After Carlo Leifert's revelations about the pressures on sceptical members of the Science Review Panel, it is interesting to note the following in the Panel's minutes of 24 June.

And why is the recorded comment so opaque? Who was the person "with an association with the Science Review" who was apparently seeking to put pressure on a panelist or panelists by undermining their research, their professional standing or their funding through clanderstine activities? And why has this information only been released a month later and several days subsequent to the publication of the report?
---
GM SCIENCE REVIEW PANEL DRAFT MINUTES OF THE SEVENTH MEETING
Thursday 24 June 2003
The Royal Institution of Great Britain, 21 Albemarle Street London W1
http://www.gmsciencedebate.org.uk/panel/meetings/minutes-7.htm

...2. Matters arising

...6.The Chairman reported that Andrew Stirling had pointed out, that, in relation to the freedom of Members to contribute fully, as with any advisory committee, the GM Science Review Panel by its nature involved engagement from a number of divergent scientific perspectives. It depended fundamentally for its success on members being able to contribute in good faith, without fears that clandestine attempts may be made to undermine their research, their professional standing or their funding. The cumulative effect of such fears might easily serve to suppress open discussion, reasoned argument and substantive criticism of the kind whose importance the Chairman had many times emphasised. Ultimately, such behaviour by individuals in privileged academic or regulatory positions threatened seriously to compromise the credibility and proper functioning of the science advice system. The Panel strongly endorsed this.

7. The Chairman added that he understood from Andrew Stirling that someone with an association with the Science Review had not been acting in this spirit and that if this was the case the Chair deplored it. The Panel concurred. Andrew Stirling subsequently made it clear that the individual concerned was not a member of the Science Review Panel.
---
*Naive, narrow and biased...
Carlo Leifert explains why he resigned from the government's GM science review panel
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/opinion/story/0,12981,1004400,00.html

*Dissenting adviser quits GM panel
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/story/0,9061,1002057,00.html

*GM inquiry exposed as top scientist quits
http://www.femail.co.uk/pages/standard/article.html?in_article_id=189293&in_page_id=169