washington

The National Research Council (NRC) in Washington has come under fire over allegations that a panel set up to examine genetically modified pesticide-producing plants is slanted in favour of the biotechnology industry.

The panel is investigating the risks and benefits of such plants and examining their federal regulation. The NRC, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, received 320 letters on the panel's composition in a public comment period that ended last week. Most of these — 268 — were negative, with many complaining that the 12-member group includes too many people sympathetic to the biotechnology industry.

In a letter to the NRC, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and six other groups say that the panel is “weighted with molecular and agricultural scientists”, to the exclusion of specialists in food allergies, soil microbiology and genetic outcrossing to wild and weedy relatives of engineered crops. “[The panel] wasn't even close in terms of balance,” says Margaret Mellon, director of agriculture and biotechnology at the UCS.

The NRC plans to respond to the letters this week by announcing the appointment to the panel of Rebecca Goldburg, a senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund. It will also announce the resignation of Brian Staskawicz, a professor of plant biology at the University of California, Berkeley.

Staskawicz was a signatory to a controversial $25 million deal between the university and Novartis, in which the life sciences company is funding research in his department (see page 5). He resigned voluntarily last month, says E. William Colglazier, NRC executive officer.

“Since we [at NRC] are only advisory⃛ the only thing that really counts is our credibility, how objective we are,” says Colglazier. “We take that very seriously [in] trying to put together a very expert committee” that is balanced and deals seriously with potential conflicts of interest, he says.

Colglazier says that the remaining members of the panel are being vetted for the extent to which their income is generated from sources that have a vested interest in the outcome of the study.

Critics have also questioned the current interests of two former officials of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) who are on the panel. One, Stanley Abramson, now works at a major Washington law firm representing companies seeking approval for genetically engineered agricultural products and defending products before government agencies and the courts.

The other, Fred Betz, represents biotechnology companies applying to EPA for registration of plants genetically engineered to produce pesticides. Betz says his involvement does not entail an “irreconcilable” conflict of interest. “Quite the contrary,” he says. “The fact that [my] firm is working with the industry and with EPA [puts me in] a unique position to have a perspective on what's working and what may not be working in terms of the regulatory framework.”

The NRC report is being drafted at a time when the EPA is finalizing the regulations for controlling the registration of pesticide-producing genetically modified plants. A coalition of 11 scientific societies, including the American Society for Microbiology, complained vociferously in 1996 that the EPA policy was “scientifically indefensible” in targeting genetically engineered plants for regulation (see Nature 382, 485; 1996).

The NRC says that the 1996 report helped spur it to undertake the study. It is financing the study from its endowment, in contrast to most of its studies, which are paid for by the government.