www.checkbiotech.org ; www.raupp.info ; www.czu.cz

It is hard to imagine anything less controversial than the Royal
Institution's Christmas lectures. Generations of middle-class kids have been
dragged away from Christmas games for some "improving" science viewing. In
the process, many have doubtless kindled a fascination for the subject,
February 2006.

But last year was different. When the RI announced that Professor Sir John
Krebs would be delivering the lectures, there were howls of dismay in some
quarters. The critics objected to someone they regard as a propagandist for
genetically modified food being given the podium.

"My impression is that most kids are pretty repulsed about messing about
with nature and that he will have a harder time persuading them that GM food
is good than he had with Mr Blair," said Lord (Peter) Melchett, director of
the Soil Association.

The bile from Krebs's critics comes from his five-year stint as the first
head of the Food Standards Agency, set up by the government in 2000 to
protect the public interest regarding food safety. He refused to champion
organic food or condemn GM food, which infuriated the campaign groups who
thought the FSA should be their natural ally. Before his appointment, Krebs
had been quoted as saying that opposition to GM was "shrill, often
ill-informed and dogma-driven".

"I have been portrayed in the media as being pro-GM, which is actually quite
untrue. I'm neither pro, nor anti," says Krebs.

He says he occupies a middle ground in favour of assessing the potential
risks of GM scientifically. "Because it is quite a polarised debate, that
neutral view is generally portrayed as, 'Well, if you are not against it you
must be for it'. There are people who don't like that because the science
goes against their belief and, therefore, they would see that as being
prejudiced." He maintains there is no evidence that GM food is any worse for
health than conventional equivalents.

Last October, Krebs became principal of Jesus College, Oxford. The job
involves "working on a smaller canvas than at the FSA, but at a more
detailed level. It is also a job that is primarily about people - students,
fellows, old members, staff. It is a wonderful privilege to be able to play
a role in the education and development of such talented students. I also
enjoy the fact that in academia there is a greater sense of commitment to
shared values than there was working in government."

He likes Jesus's strong academic record and its "tradition of innovation" -
the college was among the first to go mixed and has a good reputation for
attracting state-school students. "Oxford University, along with all other
UK universities, is heavily under-funded, and the top-up fee is a
recognition that the required additional money is not going to come from the
public purse," he says. "Our challenge as a college and a university is to
ensure the top-up fee is not a disincentive to able children from poorer
families."

Krebs was drawn to science at an early age. "I was a keen bird-watcher as a
child and found to my amazement that I could actually earn a living studying
the ecology and behaviour of birds." Being the son of a Nobel prize-winning
biochemist, Sir Hans Krebs, proved both a blessing and a curse. "It opened
doors for me - as a schoolboy I worked with Konrad Lorenz, the Nobel
prize-winning ethologist, in Bavaria. On the other hand, I used to get
annoyed at being described as 'the son of Hans Krebs'."

After undergraduate and postgraduate degrees at Pembroke College, Oxford, he
embarked on a successful research career in bird ecology. In 1994, he moved
into science administration as the head of the Natural Environment Research
Council.

He saw public protection as his core role at the FSA, which often meant
going against the views of "powerful and vociferous" consumer groups. "Our
job was to take a broader view than that which was reflected by one
particular campaigning group."

Framing scientific advice was often difficult because different sides often
distort the science to suit their case. "If you look you can always find
some experts who are prepared to take a contrarian view that goes against
the mainstream. I think that's very common and it's not just the industry
that might selectively quote information, but also the pressure groups."

An independent review of perceptions of the FSA by Baroness Barbara Dean
concluded that on the GM and organic issues, "the vast majority of people
consulted felt the FSA had deviated from its normal stance of making
statements based solely on scientific evidence". However, Krebs points out
that this was a survey of other people's perceptions on the issue, not the
FSA's actual performance.

Krebs's stance on organic food also made him enemies. The FSA says there is
no evidence that organic food is better for you, either because it contains
more nutrients or because pesticide residues on conventional food are
harmful.

Indeed, he worries that because organic is a luxury product it may distract
from easier public health gains. He cites the example of a poor mother
trying to feed her children healthily on a limited budget. "My advice would
be not to worry about the organic, but worry about your kids having more
vegetables."

And the same applies to school meals. "I totally admire what Jamie Oliver
has achieved ... but nevertheless I would say if local authorities and
schools are strapped for cash, money would be better spent increasing the
consumption of fruit and vegetables, and meals that contain lower salt and
lower fat, than specifically spending it on organic."

More surprising, perhaps, is Krebs's ambivalence to the argument that
organic farming is better for the environment. His academic research has
documented long-term declines in bird populations due to intensive farming.
He is an advocate of sustainable agriculture, but does not necessarily think
organic farming is the way to achieve it.

The FSA was set up in the wake of the BSE debacle, when public trust in
government scientists had reached an all-time low. "Scientists got
themselves into the wrong place," Krebs says. Rather than laying out the
technical advice to ministers, they were put in the position of advocating
policy while at the same time not acknowledging the uncertainties in the
science.

"It's always tempting when you are an expert and you are asked for advice to
come up with an answer. Sometimes actually what you should come up with is
'We simply don't know'. That, of course, is unpopular."

[education.guardian.co.uk]

------------------------------------------
Posted to Phorum via PhorumMail