics, due in part to the efforts of

an eminent scientist.'

 

Tian Zihai of Zhongzhou village in Hubei province was among the first

farmers to grow genetically modified (GM) rice, although China has not

approved its commercial release. He bought two kilograms of GM rice seed

in 2000 from a sales manager of the provincial seed company who said

the new seed would create cost savings on pesticide and labour.

 

Mr Tian had no idea that the seed was genetically engineered to produce

inbuilt pesticide, and that state law forbids its sale. All he knew was

that the seed did prove effective in resisting pests, so he bought more

the next year. Now the Tians grow about 0.7-hectare of GM rice a year,

selling some and saving the rest for their own consumption.

 

Mr Tian dismissed any note of caution about a rice mutation that even

pests dare not eat. " Look, I have eaten it for four years with no

problem at all, " he said, smiling reassuringly. Encouraged by Mr Tian's

" success " , the local seed station started to introduce the " magic

seed " in

2003.

 

Also encouraged was Zhang Qifa, China's leading biotechnology

scientist, who conducted the mainland's largest field trials on GM

rice. When

interviewed by Newsweek in December last year, Professor Zhang mentioned

that farmers near the GM test areas in Hubei had grown and eaten such

rice without any side effects. The scientist was quoted as saying: " A

local company got some of the GM rice seed and began selling it to local

farmers. "

 

The claim triggered six undercover investigations in Hubei by the

environmental group Greenpeace. Until April, when Greenpeace exposed the

illegal growing and trading of GM rice in the province, few locals were

aware that they had violated the law.

 

A two-day trip in Wuhan and Xianning made by this journalist in May, a

month after Greenpeace announced its findings, found four out of the

seven retailers investigated had sold anti-pest rice seed. Most

investigations identified Professor Zhang - who works at the Chinese

Academy of

Sciences, and the Huazhong (Central China) Agricultural University - as

the source of the illegal grain.

 

Greenpeace collected rice samples from the Hubei market and sent them

to the GeneScan laboratory in Germany for transgenetic DNA testing,

which proved they had GM traits identical to those long researched by

Professor Zhang's team.

 

But the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) refused to accept the test

results, on the grounds that the standards might differ from China's. The

ministry said it would rely on the findings of an investigation conducted

by the local government.

 

In response to Greenpeace's appeal for urgent action to stop the spread

of GM rice, Fang Xiangdong, vice-director of the MOA's bio-safety

office, said: " We have to exercise extreme caution to find concrete

evidence, so that serious legal action can be taken. " That extreme

caution is

understandable, given Professor Zhang's prominent status. Among his

multiple titles he also serves as vice-chairman of the China

Association of

Science and Technology, the mainland's highest government -controlled

civil scientific organisation.

 

While awaiting reports from Hubei, the MOA issued a circular on April

27, requiring a nationwide investigation into the status of GM crops in

field trials. To date, there are still no reports from Hubei and no

sign that the MOA is going to make any more public announcements.

 

In fact, the local authorities did take action long before Greenpeace's

investigation. One industry insider said that as early as last autumn,

Hubei authorities had already conducted investigations into violations

of bio-safety regulations and " punished some wrongdoers according to

law " , although they would not give details.

 

A newsletter, printed one month ahead of Greenpeace's April

announcement, by a local agricultural technology centre in Jiangxia

district on

the outskirts of the provincial capital Wuhan, said that anti-pest rice

seed is " a type of crop forbidden to grow by the country, because it may

not be good for human health, and farmers must not buy and grow it " .

 

Zhang Liangxing, manager of the centre, said the local government tried

to halt the harvesting and sale of GM rice last year, but the ban was

difficult to implement because farmers were so much in favour of the

seeds.

 

The manager said Professor Zhang initiated the field trials of GM rice

and that when the seed appeared on the market, it was at

higher-than-average prices. " Even if Professor Zhang himself didn't

sneak the seed

into the market , people around him could have done, " the manager said,

adding that " as someone working for a state-owned agricultural centre, I

would never sell a GM seed before its safety has been proven " .

 

" China has a very strict legal system to regulate its seed market and

GM crops, and we are regularly monitoring what's happening in the

fields, " said the MOA's Mr Fang.

 

Some, however, find that less than satisfactory. " The Hubei scandal

shows that the government failed to control GM rice at the research

stage,

so how will it regulate large-scale commercialisation? " said Sze Pang

Cheung, campaigner for Greenpeace China.

 

Yang Xiongnian, deputy director of the MOA's science, technology and

education department, said: " We cannot guarantee the problem will

disappear, given that China has more than 90,000 seed retailers and some

profit-driven individuals may want to test the law. "

 

Still, the man at the centre of the storm remains silent, despite

repeated media inquiries. Five years ago, Professor Zhang began the

process

of applying for safety certification for his GM rice seed - a

prerequisite for commercial release. He has conducted all the required

procedures, such as field trials, environmental release trials, and

pre-production trials - large-scale farmer field trials across Hubei's

five

counties. When final approval for commercialisation will come remains

anyone's

guess.

 

Last year, Professor Zhang and 15 other scholars, including the leading

biotechnologists in the country, filed a report to the State Council,

urging early approval of a commercialisation permit and complaining that

" over-strict " bio-safety regulations had slowed the industrialisation

of GM technology and contradicted " the strong need for new technology

among Chinese farmers " .

 

On June 22, the MOA's bio-safety committee held its biannual meeting

where experts were invited to give their views on the safety issues

involved in growing GM crops. However, to the chagrin of GM proponents,

commercialisation has remained merely a topic for discussion.

 

China has ploughed millions of yuan into biotechnology, with GM crops

at the cutting edge of the research. Professor Zhang's national plant

gene centre alone received 15 million yuan from the Ministry of Science

and Technology in 2002, in addition to the 56 million yuan he received

for research into GM rice.

 

China's largest investment in biotechnology, however, " puts pressure on

scientists to deliver something " , said James Keeley, a British

researcher studying China's biotechnology policy. " It is a problem

when you

have this high-level investment, because at some point policymakers are

going to ask, 'what are the benefits of spending this money on biotech

research if we are not going to use it?' "

 

One official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said: " Much of

China's rice research funding goes to Professor Zhang. " Professor

Zhang has

signed a contract with the Ministry of Science and Technology, which has

set a timetable for the industrialisation of GM crops. It is possible

that Hubei is being touted as a " we did it first " model to press for

official recognition, as was the case with GM cotton in China.

 

That could well be the case, according to one Beijing-based scientist.

" In some countries, popularisation happened before there were

standardised regulations. It's such a nice technology, and farmers

just can't

wait. "

 

That was also the case for one of China's neighbours, according to Mr

Keeley. Indian authorities had long refused to commercialise anti-pest

GM cotton, but scientists deliberately gave the cotton seeds to farmers

and it was soon widely grown across one province. Due to their

popularity among farmers, crops from the seeds quickly spread out of

control.

" Because it looks embarrassing, given that you can't enforce

regulations, or you're persuaded that since farmers want it, you

should just let

them have it, " Mr Keeley said.

 

Indeed, farmers like Mr Tian are always open to new technology,

although he has no idea whether it's legal or not. But a seed retailer in

Jiangxia sounds a cautious note: " Our country has not clearly stated

whether GM rice can do us any harm or not. Even if we're OK, how about

our

children, and theirs? "

------

2.Science blase on terror

Anna Fazackerley

Times Higher Education Supplement

15 July 2005

https://tsl.ruk1.net/servlet/cc5?lktQTBTDQSVgnpgxnuOHlJoQhjnV2VR

 

Scientists in the UK are failing to consider potential terror threats

resulting from their work and dismissing warnings about bio-weapons, new

research reveals.

 

Group interviews with more than 600 life scientists from 26

universities, presented at a closed meeting of international chemical

weapons

experts at Oxford University last weekend, indicated that the majority of

academics believe that terrorism is not their problem and research

should not be restricted because of potential misuse.

 

Such a stance is controversial in light of the London bombings last

week.

 

While no biological or chemical weapons were used in the attacks, some

experts predict that it is only a matter of time until terrorists

employ them.

 

Brian Rappert, a sociologist from Exeter University who conducted the

interviews, said: " Research into infectious disease should prompt

security questions. Could that information become useful in spreading

disease? "

 

Dr Rappert, who collaborated with Malcolm Dando from Bradford

University's department of peace studies, said that many scientists were

insulted to be asked about bioterrorism. Focus groups suggested that the

" classic " scientist type saw little indication of threat from

bioterrorism

and biological weapons, and did not feel that life sciences developments

contributed to increased risks.

 

Dr Rappert said such responses ignored contentious research such as the

first chemical synthesis of poliovirus, which was published in 2002.

 

Although poliovirus is unlikely to be used as a biological weapon,

viruses such as Ebola could in theory be manufactured using the same

technique.

 

One scientist, horrified at the suggestion that research could have a

dual use, said: " You're damning technology just because it may be

possible to use it to make Ebola in three or four years. "

 

Julia Higgins, vice-president of the Royal Society, said: " These

findings illustrate why there is such a need for the training and

awareness-raising that the Royal Society is advocating. "

 

She added: " Rather than anything too heavy-handed, we believe that

extensions of the current systems for applying for funding, assessing

risk

and getting published in a scientific journal can effectively minimise

the potential risks. "

 

But chemical weapons experts at last weekend's meeting suggested that

the Government was moving to tighten ethical standards in science.

 

Government chief scientific adviser Sir David King has begun trialling

a seven-point code of conduct for all scientists - an extra layer of

bureaucracy that is likely to spark resentment in the science community.

 

The code, a " Hippocratic oath " for scientists, stresses " rigour,

respect and responsibility " .

 

 

---------------------------