University of Nebraska

Monarchs Bearing Grenades

The emerging trend toward publicizing little laboratory studies is going to cause big problems for scientific credibility if it is not reined in quickly.

The most recent example was a laboratory study conducted at the University of Arizona concerning the potential for bollworms to develop resistance to genetically modified cotton. Before that, a Cornell University study resulted in public declarations that the Monarch butterfly could be wiped out by genetically modified corn. Both works were summarized in the British journal Nature, both were hyped in press releases sent out by the journal, both were exploited by activists, and both left the erroneous impression that science had overlooked something important in reviewing the potential risks of biotechnology.

The butterfly publicity has had serious impact on the acceptability of biotechnology. But neither of the studies, and a handful of others, which were conducted in laboratories, gave a complete picture of what would be expected in a natural setting. The result has been a disservice to science, unnecessary concern among the public, a discrediting of a valuable technology and a lot of work for conscientious scientists who have to mop up the mess.

I have no quarrel with the quality of the laboratory work, and no one is suggesting the results were not accurate. But I am very concerned about snippets of information being released out of context with the implication they are surprising and have great importance. The current issue of Consumer Reports magazine is a good illustration of how a series of little studies gets portrayed as something significant. Time, Newsweek and the New York Times weighed in last week, citing studies without providing balancing information. In the case of Monarch butterflies, there probably was not an entomologist in the world who was not aware that corn pollen containing the Bt gene could harm butterflies - if butterflies ate corn pollen, which they don't.

Most entomologists understood there is very little potential for Monarch exposure in a natural setting. That was taken into consideration by scientists and regulators in developing strategies for the safe use of crops that have been genetically modified to control insects. But it seems that a few scientists, who apparently don't want to accept the general consensus of the scientific community, are willing to use questionable methods to take their case to the front of the line.

The quickest way to get attention is to conduct a laboratory study knowing what the outcome will be and then find accomplices to make a big deal out of it. I call it the hand-grenade syndrome. If someone lobs a hand-grenade into a room, he's going to get everyone's attention very fast. Lately science journals, like other media, are competing for readers by seeking to call attention to themselves. They have learned that simple little studies get big headlines. They try to cover the fact that the studies are misleading with wiggle words like, "This is only a laboratory study and it makes no conclusions about what would happen in a natural environment." That's like trying to put the pin back in the grenade after you lob it into the room. When grenades go off, they make a mess.

Demands for "more study" come from all corners. So university researchers, with limited resources, end up dropping what they were doing and devote attention to providing the data demanded by a concerned public and regulators under pressure. This is a poor way to set priorities for scientific research, but it's what happens when we conduct science by press release.