Government must make sure safety comes first

Dissident scientists matter. They are not always right, but they often ask the right questions; and the case of Dr Arpad Pusztai is an instructive one (see page 10). In 1998 this modest Hungarian plant biologist remarked on television that the safety of genetically modified food was not as certain as some were suggesting. He had been conducting research on GM potatoes and observed some disturbing effects on rats fed the potatoes. He did not claim the research was conclusive, but said that more work should be done before any GM food was fed to people.

Not, on the face of it, an unreasonable position. But in a time when the ethical is routinely sacrificed for the commercial, it should not have surprised Pusztai that he was vilified for his remarks. Some of those who attacked him were the firms hoping to make money out of GM research, some were other scientists who believed he had made his remarks prematurely; but perhaps the most worrying attacks came from the Government.

The result was that a distinguished scientist with 270 research papers behind him was suspended from his job, had his data confiscated and faced sustained assault upon his reputation.

For months, the Government insisted that GM food was completely safe, until last week when Tony Blair finally admitted the possibility that there is cause for "legitimate public concern". Which is exactly what Pusztai said in the first place.

So where does this leave the scientist? Well, not all that much better off in personal terms. But he does have the satisfaction that, in the end, his warnings have been heeded. Blair, Britain's pragmatist-in-chief, has conceded that the public are not going to accept GM food unless more tests are made to ensure its safety. Pusztai made no small contribution to ensuring GM potatoes stayed off supermarket shelves and restaurant menus.

Not that the prime minister is likely to admit this in quite those terms. A pragmatic reversal of a politician's views is common enough but an honourable apology is less fashionable.

Typically, Pusztai dismisses the possibility of any apology with a wry chuckle. His concerns are about the freedom of scientists at a time when research funding comes largely from private companies. This is not a simple issue. Commercial funding of research is to be welcomed; commercial censorship of the results is not. The Government may no longer have the funds to finance its own scientific research, but it must make sure that legislation on issues such as food safety is not governed more by a drive for profit than safety.

It does not seem overly cynical to suggest that private companies are often prepared to be economical with their ethical position in order to boost profits. This is something that governments should guard against, not encourage.

DAVID HARRIS

News Editor, Caterer & Hotelkeeper