b'THE RISK CORNER BY: DAVID ZARUKTHE NEED FOR A EUROPEANPRO-SCIENCE LOBBYI n a recent Politico Brussels debate onObservatory removed Dr Glover after oneintended to exclude their findings from the future of new plant breeding tech- term, ensuring that political campaignspolicy discourse and permanently alien-nologies within the EUs Farm2Forkcould thrive in Brussels untethered fromate any academic foolhardy enough to strategy, a scientist, Ricarda Steinbrecher,facts and evidence. accept such funding. But what about activ-sounded precautionary alarm bells on theIn such a climate of endemic igno- ist-funded science? How can someone like potential risks from any innovative geneticrance, it is unsurprising that BrusselsDave Goulson build a lab with Greenpeace technologies. Ricarda is a board memberstruggled to reauthorise glyphosate, afunding and still have a voice in policy of the official-sounding European Networkbenign and highly beneficial herbicide. Asdebates? The NGOs have done a good job of Scientists for Social and Environmentalfurther scientific studies continue to belobbying their researchers in the absence Responsibility (ENSSER). Other ENSSERignored, glyphosates renewal is far fromof any quality-control mechanisms.board members include Angelika Hilbeckcertain. Scientific evidence is muted in EU and Arnaud Apoteker, the last people topolicy debates. A SCIENCE LOBBY?speak on behalf of innovations in plantIf Brussels can no longer have a Chief genetics. But to outsiders, their well-com- SCIENTIFIC VOICES Scientific Adviser to separate the credi-municated activist views are now beingSo how can the voice of the research com- ble from the political, then it needs some considered as legitimate voices from themunity be heard in Brussels today? Whoorganisation to lobby on behalf of the use academic community. speaks on behalf of scientists? Withoutof legitimate scientific evidence in EU At a time when social media is pro- proper advice, how would a European offi- policy debates. This organisation would viding an opportunity for such variant factcial be warned to take the claims of a polit- need to be both representative (speak-selection, continuous fear messaging andically driven activist scientist with a graining on behalf of various research organ-repetitive disinformation, how can plantof salt? ENSSERs website is polished andisations) and custodian (speaking out biologists ensure that the research com- tries to obscure how their funding comeswhenever non-scientific arguments gain munitys voice is properly represented?from a group of NGOs and activist-orientedunwarranted policy influence). Someone with basic plant breeding knowl- foundations. Researchers dont have theSuch an organisation would need to edge could easily see through Ricardastime, interest, or money to develop suchtake a strong communications role (to politicised scaremongering, but most inconvincing communications tools. occupy the space the NGOs presently Brussels dont (and many are charged up bySleepy mechanisms exist like thehave to themselves). For example, if the her anti-technology, anti-industry rhetoric).European Parliaments bureaucraticEuropean Commission in future chooses With the EUs Green Deal discussionsSTOA or Science Europe (representingto ignore the myriad of studies condemn-revealing a woefully scientifically ignorantnational research-funding bodies). Thereing the lack of evidence behind their European Commission (with its repeatedare independent science organisations thatFarm2Fork strategy (including a study ambition of a toxic-free Europe, aspira- focus on certain issues. For more than twofrom their own JRC) then this organisa-tions to feed the world without chemicaldecades, the Science Media Centre hastion would amplify them and shine a light pesticides and a hazard-based approachprovided journalists with access to cred- on the Commissions policy fact gaps.to plant genetics), such anti-innovationible scientists. In the U.S., the Center forShould it be set up like a trade asso-activist campaigns are becoming acceptedTruth in Science was recently formed tociation (representing scientific organisa-as scientific facts in Brussels. counter the influence of tort lawyers ontions)? Should it have individual scientists Even worse, it seems to be taken forthe perception of a group of chemicals andas members occupying boards and com-granted now that all science is political (soconsumer products. Just last May, a groupmittees? Should it fall under the multiple we just need to choose the scientists whoof British scholars launched Science foracademies that speak for certain research align with our political views). I played aSustainable Agriculture. fields or take a stronger, multilateral posi-part in the fight to establish the positionResearch-based companies havetion on behalf of the interests of the var-of a Chief Scientific Adviser in Brusselsdone a good job presenting the benefitsious research communities? Should it be and Anne Glover succeeded in remind- of their research and innovation, but cer- a lobby voice in policy debates or provide ing people that they may be entitledtain civil society groups have demonisedresearch support for other groups?to their own opinions but not their ownindustry, discrediting their scientists andThese are questions we need to con-facts. Unfortunately, a consortium ofdelegitimising them from policy debates.sider in setting up such an organisation. I activist groups led by Corporate EuropeThe term industry-funded science iswould appreciate your ideas and inputs. 50IEUROPEAN SEEDIEUROPEAN-SEED.COM'