Washington

Even before the National Research Council (NRC) — the research arm of the National Academy of Sciences — released its report on genetically modified foods last week (see main story), pressure groups opposed to agricultural biotechnology were working to undermine it, arguing that panel members had conflicts of interest.

“The [academy] should hold the highest standards of independent scientific reporting, but this study absolutely does not meet those standards,” said Andrew Kimbrell, director of the Washington-based Center for Food Safety, which campaigns against agricultural biotechnology, in a statement distributed outside the academy's headquarters, where about 30 protesters gathered on the morning of the study's release. “The blatant conflicts of interest with the biotech industry put this study in the category of ‘paid-for science’.”

Environmental groups have been criticizing the study since last July, when Michael Phillips, the study's staff director, left to work for the Biotechnology Industry Organization. The NRC replaced him with another study director, Jennifer Kuzma. Ever since, critics have called for the study to be abandoned, saying that the panel was biased.

Kucinich: ‘academy should scrap its GM food study’. Credit: AP

In February, congressman Dennis Kucinich (Democrat, Ohio) wrote to Bill Colglazier, executive director of the academy, describing what he regards as conflicts of interest on the study panel, and asking for the study to be scrapped.

Kucinich and his supporters charge that six of the 12 panel members have received research funds from the biotechnology industry or done consultancy or legal work on its behalf. For example, they say that Fred Gould has received research funds from Monsanto and Mycogen.

Gould points out that he has also taken money from the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Audubon Society, a conservation group. The literature distributed by groups opposing the study ignores this, say NRC officials, along with panel member Rebecca Goldburg's employment by the Environmental Defense Fund, a pressure group. The environmentalists say that Goldburg was added to the panel only after they objected to its original composition.

Eight of the panel are university researchers, and NRC says it is inevitable that they will have had grants from industry. Asked why he thought that the academy would rig its own panel, Kimbrell said it appeared to have been influenced by industrial contributions to its endowment fund.

“The academy allows itself to take outside money from corporations,” he said. “Its panels are biased towards a corporate stance.” An academy spokesperson denied that the contributions had had any impact on the composition of its panels, or their findings.