Printed in the Maui Weekly

Editorial, Sunday, April 22, 2007
Sally V. Irwin

Two Guidelines Useful In Evaluating Technical Scientific Information

As a geneticist and a professor at Maui Community College I am often asked how to assess the issues surrounding genetically modified organisms.

I give students some guidelines on how to evaluate highly technical scientific research that I think will be useful to all who are interested in learning more about GMOs.

The first guideline is to look for the data that supports the scientific claims being made. It is not unusual for claims to be made and widely publicized without any supporting data – i.e., cell phones or deodorants causing cancer. The data should be evaluated for its credibility by verifying that it has been “peer reviewed.” Peer review is a built-in check and balance system in science that allows for the close scrutiny and testing of data by other experts in the field.

The second guideline is to check that the information comes from known “experts” in the field. In the world of science there are many fields of study. It is a rare individual who may be considered an expert in more than one or two areas of science that are not very closely related. This is true for medicine. Would you see a dermatologist for a heart problem? It is also true in basic and applied research in fields such as agriculture, genetics, molecular biology, environmental chemistry, etc. The primary reasons for the specialization is the enormous amount of information associated with each field of study and the time it takes to receive a terminal degree – Ph.D. or M.D. – to be considered an expert.

If one looks at the literature and the studies that have been done on the safety, benefits, risks and regulation of GMOs, they will find that there is overwhelming agreement by the worldwide scientific and medical community that the use of biotechnology in agriculture is being properly regulated, is benefiting the farmers, the environment, the consumers and that there is no compelling evidence that any substantial risks exist that would suggest a need for the development of more state or local regulatory boards.

Such studies on GMOs have been implemented by the World Health Organization, the EPA, the FDA, the USDA, the American Toxicology Society, the American Medical Association, our own University of Hawaii faculty and numerous other universities and research institutes around the world.

It is impossible to explain all of the science behind most high-tech areas of study to a point where laypeople will feel comfortable with the technology based on their understanding of it. Therefore I instruct my beginning students to base their conclusions on the cumulative studies, reports and findings of the majority of the world’s scientific bodies and not on the concerns of a few individuals.

Concern due to a lack of understanding or knowledge is not unimportant but it should not dictate legislative action. Decisions involving science and medicine must be based on credible and substantial scientific data. An excellent example of a comprehensive study on GMOs is one published by the National Academies of Science titled “Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Effects” (2004).

If credible data is generated that suggests the need for more local oversight then is already in place, I will be a prime advocate. However, I have not seen any data that suggests this need and believe it will only succeed in putting more bureaucracy into an already heavily bureaucratic process.

Sally V. Irwin, Ph.D., earned her doctorate at the University of California Davis. She is an 11-year member of the University of Hawaii faculty, did two years of agricultural genetics research at UH-Manoa, and teaches genetics, microbiology and biology courses at Maui Community College.