If the stakes were not so high, there would also be something farcical about the past week's media circus in Britain over the potential health risks of genetically modified (GM) crops. Six months ago, Arpad Pusztai, a research scientist at the Rowett Research Institute in Scotland, was temporarily suspended after allegedly misleading the media about the potential health impacts of eating genetically modified foods, based on his (unpublished) studies of rats fed potatoes modified to produce lectin. Now, accompanied by even bigger headlines, a group of his colleagues has endorsed his (still unpublished) conclusions, fanning an already heated debate over a possible moratorium on the commercial growing of all GM crops (see page 547).

The concerns at the centre of the debate are certainly genuine. Given the widespread — and rapidly growing — use of GM products in the food of the average consumer, any indication of a health risk that has not been properly characterized would be a source of major concern. Memories of the BSE crisis, and the continuing reassurances of government officials and scientists that British beef was safe, remain fresh. And, like the nuclear issue, much of the opposition to GM foods rests on legitimate worries that an enthusiasm for a new technology may have blunted sensibilities to — and encouraged secrecy about — its potential dangers.

But this is a case for intensive monitoring, not a complete ban or even a moratorium. It is also a case for a hard-headed scientific appraisal of evidence and its potential implications, not yet more science by press conference. Philip James, the head of the Rowett Institute — and a respected nutrition researcher — is correct to have reduced the heat of the current debate by opening the available scientific data to public scrutiny. Less understandable are his provocative actions against Pusztai last summer.

There are several lessons to be learnt. One is the reinforcement of the need for the promised Freedom of Information Act; suspicion thrives on a culture of secrecy that is whipped up by stories of scientists being ‘gagged’. The media need a better understanding of the difference in credibility between published and unpublished ‘scientific’ data. And an independent body needs to be set up to assess available (even if preliminary) evidence of the potential dangers of GM foods before full commercialization proceeds. The lessons of BSE have yet to be fully absorbed.