To the editor:

In the September issue, your editorial entitled “A tragic GM 'outing1'' comments that “those who embrace GM crops must do it openly, as democratic society demands. Otherwise, activists will exploit secrecy to foment public mistrust, portraying themselves as heroes exposing covert GM planting operations.”

I waited for the other shoe to drop. Does not society in the shape of government and the police have a duty to protect and defend from attacks by vandals and other fanatics those going about their legitimate business—as Claude Lagorse was doing? Would those vandals not have attacked the farm if details had been widely published? Were those secret vandals after M. Lagorse's secrecy or his crops?

You went on: “Ultimately, transparency and openness will make the continued destruction of property and intimidation of farmers difficult to justify.” In your view, does that mean that such destruction and intimidation is presently justified? Would you be happy if those intimidators ransacked the premises of Nature Biotechnology for publishing what they saw as 'pro-GM material'? Should you therefore not be more open, inviting those very intimidators, qualified or not, to be part of your editorial process?

After all, they attack GM crops with little or no knowledge of agriculture—just as little as they doubtless have of biotech in general.