PRRI barua kwa Rais mteule wa Tume ya Ulaya kuhusu Chief Sayansi Advisors

Katika barua kwa Mr Jean-Claude Juncker PRRI inasisitiza jukumu muhimu sana kwamba washauri wakuu wa kisayansi na wa serikali na mashirika, na kuonyesha mshangao kwamba baadhi ya mashirika wanaonekana kuwa na hofu kwamba EC Rais ingekuwa kupata ushauri wa kujitegemea wa yenye uzoefu na yenye kutambuliwa mwanasayansi.

Nakala kamili ya barua:

Kwa Rais Mteule wa Tume ya Ulaya,

Mr Jean-Claude Juncker

23 Septemba 2014

Wapenzi Bw. Juncker ,

Kwa niaba ya Mpango wa Utafiti na Udhibiti wa Umma (PRRI), Ninakupongeza kwa kuteuliwa kwako kama Rais wa Tume ya Ulaya.

PRRI ni shirika duniani kote ya wanasayansi wa sekta ya umma kazi katika teknolojia ya kisasa kwa ajili ya mema ya kawaida. Mojawapo ya malengo makuu ya PRRI ni kuleta sayansi zaidi kwenye mjadala juu ya kanuni na sera zinazohusiana na teknolojia ya kisasa ya kibayoteknolojia..

Kwa mtazamo huu, PRRI inakupongeza kwa kuthibitisha – kwa kujibu maswali kutoka kwa MEPs – kwamba wadhifa wa Mshauri Mkuu wa Kisayansi (CSA) itaendelea wakati wa urais wako.

Washauri wakuu wa kisayansi ni wadhifa wa kawaida na wa thamani sana katika serikali na mashirika mengi , kwa sababu yanasaidia katika kutambua maarifa na vyombo vya kisayansi vinavyopatikana kwa mada maalum. Aidha, washauri wakuu wa kisayansi hulinda kanuni za kisayansi ambazo ni za kawaida katika taaluma zote za kisayansi, kama vile 'ushahidi msingi', 'imekaguliwa', "huru" na "wazi".

Tunachukua fursa hii kumpongeza sana Profesa Anne Glover kwa uthabiti wake wa kufafanua na kutetea kanuni hizi na nyinginezo za kisayansi katika kipindi chake kama CSA..

PRRI inaunga mkono kwa moyo wote simu kutoka vikundi vya matibabu, Hisia kuhusu Sayansi, the Shirika la Sayansi ya Mimea la Ulaya, the Shirikisho la Ulaya la Uandishi wa Habari za Sayansi, na vikundi vingine vingi na watu binafsi kuhifadhi wadhifa wa CSA na kwa kweli kuimarisha wadhifa huo kwa kiasi kikubwa.

Bila shaka, tulishangaa kujua kwamba baadhi ya mashirika yametoa wito kwako "kufuta nafasi" ya 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, technology and innovation as requested by the President”. This means that the CSA is accountable to the Commission President, whereby the normal rules of public information apply. The claim that ‘the role of the CSA has been controversial’ is – again – unsubstantiated. While some groups may not welcome the evidence based opinion of an eminent scientist, that in itself does not make it controversial.

Argument 3: ‘… the current CSA presented one-sided, partial opinions in the debate on the use of genetically modified organisms in agriculture, repeatedly claiming that there was a scientific consensus about their safety whereas this claim is contradicted by an international statement of scientists …”.

Pendekezo kwamba kwa sababu CSA ilitoa taarifa kuhusu usalama wa GMO ambazo hazikuwa za kupendeza kwa vikundi hivi, wadhifa wote wa CSA unapaswa kuondolewa, ni ya kipekee sana.

Hoja hasa inarejelea taarifa iliyochapishwa na "Mtandao wa Wanasayansi wa Ulaya kwa Uwajibikaji wa Kijamii na Mazingira" (WAMOJA). Kauli hiyo ni ya kipekee, kwa sababu - mbali na kujitangaza 'jukumu la kijamii na kimazingira' – ni taarifa inayojibu vichwa vya habari vya magazeti, na hilo linakataa madai ambayo hayatekelezwi, wote wakiwa na hoja zenye kasoro. PRRI iko tayari kufafanua juu ya hili ukipenda.

Kwa sasa tunapendelea kuzingatia kipengele muhimu kuhusu GMO ambacho mara nyingi huachwa katika mjadala wa umma kuhusu teknolojia ya kisasa ya kibayoteknolojia., 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 barua 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, kwamba kuzalisha zaidi kwa hekta, kwamba kuhitaji chini mitambo udongo matibabu, ambayo inaweza kuhimili athari za mabadiliko ya hali ya hewa, nk. 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, swali kuhusu usalama wa GMOs limeshughulikiwa tangu machapisho ya awali ya DNA recombinant katika miaka ya 70., na katika 40 miaka ambayo imepita, na mamia ya mamilioni ya Euro zimetumika katika utafiti wa tathmini ya hatari na maelfu mengi ya tathmini za hatari kwa GMOs zimefanyika..

Jitihada hii kubwa imesababisha baadhi ya hitimisho thabiti:

1. Mbinu ya kuanzisha jeni kupitia mageuzi yenyewe haina hatari za asili. Ikiwa GMO inayotokana ina uwezekano wa athari mbaya inaweza kujibiwa tu kwa msingi wa 'kesi kwa kesi'.
2. Maelfu ya tathmini za hatari zilizofanywa hadi sasa kwa idadi nzuri ya mchanganyiko wa sifa za mazao zimeonyesha kuwa mimea hiyo ya mazao ya GM inatarajiwa kuwa salama angalau kama wenzao ambao hawajabadilishwa..
3. Hii inathibitishwa na ukweli kwamba mazao ya GM yamepandwa na wakulima kwa muda mrefu 15 miaka kwenye mamia ya mamilioni ya hekta na ambazo zimetumiwa sana na wanadamu na wanyama, bila dalili zozote za kinyume chake, kwani hakuna ripoti zinazoweza kuthibitishwa za uharibifu wa afya ya binadamu au mazingira unaosababishwa na GMOs. (Wakati kwa upande mwingine kuna ripoti nyingi zinazoweza kuthibitishwa kuhusu manufaa kwa mazingira na manufaa ya kijamii na kiuchumi kwa wakulima.)

Hitimisho hizi zilizothibitishwa na zilizohitimu zinathibitishwa na ripoti za Tume ya Ulaya, vyuo vya sayansi, Mashirika ya AN nk.

PRRI iko tayari kufafanua juu ya hili na kusaidia Tume katika kufafanua mbinu na mchakato wa kisayansi kwa umma kwa ujumla..

Sana kwa dhati

Katika. Prof. Marc kizuizi Van Montagu,

Mwenyekiti wa Utafiti wa Umma na Mpango wa Kanuni ya (PRRI)

Chakula Duniani Tuzo ya Nobel 2013