Sir

Despite the statement in your Opinion article “Finding a future for GM crops” (Nature 414, 1; 2001), the Supply Chain Initiative on Modified Agricultural Crops (SCIMAC) is not involved with coordination of farm-scale evaluations of genetically modified (GM) crops in Great Britain, nor has industry been involved in setting the questions or research agenda underlying the evaluations.

The research agenda was developed by the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and the Scottish Executive, in response to concerns raised by English Nature and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (L. G. Firbank et al. Nature 399, 727–728; 1999). The research is conducted by contractors (Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Institute of Arable Crops Research and the Scottish Crop Research Institute), fully funded by the UK government.

Evaluations are overseen by a steering committee of independent scientists. SCIMAC's role is to provide a pool of farms from which we scientists select our sample, and which is subject to approval by the steering committee. SCIMAC holds the contracts with the farmers to grow the crops, and is obliged to ensure compliance with the conditions for GM-plant release. SCIMAC has a limited role in providing advice to the farmers on use of herbicides on GM crops. SCIMAC's role is carefully limited, largely to have a clear division of responsibilities, but also because all parties involved agree that clear boundaries help to avoid any apparent conflict of interest, as your Opinion article stated.

The report by the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission to which you refer was supportive of the evaluations. Perhaps we scientists were not attacked by the commission precisely because the members appreciated the precautions that have been made to ensure the impartiality of the research.

These precautions are listed in the documentation (see http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/fse/index.htm).

We stand by our account — Editor, Nature.