Laurie Flynn and Michael Sean Gillard
The Guardian Weekly 4-11-1999, page 11
The editor of one of Britain's leading medical journals, the Lancet, says he was threatened by a senior member of the Royal Society, the voice of the British science establishment, that his job would be at risk if he published controversial research questioning the safety of genetically modified foods. Richard Horton declined to name the man, but the Guardian has identified him as Peter Lachmann, the former vice-president and biological secretary of the Royal Society and president of the Academy of Medical Sciences. The Guardian has been told that an influential group within the Royal Society has set up what appears to be a "rebuttal unit" to push a pro- biotech line and counter opposing scientists and environmental groups.
Dr Horton said he was called at his office in central London last month, two days before the Lancet published a research paper by Arpad Pusztai, the scientist at the centre of the GM controversy. Dr Horton, editor of the Lancet since 1995, said he was called "immoral" and accused of publishing Dr Pusztai's paper which he "knew to be untrue". He added that the caller told him that if he published the Pusztai paper, it would "have implications for his personal position" as editor. The Lancet is owned by Reed
Elsevier, one of Europe's largest scientific publishing houses.
Prof. Lachmann, a professor of immunology at Cambridge and a Royal Society fellow for 17 years, confirmed that he rang Dr Horton on October 13 to discuss his "error of judgment" in deciding to publish the paper. However he "categorically denies" making any threat to Dr Horton. "I didn't
accuse him of being immoral. I said there were moral difficulties about
publishing bad science." Prof. Lachmann's call to Dr Horton was preceded by a series of controversial interventions by the society on the Pusztai affair. Prof Lachmann chaired a
working group on GM plants for food use last year, which endorsed their "potential for real benefits" but recognised the need for further research and monitoring. The report was published in September 1998, a month after Dr Pusztai publicly expressed his concerns about their safety, questioning government regulatory procedures. Dr Pusztai's employer, the Rowett Institute, seized his data, forced him to retire and banned him from speaking out. In February, Prof Lachmann was one of the 19 Royal Society fellows who attacked Dr Pusztai's work in an open letter. He and other key Royal Society fellows have since been at the forefront of defending GM technology and extolling its ability to solve world hunger and provide safer food and medicines. His extensive CV includes a recent consultancy to Geron Biomed, which markets the animal cloning technology behind Dolly the sheep. Prof Lachmann is also on the scientific advisory board of the pharmaceutical giant SmithKline Beecham,
which invests heavily in biotechnology. The manager of the Royal Society science policy division is Rebecca Bowden, who coordinated the highly critical peer review of Dr Pusztai's work. She joined the society in 1998 from the government biotechnology unit at the department of the environment, which controls the release of genetically modified organisms.
Return to TOP of page
Paul Brown
Date: Tue, 29 Sept. 1998 The Guardian Weekly , Page 9
THE Ecologist, the flagship of radical green thought for 30 years, has become involved in a row with its printers after an edition of the magazine was pulped. It had used the edition to attack Monsanto, the multinational genetic engineering company. But the Ecologist's printers -- Penwells of Saltash, Cornwall -- destroyed the 14,000 print run without notice. Although it refused to comment on its decision, it is understood that the company was afraid of laying itself open to a libel action. Penwells has been printing the Ecologist for 29 years without complaint. Zac Goldsmith, the magazine's co-editor and son of the late Sir James Goldsmith, only discovered last weekend that no copies of the edition, which took two months to produce, had survived. His uncle, Teddy Goldsmith, Sir James's brother, funds the magazine. Mr Goldsmith is known well in green circles for his environmental views. The Ecologist has been controversial since it was founded. It is read on both sides of the Atlantic and was one of the first publications to point to the potentially dangerous power of multinational companies.
"We are shocked and amazed. We have a long history of being forthright about environmental issues and attacking powerful organisations, yet not once in 29 years has this printer complained or expressed the slightest qualms about what we were doing," Zac Goldsmith said on Monday. "We have been good friends, but suddenly out of the blue, this happens. I asked if they could send us just one copy but they said no, the lot had to be destroyed. I just cannot find out what happened; they are not returning my calls."
Penwells were not prepared to discuss their decision to destroy the edition. "We cannot comment on what has happened at all, or our reasons," a spokesman said. The relationship between Penwells and the Ecologist had ended, Mr Goldsmith was told. Daniel Verakis, UK spokesman for Monsanto, said he was mystified by the printer's action. "I had talked to Zac Goldsmith way back in September about the fact that this edition was a special one about biotechnology, and I guess as the biggest company in that field I knew we would be mentioned, but I did not know it was especially about Monsanto. The fact that the edition has been pulped is news to me. We had nothing to do with it." Zac Goldsmith said: "The fact that Monsanto had nothing to do with the decision to pulp is, if anything, more scary than if they had made some kind of legal threat. It goes to show what a powerful force a reputation can be." He said he was determined to get the Monsanto edition published and was looking for printers.
The pulped edition opens with a letter to Robert Shapiro, chief executive of Monsanto. It says the issue was put together in response to Monsanto's advertisements in which it claimed it wanted a free and open discussion about the impact of its work. The editorial then accuses Monsanto of working against sustainable agricultural practice by undermining the annual saving and improving of locally adapted seeds. "In the past you have had a hard time accommodating the views of your critics," it says. "Indeed, as the following pages make clear, you have been quick to stifle any debate that might threaten your interests."
Return to TOP of page