PRRI pismo novoizvoljenega predsednika Evropske komisije o Chief znanosti svetovalcev

V pismu Jean-Claude Juncker PRRI poudarja izjemno pomembno vlogo, ki imajo višji znanstveni svetovalci iz vlad in organizacij, in izraža začudenje, da nekatere organizacije, se zdi, da se boji, da bi imel predsednik ES dostop do neodvisnega nasveta izkušena in visoko učenih.

The full text of the letter:

To the President-elect of the European Commission,

Jean-Claude Juncker

23 September 2014

Spoštovani gospod. Juncker ,

On behalf of the Public Research and Regulation Initiative (PRRI), I congratulate you with your appointment as President of the European Commission.

PRRI je svetovno organizacijo znanstvenikov javnega sektorja, ki se ukvarjajo s sodobno biotehnologijo in za skupno dobro. One of the main aims of PRRI is to bring more science to the debate on regulations and policies pertaining to modern biotechnology.

S tega vidika, PRRI applauds you for confirming – in response to questions from MEPs – that the post of Chief Scientific Advisor (CSA) will be continued during your presidency.

Chief scientific advisors are common and extremely valuable posts in many governments and organisations , because they assist in identifying available knowledge and scientific bodies for specific topics. Poleg tega, glavni znanstveni svetovalci varujejo znanstvena načela, ki so skupna vsem znanstvenim disciplinam, kot je "na podlagi dokazov", "strokovno pregledano", "neodvisna" in "transparentna".

To priložnost izkoriščamo, da toplo pohvalimo profesorico Anne Glover za njeno vztrajnost pri razlagi in obrambi teh in drugih znanstvenih načel v času njenega mandata CSA.

PRRI z vsem srcem podpira poziv iz medicinske skupine, Smisel o znanosti, the Evropska organizacija za rastlinstvo, the Evropska zveza za znanstveno novinarstvo, ter številne druge skupine in posameznike, da obdržijo položaj CSA in dejansko znatno okrepijo to mesto.

Ni treba posebej poudarjati, da smo bili presenečeni, ko smo izvedeli, da so vas nekatere organizacije pozvale, da "opustite položaj" CSA. It is very remarkable that any organisation would be afraid of the EC President having access to the independent advice of a highly experienced and highly recognised top scientist.

Given that the arguments for the request of these groups illustrate some common misperceptions and misrepresentations in the public debate about the scientific process, we take below a closer look at the some of the arguments presented in their letter

Argument 1: "…The post of Chief Scientific Adviser is fundamentally problematic as it concentrates too much influence in one person, and undermines in-depth scientific research and assessments carried out by or for the Commission directorates in the course of policy elaboration.”

The notion that the post of CSA would concentrate too much influence in one person shows a poor understanding of the functioning of the CSA. The claim that the post of CSA “undermines in-depth scientific research and assessments carried out by or for the Commission directorates” is unsubstantiated.

Argument 2: "… the role of Chief Scientific Adviser has been unaccountable, intransparent and controversial. While the current CSA and her opinions were very present in the media, the nature of her advice to the President of the European Commission remains unknown.”

The suggestion that ‘the role of the CSA has been unaccountable and intransparent’, shows an equally poor understanding of the mandate of the CSA, which is to “provide independent expert advice on any aspect of science, tehnologijo in inovacije, kot je zahteval predsednik". To pomeni, da je CSA odgovoren predsedniku Komisije, pri čemer veljajo običajna pravila obveščanja javnosti. Trditev, da je bila "vloga CSA sporna", je – znova – neutemeljen. Medtem ko nekatere skupine morda ne bodo pozdravile na dokazih temelječega mnenja uglednega znanstvenika, to samo po sebi še ne pomeni spornosti.

Argument 3: „… trenutni CSA je bil predstavljen enostransko, delna mnenja v razpravi o uporabi gensko spremenjenih organizmov v kmetijstvu, večkrat trdijo, da obstaja znanstveno soglasje o njihovi varnosti, medtem ko je ta trditev v nasprotju z mednarodno izjavo znanstvenikov …«.

The suggestion that because a CSA made statements about safety of GMOs that were not to the liking of these groups, the entire post of CSA should be eliminated, is very peculiar.

The argument specifically refers to a statement published by the “European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility” (ENSER). That statement is equally peculiar, because – apart from the self-proclaimed ‘social and environmental responsibility’ – it is a statement reacting to newspaper headlines, and that rejects a claim that is not being made, all with flawed arguments. PRRI stands ready to elaborate on this if you wish.

For now we prefer to focus on an important aspect about GMOs that is often left out in the public debate on modern biotechnology, and that is the broader context, e.g. the urgent need to address the overwhelming challenges of strengthening food security and sustainable agricultural production.

As PRRI and various farmers organisations addressed in an earlier pismo to EU institutions: if countries want to make farming more sustainable and be more self sufficient, then their farmers will need, among many other things, tools that are less detrimental to the environment and produce ‘more with less’, such crop varieties that are less dependent on pesticides, ki proizvajajo več na hektar, ki zahtevajo manj mehansko obdelavo tal, da lahko zdrži učinke podnebnih sprememb, itd. Developing such crop varieties cannot be done by conventional breeding alone. Molecular techniques such as genetic modification can help overcome many of the limitations in plant breeding.

As should be the case with every new technology, vprašanje o varnosti gensko spremenjenih organizmov se obravnava že od zgodnjih objav rekombinantne DNK v 70., in v 40 let, ki so minila, in na stotine milijonov evrov je bilo porabljenih za raziskave ocene tveganja in izvedenih je bilo na tisoče ocen tveganja za GSO.

Rezultat tega ogromnega truda je nekaj zelo trdnih zaključkov:

1. Tehnika uvajanja genov s transformacijo sama po sebi ne nosi nobenih inherentnih tveganj. Ali ima nastali GSO potencial za škodljive učinke, je mogoče odgovoriti le na podlagi „od primera do primera“..
2. Več tisoč ocen tveganja, opravljenih do danes za precejšnje število kombinacij lastnosti pridelka, je pokazalo, da se pričakuje, da bodo te rastline gensko spremenjenih pridelkov vsaj tako varne kot njihovi nespremenjeni primerki..
3. This is confirmed by the fact that GM crops have been grown by farmers for over 15 years on hundreds of millions of hectares and that have been widely consumed by humans and animals, without any indications to the contrary, as there are no verifiable reports of damage to human health or the environment caused by GMOs. (While on the other hand there are many verifiable reports on benefits for the environment and socio-economic benefits for farmers.)

These substantiated and qualified conclusions are confirmed by reports of the European Commission, academies of science, UN organisations etc.

The PRRI stands ready to elaborate on this and to assist the Commission in clarifying the scientific method and process to the general public.

Iskreno

V. Prof. Marc ovira Van Montagu,

Predsednik državnega raziskave in Uredba pobude (PRRI)

World Food Prize Nagrajenec 2013