ESRC ACCUSED OF COLLUSION, MANIPULATION AND MISREPRESENTATION
To Dr. Astrid Wissenburg
Director for Communications and Information Economic and Social Research Council Polaris House, North Star Avenue Swindon SN2 1UJ
Tel: 01793-413115
Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk
6th March 2008
Dear Dr Wissenburg,
Re: Our complaint about your press release dated 24th February 2008 WHAT FARMERS THINK ABOUT GM CROPS
I write on behalf of GM Free Cymru, following our formal complaint dated 22 February 2008 and our follow-up letter dated 25th February. Thank you for your response dated 29th February; I gather that similar replies have been received by other protestors also.
I fear that those of us who have taken issue with ESRC on this matter find your response complacent, condescending, and -- quite frankly -- an insult to the intelligence of anybody who has ever been taught the scientific method.
We note your statement that 'We accept that the phrasing of the opening line of the press release could have been more precise....' but we note that you have issued no apology or revision to the press release (1), such as might have corrected the false impression given to the media that 'farmers are upbeat about GM crops.' As you will be aware, all of the media headlines have (as predicted) perpetrated this lie, some with qualifying statements in small print about the highly selective sample, but the majority with no such reservations. Colleagues have assembled some of these inevitable headlines, and they are reproduced below (2). In addition, as we predicted, the spokesman for the GM industry, Julian Little, has picked up on the lie and has again regurgitated it in both the Yorkshire Post and the Guardian (3). Monsanto has similarly made the most of this PR opportunity (4). We do not accept for a moment that you were unaware of what would happen, given the propensity of the media to pick up on bold headlines and to neglect to read the small print.
In addressing the 'purpose of the research' as described on the OU Faculty of Technology web site (5), you say that the plan was for 'an in-depth study of farmers views on GM crops as a new technology' and an investigation of 'the major influences on their views and decisions'. This is borne out by the original OU research brief -- which contains no mention at all of the fact that the work would be concentrated on a minute sample of 30 farmers hand-picked by SCIMAC and NFU and already predisposed to the adoption of GM technology. You say that the sample was scaled back to 30 for 'funding and scientific reasons.' The research team had at least GBP131,000 to play with, and you may or may not have picked up on the response that that represents an outrageous waste of public money on a very small and nonsensical piece of research. And what possible 'scientific' justification can there have been for the use of 30 hand-picked respondents whose views were then flagged up as somehow representing the views of 'British farmers'?
You say: 'Because of the sensitive nature of the project access to GM farmers was facilitated by SCIMAC.' Are you and the OU research team so naive as to believe that SCIMAC is a body that gives impartial advice? Come off it -- SCIMAC exists (as indicated in its mission statement) to facilitate the take-up of GM crops in the UK farming industry. So you have connived in facilitating a piece of propaganda for the GM industry, in the guise of a piece of academic research. That is in our book a very serious matter indeed.
You say: 'We have found no evidence of the project having handpicked farmers for their views in order to skew the outcome of the research or trying to mislead on purpose on the scope of the project.' You also say: 'We have found no evidence of any individual or group of individuals either employed by us, or funded by us, to have participated in any kind of collusion, misrepresentation or the manipulation of results'. Sadly, the word 'whitewash' comes to mind. You have clearly turned a blind eye to the objectives of SCIMAC, the pro-GM track record of the officers of the NFU, and to the credentials and objectives of the pro-GM organizations chosen to participate in the 'workshop' which followed up the farmers' questionnaires. That is collusion. This research was essentially corrupt, since it was initially flagged up as a study of the attitudes, intentions and practices of farmers with and without experience of growing GM crops, then skewed onto a statistically nonsensical and tiny sample of hand-picked respondents. That in our book is manipulation. Finally the research was 'spun' by the OU team and by ESRC as somehow demonstrating the views of UK farmers in general. That is misrepresentation.
We do not accept for a moment that this has all arisen out of naivety, with a group of innocent academics led astray by some wily proponents of GM technology who offered kind assistance at the wayside.
You appear to be perfectly at ease with that situation -- which is, I fear, a sad reflection on your understanding of the scientific method and of the decline of scientific ethics within ESRC.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Brian John
GM Free Cymru
============================
NOTES
(1) http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/PO/releases/2008/february/gm.aspx?ComponentId=25875&SourcePageId=25243
What farmers think about GM crops
Embargoed until 00:01hrs Sunday 24th February 2008 'Farmers are upbeat about genetically modified crops, according to new research funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC).........'
(2) Misleading media coverage based on the ESRC press release:
Sunday Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/earth/2008/02/24/scifair324.xml
UK farmers want to grow GM crops
Farmers are in favour of growing genetically modified crops in Britain despite public fears over their safety, new research has revealed.
An Open University study has found that farmers and farming industry leaders believe GM technology is the only way to produce enough high- quality food as the country's climate changes and the population soars.
Farmers are upbeat about genetically modified crops, according to new research funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC).
Yorkshire Post
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/farming-news/Most-39in-favour39-of-GM.3808365.jp
Science Daily
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080224080948.htm
What Farmers Think About GM Crops
Farmers are upbeat about genetically modified crops, according to new research funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC).
Farmers Guardian
http://www.farmersguardian.com/story.asp?sectioncode=19&storycode=16607
Research finds GM crops attractive to farmers
Politics.co.uk
ESRC: What farmers think about GM crops
Monday, 25 Feb 2008 09:11
http://www.politics.co.uk/press-releases/esrc-what-farmers-think-about-gm-crops-$1207240.htm
Most 'in favour' of GM crops
Most farmers are inclined to be in favour of GM crops, according to an Open University report, funded by the Economic and Social Research Council.
Farmers Weekly Interactive
Arable farmers 'upbeat about GM crops'
http://www.fwi.co.uk/Articles/2008/02/24/109553/arable-farmers-upbeat-about-gm-crops.html
UK arable farmers are generally supportive of GM technology, seeing it as a way of meeting the conflicting demands for cheap food produced in an environmentally friendly way, according to new research by the Open University.
(3) http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/letters-to-the-editor/Scientific-trials-of-GM-crops.3824755.jp
Guardian letters, March 1st 2008
(4) http://www.monsanto.co.uk/news/ukshowlib.phtml?uid=12877
http://reason.com/blog/show/125208.html
(5) Faculty of Technology web site description of the research:
Farmers' Understandings of GM Crops within Local Communities Funded by the ESRC Science in Society Programme Project reference number: RES-151-25-0046 August 2004 - July 2007 http://technology.open.ac.uk/cts/esrcfarmer.htm
==============================================================
ESRC RESPONSE TO OUR FORMAL COMPLAINT, LETTER DATED 29 FEBRUARY 2008
Dr. Astrid Wissenburg
Director for Communications and Information Economic and Social Research Council Polaris House, North Star Avenue Swindon SN2 1UJ
Dear Dr John
Thank you for your email of the 22 February 2008 on behalf of GM Free Cymru to my colleague Kelly Barnett (copied below). We have now investigated your complaint through a review of the relevant paperwork and consultation with the research team.
Your first concern is that the press release made claims about the views of farmers which are totally unsupported by the underlying research. We accept that the phrasing of the opening line of the press release could have been more precise, however the facts as stated in the press release are accurate and stand as written. The press release did contain detailed information about the methodology used and numbers and type of farmers involved, and indeed many of the resulting articles have drawn upon this information.
Your second concern relates to the selection process of the farmers interviewed. The purpose of the research was never to undertake a survey of views on GM, but to undertake an in-depth study of farmers views on GM crops as a new technology and investigating the major influences on their views and decisions. The original proposal was to interview 60 farmers, equally divided between 30 adopters and 30 non-adopters. For both funding and scientific reasons, the total number was scaled back to thirty, but the balance was maintained. Given the very limited extent of GM trails in the UK, and the decision not to proceed with licensed GM varieties, the pool of those who could have participated is quite small, so the project could not draw upon a random sample from the whole UK farming population. The group involved in the research was therefore relatively small, but not 'unrepresentative' of farmers with experience of GM crops. Because of the sensitive nature of the project access to GM farmers was facilitated by SCIMAC.
Details of the research methodology and the number of interviews are provided in the documentation of the project. We have found no evidence of the project having handpicked farmers for their views in order to skew the outcome of the research or trying to mislead on purpose on the scope of the project.
Your final concern is regarding ESRC's independence. The proposal and final report were assessed by independent peer reviewers, and the final project was graded as good. ESRC promotes outcomes of its research independent of specific findings, and have indeed done so in the area of GM. We have found no evidence of any individual or group of individuals either employed by us, or funded by us, to have participated in any kind of collusion, misrepresentation or the manipulation of results.
Whilst it is understandable that your organisation may be disappointed by the findings of the project, having investigated your claims about the research project, we can find no evidence to support them.
With best wishes
Astrid Wissenburg