Eddo Rugini, the principal investigator cultivating the stand of GM trees at University of Tuscia, witnesses the destruction.

Two experimental trials of genetically modified (GM) plants were threatened with destruction in late spring. One happily survives today at Rothamsted Research in Hertfordshire, UK. The other, at the University of Tuscia in Viterba, central Italy, was not so fortunate; over 100 kiwi, olive and cherry trees were trashed. The trees were modified with different combinations of the tobacco osmotin gene to resist fungal diseases or with Root loci (rol) ABC genes from soil bacterium Agrobacterium rhizogenes to produce shorter trees. All that remains from the decade-long trial is a pile of dried leaves and wood waiting to be burned.

“It's a life's work gone wasted,” laments plant scientist Eddo Rugini, who was conducting the field trial at the University of Tuscia. “Tree cultivation is time consuming; you may need up to ten years to get a second generation. Olive trees were about to flower for the first time and several kiwi plants were showing hints of drought tolerance worth studying,” adds Rugini. “We had found that fruit from some clones of kiwis were more tolerant to post-harvest fungal infections.”

The trial had originally got the green light from Italian authorities in 1998. In 2009, however, researchers' attempts to renew the authorization had failed partly due to overly strict requirements imposed by new regional rules requiring all transgenic plants to be fully contained in a greenhouse. The difficulties were compounded by the national Italian agencies' ideological opposition to authorizing field trials, which led them to disregard European directives regulating the release of GM organisms into the environment for research and commercial purposes.

After the failure to renew the authorization, the antibiotech group Genetic Rights Foundation then put pressure on several officials in the Italian Ministry of the Environment to dig up the transgenic trees. On June 1, the Italian government ordered the trial's destruction under penalty of fines and jail. Public appeals by scientists to restart the authorization process went unheard. The idea that Rugini was forced to spray his plants and drill them to inject an herbicide is “inconceivable,” according to the Italian Association for the Development of Biotechnology (Assobiotec) headquartered in Milan. “It can be seen as a demolition of a scientific cultural monument, an act of legal vandalism,” says Klaus Ammann from the University of Bern.

Meanwhile, a different story has been unfolding around a field trial being carried out in the UK at the world's oldest agricultural research institute, Rothamsted Research. Here, activists set out to 'decontaminate' a trial testing aphid-resistant GM spring wheat expressing two plant-derived pheromones—synthetic enzymes (E)-β-farnesene synthase and FPP synthase. The protestors had mistakenly attributed the genetic modification to cow-derived genes. “Our focus is on testing the hypothesis that plant-synthesized pheromones can alter insect behavior in the field, with the goal of moving crop protection to a new, more ecological level,” explains Johnathan Napier from Rothamsted.

Direct action against the site was scheduled on May 27 but never took place, probably because the GM wheat is protected by a large perimeter fence, closed circuit television, 24-hour security and lately a High Court injunction. Public relations activities by Napier and colleagues were also effective, grabbing attention outside the usual circles. “I think they did change public debate” says Síle Lane from Sense About Science, a charitable trust that helped circulate the “Don't destroy research” petition. Lane believes the ability to stop destruction of the trial in the UK signals a softening in general sentiment against GM organisms. People are “especially offended that activists claiming to represent the public want to destroy research,” he says.