Sir, - Important topics require serious debate and responsible joumalism. Unfortunately the article "Less than one, acre, eh?" by John McKenna (May 10th) provides neither. In trivialising the issues and carefully avoiding any relevant facts, Mr McKenna does a disservice to the public, to both sides of the debate, and to the high standing of The Irish Times.
The capacity to introduce and express foreign genes in crop plants is a powerful new tool. It is benevolent, and has a tremendous potential for crop improvement. However, like all powerful tools its application has to be carefully monitored. The regulatory and licensing procedures for field trials of genetically modified crops (let alone their release into the marketplace) take these responsibilities very seriously indeed, no detail being overlooked to ensure complete safety to the environment and the public. The monitoring procedures are equally stringent.
I am certain that in the specific case of the sugarbeet trials at the centre of the controversy, there are very strict riders on the tests. For example, it's inconceivable that the plants would be allowed to flower, particularly easy to ensure in a biennial crop planted too late for any danger of vernalisation, and the test would be terminated should there be any sign of reproductive development.
Mr. McKenna is not even internally consistent when he comments on the fact the beet will be destroyed, saying "why bother?". The point is that all potential new products need to be rigorously tested under safe, controlled conditions. Mr. McKenna is implying that it would be more appropriate to take short cuts over testing. I can assure him that the companies concerned are far more responsible than he is!
On this point, further facts which are overlooked are that Monsanto will have nothing to do with the trials, but that they will be carried out and monitored by qualified Teagasc personnel, and that the same material has already been field tested in nine European countries, in each case having satisfied the stringent regulatory mechanisms.
On the broader question of the desirability of genetically modified crops, it really doesn't matter where a gene comes from. A gene is noteworthy because of the protein it encodes. The large majority of scorpion proteins are very similar to their equivalents in people or carrots, so playing the "ugh, nasty creepie-crawlie" card is really a cheap trick designed to dishonestly play on people's deeper fears.
There are, of course, many proteins that can be identified as beneficial, from a wide range of organisms, and modern molecular biological techniques mean that both genes and proteins can be rigorously examined in the laboratory, long before we reach the stage of conducting field trials. The DNA introduced into a crop being considered for trials will have been thoroughly characterised, probably down to the last nucleotide. There is nothing haphazard in this technology, (as is implied in the ill-informed statement by Mr. Noel Dempsey, quoted in Mr. McKenna's article). Also, many of the most exciting applications are actually environmentally enhancing, aimed at reducing the use of chemical pesticides (a far more important crusade!), and would particularly benefit developing countries.
It is unfortunate for society that on critical issues such as this, scientists have to be careful to scrupulously state the facts, and are further hampered since, when explained in detail, these are not readily accessible to the majority of the public. Politicians, on the other hand, can go for populist soundbites, and journalists can resort to distortion and misrepresentation and reach a large audience. I have read extremely good, well balanced articles on these matters in The Irish Times in the past. Might I suggest you revert to using the excellent freelance science journalists who have served you so well.
By the way, I have no links with Monsanto. - Yours, etc.
Maynooth, Co. Kildare.