To the editor:

In their commentary on recent scientific studies of the potential ecological consequences of Bt crops and public discussion of those data, Anthony Shelton and Richard Roush ("False reports and the ears of men," Nat. Biotechnol. 17, 829) apply the terms "false" and "rumor" no less than 10 times to interpretations of evidence that they don't regard as valid. Implicit in their borrowed Shakespearean rhetoric is the premise that an idea not yet scientifically proven to be true must be false.

A more accurate distinction would be between "facts" and "hypotheses," where the boundary may be harder to draw, but the tentative nature of new scientific knowledge is far more explicit. Debate over that distinction is the essence of good science. When science underlies important public policies, it is entirely legitimate for the media and the public to be interested in, report on, and participate in the debate. I believe the public, by and large, is sophisticated enough to understand that a hypothesis is not yet a fact, and that the policy implications of some hypotheses deserve discussion while research pursues better answers.

If we want good science to be the foundation for policy, we have to speak scientifically. If we want policy to acknowledge the tentative nature of new evidence, we have to call it a hypothesis, not try to discredit it as a "rumor." Calling something false when it's simply not yet agreed to be true is propaganda, not science.