Correspondence

Nature 401, 207 (16 September 1999) | doi:10.1038/45656

Sensible precautions make good science...

C. Vyvyan Howard1 & Peter T. Saunders2

  1. Department of Fetal & Infant Toxico-Pathology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 7ZA, UK
  2. Department of Mathematics, King's College, London WC2R 2LS, UK

Sir

Søren Holm and John Harris strongly criticize the precautionary principle but they seem not to understand it (Nature 400, 398; 1999). They complain that it is not valid for evaluating evidence, when that is not what it is for. It is a tool for decision-making, and, like many such tools, deals in expectations rather than probabilities.

The point is that it requires us to take into account not just the probability that a technology will be hazardous, but also the benefits if it succeeds and the costs if things go wrong. There may have been a very small probability that a large ship travelling at high speed in the North Atlantic would hit an iceberg, but the captain of the Titanic should have thought more about what could happen if it did — and all the more so because it didn't really matter if the voyage lasted a few hours more.

Holm and Harris argue that the precautionary principle would have stopped us developing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) because the greatest uncertainty about their possible harmfulness existed before anybody had produced one. But the principle does not demand that we halt research if we cannot be certain the end result will be safe (though common sense suggests it is unwise to make large investments if the end result is likely to be dangerous). It is to be applied at each stage in the process, weighing the risks in going one step further against the likely benefits if the project is successful.

That is why we and many others are arguing not for a complete ban on research into GMOs but for a five-year moratorium on field trials and commercial planting. There is a lot more research to be carried out in the relative safety of a closed laboratory first. This is always good practice, but it is especially important in the case of GMOs because of the irreversibility that is inherent in the technology. If a new drug proves to be harmful we can withdraw it, but once genes have left the laboratory there is no calling them back. The experiments in which GM milkweed was found to harm the monarch butterfly were performed in contained conditions; had this been discovered in field trials, the gene might already be spreading through the environment.

Our objection to the current field trials of GM crops is based not on whether commercial planting would be safe (though we are concerned about that), but on whether the trials themselves are safe — and whether they are well enough designed to be worth the risk. Neither has been shown to be the case. At the end of a moratorium, a much better-informed risk assessment should be possible.