Sir

I agree with your statement in your News story about my 'superweed' research (Nature 419, 655; 2002) that academic researchers need better access to pre-commercial transgenes to be able to carry out independent, empirical research on environmental risks of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Yet the fragile relationship between seed companies and university researchers is improving, and readers may not get this impression from your story.

A small community of ecologists and population geneticists is working with agricultural biotechnology companies and regulatory agencies to assess the environmental effects of transgenic crops. In my case, two multinational companies invited my colleagues and me to evaluate the effects of pre-commercial Bt sunflowers on wild sunflowers, which are a common weed in the midwestern United States. The companies agreed to fund a research project that would be published independently in peer-reviewed journals (A. A. Snow et al. Ecological Applications; in the press). They provided us with a Bt transgene in a cultivated sunflower, as well as valuable technical assistance.

This liaison was not always easy, as companies are bound by confidential business plans whereas academic ecologists are eager to talk about work in progress. I'm glad we carried out this research, even though it was frustrating when we were not allowed to continue using university funds. The companies had decided not to commercialize this variety of Bt sunflower, but we wanted to carry out a larger-scale project because so little is known about the ecological and evolutionary effects of transgenes that could spread throughout natural populations.

Unfortunately, polarization of views on GMOs often hinders the use of ecological research in risk assessments. Seed companies have been slow to acknowledge that ecological studies are needed to evaluate some of their products. They also fear the media's tendency to emphasize unwelcome findings and ignore results showing environmental benefits or 'no impact'. At the other end of the spectrum, objections from advocacy groups have reached the point where risk assessment research is often blocked by regulatory delays or eco-terrorism, especially in Europe.

Much of this debate hinges on ethical and political concerns, which are outside the realm of ecological science. Nonetheless, academic ecologists can help to answer questions that arise about the environmental effects of GMOs. I urge that we progress beyond the standard stereotyping of 'industry versus ecologists' to facilitate more effective dialogue and to introduce sounder science to the debate.