Changes are said to be imminent among the ranks of known GM enthusiasts and biotech entrepreneurs who occupy the biggest political jobs in UK science - or who may soon do so (see item 1).

But it's a change in our industrially-aligned science culture and the corporate dependence and cronyism that it breeds that's really needed. (items 2 and 3)

1.Science is in for a change at the top
2.Too much commerce 'harms science'
3.Collusion and Corruption in GM Policy

For more on the players in item 1:
Lord Drayson
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4824
Sir John Krebs
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=73
Lord Sainsbury
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=116
Lord May
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=80
Ian Gibson
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4142
and item 3 below
------

1.Science is in for a change at the top
Anna Fazackerley
Times Higher Education Supplement, 11 March 2005
http://www.thes.co.uk/current_edition/story.aspx?story_id=2020177

Scientists who wish to leave the laboratory for the corridors of power should start brushing up their CVs because four of the biggest political jobs in science may soon be up for grabs.

Lord May of Oxford, the outspoken president of the Royal Society, will leave his post at the end of November. Sir David King, the Government's chief scientific adviser, is due to come to the end of his term in office at about the same time.

There is ever-growing speculation that Lord Sainsbury, the popular [with whom is the question] Science Minister, may leave Parliament in the next term to concentrate on the eponymous family retailing business, although he has kept quiet about the subject.

And Ian Gibson, the rabble-rousing Labour MP, freely admits that he does not know whether he will chair the controversial House of Commons Science and Technology Committee after the forthcoming election.

Whether one likes or loathes these four men, there is general agreement that they have been exemplary in their efforts to put science on the political map.

Their seats may still be warm, but the science community is already fretting about who could replace them because these appointments could make or break British research.

The question of who will head the Royal Society may be the first to be decided. The society's council will meet in mid-April to determine the single name that will go on the ballot paper to be sent out to fellows.

According to society insiders, the clear favourite is Sir Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal and Master of Trinity College, Cambridge, who was rumoured to have been second choice for the job last time round.

Traditionally, presidents of the Royal Society have been Nobel laureates.

Sir Martin, like Lord May, lacks this accolade, but he has accumulated a string of major international awards and honours that could swing the presidency his way.

It is by no means a one-horse race. Also reported to be on the shortlist are Sir John Krebs, chair of the Food Standards Agency, and Sir Paul Nurse, the Nobel laureate and former director-general of the Imperial Cancer Research Fund.

Both are experienced political operators who have run large, high-profile organisations. But Sir Paul's supporters point out that he would have to be tempted back from New York, where his presidency of Rockefeller University comes with an impressive grace-and-favour mansion.

The final candidate - Dame Julia Higgins, vice-president of the Royal Society [a nanotechnologist] - would perhaps symbolise the biggest shake-up of what was once very much a gentlemen's club. As Dr Gibson put it: "To have a lively woman running the place instead of old, boring men would be great."

The job of the Government's chief scientific adviser may offer an opportunity for a less prominent name to step in.

Peter Cotgreave, director of the campaign group Save British Science, said: "Until recently, they have almost always gone for someone from Oxford or Cambridge university, but perhaps they will want to look at an institution such as Manchester University now."

He added: "It is an incredibly hard job to fill, and I cannot imagine that there are many people who would want to do it."

One attraction might be power. Sir David is said to have the ear of Tony Blair, having stepped into the breach and rescued the Government when foot-and-mouth disease gripped the country before the 2001 election.

Indeed, sources in Westminster say that the Government hopes to persuade Sir David to stay.

Since last year, when rumours that Lord Sainsbury might leave first emerged, the minister, who has championed issues ranging from space science to animal research, has been getting letters from scientists asking him to stay [one can imagine which scientists].

If he does go, a hot favourite to replace him is Lord Drayson, the wealthy founder of Powderject, the successful Oxford University spin-off. Anne Campbell, Labour MP for Cambridge, has been discussed as a possible outside runner.

Some observers think that Lord Drayson would be a dangerous choice because he could be an easy political target for opposition parties and those who want to attack science. Lord Drayson has had to face two inquiries into whether his donations to the Labour Party helped Powderject secure a GBP32 million government vaccine contract, although neither found any evidence of undue influence.

Dr Gibson, who has made it his mission to push science up the political agenda with a committee that has become renowned for its tough scrutiny, may be similarly hard to replace.

Sources close to the committee say there will be no shortage of volunteers from fellow committee members - who are reported to squabble for the chance to step in as chair whenever Dr Gibson is away.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
------

2.Too much commerce 'harms science'
BBC News Online, 10 March, 2005,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4336667.stm

Lord Winston says science risks being tainted by commercial interests, in the same week the government claimed it was essential to the UK's economic success.

Launching National Science Week at London's Dana Centre, the fertility expert said these concerns were not being addressed properly by ministers.

The government has pledged GBP10bn to science over the next three years.

But critics have complained that most of the money will go to research in money-spinning areas like biotech.

"Too much commercial activity can actually diminish the value of research that is driven purely by universities. I think that is a danger," Lord Winston told journalists at a news conference.

"I'm not sure it's quite well articulated by the government at the present time. And I think that it is something they need to consider carefully."

Trade and industry secretary Patricia Hewitt announced how the overall GBP10bn science cake would be carved up between the different UK research councils on Monday.

Objections raised

But Professor Robin Lovell-Badge, head of genetics at the National Institute for Medical Research in London, and others said that little of the increased money would be available to fund research in basic science.

"To my mind, once one sees that science will drive our economy, it worries me too that that is seen as a major part of the whole science agenda," Lord
Winston said.

"If we end up with too much commerce driving science, we may be driving it down avenues that are not always acceptable to everyone in our society."

Lord Winston said that GM crops were a prime example of an issue that many people had rejected because they connected the technology with commercial interests.

"People are generally very concerned about being driven for commercial reasons down a particular avenue where they can see risks but not many benefits," he explained.

Strings attached

The professor of fertility studies, who is based at Hammersmith Hospital in London, went on to say that universities were increasingly being encouraged to think about the commercial value in research.

"That results in research groups doing work that is valuable but not necessarily the best research that they can do. Rather it is research that attracts venture capital," he said.

"I don't actually believe that commercialisation is going to be a pivotal [funding source] on a large scale for a large number of universities.

"But it has the strings attached which often blur what scientists are trying to do."

Lord Winston was speaking as president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (BA).

As part of National Science Week, over a thousand events are being held throughout the UK, including lectures, debates and demonstrations.
------

3.Collusion and Corruption in GM Policy
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/CCIGMP.php

Claire Robinson uncovers some uncomfortable truths about the machinations of the pro-GM establishment in Britain [excerpt]

Why the Gibson-Burke collusion matters

...So Gibson plagiarised Burke [a pro-GM parliamentary speech of Ian Gibson's turned out to be virtually identical to a paper by the pro-GM campaigning scientist, Derek Burke] and made false statements about the state of GM science. Does it matter? Just why it does can be seen from what emerged following Gibson’s exposure as "a parrot".

Gibson's local newspaper picked up the story and wrung an important admission out of him about his speech's similarity to the words of his former employer, Derek Burke: "When pressed Dr. Gibson admitted: 'We are working together to try and erode the anti-GM debate.'"

The whole point of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, which Gibson chairs, is to provide parliamentary scrutiny of science issues independent not only of government but of the vested interests that can impact on government policies and public bodies. When the UK Science Minister is a known enthusiast for GM crops and biotech entrepreneur, independent scrutiny is vital

The Select Committee has issued reports critical of Arpad Pusztai and, more recently, supportive of the BBSRC - the public body that Derek Burke did so much to align with industry. Indeed, the only serious criticism the Gibson-led Committee made of this corporate-friendly body was that it was not pro-active enough in promoting communication with the public on issues like GM crops where public trust needed to be achieved.

At a time when the biotech industry is retreating from the UK in despair at the GM-sceptical climate, Gibson appears to be stepping up his activities on its behalf. In collaboration with the industry-friendly lobby group The Scientific Alliance, he arranged a lobby assault on Parliament called "GM Question Time" on 13 July. The panel was uncompromisingly pro-GM (see a full rundown, with industry affiliations, at http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid =4004). Naturally, the speakers' links with industry and its associated lobby groups are undisclosed in the press releases announcing the event.