RSS
Roger Pielke Jr. quoted in Science Magazine on August 1, 2014. By Kai Kupferschmidt
A war of words has erupted over the job of chief science adviser to the European Commission—a post created only in 2012 that hangs in the balance now that a new commission is being formed. Nine nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have called on Jean-Claude Juncker, the commission’s president-elect, to scrap the position; they are angered by the support of the current science adviser, Anne Glover, for genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Their letter has triggered a wave of support for the position from scientists and scientific organizations.
As always when GMOs are involved, the debate quickly got heated. Even Glover’s supporters, however, agree that the science adviser’s position has problems—including a tiny budget and an ill-defined mandate—that the new commission, set to take office in November, needs to fix.
The United States, the United Kingdom, and some other countries have long had senior scientists advising the government, and the idea is catching on elsewhere. José Manuel Barroso, the outgoing president of the European Commission, tapped Glover, until then Scotland’s chief science adviser, to “provide independent expert advice on any aspect of science, technology and innovation” 2 years ago. But Glover’s contract expires with Barroso’s at the end of October; Juncker, a political veteran from Luxembourg, must decide whether to continue the position, and, if he does, whether to renew Glover’s contract.
Just end it and eliminate the post, is the NGOs’ advice. In an open letter published on 22 July, they argue that Glover has misrepresented science, for instance by saying that genetically modified plants carry no more risks than conventionally bred plants. “She sounded more like a GMO lobbyist,” says Jorgo Riss, director of the Greenpeace European Unit. Riss says the problem goes beyond genetic modification. “I think there is a fundamental flaw in thinking you can place one person close to the president [to help] decide how to interpret certain data,” he says. Relying on just a single scientist also makes it easier for industry to lobby, Riss argues.
Roger Pielke of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, Boulder, dismisses the GMO criticism. “It’s a very common tendency: If you don’t like the advice, get rid of the adviser,” he says. James Wilsdon, an expert on science advice at the University of Sussex in the United Kingdom, says everybody benefits in the long run if policies are based on better evidence, including NGOs; he calls the NGOs’ letter “utterly counterproductive and a politically dumb move.”
photo by Friends of Europe, Wikipedia Creative Commons
