The politics of Golden Rice.

Genetic knowledge applicable to crop improvement has erupted over the past 60 years, and the techniques of introducing genes from one organism to another have enabled new varieties of crops not achievable by previously available methodologies of crop breeding. Research and particularly development of these GMO-crops to a point where they are useful for growers and consumers in most countries is subject to complex national and international rules arising out of the UN's Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity, with 167 country signatories. (The USA and Canada are not signatories.) The Protocol was developed based on concerns initially expressed in the 1970's that such technology presented unusual risks to man and the environment. Those ideas have comprehensively and authoritatively been proven to be wrong. The Protocol has nevertheless spawned significant regulatory obstacles to the development of GMO-crop technology at great cost to global society and in conflict with many other UN objectives. The suspicion induced by the Protocol is also widely used, overtly or covertly, for political purposes. These points are illustrated by reference to the not-for-profit Golden Rice project.

Questions of scientific responsibility: the Baltimore case.

A number of cases of questionable behavior in science have been extensively reported in the media during the last two or three years. What standards are upheld by the scientific community affect the community internally, and also affect its relations with society at large, including Congress. Here I wish to address questions of scientific responsibility, using the Baltimore case as a concrete instance where they came up. The first part containing historical background is necessary to provide readers with documentation so that they can have some factual bases on which to evaluate respective positions and my conclusions that follow -- based on further but more succinctly summarized documentation. I have reproduced many quotes because I firmly believe people are entitled to be represented by their own wording. Conversely, I hold people accountable for their official positions. Some of these are reproduced in footnotes, and some longer ones are reproduced in appendices. I also do not ask to be trusted. By providing numerous references, I hope that readers who find my documentation insufficient can follow up by looking up these references.... The article is in six parts: Part I. Historical Background. This part gives mostly a historical background of the early phases of the Baltimore case. Part II. The First Issue of Responsibility. This part presents a discussion of certain scientific responsibilities based on that background, specifically: the responsibility of answering questions about one's work, and the responsibility whether to submit to authority. Part III. The NIH Investigations. This part summarizes the two NIH investigations. Part IV. The Dingell Subcommittee. This part deals with the responsibilities of a Congressional Committee vis-à-vis science. Part V. Further Issues of Responsibility. This part goes into an open ended discussion of many issues of responsibility facing scientists, vis-à-vis themselves and vis-à-vis society at large, including Congress. The list is long, and readers can look at the section and paragraph headings to get an idea of their content. Part VI. Personal Credibility, a Shift at the Grass Roots, and Baltimore's Persistence.