Biosecurity and the review and publication of dual-use research of concern

Dual-use research of concern (DURC) is scientific research with significant potential for generating information that could be used to harm national security, the public health, or the environment. Editors responsible for journal policies and publication decisions play a vital role in ensuring that effective safeguards exist to cope with the risks of publishing scientific research with dual-use implications. We conducted an online survey of 127 chief editors of life science journals in 27 countries to examine their attitudes toward and experience with the review and publication of dual-use research of concern. Very few editors (11) had experience with biosecurity review, and no editor in our study reported having ever refused a submission on biosecurity grounds. Most respondents (74.8%) agreed that editors have a responsibility to consider biosecurity risks during the review process, but little consensus existed among editors on how to handle specific issues in the review and publication of research with potential dual-use implications. More work is needed to establish consensus on standards for the review and publication of dual-use research of concern in life science journals.     

Dual-use review policies of biomedical research journals

To address biosecurity issues, government agencies, academic institutions, and professional societies have developed policies concerning the publication of "dual-use" biomedical research-that is, research that could be readily applied to cause significant harm to the public, the environment, or national security. We conducted an e-mail survey of life science journals to determine the percentage that have a dual-use policy. Of the 155 journals that responded to our survey (response rate 39%), only 7.7% stated that they had a written dual-use policy and only 5.8% said they had experience reviewing dual-use research in the past 5 years. Among the potential predictors we investigated, the one most highly associated with a journal having a written dual-use policy was membership in the Nature Publishing Group (positive association). When considered individually, both previous experience with reviewing dual-use research and the journal's impact factor appeared to be positively associated with having a written dual-use policy, but only the former remained significant after adjusting for publishing group. Although preventing the misuse of scientific research for terrorist or criminal purposes is an important concern, few biomedical journals have dual-use review policies. Journals that are likely to review research that raises potential dual-use concerns should consider developing dual-use policies.     

Biosecurity in an age of open science

The risk of accidental or deliberate misuse of biological research is increasing as biotechnology advances. As open science becomes widespread, we must consider its impact on those risks and develop solutions that ensure security while facilitating scientific progress. Here, we examine the interaction between open science practices and biosecurity and biosafety to identify risks and opportunities for risk mitigation. Increasing the availability of computational tools, datasets, and protocols could increase risks from research with misuse potential. For instance, in the context of viral engineering, open code, data, and materials may increase the risk of release of enhanced pathogens. For this dangerous subset of research, both open science and biosecurity goals may be achieved by using access-controlled repositories or application programming interfaces. While preprints accelerate dissemination of findings, their increased use could challenge strategies for risk mitigation at the publication stage. This highlights the importance of oversight earlier in the research lifecycle. Preregistration of research, a practice promoted by the open science community, provides an opportunity for achieving biosecurity risk assessment at the conception of research. Open science and biosecurity experts have an important role to play in enabling responsible research with maximal societal benefit.

The risk of biotechnology being misused is growing and may even be increased by moves towards open science. How can we ensure that the goals of both open science and biosecurity are met?     

Emerging journals. The benefits of and challenges for publishing scientific journals in and by emerging countries

Emerging countries have established national scientific journals as an alternative publication route for their researchers. However, these journals eventually need to catch up to international standards.Since the first scientific journal was founded—The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society in 1665—the number of journals dedicated to publishing academic research has literally exploded. The Thomson Reuters Web of Knowledge database alone—which represents far less than the total number of academic journals—includes more than 11,000 journals from non-profit, society and commercial publishers, published in numerous languages and with content ranging from the natural sciences to the social sciences and humanities. Notwithstanding the sheer scale and diversity of academic publishing, however, there is a difference between the publishing enterprise in developed countries and emerging countries in terms of the commercial rationale behind the journals.…‘national'' or even ‘local'' journals are published and supported because they report important, practical information that would be declined by international journals…Although all academic journals seek to serve their readership by publishing the highest quality and most interesting advances, a growing trend in the twentieth century has also seen publishers in developed countries viewing academic publishing as a way of generating profit, and the desire of journal editors to publish the best and most interesting science thereby serves the commercial interest of publishers who want people to buy the publication.In emerging countries, however, there are few commercial reasons to publish a journal. Instead, ‘national'' or even ‘local'' journals are published and supported because they report important, practical information that would be declined by international journals, either because the topic is of only local or marginal interest, or because the research does not meet the high standards for publication at an international level. Consequently, most ‘national'' journals are not able to finance themselves and depend on public funding. In Brazil, for instance, the national journals account for one-third of the publications of all scientific articles from Brazil and are mostly funded by the government. Other emerging countries that invest in research—notably China, India and Russia—also have a sizable number of national journals, most of which are published in their native language.There is little competition between developed countries to publish the most or the best scientific journals. There is clear competition between the top-flight journals—Nature and Science, for example—but this competition is academically and/or commercially, rather than nationally, based. In fact, countries with similar scientific calibres in terms of the research they generate, differ greatly in terms of the number of journals published within their borders. According to the Thomson Reuters database, for example, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Sweden published 847, 202 and 30 scientific journal, respectively, in 2010—the Netherlands has been a traditional haven for publishers. However, the number of articles published by researchers in these countries in journals indexed by Thomson Reuters—a rough measurement of scientific productivity—does not differ significantly.To overcome the perceived dominance of international journals […] some emerging countries have increased the number of national journalsScientists who edit directly or serve on the editorial boards of high-quality, international journals have a major responsibility because they guide the direction and set the standards of scientific research. In deciding what to publish, they define the quality of research, promote emerging research areas and set the criteria by which research is judged to be new and exciting; they are the gatekeepers of science. The distribution of these scientists also reflects the division between developed and emerging countries in scientific publishing. Using the Netherlands, Switzerland and Sweden as examples, they respectively contributed 235, 256 and 160 scientists to the editorial teams or boards of 220 high-impact, selected journals in 2005 (Braun & Diospatonyi, 2005). These numbers are comparable with the scientific production of these countries in terms of publications. On the other hand, Brazil, South Korea and Russia, countries as scientifically productive in terms of total number of articles as the Netherlands, Switzerland and Sweden, contributed only 28, 29 and 55 ‘gatekeepers'', respectively. A principal reason for this difference is, of course, the more variable quality of the science produced in emerging countries, but it is nevertheless clear that their scientists are under-represented on the teams that define the course and standards of scientific research.To overcome the perceived dominance of international journals, and to address the significant barriers to getting published that their scientists face, some emerging countries have increased the number of national journals (Sumathipala et al, 2004). Such barriers have been well documented and include poor written English and the generally lower or more variable quality of the science produced in emerging countries. However, although English, which is the lingua franca of modern science (Meneghini & Packer, 2007), is not as great a barrier as some would claim, there is some evidence of a conscious or subconscious bias among reviewers and editors in judging articles from emerging countries. (Meneghini et al, 2008; Sumathipala et al, 2004).A third pressure has also forced some emerging countries to introduce more national journals in which to publish academic research from within their borders: greater scientific output. During the past two or three decades, several of these countries have made huge investments into research—notably China, India and Brazil, among others—which has enormously increased their scientific productivity. Initially, the new national journals aspired to adopt the rigid rules of peer review and the quality standards of international journals, but this approach did not produce satisfactory results in terms of the quality of papers published. On the one hand, it is hard for national journals to secure the expertise of scientists competent to review their submissions; on the other, the reviewers who do agree tend to be more lenient, ostensibly believing that peer review as rigorous as that of international journals would run counter to the purpose of making scientific results publicly available, at least on the national level.The establishment of national journals has, in effect, created two parallel communication streams for scientists in emerging countries: publication in international journals—the selective route—and publication in national journals—the regional route. On the basis of their perceived chances to be accepted by an international journal, authors can choose the route that gives them the best opportunity to make their results public. Economic conditions are also important as the resources to produce national journals come from government, so national journals can face budget cuts in times of austerity. In the worst case, this can lead to the demise of national journals to the disadvantage of authors who have built their careers by publishing in them.…to not publish, for any reason, is to break the process of science and potentially inhibit progressThere is some anecdotal evidence that authors who often or almost exclusively publish in international journals hold national journals in some contempt—they regard them as a way of avoiding the effort and hassle of publishing internationally. Moreover, although the way in which governments regard and support the divergent routes varies between countries, in general, scientists who endure and succeed through the selective route often receive more prestige and have more influence in shaping national science policies. Conversely, authors who choose the regional publication route regard their efforts as an important contribution to the dissemination of information generated by the national scientific community, which might otherwise remain locked away—by either language or access policies. Either way, it is worth mentioning that publication is obviously not the end point of a scientific discovery: the results should feed into the pool of knowledge and might inspire other researchers to pursue new avenues or devise new experiments. Hence, to not publish, for any reason, is to break the process of science and potentially inhibit progress.The choice of pursuing publication in regional or international journals also has direct consequences for the research being published. The selective, international route ensures greater visibility, especially if the paper is published in a high-impact journal. The regional route also makes the results and experiments public, but it fails to attract international visibility, in particular if the research is not published in English.It seems that, for the foreseeable future, this scenario will not change. If it is to change, however, then the revolution must be driven by the national journals. In fact, a change that raises the quality and value of national journals would be prudent because it would give scientists from emerging countries the opportunity to sit on the editorial boards of, or referee for, the resulting high-quality national journals. In this way, the importance of national journals would be enhanced and scientists from emerging countries would invest effort and gain experience in serving as editors or referees.The regional route has various weaknesses, however, the most important of which is the peer-review process. Peer-review at national journals is simply of a lower standard owing to several factors that include a lack of training in objective research assessment, greater leniency and tolerance of poor-quality science, and an unwillingness by top researchers to participate because they prefer to give their time to the selective journals. This creates an awkward situation: on the one hand, the inability to properly assess submissions, and on the other hand, a lack of motivation to do so.Notwithstanding these difficulties, most editors and authors of national journals hope that their publications will ultimately be recognized as visible, reliable sources of information, and not only as instruments to communicate national research to the public. In other words, their aspiration is not only to publish good science—albeit of lesser interest to international journals—but also to attain the second or third quartiles of impact factors in their areas. These journals should eventually be good enough to compete with the international ones, mitigating their national character and attracting authors from other countries.The key is to raise the assessment procedures at national journals to international standards, and to professionalize their operations. Both goals are interdependent. The vast majority of national journals are published by societies and research organizations and their editorial structures are often limited to local researchers. As a result, they are shoestring operations that lack proper administrative support and international input, and can come across as amateurish. The SciELO (Scientific Electronic Library Online), which indexes national journals and measures their quality, can require certain changes when it indexes a journal, including the requirement to internationalize the editorial body or board.…experienced international editors should be brought in to strengthen national journals, raise their quality and educate local editors…In terms of improving this status quo, a range of other changes could be introduced. First, more decision-making authority should be given to publishers to decide how to structure the editorial body. The choice of ad hoc assistants—that is, professional scientists who can lend expertise at the editorial level should be selected by the editors—who should also assess journal performance. Moreover, publishers should try to attract international scientists with editorial experience to join a core group of two or three chief or senior editors. Their English skills, their experience in their research field and their influence in the community would catalyse a rapid improvement of the journals and their quality. In other words, experienced international editors should be brought in to strengthen national journals, raise their quality and educate local editors with the long-term objective to join the international scientific editing community. It would eventually merge the national and the selective routes of publishing into a single international route of scientific communication.Of course, there is a long way to go. The problem is that many societies and organizations do not have sufficient resources—money or experience—to attract international scientists as editors. However, new publishing and financial models could provide incentives to attract this kind of expertise. Ultimately, relying on government money alone is neither a reliable nor sufficient source of income to make national journals successful. One way of enhancing revenue streams might be to switch to an open-access model that would charge author fees that could be reinvested to improve the journals. In Brazil, for instance, almost all journals have adopted the open access model (Hedlund et al, 2004). The author fees—around US$1,250—if adopted, would provide financial support for increasing the quality and performance of the journals. Moreover, increased competition between journals at a national level should create a more dynamic and competitive situation among journals, raising the general quality of the science they publish. This would also feed back to the scientific community and help to raise the general standards of science in emerging countries.     

The dual-use dilemma for the life sciences: perspectives, conundrums, and global solutions

The term "dual-use" traditionally has been used to describe technologies that could have both civilian and military usage, but this term has at least three different dimensions that pose a dilemma for modern biology and its possible misuse for hostile purposes: (1) ostensibly civilian facilities that are in fact intended for military or terrorist bioweapons development and production; (2) equipment and agents that could be misappropriated and misused for biological weapons development and production; and (3) the generation and dissemination of scientific knowledge that could be misapplied for biological weapons development and production. These three different aspects of the "dual-use dilemma" are frequently confused--each demands a distinct approach within a "web of prevention" in order to reduce the future risk of bioterrorism and biowarfare. This article discusses the nature of the different perspectives and divergent approaches as a contribution to finding a scientifically acceptable global solution to the problem posed by the dual-use dilemma. We propose that: (1) facilities that are intended for bioweapons development and production should be primarily prevented by a strengthened Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC) effectively implemented in all nation states, one that includes provisions for adequate transparency to improve confidence and a mechanism for thorough inspections when there is sufficient cause, and enhanced law enforcement activities involving international cooperation and sharing of critical intelligence information; (2) potentially dual-use equipment and agents should be available to legitimate users for peaceful purposes, but strengthened national biosafety and physical and personnel biosecurity controls in all nations together with effective export controls should be implemented to limit the potential for the misappropriation of such equipment and materials; and (3) information should be openly accessible by the global scientific community, but a culture of responsible conduct involving the breadth of the international life sciences communities should be adopted to protect the ongoing revolution in the life sciences from being hijacked for hostile misuse of the knowledge generated and communicated by life scientists.     

Brazil and the development of international scientific biosafety testing guidelines for transgenic crops

Under the umbrella of the International Organisation of Biological Control (IOBC), an international working group of public sector scientists entitled on "Transgenic Organisms in Integrated Pest Management and Biological Control" has been organized. The group will develop scientific principles and detailed scientific guidelines for biosafety testing of transgenic crops. The key elements of this project are: (1) An international initiative including expert scientists from leading research institutions in developed and developing countries; (2) coordination of the development and implementation of the guidelines as a dynamic process, which will include scientific and technical capacity building and communication among scientists and between scientists and policy makers; (3) rapid serial publication of sections of the guidelines as they are completed; and (4) rapid and timely revision of previously published sections. The guidelines will be constructed on a case-by-case basis and will have no regulatory legitimacy themselves.     

Modernizing confidence-building measures for the Biological Weapons Convention

The Seventh Review Conference of the Biological Weapons Convention in December 2011 provides an opportunity to modernize the treaty to better address the challenges of the 21st century. The key to this modernization is to redesign the treaty's Confidence-Building Measures (CBMs), the only formal mechanism for increasing transparency and demonstrating compliance with the treaty, to address changes in the global scientific, health, and security environments since the end of the Cold War. The scope of the CBMs should be expanded beyond state-run biological warfare programs to encompass a broader array of threats to global security, such as biological terrorism, laboratory accidents, dual-use research, and disease pandemics. Modernizing the CBM mechanism to take into account these new risks would extend the transparency-enhancing benefits of CBMs to a range of new and important topics, such as biosafety, laboratory biosecurity, and dual-use research oversight; make the CBMs and the treaty itself more relevant to the concerns and priorities of more states; and build on progress made during the recent series of intersessional meetings. To accomplish this, the CBMs need to be revised to shift their focus from hardware, the dual-use capabilities relevant to the treaty, to software, the political and legal institutions that govern the development and use of these capabilities. A more modern CBM mechanism should encourage greater participation in the confidence-building process, improve international cooperation against the full spectrum of biological risks, and promote the goal of universal membership in the treaty.     

Lost in translation

Some view social constructivism as a threat to the unique objectivity of science in describing the world. But social constructivism merely observes the process of science and can offer ways for science to regain public esteem.Political groups, civil organizations, the media and private citizens increasingly question the validity of scientific findings about challenging issues such as global climate change, and actively resist the application of new technologies, such as GM crops. By using new communication technologies, these actors can reach out to many people in real time, which gives them a huge advantage over the traditional, specialist and slow communication of scientific research through peer-reviewed publications. They use emotive stories with a narrow focus, facts and accessible language, making them often, at least in the eyes of the public, more credible than scientific experts. The resulting strength of public opinion means that scientific expertise and validated facts are not always the primary basis for decision-making by policy-makers about issues that affect society and the environment.The scientific community has decried this situation not only as a crisis of public trust in experts but more so as a loss of trust in scientific objectivity. The reason for this development, some claim, is a postmodernist perception of science as a social construction [1]. This view claims that context—in other words society—determines the acceptance of a scientific theory and the reliability of scientific facts. This is in conflict with the more traditional view held by most scientists, that experimental evidence, analysis and validation by scientific means are the instruments to determine truth. ‘Social constructivism'', as this postmodernist view on science has been called, challenges the ‘traditional'' view of science: that it is an objective, experiment-based approach to collect evidence that results in a linear accumulation of knowledge, leading to reliable, scientifically proven facts and trust in the role of experts.However, constructivists maintain that society and science have always influenced one another, thereby challenging the notion that science is objective and only interested in uncovering the truth. Moderate social constructivism merely acknowledges a controversy and attempts to provide answers. The extreme interpretation of this approach sustains that all facts and all parties—no matter how absurd or unproven their ‘facts'' and claims—should be treated equally, without any consideration for their interests [2].…scientific expertise and validated facts are not always the primary basis for decision-making by policy-makers about issues that affect society and the environmentThe truth might actually be somewhere in the middle, between taking scientific results as absolute truths at one extreme, and requiring that all facts and all actors should be given equal attention and consideration at the other. What is needed, however, is a closer connection and mutual appreciation between science and society, especially when it comes to science policy and making decisions that require scientific expertise. To claim that all perspectives are equally important when there is a lack of absolute facts—leading to an ‘all truths are equal'' approach to decision-making—is surely ridiculous. Nonetheless, societies are highly complex and sufficient facts are often not available when policy-makers and regulatory bodies have to make a decision. The aim of this essay is to argue that social construction and scientific objectivity can coexist and even benefit from one another.The question is whether social constructivism really caused a crisis of objectivity and a change in the traditional view of science? A main characteristic of the traditional view is that science progresses in isolation from any societal influences. However, there are historical and contemporary examples of how social mores influence the acceptability of certain areas of research, the direction of scientific research and even the formation of a scientific consensus—or in the words of Thomas Kuhn, of a scientific paradigm.Arrival at a scientific consensus driven by non-scientific factors will probably happen in a new research field when there is insufficient scientific information or knowledge to make precise claims. As such, societal factors can become determinants in settling disputes, at least until more information emerges. Religious and ethical beliefs have had such an impact on science throughout history. One could argue, for example, that the focus on research into induced pluripotent stem cells and the potency of adult stem cells is driven, at least in part, by religious and ethical objections to using human embryonic stem cells. Similarly, the near universal consensus that scientists should not clone humans is not based on scientific reason, but on social, religious and ethical arguments.Another example of the influence of non-scientific values on the establishment of a scientific consensus comes from the field of artificial intelligence. In the 1960s, a controversy erupted between the proponents of symbolic processing—led by Marvin Minsky—and the proponents of neural nets—who had been led by the charismatic Frank Rosenblatt. The publication of a book by Minsky and Seymour Papert, which concluded that progress in neural networks faced insurmountable limitations, coincided with the unfortunate death of Rosenblatt and massive funding from the US Department of Defense through the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) for projects on symbolic processing. DARPA''s decision to ignore neural networks—because they could not foresee any immediate military applications—convinced other funding agencies to avoid the field and blocked research on neural nets for a decade. This has become known as the first artificial intelligence winter [3]. The military, in particular, has often had a major influence on setting the direction of scientific research. The atomic bomb, radar and the first computers are just some examples of how military interests drove scientific progress and its application.The traditional perception of science also supposes a gradual and linear accumulation of scientific knowledge. Whilst the gradual part remains undisputed, scientific progress is not linear. Theories are proposed, discussed, rejected, accepted, sometimes forgotten, rediscovered and reborn with modifications as part of an ever-changing network of scientific facts and knowledge. Gregor Mendel discovered the laws of inheritance in 1865, but his finding received scant attention until their rediscovery in the early 1900s by Carl Correns and Erich von Tschermak. Ignaz Semmelweis, a Hungarian obstetrician, developed the theory that puerperal fever or childbed fever is mainly transmitted by the poor hygiene of doctors before assisting in births. He observed that when doctors washed their hands with a chlorine solution before obstetric consultations, deaths in obstetrics wards were drastically reduced. The medical community ridiculed Semmelweis at the time, but the development of Louis Pasteur''s germ theory of disease eventually vindicated him [4].Another challenge to the traditional view of science is the claim that scientific facts are constructed. This does not necessarily imply that they are false: it acknowledges the process of independently conducted experiments, ‘trial and error'' approaches, collaborations and discussions, to establish a final consensus that then becomes scientific fact. Critics of constructivism claim that viewing scientific discovery this way opens the gate to non-scientific influences and arguments, thereby undermining factuality. However, without consensus on the importance of a discovery, no fact is sufficient to change or establish a scientific theory. In fact, classical peer review treats scientific discoveries as constructions essentially by taking apart the proposed fact, analysing the process of its determination and, based on the evidence, accepting or rejecting it.‘Social constructivism'' […] challenges the ‘traditional'' view of science: that it is an objective, experiment-based approach to collect evidence…Ultimately, then, it seems that social constructivism itself is not the sole or most important factor for changing the traditional view of science. Social, religious and ethical values have always influenced human endeavours, and science is no exception. Yet, there is one aspect of traditional science for which constructivism only has the role of an observer: public trust in scientific experts. Societies can resist the introduction of new technologies owing to their potential risks. Traditionally, the potential victims of such hazards—consumers, affected communities and the environment—had no input into either the risk-assessment process, or the decisions that were made on the basis of the assessment.The difficulty is that postmodern societies tend to perceive certain risks as greater compared with how they were viewed by modern or premodern societies, ostensibly and partly because of globalization and better communication [5]. As a result, the evaluation of risk increasingly takes into account political considerations. Each stakeholder inevitably defines risks and their acceptability according to their own agenda, and brings their own cadre of experts and evidence to support their claims. As such, the role of unbiased experts is undermined not only because they are similarly accused of having their own agenda, but also because the line between experts and non-experts is redrawn [5]. In addition, the internet and other communication technologies have unprecedentedly empowered non-expert users to broadcast their opinions. The emergence of so-called ‘pseudo-experts'', enabled by “the cult of the amateur” [6], further challenges the position of scientific experts. Trust is no longer a given for anyone, and even when people trust science, it is not lasting, and has to be earned for new information. This erosion of trust cannot be blamed entirely on the “cult of the amateur”. The German sociologist Ulrich Beck argued that when scientists make recommendations to society on how to deal with risks, they inevitably make assumptions that are embedded in cultural values, moving into a social and cultural sphere without assessing the public view of those values. Scientists thus presuppose a certain set of social and cultural values and judge everything that comes against that set as irrational [5].…without consensus on the importance of a discovery, no fact is sufficient to change or establish a scientific theoryRegardless of how trust in expertise was eroded, and how pseudo-experts have filled the gap, the main issue is how to assess the implications of scientific results and new technologies, and how to manage any risks that they entail. To gain and maintain trust, decision-making must consider stakeholder involvement and public opinion. However, when public participation attempts to accommodate an increasing number of stakeholders, it raises the difficult issue of who should be involved, either as part of the administrative process or as producers of knowledge [7,8]. An increasing number of participants in decision-making and an increasing amount of information can result in conflicting perspectives, different perceptions of facts and even half-truths or half-lies when information is not available, missing or not properly explained. There is no dominant perspective and all evidence seems subjective. This seems to be the nightmare scenario when ‘all truths are equal''.It is important to point out that the constructivist perspective of looking at the interactions between science and society is not an attempt to impose a particular world-view; it is merely an attempt to understand the mechanisms of these interactions. It attempts to explain why, for example, anti-GMO activists destroy experimental field trials without any scientific proof regarding the harm of such experiments. In addition, constructivism does not attempt to destroy the credibility of science, nor to overemphasize alternative knowledge, but to offer possibilities for wider participation in policy-making, especially in contentious cases when the lines between the public and experts are no longer clear [8]. In this situation, expert knowledge is not meant to be replaced by non-expert knowledge, but to be enriched by it.Nonetheless, the main question is whether scientific objectivity can prevail when science meets society. The answer should be yes. Even when several seemingly valid perspectives persist, objective facts are and should be the foundation of decisions taken. Scientific facts do matter and there are objective frameworks in place to prove or disprove the validity of information. Yet, in settling disputes, the decision must also be accountable to prevent loss of trust. By establishing frameworks for inclusive discussions and acknowledging the role of non-expert knowledge, either by indicating areas of public concern or by improving the communication of scientific facts, consent and thus support for the decision can be achieved.Moreover, scientific facts are important, but they are only part of an informational package. In particular, the choice of words and the style of writing can become more important than the factual content of a message. Scientists cannot communicate to the wider public using scientific jargon and then expect unconditional trust. People tend to mistrust things they cannot understand. To be part of a decision-making process, members of the public need access to scientific information presented in an understandable manner. The core issue is communication, or more specifically, translation: explaining facts and findings by considering the receiver and context, and adapting the message and language accordingly. Scientists must therefore translate their work. Equally important, they must do this proactively to take advantage of social constructivism and its view of science. By understanding how controversies around new scientific discoveries and scientific expertise arise, they can devise better communication strategies.…the internet and other communication technologies have unprecedentedly empowered non-expert users to broadcast their opinionsSome examples show how better interaction between science and society—such as the involvement of more stakeholders and the use of appropriate language in communication—can raise awareness and acceptability of previously contentious technologies. In Burkina Faso in 1999, Monsanto partnered with Africare to provide farmers with GM cotton to address pest resistance to pesticides and to increase yields. The plan was originally met with suspicion from the public and public research institutes, but the partners managed to build trust among the different stakeholders by providing transparent and correct information. The project started with a public–private partnership. By being open about their motives, including profit-making, and acknowledging and discussing any potential risks, the project gradually achieved the full support of the main partners [9]. Another challenge was the relationship between scientists and journalists. By using scientific communicators that were both open to dialogue and careful to maintain the discussion within scientific boundaries, the relationship with the press improved [10]. In this case, efforts to translate scientific knowledge included transparency of information and contextualizing its delivery, as well as an increasingly wider participation of stakeholders in the development and commercialization of GM cotton.…scientists[…]should consider proactively translating their research for a wider audience […] in an inclusive and contextualized mannerWhen the Philippines, the first Asian country to adopt a GM food, approved Bt maize, environmental NGOs and the Catholic Church opposed the crop with regular protests. These slowly dissipated as farmers gradually adopted Bt maize [11] and the reporting media focused less on sensationalist stories [12]. Between 2000 and 2009, media coverage contributed substantially to a mostly positive (41%) or neutral (38%) public perception of biotechnology in the Philippines [12]. Most newspaper reports focused on the public accountability of biotechnology governance and analysed the validity of scientific information, together with the way in which conflicts in biotechnology research were managed. Science writers translated scientific facts into language that the wider public could understand. In addition, sources in which the public placed trust—either scientists or environmentalists—were cited in the media, which helped to facilitate public discussion [12]. In this case, the efforts of science writers to provide balanced, well-informed coverage, as well as a platform for public discussions, effectively translated the scientific facts and improved public opinion of Bt maize.Constructivism is not a threat to science. It is a concept that looks at the components and the processes through which a scientific theory or fact emerges; it is not an alternative to these processes. In fact, scientists should consider embracing constructivism, not only to understand what happens with the products of their labour beyond the laboratory, but also to understand the forces that determine the fate of scientific developments. We live in a complex world in which individual actors are empowered through modern communication tools. This might make it more challenging to prove and maintain scientific objectivity, but it does not make it unnecessary. Public decision-making requires an objective fact base for all decisions concerning the use of scientific discoveries in society. If scientists want to prevent their messages from being misunderstood or hijacked for political purposes, they should consider proactively translating their research for a wider audience themselves, in an inclusive and contextualized manner.? Open in a separate windowMonica Racovita     

Stem-cell tourism and scientific responsibility. Stem-cell researchers are in a unique position to curb the problem of stem-cell tourism

Stem-cell tourism exploits the hope of patients desperate for therapies and cures. Scientists have both a special responsibility and a unique role to play in addressing this problem.During the past decade, thousands of patients with a variety of diseases unresponsive to conventional treatment have gone abroad to receive stem-cell therapies. This phenomenon, commonly referred to as ‘stem-cell tourism'', raises significant ethical concerns, because patients often receive treatments that are not only unproven, but also unregulated, potentially dangerous or even fraudulent (Kiatpongsan & Sipp, 2009; Lindvall & Hyun, 2009). Stem-cell clinics have sprung up in recent years to take advantage of desperate patients who have exhausted other alternatives (Ryan et al, 2010). These clinics usually advertise their services directly to consumers through the Internet, make extravagant claims about the benefits, downplay the risks involved and charge hefty fees of US $20,000 or more for treatments (Lau et al, 2008; Regenberg et al, 2009).Stem-cell tourism is regarded as ethically problematic because patients receive unproven therapies from untrustworthy sourcesWith a few exceptions—such as the use of bone-marrow haematopoietic cells to treat leukaemia—novel stem-cell therapies are often unproven in clinical trials (Lindvall & Hyun, 2009). Even well-proven therapies can lead to tumour formation, tissue rejection, autoimmunity, permanent disability and death (Gallagher & Forrest, 2007; Murphy & Blazar, 1999). The risks of unproven and unregulated therapies are potentially much worse (Barclay, 2009).In this commentary, we argue that stem-cell scientists have a unique and important role to play in addressing the problem of stem-cell tourism. Stem-cell scientists should carefully examine all requests to provide cell lines and other materials, and share them only with responsible investigators or clinicians. They should require recipients of stem cells to sign material transfer agreements (MTAs) that describe how the cells may be used, and to provide documentation about their scientific or medical qualifications.In discussing these ethical and regulatory issues, it is important to distinguish between stem-cell tourism and other types of travel to receive medical treatment including stem-cell therapy. Stem-cell tourism is regarded as ethically problematic because patients receive unproven therapies from untrustworthy sources. Other forms of travel usually do not raise troubling ethical issues (Lindvall & Hyun, 2009). Many patients go to other countries to receive proven stem-cell therapies—such as haematopoietic cells to treat leukaemia—from responsible physicians. Other patients obtain unproven stem-cell treatments by participating in scientifically valid, legally sanctioned clinical trials, or by receiving ethically responsible, innovative medical care (Lindvall & Hyun, 2009). In some cases, patients need to travel because the therapy is approved in only some countries; by way of example, on 1 July, Korea was the first country that approved the clinical use of adult stem cells to treat heart attack victims (Heejung & Yi, 2011).…even when regulations are in place, unscrupulous individuals might still evade these rulesAny medical innovation is ethically responsible when it is based on animal studies or other research that guarantee evidence of safety and clinical efficacy. Adequate measures must also be taken to protect patients from harm, such as clinical monitoring, follow-up, exclusion of individuals who are likely to be harmed or are unlikely to benefit, use of only clinical-grade stem cells, careful attention to dosing strategies and informed consent (Lindvall & Hyun, 2009).Many of the articles examining the ethics of stem-cell tourism have focused on the need for more regulatory oversight and education to prevent harm (Lindvall & Hyun, 2009; Caplan & Levine, 2010; Cohen & Cohen, 2010; Zarzeczny & Caulfield, 2010). We agree that additional regulations are needed, as there is little oversight of stem-cell research or therapy at present. Although most countries have regulations for conducting research with human subjects, as well as medical malpractice and licensing laws, these provide general guidance and do not directly address stem-cell therapy.Regulations have significant limitations, however. First, regulations apply intra-nationally, not internationally. If a country passes laws designed to oversee therapy and research, these laws would not apply in another nation. Physicians and investigators who do not want to adhere to these rules can simply move to another country that has a permissive legal environment. International agreements can help to close this regulatory gap, but there will still be countries that do not accept or abide by these agreements. Second, even when regulations are in place, unscrupulous individuals might still evade these rules (Resnik, 1999).Educating patients about the risks of unproven therapies can also help to address the problem of stem-cell tourism. However, education too has significant limitations, since many people will remain ignorant of the dangers of unproven therapies, or they will simply ignore warnings and prudent advice. For many years, cancer patients have travelled to foreign countries to receive unconventional and unproven treatments, despite educational campaigns and media reports discussing the dangers of these therapies. Since the 1970s, thousands of patients have travelled to cancer clinics in Mexico to receive medical treatments not available in the USA (Moss, 2005).Education for physicians on the dangers of unproven stem-cell therapies can be helpful, but this strategy also has limitations, since many will not receive this education or will choose to ignore it. Additionally, responsible physicians might still find it difficult to persuade their patients not to receive an unproven therapy, especially when conventional treatments have failed. The history of cancer treatment offers important lessons here, since many oncologists have tried, unsuccessfully, to convince their patients not travel to foreign countries to receive questionable treatments (Moss, 2005).Since regulation and education have significant shortcomings, it is worth considering another strategy for dealing with the problem of stem-cell tourism, one that focuses on the social responsibilities of stem-cell scientists.Many codes of ethics adopted by scientific associations include provisions relating to social responsibilities (Shamoo & Resnik, 2009). For example, the Code of Ethics of the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology states that “investigators will promote and follow practices that enhance the public interest or well-being” (American Society of Microbiology, 2011). Social responsibilities in science include an obligation to avoid causing harm and an obligation to benefit the public (Shamoo & Resnik, 2009).…education too has significant limitations, since many people will remain ignorant of the dangers of unproven therapies, or they will simply ignore warnings and prudent adviceThere are two distinct rationales for social responsibility. First, scientists should be accountable to the public since the public provides scientists with funding, facilities and staff (Shamoo & Resnik, 2009). Second, stem-cell scientists are uniquely positioned to exercise their social responsibilities and take effective action pertaining to stem-cell tourism. They understand the science behind stem-cell research, including the potential for harm and the likely clinical efficacy. This knowledge can be used to evaluate the scientific validity of the different uses of stem cells, especially clinical uses. Stem-cell scientists also have control over cell lines and other materials that they may or may not choose to share with other researchers or physicians.Many of the private clinics that offer stem-cell treatments are relatively small and often depend on acquiring resources from scientists working in the field. The materials they might require could include adult, embryonic and fetal stem-cell lines; vectors that can be used to induce pluripotency in isolated adult cells; genes, DNA and RNA sequences; antibodies; purified protein products, such as growth factors; and special cocktails, media or extracellular matrices to culture specific stem-cell types.Social responsibilities in science include an obligation to avoid causing harm and an obligation to benefit the publicOne way in which stem-cell scientists can help to address the problem of stem-cell tourism is to refuse to share cell lines or other materials with physicians or investigators whom they believe might be behaving irresponsibly. To decide whether someone who requests materials is a responsible individual, stem-cell scientists should ask recipients to supply documentation, such as a CV, website, a research or clinical protocol, or clinical trial number, as evidence of their work and expertise in stem cells. This would ensure that the stem cells and other materials are going to be used in the course of responsible biomedical research, a legally sanctioned clinical trial, or in responsible medical innovation. If the recipients provide insufficient documentation, scientists should refuse to honour their requests for materials.Stem-cell scientists should also require recipients to sign MTAs that describe what will be done with the material supplied. MTAs are contracts governing the transfer of materials between organizations and typically include a variety of terms and conditions, such as the purposes for which the materials may be used—commercial or academic research, for example—modification of the materials, transfers to third parties, intellectual property rights, and compliance with legal, regulatory and other policies (Rodriguez, 2005).To help address the problem of stem-cell tourism, MTAs should state whether the materials will be used in humans, and under what conditions. If the stem cells are not clinical grade, the MTA should state that they will not be transplanted into humans, unless the recipients have a well-developed and legally sanctioned procedure—approved by the Food and Drug Administration or other relevant agency—for verifying the quality of the cells and performing the necessary changes to make them acceptable for human use. For example, the recipients could test the cells for viral and bacterial infections, mutations, chemical impurities or other factors that would compromise their clinical utility in an attempt to develop clinical grade cell lines.In addition, the MTA could stipulate that scientists must follow the ethical Guidelines for Clinical Translation of Stem Cells set forth by the International Society for Stem Cell Research (Hyun et al, 2008). These guidelines set forth various preclinical and clinical conditions for stem-cell interventions. Describing such conditions might help to deter unscrupulous individuals from using stem cells for scientifically and ethically questionable practices. By evaluating a recipient''s qualifications and intended uses of stem-cell lines and other reagents, scientists demonstrate social responsibility and uphold public trust when sharing materials.Stem-cell scientists also have control over cell lines and other materials that they may or may not choose to share with other researchers or physiciansSince an MTA is a type of contract between institutions, there is legal recourse if it is broken. A plaintiff could sue a defendant that violates an MTA for breach of contract. Also, if the aggrieved party is a funding agency, it could withhold research funding from the offending party. The onus is on the plaintiff—the scientist and scientific organization providing the materials—to file a lawsuit against the defendants for breach of contract and this requires the scientist or others in the organization to follow-up and ensure that the materials transferred are being used in compliance with the conditions set forth in the MTA.Some might object to our proposal because it violates the principle of scientific openness, which is an integral part of the ethos of science (Shamoo & Resnik, 2009). Scientists have an obligation to share data, reagents, cell lines, methods and other research tools because sharing is vital to the progress of science. Many granting agencies and journals also have policies that require scientists to make data and materials available to other scientists on request (Shamoo & Resnik, 2009).Although openness is vital to the ethical practice of science, it can be superseded by other important factors, such as protecting the privacy and confidentiality of human research subjects, safeguarding proprietary or classified research, securing intellectual property or scientific priority, or preventing bioterrorism (Shamoo & Resnik, 2009). We consider tackling the problem of stem-cell tourism to be a sufficiently important reason for refusing to share research materials in some situations.Although openness is vital to the ethical practice of science, it can be superseded by other important factors…Some might also object to our proposal on the grounds that it places unnecessary burdens on already overworked scientists, or that unscrupulous scientists and physicians will find alternative ways to obtain stem cells, even if investigators refuse to share them.We recognize the need to avoid burdening researchers unnecessarily with administrative work, but we think that verifying the qualifications of a recipient and reviewing a protocol is a reasonable burden. If principal investigators do not wish to shoulder this responsibility, they can ask a postdoctoral fellow or another senior member of the laboratory or faculty to help them. Far from being a waste of time and effort, taking some simple steps to determine whether requests for stem cells come from responsible physicians or investigators can be an important part of the scientific community''s response to stem-cell tourism.A month before his death in 1963, former US President John F. Kennedy (1917-1963) made an address at the Centennial Convocation of the National Academy of Sciences in which he said: “If scientific discovery has not been an unalloyed blessing, if it has conferred on mankind the power not only to create but also to annihilate, it has at the same time provided humanity with a supreme challenge and a supreme testing.” Stem-cell scientists can rise to this challenge and address the problem of stem-cell tourism by ensuring that the products of their research are controlled responsibly and shared wisely with genuine investigators or clinicians through the use of MTAs. Doing so should help to deter fraudulent scientists or physicians from exploiting patients who travel to foreign countries in their desperate search for cures.? Open in a separate windowZubin MasterOpen in a separate windowDavid B Resnik     

Science under politics. An Italian nightmare

Is political interference in science unavoidable? A look at the situation in Italy highlights what can happen if scientists do not defend their independence and their science.The second half of the twentieth century has seen the relationship between society, politics and science become increasingly complex and controversial. Particularly in democratic countries—where the application of scientific research and the diffusion of knowledge have contributed to a significant increase in the well-being of citizens—scientists have had to face interference from political, religious and ideological interest groups. Even the seemingly powerful scientific community in the USA was affected by an ‘epidemic of politics'' under the administration of President George W. Bush. This ‘infection of science'' was characterized by inappropriate political meddling in research driven by political prejudices and religious arguments, especially in more controversial research fields. During his tenure, Bush established science and health policies that went against expert advice, and in several cases made controversial appointments to key positions in scientific and health agencies (Kennedy, 2003; Mooney, 2005). This was all the more shocking because science and scientists in the USA have generally enjoyed a great deal of political independence.Even the seemingly powerful scientific community in the USA was affected by an ‘epidemic of politics'' under the administration of President George W. BushSuch ‘epidemics of politics'' are not exclusive to the USA; political interference in scientific research and its applications is endemic in many countries. Such meddling can take various forms depending on the country in question, the different democratic decision-making processes at work, the relative influences of politics, economics and society on the scientific community and, to some extent, the level of scientific literacy of the public. During the past two decades, science in Italy has been suffering from a particularly severe form of political interference that we believe deserves international consideration, if only to act as a warning for other countries.Italian science has often found itself entangled in political controversy. After the unification of the country in 1861, during the last two decades of the nineteenth century and the first decade of the twentieth century, Italian scientists actively participated in political debates about how to improve and integrate the fragments of Italian society, culture, economy, health, and so on. But from the beginning, they often confused political battles with their professional status and/or scientific disagreements (Casella et al, 2000). Throughout the fascist era, the scientific community—similarly to the rest of the country—was subjected to the rule of Benito Mussolini''s regime (Maiocchi, 2004). After the Second World War, both Catholic and Marxist ideologies prevented the rise of an autonomous scientific community, so Italian scientists had and still have little cultural or political influence.During the past two decades, science in Italy has been suffering from a particularly severe form of political interference…Yet Italians are far from hostile to science; they follow advances in research and technology with keen interest and expectation, as shown by a fairly recent survey (Eurobarometer, 2005a, b). Politicians, influential intellectuals and lobbyists who oppose research and innovation for various reasons have therefore adopted a strategy of trying to manipulate and censor facts. Rather than confronting the scientific evidence directly, they maintain a high degree of political control over scientific research and its applications. As a result, the validity of scientific evidence has become optional and its use arbitrary in public and political discussions.This situation has been virtually de rigueur since the advent of Silvio Berlusconi in 1994, although it would be unfair to say that the current Italian Prime Minister is the main culprit. Indeed, many factors have acted together to make Italian science prey to political influence, including the predominance of non-transparent and nepotistic approaches to the public funding of research, the chronic cultural and political impotence of Italian scientists and the waning professional quality of the national political and intellectual elites (Corbellini, 2009). The examples provided here should illustrate the weaknesses of the Italian scientific community and how politicians—irrespective of their political colour—have been reluctant to understand and respect the value of scientific procedures and evidence.In 1997, the Italian media regaled its readers with stories about a new and supposedly effective treatment for cancer, which had been developed by the physician and professor Luigi Di Bella, then at the University of Modena. The media storm was so convincing that a judge in Apulia ordered the local public health authorities to provide patients with the drug cocktail required for the therapy, despite the absence of a scientific basis for the claims or clinical evidence for the efficacy of the treatment (Remuzzi & Schieppati, 1999). The Di Bella multi-therapy (DBM)—as the treatment was called—soon became a topic for political wrangling between the members of right-wing parties who supported the treatment, and the more sceptical, ruling centre-left party. This continued until the health ministry, backed by prominent Italian oncologists, eventually agreed to sponsor a controversial clinical trial. This exposed the Italian medical community to international scorn (Müllner, 1999) and highlighted the lack of accurate and factual scientific information in the public debate (Passalacqua et al, 1999).Politicians, influential intellectuals and lobbyists who oppose research and innovation for various reasons have therefore adopted a strategy of manipulating and censoring factsIn late 2000 and early 2001, Italian plant biotechnologists were up in arms over a decree proposed by the centre-left government''s agricultural ministry that would have banned funding for any plant research involving genetic modification (Frank, 2000). The decree was eventually withdrawn as the result of a political move to prevent the opposition from exploiting the dispute. However, when the centre-right coalition came to power in May 2001, the new Ministry of Agriculture proved equally averse to the use of genetically modified plants. As a result, research in the field of plant genetics in Italy remains virtually devoid of public funding and a series of byzantine regulations still prevent Italian farmers from using genetically modified crops, despite the lack of scientific evidence that they are dangerous. In fact, the law does not explicitly ban their use and they are routinely imported as livestock feed.Striking examples of the manipulation and censorship of science were seen during the fierce debate that followed the introduction of Law 40—which was issued in 2004 with the apparent unofficial support of the Catholic Church—that limited the use of in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures and banned research on human embryos. According to this law, each IVF procedure is allowed to create only three embryos, all of which must be implanted into the recipient mother (Boggio, 2005). This is in contrast to international guidelines on clinical practice (www.eshre.eu). Law 40 also prohibits pre-implantation diagnosis and the cryopreservation of embryos, as well as the generation of embryonic stem-cell lines, even when these are obtained from superfluous embryos that were created before the law was enforced and are destined to be stored frozen indefinitely.In 2005, patient advocacy groups and left parties called for a referendum to abrogate Law 40. This ignited a fierce dispute with Catholic politicians, backed by a handful of scientists, who called on voters to boycott the referendum and claimed that the law was scientifically sound and improved safety for patients (Vogel, 2005; Boggio & Corbellini, 2009). Interestingly, rather than attempting to justify their position with ethical, legal, scientific or religious arguments, the supporters of Law 40 often adopted the strategy of denigrating scientific research and facts and spreading misleading information (Corbellini, 2006). They claimed, for example, that pre-implantation diagnosis did not work, that the cryopreservation of embryos was not clinically necessary and that research with embryonic stem cells was pointless because adult stem cells had been proven to be effective for treating dozens of diseases (Corbellini, 2007).According to the Italian Constitution, the referendum was invalidated as less than 50% of the electorate voted. The proportion of Italian citizens who usually vote in a referendum is about 60%, and analysis shows that most non-voters decided not to participate because they did not understand what was at stake (Corbellini, 2006). Six years later, Law 40 has finally been revised by a series of decisions at Italy''s Constitutional Court and now, in some circumstances, pre-implantation diagnosis and the cryopreservation of embryos is permitted.The preceding examples have highlighted how Italian politicians and special interest groups have stifled scientific progress and liberty within Italy. The following examples highlight how political meddling and influence are jeopardizing the competitiveness of Italian research on the international stage.The teaching of evolution came frighteningly close to being scrapped from primary school curricula in Italy under a reform instigated by the 2003 centre-right government. It was reinstated only when the issue led to a political brawl between the Cabinet and the left-wing press (Frazzetto, 2004).Italy lacks an independent agency for research and also compulsory, transparent and unbiased selection processesThe same right-wing government was also opposed to the creation of the European Research Council (ERC), arguing that the agency would be too independent from political control (ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/italy/docs/positionfp7_it.pdf). This is not surprising for a country in which the chairs of public research institutions and the scientific directors of research hospitals are appointed by the government (with a few notable exceptions, see Anon, 2008) and where funding is often granted in a top-down manner by governmental decree to specific institutes, without public calls or peer review (Margottini, 2008).Even when funding is subject to peer review, cases in which money ends up at laboratories that are directly affiliated with members of the evaluating commission are, unfortunately, not the exception (Italian Parliament, 2006), which highlights the widespread conflicts of interest that are allowed. Italy lacks both an independent agency for research and compulsory, transparent and unbiased selection processes. As such, the guidelines and criteria that determine which research activities receive public funding are often established directly by the respective ministries, thereby increasing the risk of political interference. This was the case in 2007, when peers of Barbara Ensoli—then at the Istituto Superiore di Sanità (ISS) in Rome—felt that she was receiving a disproportionate amount of government funding, without peer review and in spite of the fact that her work on an HIV/AIDS vaccine was, at least to some scientists, unconvincing (Cohen, 2007).Conversely, in 2009 the Ministry of Health arbitrarily excluded projects involving human embryonic stem-cell lines from a call for proposals on stem-cell research funding—one of the authors of this article, Elena Cattaneo, is now appealing in court against the ministry''s decision (Cattaneo et al, 2010). Further, in October 2010 the Italian Ministry of Health decided, motu proprio, to grant €3 million to a private foundation that claimed to have created adult human stem cells that can be tested in patients with neurodegenerative diseases. This happened in spite of the Ministry''s declarations a few months previously that allocation of public money for research should be subject to peer review.If Italian scientists want to have a leading role in shaping society and the future, they must demand, reinstate and maintain sound principles of transparency and competitiveness in the allocation of public funding. This means that individual researchers—who enjoy the ephemeral benefits gained by deference to politicians and the exploitation of conflicts of interests—should be highlighted as negative examples to the scientific community, as their behaviour is damaging not only science, but also the practice of science as a model for public ethics.We hope that international experts in sociology and science policy find that the censorship of science, the manipulation of facts and the lack of objective peer review and evaluation in Italy deserve their attention and intervene on behalf of Italian science. They would be up against an interesting paradox: such abnormal conducts are often defended in the name of alleged democratic principles. The introduction of Law 40, for example, was justified publicly under the assumption that most Italian citizens were against the use of embryonic stem cells in research—which is, incidentally, false (Eurobarometer, 2006)—and the Apulia judge''s ruling on DBM was made on the grounds of individual freedom of access to therapy, laid down by the Italian constitution.… is Italy an exception, or simply a vision of things to come in other countries?One could ask whether the situation in Italy is simply a local consequence of a deteriorating relationship between science and society, or between scientists and politicians. In other words, is Italy an exception, or simply a vision of things to come in other countries? Regardless, the predicament of Italian science and scientists should stand as a warning of what happens when the rules of transparency are overridden, the scientific community remains largely silent, scientific facts have marginal political influence and science communication is helpless against ideologically driven propaganda that manipulates facts on a large scale (Corbellini, 2010). The experience of scientists in the USA during the Bush administration shows that for other countries this possibility is not too far-fetched and that, to paraphrase the British statesman Edmund Burke (1729–1797): bad science flourishes when good scientists do nothing.? Open in a separate windowElena CattaneoOpen in a separate windowGilberto Corbellini     

Transgenic plants and biosafety: science, misconceptions and public perceptions

One usually thinks of plant biology as a non-controversial topic, but the concerns raised over the biosafety of genetically modified (GM) plants have reached disproportionate levels relative to the actual risks. While the technology of changing the genome of plants has been gradually refined and increasingly implemented, the commercialization of GM crops has exploded. Today's commercialized transgenic plants have been produced using Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated transformation or gene gun-mediated transformation. Recently, incremental improvements of biotechnologies, such as the use of green fluorescent protein (GFP) as a selectable marker, have been developed. Non-transformation genetic modification technologies such as chimeraplasty will be increasingly used to more precisely modify germplasm. In spite of the increasing knowledge about genetic modification of plants, concerns over ecological and food biosafety have escalated beyond scientific rationality. While several risks associated with GM crops and foods have been identified, the popular press, spurred by colorful protest groups, has left the general public with a sense of imminent danger. Reviewed here are the risks that are currently under research. Ecological biosafety research has identified potential risks associated with certain crop/transgene combinations, such as intra- and interspecific transgene flow, persistence and the consequences of transgenes in unintended hosts. Resistance management strategies for insect resistance transgenes and non-target effects of these genes have also been studied. Food biosafety research has focused on transgenic product toxicity and allergenicity. However, an estimated 3.5 x 10(12) transgenic plants have been grown in the U.S. in the past 12 years, with over two trillion being grown in 1999 and 2000 alone. These large numbers and the absence of any negative reports of compromised biosafety indicate that genetic modification by biotechnology poses no immediate or significant risks and that resulting food products from GM crops are as safe as foods from conventional varieties. We are increasingly convinced that scientists have a duty to conduct objective research and to effectively communicate the results--especially those pertaining to the relative risks and potential benefits--to scientists first and then to the public. All stakeholders in the technology need more effective dialogues to better understand risks and benefits of adopting or not adopting agricultural biotechnologies.     

The 'National' and the 'Cosmos'. The emergence of synthetic biology in China

How can grass-roots movements evolve into a national research strategy? The bottom-up emergence of synthetic biology in China could give some pointers.Given its potential to aid developments in renewable energy, biosensors, sustainable chemical industries, microbial drug factories and biomedical devices, synthetic biology has enormous implications for economic development. Many countries are therefore implementing strategies to promote progress in this field. Most notably, the USA is considered to be the leader in exploring the industrial potential of synthetic biology (Rodemeyer, 2009). Synthetic biology in Europe has benefited from several cross-border studies, such as the ‘New and Emerging Science and Technology'' programme (NEST, 2005) and the ‘Towards a European Strategy for Synthetic Biology'' project (TESSY; Gaisser et al, 2008). Yet, little is known in the West about Asia''s role in this ‘new industrial revolution'' (Kitney, 2009). In particular, China is investing heavily in scientific research for future developments, and is therefore likely to have an important role in the development of synthetic biology.Initial findings seem to indicate that the emergence of synthetic biology in China has been a bottom-up construction of a new scientific framework…In 2010, as part of a study of the international governance of synthetic biology, the author visited four leading research teams in three Chinese cities (Beijing, Tianjin and Hefei). The main aims of the visits were to understand perspectives in China on synthetic biology, to identify core themes among its scientific community, and to address questions such as ‘how did synthetic biology emerge in China?'', ‘what are the current funding conditions?'', ‘how is synthetic biology generally perceived?'' and ‘how is it regulated?''. Initial findings seem to indicate that the emergence of synthetic biology in China has been a bottom-up construction of a new scientific framework; one that is more dynamic and comprises more options than existing national or international research and development (R&D) strategies. Such findings might contribute to Western knowledge of Chinese R&D, but could also expose European and US policy-makers to alternative forms and patterns of research governance that have emerged from a grass-roots level.…the process of developing a framework is at least as important to research governance as the big question it might eventually addressA dominant narrative among the scientists interviewed is the prospect of a ‘big-question'' strategy to promote synthetic-biology research in China. This framework is at a consultation stage and key questions are still being discussed. Yet, fieldwork indicates that the process of developing a framework is at least as important to research governance as the big question it might eventually address. According to several interviewees, this approach aims to organize dispersed national R&D resources into one grand project that is essential to the technical development of the field, preferably focusing on an industry-related theme that is economically appealling to the Chinese public.Chinese scientists have a pragmatic vision for research; thinking of science in terms of its ‘instrumentality'' has long been regarded as characteristic of modern China (Schneider, 2003). However, for a country in which the scientific community is sometimes described as an “uncoordinated ‘bunch of loose ends''” (Cyranoski, 2001) “with limited synergies between them” (OECD, 2007), the envisaged big-question approach implies profound structural and organizational changes. Structurally, the approach proposes that the foundational (industry-related) research questions branch out into various streams of supporting research and more specific short-term research topics. Within such a framework, a variety of Chinese universities and research institutions can be recruited and coordinated at different levels towards solving the big question.It is important to note that although this big-question strategy is at a consultation stage and supervised by the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST), the idea itself has emerged in a bottom-up manner. One academic who is involved in the ongoing ministerial consultation recounted that, “It [the big-question approach] was initially conversations among we scientists over the past couple of years. We saw this as an alternative way to keep up with international development and possibly lead to some scientific breakthrough. But we are happy to see that the Ministry is excited and wants to support such an idea as well.” As many technicalities remain to be addressed, there is no clear time-frame yet for when the project will be launched. Yet, this nationwide cooperation among scientists with an emerging commitment from MOST seems to be largely welcomed by researchers. Some interviewees described the excitement it generated among the Chinese scientific community as comparable with the establishment of “a new ‘moon-landing'' project”.Of greater significance than the time-frame is the development process that led to this proposition. On the one hand, the emergence of synthetic biology in China has a cosmopolitan feel: cross-border initiatives such as international student competitions, transnational funding opportunities and social debates in Western countries—for instance, about biosafety—all have an important role. On the other hand, the development of synthetic biology in China has some national particularities. Factors including geographical proximity, language, collegial familiarity and shared interests in economic development have all attracted Chinese scientists to the national strategy, to keep up with their international peers. Thus, to some extent, the development of synthetic biology in China is an advance not only in the material synthesis of the ‘cosmos''—the physical world—but also in the social synthesis of aligning national R&D resources and actors with the global scientific community.To comprehend how Chinese scientists have used national particularities and global research trends as mutually constructive influences, and to identify the implications of this for governance, this essay examines the emergence of synthetic biology in China from three perspectives: its initial activities, the evolution of funding opportunities, and the ongoing debates about research governance.China''s involvement in synthetic biology was largely promoted by the participation of students in the International Genetically Engineered Machine (iGEM) competition, an international contest for undergraduates initiated by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in the USA. Before the iGEM training workshop that was hosted by Tianjin University in the Spring of 2007, there were no research records and only two literature reviews on synthetic biology in Chinese scientific databases (Zhao & Wang, 2007). According to Chunting Zhang of Tianjin University—a leading figure in the promotion of synthetic biology in China—it was during these workshops that Chinese research institutions joined their efforts for the first time (Zhang, 2008). From the outset, the organization of the workshop had a national focus, while it engaged with international networks. Synthetic biologists, including Drew Endy from MIT and Christina Smolke from Stanford University, USA, were invited. Later that year, another training camp designed for iGEM tutors was organized in Tianjin and included delegates from Australia and Japan (Zhang, 2008).Through years of organizing iGEM-related conferences and workshops, Chinese universities have strengthened their presence at this international competition; in 2007, four teams from China participated. During the 2010 competition, 11 teams from nine universities in six provinces/municipalities took part. Meanwhile, recruiting, training and supervising iGEM teams has become an important institutional programme at an increasing number of universities.…training for iGEM has grown beyond winning the student awards and become a key component of exchanges between Chinese researchers and the international communityIt might be easy to interpret the enthusiasm for the iGEM as a passion for winning gold medals, as is conventionally the case with other international scientific competitions. This could be one motive for participating. Yet, training for iGEM has grown beyond winning the student awards and has become a key component of exchanges between Chinese researchers and the international community (Ding, 2010). Many of the Chinese scientists interviewed recounted the way in which their initial involvement in synthetic biology overlapped with their tutoring of iGEM teams. One associate professor at Tianjin University, who wrote the first undergraduate textbook on synthetic biology in China, half-jokingly said, “I mainly learnt [synthetic biology] through tutoring new iGEM teams every year.”Participation in such contests has not only helped to popularize synthetic biology in China, but has also influenced local research culture. One example of this is that the iGEM competition uses standard biological parts (BioBricks), and new BioBricks are submitted to an open registry for future sharing. A corresponding celebration of open-source can also be traced to within the Chinese synthetic-biology community. In contrast to the conventional perception that the Chinese scientific sector consists of a “very large number of ‘innovative islands''” (OECD, 2007; Zhang, 2010), communication between domestic teams is quite active. In addition to the formally organized national training camps and conferences, students themselves organize a nationwide, student-only workshop at which to informally test their ideas.More interestingly, when the author asked one team whether there are any plans to set up a ‘national bank'' for hosting designs from Chinese iGEM teams, in order to benefit domestic teams, both the tutor and team members thought this proposal a bit “strange”. The team leader responded, “But why? There is no need. With BioBricks, we can get any parts we want quite easily. Plus, it directly connects us with all the data produced by iGEM teams around the world, let alone in China. A national bank would just be a small-scale duplicate.”From the beginning, interest in the development of synthetic biology in China has been focused on collective efforts within and across national borders. In contrast to conventional critiques on the Chinese scientific community''s “inclination toward competition and secrecy, rather than openness” (Solo & Pressberg, 2007; OECD, 2007; Zhang, 2010), there seems to be a new outlook emerging from the participation of Chinese universities in the iGEM contest. Of course, that is not to say that the BioBricks model is without problems (Rai & Boyle, 2007), or to exclude inputs from other institutional channels. Yet, continuous grass-roots exchanges, such as the undergraduate-level competition, might be as instrumental as formal protocols in shaping research culture. The indifference of Chinese scientists to a ‘national bank'' seems to suggest that the distinction between the ‘national'' and ‘international'' scientific communities has become blurred, if not insignificant.However, frequent cross-institutional exchanges and the domestic organization of iGEM workshops seem to have nurtured the development of a national synthetic-biology community in China, in which grass-roots scientists are comfortable relying on institutions with a cosmopolitan character—such as the BioBricks Foundation—to facilitate local research. To some extent, one could argue that in the eyes of Chinese scientists, national and international resources are one accessible global pool. This grass-roots interest in incorporating local and global advantages is not limited to student training and education, but also exhibited in evolving funding and regulatory debates.In the development of research funding for synthetic biology, a similar bottom-up consolidation of national and global resources can also be observed. As noted earlier, synthetic-biology research in China is in its infancy. A popular view is that China has the potential to lead this field, as it has strong support from related disciplines. In terms of genome sequencing, DNA synthesis, genetic engineering, systems biology and bioinformatics, China is “almost at the same level as developed countries” (Pan, 2008), but synthetic-biology research has only been carried out “sporadically” (Pan, 2008; Huang, 2009). There are few nationally funded projects and there is no discernible industrial involvement (Yang, 2010). Most existing synthetic-biology research is led by universities or institutions that are affiliated with the Chinese Academy of Science (CAS). As one CAS academic commented, “there are many Chinese scientists who are keen on conducting synthetic-biology research. But no substantial research has been launched nor has long-term investment been committed.”The initial undertaking of academic research on synthetic biology in China has therefore benefited from transnational initiatives. The first synthetic-biology project in China, launched in October 2006, was part of the ‘Programmable Bacteria Catalyzing Research'' (PROBACTYS) project, funded by the Sixth Framework Programme of the European Union (Yang, 2010). A year later, another cross-border collaborative effort led to the establishment of the first synthetic-biology centre in China: the Edinburgh University–Tianjing University Joint Research Centre for Systems Biology and Synthetic Biology (Zhang, 2008).There is also a comparable commitment to national research coordination. A year after China''s first participation in iGEM, the 2008 Xiangshan conference focused on domestic progress. From 2007 to 2009, only five projects in China received national funding, all of which came from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC). This funding totalled ¥1,330,000 (approximately £133,000; www.nsfc.org), which is low in comparison to the £891,000 funding that was given in the UK for seven Networks in Synthetic Biology in 2007 alone (www.bbsrc.ac.uk).One of the primary challenges in obtaining funding identified by the interviewees is that, as an emerging science, synthetic biology is not yet appreciated by Chinese funding agencies. After the Xiangshan conference, the CAS invited scientists to a series of conferences in late 2009. According to the interviewees, one of the main outcomes was the founding of a ‘China Synthetic Biology Coordination Group''; an informal association of around 30 conference delegates from various research institutions. This group formulated a ‘regulatory suggestion'' that they submitted to MOST, which stated the necessity and implications of supporting synthetic-biology research. In addition, leading scientists such as Chunting Zhang and Huanming Yang—President of the Beijing Genomic Institute (BGI), who co-chaired the Beijing Institutes of Life Science (BILS) conferences—have been active in communicating with government institutions. The initial results of this can be seen in the MOST 2010 Application Guidelines for the National Basic Research Program, in which synthetic biology was included for the first time, among ‘key supporting areas'' (MOST, 2010). Meanwhile, in 2010, NSFC allocated ¥1,500,000 (approximately £150,000) to synthetic-biology research, which is more than the total funding the area had received in the past three years.The search for funding further demonstrates the dynamics between national and transnational resources. Chinese R&D initiatives have to deal with the fact that scientific venture-capital and non-governmental research charities are underdeveloped in China. In contrast to the EU or the USA, government institutions in China, such as the NSFC and MOST, are the main and sometimes only domestic sources of funding. Yet, transnational funding opportunities facilitate the development of synthetic biology by alleviating local structural and financial constraints, and further integrate the Chinese scientific community into international research.This is not a linear ‘going-global'' process; it is important for Chinese scientists to secure and promote national and regional support. In addition, this alignment of national funding schemes with global research progress is similar to the iGEM experience, as it is being initiated through informal bottom-up associations between scientists, rather than by top-down institutional channels.As more institutions have joined iGEM training camps and participated in related conferences, a shared interest among the Chinese scientific community in developing synthetic biology has become visible. In late 2009, at the conference that founded the informal ‘coordination group'', the proposition of integrating national expertise through a big-question approach emerged. According to one professor in Beijing—who was a key participant in the discussion at the time—this proposition of a nationwide synergy was not so much about ‘national pride'' or an aim to develop a ‘Chinese'' synthetic biology, it was about research practicality. She explained, “synthetic biology is at the convergence of many disciplines, computer modelling, nano-technology, bioengineering, genomic research etc. Individual researchers like me can only operate on part of the production chain. But I myself would like to see where my findings would fit in a bigger picture as well. It just makes sense for a country the size of China to set up some collective and coordinated framework so as to seek scientific breakthrough.”From the first participation in the iGEM contest to the later exploration of funding opportunities and collective research plans, scientists have been keen to invite and incorporate domestic and international resources, to keep up with global research. Yet, there are still regulatory challenges to be met.…with little social discontent and no imminent public threat, synthetic biology in China could be carried out in a ‘research-as-usual'' mannerThe reputation of “the ‘wild East'' of biology” (Dennis, 2002) is associated with China'' previous inattention to ethical concerns about the life sciences, especially in embryonic-stem-cell research. Similarly, synthetic biology creates few social concerns in China. Public debate is minimal and most media coverage has been positive. Synthetic biology is depicted as “a core in the fourth wave of scientific development” (Pan, 2008) or “another scientific revolution” (Huang, 2009). Whilst recognizing its possible risks, mainstream media believe that “more people would be attracted to doing good while making a profit than doing evil” (Fang & He, 2010). In addition, biosecurity and biosafety training in China are at an early stage, with few mandatory courses for students (Barr & Zhang, 2010). The four leading synthetic-biology teams I visited regarded the general biosafety regulations that apply to microbiology laboratories as sufficient for synthetic biology. In short, with little social discontent and no imminent public threat, synthetic biology in China could be carried out in a ‘research-as-usual'' manner.Yet, fieldwork suggests that, in contrast to this previous insensitivity to global ethical concerns, the synthetic-biology community in China has taken a more proactive approach to engaging with international debates. It is important to note that there are still no synthetic-biology-specific administrative guidelines or professional codes of conduct in China. However, Chinese stakeholders participate in building a ‘mutual inclusiveness'' between global and domestic discussions.One of the most recent examples of this is a national conference about the ethical and biosafety implications of synthetic biology, which was jointly hosted by the China Association for Science and Technology, the Chinese Society of Biotechnology and the Beijing Institutes of Life Science CAS, in Suzhou in June 2010. The discussion was open to the mainstream media. The debate was not simply a recapitulation of Western worries, such as playing god, potential dual-use or ecological containment. It also focused on the particular concerns of developing countries about how to avoid further widening the developmental gap with advanced countries (Liu, 2010).In addition to general discussions, there are also sustained transnational communications. For example, one of the first three projects funded by the NSFC was a three-year collaboration on biosafety and risk-assessment frameworks between the Institute of Botany at CAS and the Austrian Organization for International Dialogue and Conflict Management (IDC).Chinese scientists are also keen to increase their involvement in the formulation of international regulations. The CAS and the Chinese Academy of Engineering are engaged with their peer institutions in the UK and the USA to “design more robust frameworks for oversight, intellectual property and international cooperation” (Royal Society, 2009). It is too early to tell what influence China will achieve in this field. Yet, the changing image of the country from an unconcerned wild East to a partner in lively discussions signals a new dynamic in the global development of synthetic biology.Student contests, funding programmes, joint research centres and coordination groups are only a few of the means by which scientists can drive synthetic biology forward in ChinaFrom self-organized participation in iGEM to bottom-up funding and governance initiatives, two features are repeatedly exhibited in the emergence of synthetic biology in China: global resources and international perspectives complement national interests; and the national and cosmopolitan research strengths are mostly instigated at the grass-roots level. During the process of introducing, developing and reflecting on synthetic biology, many formal or informal, provisional or long-term alliances have been established from the bottom up. Student contests, funding programmes, joint research centres and coordination groups are only a few of the means by which scientists can drive synthetic biology forward in China.However, the inputs of different social actors has not led to disintegration of the field into an array of individualized pursuits, but has transformed it into collective synergies, or the big-question approach. Underlying the diverse efforts of Chinese scientists is a sense of ‘inclusiveness'', or the idea of bringing together previously detached research expertise. Thus, the big-question strategy cannot be interpreted as just another nationally organized agenda in response to global scientific advancements. Instead, it represents a more intricate development path corresponding to how contemporary research evolves on the ground.In comparison to the increasingly visible grass-roots efforts, the role of the Chinese government seems relatively small at this stageIn comparison to the increasingly visible grass-roots efforts, the role of the Chinese government seems relatively small at this stage. Government input—such as the potential stewardship of the MOST in directing a big-question approach or long-term funding—remain important; the scientists who were interviewed expend a great deal of effort to attract governmental participation. Yet, China'' experience highlights that the key to comprehending regional scientific capacity lies not so much in what the government can do, but rather in what is taking place in laboratories. It is important to remember that Chinese iGEM victories, collaborative synthetic-biology projects and ethical discussions all took place before the government became involved. Thus, to appreciate fully the dynamics of an emerging science, it might be necessary to focus on what is formulated from the bottom up.The experience of China in synthetic biology demonstrates the power of grass-roots, cross-border engagement to promote contemporary researchThe experience of China in synthetic biology demonstrates the power of grass-roots, cross-border engagement to promote contemporary research. More specifically, it is a result of the commitment of Chinese scientists to incorporating national and international resources, actors and social concerns. For practical reasons, the national organization of research, such as through the big-question approach, might still have an important role. However, synthetic biology might be not only a mosaic of national agendas, but also shaped by transnational activities and scientific resources. What Chinese scientists will collectively achieve remains to be seen. Yet, the emergence of synthetic biology in China might be indicative of a new paradigm for how research practices can be introduced, normalized and regulated.     

The media and food-risk perceptions

Food scares are prime examples of how the media can sway public perceptions of risk. Scientists and regulators need to understand the complex relationship between the media and their audience if they seek to counter scare stories and put risks and benefits into context.In 1996, at the height of the scandal about mad cow disease in the UK, a guest on Oprah Winfrey''s talk show claimed that meat produced in the USA could cause bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). “That just stopped me cold from eating another burger,” Winfrey responded. Later, beef farmers from Texas sued Winfrey''s show, claiming that it was partly responsible for the steep decline in beef prices in the USA during the following months, even though the country did not have a single case of BSE. This episode demonstrates not only the power of the media and its influence on the public, but also how easily the public is swayed, particularly by fear, even in the absence of information.Nevertheless, more information is not necessarily a panacea for disinformation. Households in developed countries have greater access to information than ever before—through television, newspapers, journals, radio and the internet—yet the public remains, ironically, poorly informed. This is most evident when consumption of a food dramatically declines after media reports about contamination or harm, or when European consumers vehemently oppose genetically modified food, despite accumulating scientific evidence that these products do not harm the environment and are safe for human consumption.There are various understandable causes of public reactions to food scares or food-health stories in the media, but the media itself sets the stage for the public''s response by choosing which information to present and, perhaps more importantly, how to present it. Extensive media coverage affects consumer perceptions of products and risks and, consequently, can influence demand for services and products.There are various understandable causes of public reactions to food scares or food-health stories in the media, but the media itself sets the stage for the public''s response…The function of the media is not to foster the public good or to reassure the public that they are safe. Most television stations and newspapers are now privately owned—many of them by one of a few huge companies. The media therefore has its own financial and other interests, and needs to please both shareholders and audiences by providing the kind of information and analysis that mass audiences expect. Similarly, other sources of information—such as agriculture and biotechnology companies, universities and farmers—have equally powerful incentives that could bias the information they are willing to share and the conclusions they seek to draw. In the USA, news coverage has always been largely commercial in this way, whereas in Europe, private companies have only become the dominant source of information during the past two decades. Moreover, the structure of the media market itself has changed with the growth of 24-hour news and the internet—notably in terms of blogs, social media and the ability to distribute videos online.The function of the media is not to foster the public good or to reassure the public that they are safeOne criticism that is often levelled at the media is that it sensationalizes news and is biased against positive news stories. Instead, the media seems to focus on negative news stories and shun careful and balanced analysis of an issue, favouring ‘sound bites'' and simplistic conclusions. Commercial news reporting tends to focus on events, such as a sudden food-safety problem or an organized event accompanying the launch of a new product or policy.The overall concern is that the increasing commercialization of the media has led to a ‘dumbing down'' of the news; that is, lower-quality journalism and less coverage of complex issues, driven by competitive pressures that have forced media companies to cut back on reporting and editorial staff in areas that do not attract many readers or viewers (Alterman, 2008; Zaller, 1999). The emergence of the 24-hour news cycle might even have further weakened journalistic standards; modern news reports have been found to contain an increasing number of factual errors (Pew, 2004).These concerns have caused many European governments to continue their subsidized public broadcasting, in order to maintain the overall quality and reliability of news and information. However, if subsidized public media cover the high-quality news market, it might further decrease the quality of coverage offered by commercial companies (Canoy & Nahuis, 2005). This argument is supported by studies of the US media market, which show that the regional expansion of so-called ‘quality'' newspapers such as The New York Times and The Washington Post has led to a reduction in the quality of local and regional newspapers (George & Waldfogel, 2006).All of this is particularly relevant in the context of food, as most consumers primarily receive information about food and biotechnology through the popular press and television (Hoban & Kendall, 1993; Marks et al, 2003). Extensive media coverage of an event can contribute to a heightened perception of risk and amplify its consequences. Food scares are prime examples of this effect: they are typically accompanied by a flood of media coverage and lead to a decline in demand for the product in question, often concomitant with a level of panic that scientists would argue is not appropriate, given the real risks.Accordingly, social scientists and psychologists have conducted research into how information shapes and determines perceived risks of food. Generally, most consumers are “rationally ignorant” (McCluskey & Swinnen, 2004); they rationally choose not to fully inform themselves about an issue. In other words, although consumers have access to huge amounts of information, they choose to be less than fully informed. There are three explanations for this attitude. First, if it costs money to access the news and doing so only provides limited benefits, it is rational not to purchase the information. Second, although reducing the price of news will make information more accessible, acquiring and processing it takes time, energy and attention. Consequently, consumers reach a threshold at which the cost of processing the information is larger than the benefit. The third reason has to do with the information source: ideological bias or distrust of a news source might cause consumers not to inform themselves fully.…although consumers have access to huge amounts of information, they choose to be less than fully informedThe decision about how much information is enough also depends on consumers'' ex ante (previous) risk perceptions. In one of the first surveys of consumer perceptions of health risks in food, van Ravenswaay (1990) concluded that most consumers acknowledge the existence of risks, but perceive them to be small. Although the public adjust their risk perceptions in the light of new information, they are only willing to pay modest amounts for information that would reduce perceived food risks. One explanation is that the cost of risk avoidance is low because consumers can stop purchasing a specific food if they learn that it poses a higher risk than they thought.In fact, ex ante beliefs tend to have a stronger influence on risk perceptions than news or other types of information. For example, many consumers think that organically produced products—which carry a higher risk of mycotoxins—are safer than more-intensively farmed crops, irrespective of information about management activities (Loureiro et al, 2001). Generally, consumers perceive natural risks as being easier to manage because they seem to be less threatening than technological risks.In general, risk perception varies between consumers, owing to many factors. Gender and education are consistent demographic predictors of food-risk perceptions. Non-demographic predictors include the nature of the perceived threat, trust in regulatory authorities, the source of the information and the way in which it is distributed, and health and environmental concerns (Ellis & Tucker, 2009). For example, consumers of organic foods perceive greater risks from pesticide residues than other consumers.Both social and individual factors can amplify or dampen perceptions of risk (Flynn et al, 1998; Koné & Mullet, 1994), and the media is an important mechanism in this process. Slovic (1987) suggests that risk perception is influenced by two factors: dread and unknown risks. Dreaded risks are those deemed to be uncontrollable, involuntary and affect many people with potentially catastrophic consequences. Unknown risks are new, uncertain and unobservable, or might have delayed effects. Food scares are often rated highly as dreaded risks, but because they are understood they receive lower ratings as unknown risks. By contrast, new food technologies, such as genetically modified foods, are rated highly as unknown risks. Thus, differences in consumer knowledge might influence risk perceptions; most scientists tend not to think that genetically modified foods are risky.Previous beliefs also have an important role in the selection and processing of information provided by the media. Poortinga & Pidgeon (2004) studied the perception of genetically modified food in the UK and found a strong confirmatory bias—selecting information that agrees with your previous beliefs; those with positive or negative beliefs interpret the same events as being in line with their attitude. Frewer et al (1997) also found that the initial attitude to genetic engineering is the most important determinant of how people assess new information about it. These attitudes remain stable, even if persuasive arguments against them are provided. In fact, initial attitudes also affect perception of the quality of information; respondents with a negative view are likely to perceive positive information about the technology as less accurate and more biased than people with positive views.The nature of the information also matters. In general, consumers give more weight to negative than positive information. This is ironic because one often-heard complaint about the media is that news coverage is too negative. This tendency is actually driven by demand (McCluskey & Swinnen, 2004), as the value of information is higher for consumers if it concerns an issue with a negative effect on welfare. The rationale is that consumers can use negative information to make decisions in order to avoid losses. As media companies care about profits, they will inevitably offer more negative stories.…consumers give more weight to negative than positive informationSiegrist & Cvetkovich (2001) conducted psychological experiments to assess this bias towards negative information in regard to health risks in food. They found that people place greater trust in results that indicate a health risk, and that confidence in the results increases with a higher indication of risk. The authors suggest three possible explanations: diagnosticity—negative information is more diagnostic than positive information, and might therefore be given greater weight; loss aversion—for most people it is important to avoid losses; and credibility—negative information might be more credible than positive information because positive information can be regarded as self-serving, whereas negative information often seems to lack this quality. However, critics of these studies warn against confusing negativity bias and confirmatory bias in explaining how information shapes citizens'' perceptions. Yet, after controlling for confirmatory bias, negativity bias still has a role: negative items have more impact than positive ones.The source of information is also important for shaping risk perception, as distrust of the institution providing the information increases the perception of risk (Renn, 2005). There is some debate about the importance of source credibility. Some studies find that source credibility has a key role in determining the impact of a message on public opinion, while others find that source credibility seems to have a limited effect and is less important than initial attitudes. Kumkale et al (2010) show in a meta-analysis that the credibility of the source matters mostly for attitude-formation conditions, whereas its impact in attitude-change conditions is lower. Conversely, recent studies show that internet users pay little or no attention to source credibility when they seek health information.Many people, in fact, anticipate that information from the media might be biased and take this into account when evaluating it. However, several behavioural studies conclude that even when viewers know that media sources are biased, they do not sufficiently discount the information to account for this bias. Exposure to media can thus systematically alter or reinforce beliefs and consumer behaviour. In conclusion, the impact of bias in media reporting on consumer attitudes is bidirectional and complex. Consumer bias in personal preferences and beliefs affect the media''s reporting strategies to convince these consumers to buy their media products. Similar complex interactions occur between the media and politicians and between the media and business.Although the media''s effects on public perception are complex, their impact can be significant. Curtis et al (2008) argue that differences in the structure of the media between countries might have important implications for food-risk perceptions. The negative attitude towards genetically modified foods that is typical of consumers in rich countries is in contrast to attitudes in poorer countries, where studies have found that consumer attitudes towards genetically modified foods are not as negative, and in many cases even positive. The authors claim that this might be partly explained by differences in the organization of the media. In poorer countries, information is more expensive and scarce and people often have less time to read and acquire information, which leads to an overall lower level of information. Moreover, government control of the media in poorer countries tends to be more extensive and might lead to more-positive coverage of biotechnology, if the government has a positive attitude.An important issue is the dynamics of the media market—that is, not only whether, but when to publish news. The structure of the mass media encourages fast, concentrated coverage. As collecting information requires time, effort and other costs, publishing a story on the basis of incomplete information risks biasing reports, which might hurt the reputation of the media outlet, and thereby future profits. However, covering a story early on might yield market share and profits if an outlet can be the first to provide information on a new issue. Consumers also face a trade-off. They might be willing to take the risk of getting biased information, as long as they get whatever information is available. In other words, any news is better than no news.These issues are particularly important in food scares. A case in point is the 1989 Alar controversy in the USA. Alar was the trade name for daminozide, a plant growth-regulator used to stimulate the growth, appearance and ripening of fruits, primarily apples. In February 1989, the US news programme 60 Minutes covered the Natural Resources Defence Council''s report, which said that Alar poses a cancer risk to children. Most US media organizations followed suit. As a result, supermarkets took apples off their shelves and schools removed apples from their cafeterias. US apple growers lost millions of dollars in revenues and announced a voluntary ban on Alar, which became effective in the autumn of 1989. In hindsight, analysts argue that the media confused a long-term cumulative effect with an imminent danger, resulting in unnecessary panic and financial losses (Negin, 1996).BSE, commonly known as mad cow disease, is another example. In March 1996, the UK government announced that mad cow disease was the likely cause of death for ten people. In April 1996, coverage of BSE on the Oprah Winfrey show in the USA was followed by a steep decline in beef prices in the following month, even though there were no BSE-infected cattle in the USA.Tabloid newspapers and the popular press typically worry less about their reputation in terms of quality, and more about being the first to publish or broadcast a story. The elite press worries more about quality. However, there is an interesting dynamic component: once one media company reports a story—no matter how biased their coverage is—it can initiate a chain reaction. If the issue is important enough, competitive forces will cause elite press organizations to follow suit, even before they are able to verify the story. The first story becomes the basis of their reporting.There are two reasons for this dynamic. First, competition and consumer choice force the media to pay attention to an issue, otherwise consumers ask why their preferred media source is not covering the story and will go elsewhere. The second reason is that by commenting on a story that was launched by another media company, more-reputable media outlets are covered if things go wrong—that is, when the primary information turns out to be biased. They can hide behind the fact that they were not the first to cover it, and only reflected on a story launched by someone else. The first factor minimizes the immediate losses from waiting too long, and the second limits future negative effects on reputation. These dynamics are summarized by the following quote, “Even apparently responsible papers […] contribute to building up [food] scares. When the scare has run its course, they will argue against it. But when the scare dynamic is up and running, [the quality press] will join with the throng and become more tabloid than the tabloids” (North, 2000).Although competition for audiences leads to an intensification of media attention in the early reporting of a story, it also induces a rapid decline in attention afterwards. The popular press is often first to report on a crisis and more intense in its initial coverage, but quickly loses interest. Thus, competition in the commercial media intensifies the scale of the scare, as well as bringing it to a fast—and often premature—conclusion.…competition in the commercial media intensifies the scale of the scare, as well as bringing it to a fast—and often premature—conclusionThere is also evidence that early claims, even when they are false, are reported more extensively than later corrections. Swinnen et al (2005) examined the media response to two food-safety crises: the 1999 dioxin crisis, and the 2001 foot and mouth disease outbreak. Comparing tabloids and the elite press, they found that overall coverage was almost the same, but that tabloids initially responded more quickly and intensely and also lost interest more quickly. They also found that initial errors in the news were not properly corrected when new facts emerged and initial interest had waned.The short-term impacts of food-safety information on consumer demand can be significant. One example is BSE, which had a negative effect on the consumer demand for beef, the severity of which was increased by the media. Verbeke & Ward (2001) found considerable misperception of the problem by consumers, a lack of knowledge about the relevant science and biased perception of the scientific criteria relevant to the safety of meat. Television coverage of meat safety had a negative effect on the demand for red meat after the BSE outbreak (Verbeke et al, 2000), and younger people were most susceptible to negative media coverage.However, in the long run, consumption and sales typically recover if the problems are addressed (Henneberry et al, 1999; Piggott & Marsh, 2004), although the effects on policy can be lasting. In 1993, after an Escherichia coli outbreak at the Jack in the Box restaurant chain, 144 people were hospitalized and three died. The restaurant chain almost went out of business in the wake of the event, but after two years, sales had recovered to pre-scare levels (Entine, 1999). By contrast, the legislative repercussions on burger restaurant chains have persisted.The most-significant long-term effect of mass-media reporting is its impact on public policy. By invoking strong responses in their audiences through concentrated, emotionally charged coverage, media outlets put pressure on governments to react to situations, effectively setting the agenda on a certain issue; this is sometimes called the ‘CNN factor'' (Hawkins, 2002). Similarly, an absence of media coverage of even important events or problems lowers their priority in legislative agendas. Robinson (2001) suggests that the media has great power to lead policy-makers, especially when there is uncertainty or limited information. For example, in the wake of the media frenzy surrounding the Jack in the Box E. coli outbreak, US President Bill Clinton called congressional hearings about the safety of the food supply. The US Food and Drug Administration raised the recommended internal temperature of cooked burgers to 155 ° fahrenheit (68 °C). It is now almost impossible to order a burger cooked less than ‘medium'' in US restaurants.…the media has great power to lead policy-makers, especially when there is uncertainty or limited informationAnother interesting example is the use of the precautionary principle in regulation in the EU and the USA. The precautionary principle is now used as a major regulatory tool in food safety issues in the EU, in particular to regulate genetically modified foods. However, it was used more in the USA from the 1960s to the mid-1980s (Vogel, 2003). Several European food scares in the 1990s, heavily publicized in the mass media, changed this. It pushed politicians to introduce a series of new regulations and it caused consumers to be more concerned about food safety. Although ex post studies showed that several of these food-safety problems were exaggerated, the massive press coverage induced strong political reactions, leading to regulations and shifts in consumer preferences that are having long-lasting effects on perceptions of food risk and the regulation of the food system in Europe (Swinnen & Vandemoortele, 2010).The examples considered above and the power of the media to influence an ignorant public—willfully or otherwise—have important implications for risk communication, education and management. First, because initial beliefs are important—affecting not only overall risk perceptions, but also the way in which consumers process new information—it is important to enhance consumer understanding of risk through education and by providing early information. This should create a realistic framework within which people can assess risks once an event occurs. Pre-emptive risk communication and the establishment of institutions that are responsive to problems can mitigate negative, long-term consequences on public policy or consumer preferences.Second, businesses, scientists and governments should be prepared to provide accurate, open and understandable information when crises occur. The media will report on the issues regardless and will draw on whichever ‘expert'' they can find if companies, scientists and governments are not ready to put events and facts into perspective.Third, the growth of the internet as a source of information and a communication tool not only imposes challenges, but also provides important opportunities. It enables direct communication with the public to provide information without depending on the mass media as brokers. Hence, even if the media do not report—or do so with a lack of nuance—companies, scientists and governments can communicate correct and nuanced information through the internet.Even if the commercial media provide simple and clear messages, consumers might realize that reality is more complexFourth, it is generally considered that successful risk management in regard to food safety critically depends on communication. Yet communication about food risk is difficult because the science is complex, uncertain and ambiguous. Even if the commercial media provide simple and clear messages, consumers might realize that reality is more complex. For example, Frewer et al (1997) have found that an admission of scientific uncertainty, which seems to reflect honesty, has a positive effect on the efficiency of communication. Risk communication should aim to enable citizens to make their own judgements, without trying to convince them that a certain risk is (in)tolerable. In order to be successful, communication should integrate documentation, information, dialogue and participation, and these four elements should be tailored towards meeting the three challenges of complexity, uncertainty and ambiguity (Renn, 2005).Finally, there seem to be cultural variations in the impact of the media and risk-communication strategies and in how food risks are perceived. Van Dijk et al (2007) found variation in the impact of communication strategies, even among western European countries: the communication of uncertainty has a positive impact in Germany, whereas the same information has a negative impact in the UK and Norway. Hence, effective risk-communication strategies depend on the culture in which the scientist, company or government is operating.Scientists, businesses, interest groups and politicians can also influence public perception, in particular by using the internet to circumvent the mass mediaFood scares are serious issues that have a significant impact in terms of consumer behaviour, economics and politics. Nevertheless, it would be wrong to blame the media for disproportionate public responses to such stories, although their influence is important and sometimes detrimental to public understanding. Scientists, businesses, interest groups and politicians can also influence public perception, in particular by using the internet to circumvent the mass media as the main source of information. As such, it is important for all parties to work together to become better at communicating with the public and providing education. In this way, the public should enjoy a heightened baseline of knowledge that will allow them to assess critically the sensationalist reports that appear in the media, and perhaps reduce the demand for such reporting in the first place.? Open in a separate windowJohan SwinnenOpen in a separate windowJill McCluskey     

The 'atom-splitting' moment of synthetic biology. Nuclear physics and synthetic biology share common features

Synthetic biology and nuclear physics share many commonalities in terms of public perception and funding. Synthetic biologists could learn valuable lessons from the history of the atomic bomb and nuclear power.On 16 July 1945, in the desert of New Mexico, the first nuclear bomb was exploded. It was a crucial moment in the history of the physical sciences—proof positive of the immense forces at work in the heart of atoms—and inevitably changed the world. In 2010, a team at the J. Craig Venter Research Institute in the USA first created artificial life by inserting a synthetic 1.08 megabase pair genome into a mycoplasma cell that lacked its own. They demonstrated that this new cell with its man-made genome was capable of surviving and reproducing [1]. It was a colossal achievement for biology, and its significance might well rank alongside the detonation of the first atomic bomb in terms of scientific advance.…as with post-war physics, synthetic biology''s promises of a brighter future might not all materialize and could have far-reaching effects on society, science and politicsThere are several similarities between twentieth century physics, and twentieth and twenty-first century biology. The nuclear explosion in New Mexico was the result of decades of research and the first splitting of an atom in Otto Hahn''s laboratory in 1938. It ushered in an era of new ideas and hopes for a brighter future built on the power of the atom, but the terrible potential of nuclear weapons and the threat of nuclear warfare ultimately overshadowed these hopes and changed the course of science and politics. The crucial achievement of synthetic life is a strikingly similar event; the culmination of decades of research that started with its own atom-splitting moment: recombinant DNA technology. It promises to bring forth a new era for biology and enable a huge variety of applications for industry, medicine and the military. However, as with post-war physics, synthetic biology''s promises of a brighter future might not all materialize and could have far-reaching effects on society, science and politics. Biology should therefore take note of the consequences of nuclear physics'' iconic event in 1945 for science, politics and society.To appreciate the similarities of these breakthroughs and their consequences for society, it is necessary to understand the historical perspective. The pivotal discoveries for both disciplines were related to fundamental elements of nature. The rise of nuclear physics can be traced back to the discovery of neutrons by James Chadwick in 1932 [2]. Neutrons are essential to the stability of atoms as they insulate the nucleus against the repulsive forces of its positively charged protons. However, the addition of an extra neutron can destabilize the nucleus and cause it to split, releasing more neutrons and a tremendous amount of energy. This nuclear fission reaction was first described by Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassmann in 1938. Leo Szilard realized the possibility of using the neutrons released from the fission of heavy atoms to trigger a nuclear chain reaction to release huge quantities of energy. The first successful chain reactions took place in 1942 in Germany at Leipzig University in the laboratory of Robert Döpel, and in the USA at the University of Chicago in the so-called Chicago Pile-1 reactor, developed by Enrico Fermi. These first nuclear reactors provided the proof of concept for using a nuclear chain reaction as a source of energy. However, even before that, Albert Einstein and Leo Szilard wrote to US President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1939, suggesting that the US government should develop a new powerful bomb based on nuclear fission. President Roosevelt created the Manhattan Project, which developed the first atomic bomb in 1945.Similarly to nuclear physics, the advent of rDNA technology has concerned the public…The Cold War and the mutually assured nuclear destruction between the USA and the USSR fanned widespread fears about a nuclear Third World War that could wipe out human civilization; Robert Oppenheimer, one of the physicists who developed the atomic bomb, was actually among the first to warn of the spectre of nuclear war. By contrast, the civilian use of nuclear physics, mainly in the form of nuclear reactors, promised a brave new future based on harnessing the power of the atom, but it also generated increasing concerns about the harmful effects of radioactivity, the festering problems of nuclear waste and the safety of nuclear power plants. The nuclear disasters at the Chernobyl reactor in 1986 and the Fukushima power plant in 2011 heightened these concerns to the point that several nations might now abandon nuclear energy altogether.The fundamental discovery in biology, crucial to the creation of synthetic organisms was the double helix structure of DNA in 1953 by Francis Crick and James Watson [3]. The realization that DNA molecules have a universal chemical structure to store and pass on genetic information was the intellectual basis for the development of recombinant DNA (rDNA) technology and genetic engineering. Twenty years after this discovery, Stanley Cohen and Herbert Boyer first transferred DNA from one organism into another by using endonucleases and DNA ligases [4]. This early toolkit was later expanded to include DNA sequencing and synthesizing technologies as well as PCR, which culminated in the creation of the first artificial organism in 2010. Craig Venter''s team synthesized a complete bacterial chromosome from scratch and transferred it into a bacterial cell lacking a genome: the resulting cell was able to synthesize a new set of proteins and to replicate. This proof of concept experiment now enables scientists to pursue further challenges, such as creating organisms with fully designed genomes to achieve agro-biotechnological, commercial, medical and military goals.Similarly to nuclear physics, the advent of rDNA technology has concerned the public, as many fear that genetically modified bacteria could escape the laboratory and wreak havoc, or that the technology could be abused to create biological weapons. Unlike with nuclear physics, the scientists working on rDNA technology anticipated these concerns very early on. In 1974, a group of scientists led by Paul Berg decided to suspend research into rDNA technology to discuss possible hazards and regulation. This discussion took place at a meeting in Asilomar, California, in 1975 [5].A pertinent similarity between these two areas of science is the confluence of several disciplines to create a hybrid technoscience, in which the boundaries between science and technology have become transient [6]. This convergence was vital for the success of both nuclear physics and later synthetic biology, which combines biotechnology, nanotechnology, information technologies and other new fields that have been created along the way [7]. In physics, technoscience received massive support from the government when the military potential of nuclear fission was realized. Although the splitting of the atom took place before the Manhattan Project, the Second World War served as a catalyst to combine research in nuclear physics with organized and goal-directed funding. As most of this funding came from the government, it changed the relationship between politics and research, as scientists were employed to meet specific goals. In the wake of the detonation of the first atomic bombs, the post-war period was another watershed moment for politics, technoscience, industry and society as it generated new and more intimate relationships between science and governments. These included the appointment of a scientific advisor to the President of the USA, the creation of funding organizations such as the National Science Foundation, or research organizations such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and large amounts of federal funding for technoscience research at private and public universities. It also led to the formation of international organizations such as the civilian-controlled International Atomic Energy Agency [6].There is no global war to serve as a catalyst for government spending on synthetic biology. Although the research has benefited tremendously from government agencies and research infrastructure, the funding for Venter''s team largely came from the private sector. In this regard, the relationship between biological techno-science and industry might already be more advanced than with the public sector given the enormous potential of synthetic life for industrial, medical and environmental applications.Research and innovation at universities has always played a vital role in the success of industry-based capitalism [8]; technoscience is now the major determinant of a knowledge-based economy or ''technocapitalism'' [9]. At the heart of technocapitalism are private and public organizations, driven by research and innovation, which are in sharp contrast to industrial capitalism, where the factories were production-driven and research was of less importance [10]. Furthermore, synthetic biology might provide valuable resources to the scientific community and thereby generate new research opportunities and directions for many biological fields [11].However, given the far-reaching implications of creating synthetic life and the risk of abuse, it is probable that the future relationship between synthetic biology and government will include issues of national security. In the light of potential misuse of synthetic biology for bioterrorism, and the safety risks involved in commercial applications, synthetic biology will eventually require some government regulation and oversight. In contrast to nuclear physics, in which the International Atomic Energy Commission was established only after the atomic bomb, the synthetic biology community should hold a new Asilomar meeting to address concerns and formulate guidelines and management protocols, rather than waiting for politicians or commercial enterprises to regulate the field.So far, synthetic biology differs from nuclear physics in terms of handling information. The Manhattan Project inevitably created a need for secrecy as it was created at the height of the Second World War, but the research maintained this shroud of secrecy after the war. After the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, the US government released carefully compiled documents to the American public. The existence of useable nuclear power had been secret until then, and the control of information ensured that the public further supported or tolerated the technology of nuclear fission and the subsequent use of atomic bombs [12]. This initially positive view changed in the ensuing decades with the threat of a global nuclear war.…synthetic biology has side-stepped the mistakes of nuclear physics and might well achieve a more balanced public integration of future developmentsInformation management in synthetic biology differs from nuclear physics, in that most of the crucial breakthroughs are immediately published in peer-reviewed journals and covered by the media. The value of early public discourse on science issues is evident from the reaction towards genetically modified crops and stem cell research. In this regard, synthetic biology has side-stepped the mistakes of nuclear physics and might well achieve a more balanced public integration of future developments.The main issues that might threaten to dampen public support for synthetic biology and favourable public perception are ethics and biosecurity concerns. Ethical concerns have already been addressed in several forums between scientists and public interest groups; this early engagement between science and society and their continuing dialogue might help to address the public''s ethical objections. In terms of biosecurity, biology might learn from nuclear physics'' intimate entanglement with politics and the military. Synthetic biologists should maintain control and regulation of their research and avoid the fate of nuclear physicists, who were recruited to fight the Cold War and were not free to pursue their own research. For synthetic biology to stay independent of government, industry and society, it must capitalize on its public engagement and heed the lessons and mistakes of nuclear physics'' atom-splitting moment. It should not just evaluate, discuss and address the risks for human or environmental health or biosafety concerns, but should also evaluate potential risks to synthetic biology research itself that could either come from falling public acceptance or government intrusion.? Open in a separate windowAlex J ValentineOpen in a separate windowAleysia KleinertOpen in a separate windowJerome Verdier     

Scientific dissent and public policy

The temptation to silence dissenters whose non-mainstream views negatively affect public policies is powerful. However, silencing dissent, no matter how scientifically unsound it might be, can cause the public to mistrust science in general.Dissent is crucial for the advancement of science. Disagreement is at the heart of peer review and is important for uncovering unjustified assumptions, flawed methodologies and problematic reasoning. Enabling and encouraging dissent also helps to generate alternative hypotheses, models and explanations. Yet, despite the importance of dissent in science, there is growing concern that dissenting voices have a negative effect on the public perception of science, on policy-making and public health. In some cases, dissenting views are deliberately used to derail certain policies. For example, dissenting positions on climate change, environmental toxins or the hazards of tobacco smoke [1,2] seem to laypeople as equally valid conflicting opinions and thereby create or increase uncertainty. Critics often use legitimate scientific disagreements about narrow claims to reinforce the impression of uncertainty about general and widely accepted truths; for instance, that a given substance is harmful [3,4]. This impression of uncertainty about the evidence is then used to question particular policies [1,2,5,6].The negative effects of dissent on establishing public polices are present in cases in which the disagreements are scientifically well-grounded, but the significance of the dissent is misunderstood or blown out of proportion. A study showing that many factors affect the size of reef islands, to the effect that they will not necessarily be reduced in size as sea levels rise [7], was simplistically interpreted by the media as evidence that climate change will not have a negative impact on reef islands [8].In other instances, dissenting voices affect the public perception of and motivation to follow public-health policies or recommendations. For example, the publication of a now debunked link between the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and autism [9], as well as the claim that the mercury preservative thimerosal, which was used in childhood vaccines, was a possible risk factor for autism [10,11], created public doubts about the safety of vaccinating children. Although later studies showed no evidence for these claims, doubts led many parents to reject vaccinations for their children, risking the herd immunity for diseases that had been largely eradicated from the industrialized world [12,13,14,15]. Many scientists have therefore come to regard dissent as problematic if it has the potential to affect public behaviour and policy-making. However, we argue that such concerns about dissent as an obstacle to public policy are both dangerous and misguided.Whether dissent is based on genuine scientific evidence or is unfounded, interested parties can use it to sow doubt, thwart public policies, promote problematic alternatives and lead the public to ignore sound advice. In response, scientists have adopted several strategies to limit these negative effects of dissent—masking dissent, silencing dissent and discrediting dissenters. The first strategy aims to present a united front to the public. Scientists mask existing disagreements among themselves by presenting only those claims or pieces of evidence about which they agree [16]. Although there is nearly universal agreement among scientists that average global temperatures are increasing, there are also legitimate disagreements about how much warming will occur, how quickly it will occur and the impact it might have [7,17,18,19]. As presenting these disagreements to the public probably creates more doubt and uncertainty than is warranted, scientists react by presenting only general claims [20].A second strategy is to silence dissenting views that might have negative consequences. This can take the form of self-censorship when scientists are reluctant to publish or publicly discuss research that might—incorrectly—be used to question existing scientific knowledge. For example, there are genuine disagreements about how best to model cloud formation, water vapour feedback and aerosols in general circulation paradigms, all of which have significant effects on the magnitude of global climate change predictions [17,19]. Yet, some scientists are hesitant to make these disagreements public, for fear that they will be accused of being denialists, faulted for confusing the public and policy-makers, censured for abating climate-change deniers, or criticized for undermining public policy [21,22,23,24].…there is growing concern that dissenting voices can have a negative effect on the public perception of science, on policy-making and public healthAnother strategy is to discredit dissenters, especially in cases in which the dissent seems to be ideologically motivated. This could involve publicizing the financial or political ties of the dissenters [2,6,25], which would call attention to their probable bias. In other cases, scientists might discredit the expertise of the dissenter. One such example concerns a 2007 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, which claimed that cadis fly larvae consuming Bt maize pollen die at twice the rate of flies feeding on non-Bt maize pollen [26]. Immediately after publication, both the authors and the study itself became the target of relentless and sometimes scathing attacks from a group of scientists who were concerned that anti-GMO (genetically modified organism) interest groups would seize on the study to advance their agenda [27]. The article was criticized for its methodology and its conclusions, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA was criticized for publishing the article and the US National Science Foundation was criticized for funding the study in the first place.Public policies, health advice and regulatory decisions should be based on the best available evidence and knowledge. As the public often lack the expertise to assess the quality of dissenting views, disagreements have the potential to cast doubt over the reliability of scientific knowledge and lead the public to question relevant policies. Strategies to block dissent therefore seem reasonable as a means to protect much needed or effective health policies, advice and regulations. However, even if the public were unable to evaluate the science appropriately, targeting dissent is not the most appropriate strategy to prevent negative side effects for several reasons. Chiefly, it contributes to the problems that the critics of dissent seek to address, namely increasing the cacophony of dissenting voices that only aim to create doubt. Focusing on dissent as a problematic activity sends the message to policy-makers and the public that any dissent undermines scientific knowledge. Reinforcing this false assumption further incentivizes those who seek merely to create doubt to thwart particular policies. Not surprisingly, think-tanks, industry and other organizations are willing to manufacture dissent simply to derail policies that they find economically or ideologically undesirable.Another danger of targeting dissent is that it probably stifles legitimate crucial voices that are needed for both advancing science and informing sound policy decisions. Attacking dissent makes scientists reluctant to voice genuine doubts, especially if they believe that doing so might harm their reputations, damage their careers and undermine prevailing theories or policies needed. For instance, a panel of scientists for the US National Academy of Sciences, when presenting a risk assessment of radiation in 1956, omitted wildly different predictions about the potential genetic harm of radiation [16]. They did not include this wide range of predictions in their final report precisely because they thought the differences would undermine confidence in their recommendations. Yet, this information could have been relevant to policy-makers. As such, targeting dissent as an obstacle to public policy might simply reinforce self-censorship and stifle legitimate and scientifically informed debate. If this happens, scientific progress is hindered.Second, even if the public has mistaken beliefs about science or the state of the knowledge of the science in question, focusing on dissent is not an effective way to protect public policy from false claims. It fails to address the presumed cause of the problem—the apparent lack of understanding of the science by the public. A better alternative would be to promote the public''s scientific literacy. If the public were educated to better assess the quality of the dissent and thus disregard instances of ideological, unsupported or unsound dissent, dissenting voices would not have such a negative effect. Of course, one might argue that educating the public would be costly and difficult, and that therefore, the public should simply listen to scientists about which dissent to ignore and which to consider. This is, however, a paternalistic attitude that requires the public to remain ignorant ‘for their own good''; a position that seems unjustified on many levels as there are better alternatives for addressing the problem.Moreover, silencing dissent, rather than promoting scientific literacy, risks undermining public trust in science even if the dissent is invalid. This was exemplified by the 2009 case of hacked e-mails from a computer server at the University of East Anglia''s Climate Research Unit (CRU). After the selective leaking of the e-mails, climate scientists at the CRU came under fire because some of the quotes, which were taken out of context, seemed to suggest that they were fudging data or suppressing dissenting views [28,29,30,31]. The stolen e-mails gave further ammunition to those opposing policies to reduce greenhouse emissions as they could use accusations of data ‘cover up'' as proof that climate scientists were not being honest with the public [29,30,31]. It also allowed critics to present climate scientists as conspirators who were trying to push a political agenda [32]. As a result, although there was nothing scientifically inappropriate revealed in the ‘climategate'' e-mails, it had the consequence of undermining the public''s trust in climate science [33,34,35,36].A significant amount of evidence shows that the ‘deficit model'' of public understanding of science, as described above, is too simplistic to account correctly for the public''s reluctance to accept particular policy decisions [37,38,39,40]. It ignores other important factors such as people''s attitudes towards science and technology, their social, political and ethical values, their past experiences and the public''s trust in governmental institutions [41,42,43,44]. The development of sound public policy depends not only on good science, but also on value judgements. One can agree with the scientific evidence for the safety of GMOs, for instance, but still disagree with the widespread use of GMOs because of social justice concerns about the developing world''s dependence on the interests of the global market. Similarly, one need not reject the scientific evidence about the harmful health effects of sugar to reject regulations on sugary drinks. One could rationally challenge such regulations on the grounds that informed citizens ought to be able to make free decisions about what they consume. Whether or not these value judgements are justified is an open question, but the focus on dissent hinders our ability to have that debate.Focusing on dissent as a problematic activity sends the message to policy-makers and the public that any dissent undermines scientific knowledgeAs such, targeting dissent completely fails to address the real issues. The focus on dissent, and the threat that it seems to pose to public policy, misdiagnoses the problem as one of the public misunderstanding science, its quality and its authority. It assumes that scientific or technological knowledge is the only relevant factor in the development of policy and it ignores the role of other factors, such as value judgements about social benefits and harms, and institutional trust and reliability [45,46]. The emphasis on dissent, and thus on scientific knowledge, as the only or main factor in public policy decisions does not give due attention to these legitimate considerations.Furthermore, by misdiagnosing the problem, targeting dissent also impedes more effective solutions and prevents an informed debate about the values that should guide public policy. By framing policy debates solely as debates over scientific facts, the normative aspects of public policy are hidden and neglected. Relevant ethical, social and political values fail to be publicly acknowledged and openly discussed.Controversies over GMOs and climate policies have called attention to the negative effects of dissent in the scientific community. Based on the assumption that the public''s reluctance to support particular policies is the result of their inability to properly understand scientific evidence, scientists have tried to limit dissenting views that create doubt. However, as outlined above, targeting dissent as an obstacle to public policy probably does more harm than good. It fails to focus on the real problem at stake—that science is not the only relevant factor in sound policy-making. Of course, we do not deny that scientific evidence is important to the develop.ment of public policy and behavioural decisions. Rather, our claim is that this role is misunderstood and often oversimplified in ways that actually contribute to problems in developing sound science-based policies.? Open in a separate windowInmaculada de Melo-MartínOpen in a separate windowKristen Intemann