Defining the University

On Sunday December 2nd 1787, John Lettice rose to preach at the University of Cambridge about a subject close to his heart - the state of British universities.

Lettice (presumably some distant forebear of yours truly) was Vicar of Peasmarsh in Sussex and formerly a fellow of Sidney-Sussex College at the University.

The sermon, entitled 'The present state of Discipline, Manners and Learning in our Universities', starts on a pessimistic, or perhaps realistic, note reminding us that all institutions, no matter how well intentioned, are subject to 'disorder':

"Even those institutions, which are farthest removed from the world and its contagious influence; institutions established for the cultivation of wisdom and science, and placed under the more peculiar guardianship of reason and religion, are destined, in some measure, to experience those corruptions, from which nothing sublunary is exempted".

That disorder is something that Stefan Collini writes about in his latest book 'What are Universities for?' It's a book that's well worth a read if you're interested in higher education and the role of universities in society.

The key question of what universities are for has been answered in some shape or form by many commentators before. Lettice, for his part, contributes:

"They are, be it spoken with the reverence they claim, nothing less than storehouses of the collected wisdom of the ages, the depositories of those great first principles in religion, in morals, in legislation, in philosophy"..."they are the sources, from whence flow all the sounder principles, that actuate and guide the mighty machine of national government, and subject the passions of men to the general order of dominion."

Noble motives indeed!

Collini does an excellent job of giving us an updated impression of the role of higher education in society but also reminds us of some more cynical views of what a university is, including Robert Maynard Hutchins' line that a university is 'a series of schools and departments held together by a central heating system'.

'What are Universities for?' is divided into two parts, part one being more successful than the second half of the book.

The first part deals with the current function of universities in Britain, although it is more widely applicable, and offers an excellent  discussion of the place of humanities in higher education as well as an update, of sorts, to the seminal 'The Idea of a University' by John Henry Newman.

As part of a history of higher education in Britain, Collini is highly critical of the "all-devouring audit culture" that has "so signally contributed to making universities less efficient places in which to think and teach".

Of course, this audit culture hinges on the perceived importance of ensuring that public funds are not being wasted by being spent on teaching subjects which are not deemed (by who?) to be economically essential or important. As Collini puts it: "This all too easily translates into the economic philistinism of insisting that the activities carried out in universities need to be justified, perhaps can only be justified, by demonstrating their contribution to the economy."

The author rightly points out that society has never, and should never, educate its young people purely as an economic necessity. "It educates them", according to Collini "in order that they should extend and deepen their understanding of themselves and the world, acquiring, in the course of this form of growing up, kinds of knowledge and skill which will be useful in their eventual employment, but which will no more be the sum of their education than that employment will be the sum of their lives".


Perhaps due to the author dwelling on changes in the politics of education in Britain in the second part of the book, it was generally less successful to my mind. Despite that, a section where Collini recounts a typical week-in-the-life of a university lecturer is particularly enlightening (and amusing), especially in light of recent ill-informed commentary regarding the work ethic of university professors (more on this).

Collini correctly points out that the world of academia is often "sustained by what is essentially voluntary labour" and that continuing this relentless need to repeatedly audit higher education institutions runs the risk of liquidating this store of good will. After all, if it can't be audited, why should we do it?

What are Universities for? by Stefan Collini is published by Penguin 

Chief Scientific Adviser post abolished

The decision by the Irish government to effectively remove the post of Chief Scientific Adviser (CSA) brings to an end some months of speculation about the post. However, it may not be the end of the story.

The Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation announced the abolition of the stand-alone post last Friday, saying that the role would be absorbed into that of the Director General of Science Foundation Ireland.

Dr. Stephen Sullivan, an Irish scientist working in the US and Chief Scientific Officer at the Irish Stem Cell Foundation told Communicate Science that the government was making two mistakes at once here: "The first mistake is removing a whole office charged with making sure decision makers in Government understand Science, its use, and what it needs to be competitive, of societal benefit, and, in the present climate, good value for money for the taxpayer and the country", said Sullivan. "The second mistake is making a civil servant responsible for formulating how we spend taxpayers money, now responsible for assessing his own decisions. This is quite simply a very poor management structure and is in fact a huge and obvious conflict of interest".

Prof. Patrick Cunningham, former CSA

The CSA is tasked to provide advice on scientific issues to government; to input into the development of the government's Strategy for Science, Technology and Innovation; and to input into the work of the Advisory Science Council. Prof. Patrick Cunningham was appointed to the role of CSA on January 1st 2007 and his contract expired in August of this year.

One of Cunningham's major successes had been to help attract the Euroscience Open Forum to Dublin this year. He also contributed to the debate over such topics as GM crops and stem-cell research.

In a recent interview with the Irish Times, Cunningham told Dick Ahlstrom that contact with the current government had become less frequent but that “both governments are firm in their belief that Ireland needs to advance as a technological society”.

This latest change means that Prof. Mark Ferguson will take on the role of CSA in addition to his existing role as head of Science Foundation Ireland. A cost-effective, money-saving move, the government might argue? Stephen Sullivan disputes this notion:

"What does this say about Ireland's commitment to Science?" asked Sullivan, "What does it do for the morale of an already beleaguered Science community. In 2009, we closed the independent council for bioethics, we don't have a Minister of Science. While this might constitute a short term saving to a bureaucrat in the Dail, it weakens Irish Science and makes the country less attractive to invest in".

Coincidentally, I enjoyed reading a piece by Senator John Crown (a consultant oncologist) in last weekend's Sunday Independent. In it, Crown referred to the recent jailing of six Italian scientists for making "falsely reassuring" comments before the 2009 L'Aquila earthquake. What the article was really about, however, was the problems of scientific ignorance when it comes to public policy.

CSA Patrick Cunningham at the launch of ESOF2012

From Galileo to creationists, eugenics to vaccines, Crown outlined just some of the pitfalls a scientifically illiterate society may fall into. "How do we inoculate ourselves against the potentially dire societal consequences of widespread scientific ignorance?" asked Crown. "A first step is to acknowledge that science is not just for egg-heads in white coats. An understanding of science is a fundamental requirement of living."

There are a host of things which combine to create a scientifically literate society: a broad, universal curriculum at primary and secondary level; a world-class third level scientific community; a place for science within the public sphere, in art, on TV; a thriving science-led economy; etc. A key factor in all of this is the presence of an individual who can champion science at the highest level. In the absence of a designated government minister for science, the CSA was that person. Not even the government can deny that downgrading that post - notwithstanding the good work of Prof. Ferguson at SFI - is a retrograde step.

"The Office of the Chief Science Adviser is a pivotal office of any Government that understands the societal and economic benefits of Science", concluded Sullivan. "If political short term interests are always prioritized, it is not surprising that a good long term strategy for Science cannot be developed."

You can listen to Stephen Sullivan speak about this issue on RTE Radio's Morning Ireland here.

Update (12th November 2012): You can read my piece on this subject in the Cork Independent here. This article was quoted by Forbes here.

GM Potato set to be planted in Ireland

A major new EU study is set to examine the effects of growing GM, blight-resistant potato plants on biodiversity and the environment in agricultural ecosystems. It will also see the first GM crops being grown in Ireland since the late 1990's.

In a statement issued at the end of February, Teagasc (the Irish agricultural development agency) announced that they are to seek a license to carry out field trials of GM potatoes as part of the AMIGA consortium - a group including representatives of research bodies from 15 EU countries.

Late Blight, caused by the fungal-like organism Phytophthora infestans, decimated the Irish potato crop  in the 1840s leading to the Great Famine. Since then, it has remained a problem for Irish farmers, requiring chemical fungicides to be used to maintain Irish potato yields. GM potatoes have the potential to protect the potato plant from Late Blight attack without the necessity for large amounts of fungicide to be applied.

The potato variety Desiree was transformed withe the Rpi-vnt1.1 gene which confers broad spectrum resistance to Phytophthora infestans. That gene, along with its own promoter and terminator regions were taken from the wild potato species Solanum venturii and inserted into the cultivated potato using Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated transformation.

While there are indications that public concern over GM crops has declined in the UK, the news that field experiments will be carried out in Ireland for the first time since the late 1990s has drawn some criticism here.

In a statement released last week, Irish Organic Farmers and Growers Association (IOFGA), called the experiments planned for Teagasc's Oakpark headquarters a waste of taxpayers money. "In light of the fact that Teagasc has lodged an application with the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) for a licence to grow GM potatoes at its headquarters in Oakpark, IOFGA are demanding that Teagasc be held accountable for their decision to waste taxpayers money on this project."

File Photo: Minister Ruairi Quinn at an Anti-GM event last year

Grace Maher, Development Officer with IOFGA said that considering growing GM in Ireland is "economic suicide" and that the move would put at risk an export market worth 9.1 billion: "Ireland has an excellent reputation internationally as a clean green island that is also a GM free region, and we need to build on this reputation not destroy it”.

The statement ends by accusing Teagasc of pedalling an "unwanted technology":
"In this austere economic climate we need to end wasteful public spending immediately and enforce accountability on those who continue to do so."

Unfortunately, it seems the lobby group for the organic industry, is jumping the gun a bit here.

The funding comes directly from the EU's FP7 research programme - a €50 billion fund specifically designated for research and technological development. There is no question of further money coming from Irish taxpayers.

No matter where the money comes from, there is also a wider issue. Teagasc is Ireland's agriculture and food development agency. It is that organisation's role to carry out research leading to a better understanding of agriculture and new agronomic techniques. To accuse such a body of "wasting" money by doing the very thing is was set up to do, is ridiculous. Any arguments for or against GM crops need to be based on firm scientific evidence and that does not simple fall out of the sky.

The field tests to be carried out at Oakpark will look at the impact of GM plants on the surrounding ecosystem and John Spink, Head of Crops Research at Teagasc was keen to point out that the research is "not about testing the commercial viability of GM potatoes".

"The GM study is about gauging the environmental impact of growing GM potatoes in Ireland and monitoring how the pathogen, which causes blight, and the ecosystem reacts to GM varieties in the field over several seasons.”

Mindful of the controversy surrounding trials of GM sugar beet in Ireland in the late 1990s by Monsanto, these new experiments will use a potato developed at Wageningen University in the Netherlands and there will be no biotech or GM company involved. The sugar beet trials ended with a number of the sites being destroyed by a group styling itself the Gaelic Earth Liberation Front.

According to documents submitted to the EPA as part of the licence application, the field experiments are designed to measure the impact of GM potato cultivation on bacterial, fungal, nematode and earthworm diversity in the soil compared to a conventional system; to identify positive or negative impacts of GM potato on integrated pest management systems; and to use the project as a tool for education in order to engage and discuss the issues surrounding GM with stakeholders and the public.

As Teagasc researcher Dr. Ewen Mullins put it: “It is not enough to simply look at the benefits without also considering the potential costs. We need to investigate whether there are long term impacts associated with this specific GM crop and critically we need to gauge how the late blight disease itself responds. This is not just a question being asked in Ireland. The same issues are arising across Europe.”

Speaking to the Irish Examiner, Dr. Mullins remarked: "People are asking about the merits of GM potatoes.At Teagasc, we have a remit to inform people. We haven’t had GM field trials here since the late 1990s. The goal is to look at all of the environmental impacts, and to fill the vacuum that exists currently in terms of impartial knowledge."

An edited version of this article appears on the Guardian's Notes and Theories blog. You can read it here.

Irish Research Priorities

Today sees the launch by the Government of its Research Prioritisation Plan.

The plan aims to target the majority of the Government's core €500m budget for scientific research on 14 specific areas of greatest opportunity.

To be prioritised, the area had to represent a global market in which Irish-based companies could compete. Ireland must have strengths in related areas already and have the capability of conducting public R&D to exploit the area. Also, a national or global challenge must exist which Ireland needs to respond to.

The 14 priority areas of focus are:

Future Networks & Communications
Data Analytics Management, Security & Privacy   
Digital Platforms, Content & Applications
Connected Health & Independent Living
Medical Devices
Diagnostics
Therapeutics - synthesis formulation, processing and drug delivery
Food for Health
Sustainable Food Production and Processing
Marine Renewable Energy
Smart Grids & Smart Cities
Manufacturing Competitiveness
Processing Technologies and Novel Materials
Innovation in Services and Business Processes

Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Mr Richard Bruton, T.D.said at the launch “In recent years we have built up a very substantial base of world-class scientific research taking place in Ireland. The challenge now is to ensure that this activity is translated into commercial outcomes and sustainable businesses and sustainable jobs. With determined implementation of the recommendations of this report we can make sure that this happens”.

As an example in my own field, one of the priority research areas is "Sustainable Food Production and Processing". The report concludes that "global demand for food is projected to increase by 70 per cent over the next 40 years" and that Ireland is ideally placed to exploit such a demand.

"Alongside the need to increase food production is the challenge of doing so in a manner that does not impact on greenhouse gas emissions, water quality, biodiversity or fish stocks. The focus of this priority area is on sustainable, competitive and efficient agri- & marine food production and processing."

"Growth in global population and changing diets in emerging countries are projected to bring about a 70 per cent increase in food demand to feed 9 billion people by 2050. The greatest challenge faced by agriculture is to meet development and sustainability goals, while increasing production. Over the coming decades, there will be increased global competition for land use. This is the ‘food, energy and environment trilemma’, where increased demand for food and energy combine, pressure on land conversion is increased, leading to further climate change, which in turn may affect productivity and availability of land."

Are there areas missing that you would have liked to see included? Let us know by adding a comment below.

You can read the report in full here (pdf).

Public Sector Reform

From a first look at the Public Sector Reform document published today, the following would seem to have an effect on Higher Education, Research and Science sectors:

The Irish Research Council for Science, Engineering and Technology will be merged with the Irish Research Council for the Humanities and Social Sciences. They will form a single entity under the Higher Education Authority.

Awarding bodies FETAC, HETAC and NQAI are all to be amalgamated under the plans.

The government is to instigate a "critical review" of a larger number of state agencies, with an aim to report back in June 2012 on suggestions to:

• absorb the Advisory Council for Science, Technology and Innovation into the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation.
• absorb the Office of Chief Scientific Advisor to the Government into Science Foundation Ireland.
•  merge the Environmental Protection Agency with the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland

Excuse all the links but in some cases it's interesting to remind oneself what some of these agencies/councils/offices do.

No Science Minister?

The failure of the new FG/Labour coalition to appoint a Junior Minister for science is very disappointing.

It is in contrast to the previous administration who, although they did a lot of things wrong, had a junior minister with responsibility for 'Science, Technology & Innovation'.

This junior ministry spot was held by Conor Lenihan who had his own unfortunate incident when for a period, it looked as if he would launch a book suggesting that evolution was a load of rubbish. In the end, and after some amount of controversy, he didn't launch the book.

Personalities aside, it is important that science is represented in this government. As a scientist, I would argue that there should be a full minister with a seat at the cabinet table. I realise that this may be a bit of a long shot, so a junior ministerial spot might be all we can expect.

Unfortunately, with the announcement of the 15 new junior ministers, it seems that science is nowhere to be seen.

Sean Sherlock, a very capable politician gets 'Research & Innovation' which, one assumes is a reincarnation of the 'science,technology and innovation' position. But if so, then why drop the reference to science? Has science become less important since the last Dail sat?

This may be just a perception thing and some would argue that it doesn't matter what the ministers are called as long as they get the job done. Fair enough, but as Enda Kenny seems to have realised, politics is often about perception and 'optics'.

I believe it is important that science is well represented at a national level. The omission of a minister with clear, defined responsibility for science does nothing to suggest that this new administration takes science and a knowledge-led recovery seriously. I believe it is a mistake not to have a science minister and not to have that person clearly identified as such.

Science and GM in Election 2011

The presence of the Labour Spokesperson on Science, Ruairi Quinn at an anti-GM press conference raises questions about the party's credibility on the GM issue.

At a recent talk I presented on the GM crops issue and in a recent article here and for the Guardian science blog, I suggested that the GM issue had now become an election issue.

On Monday, celebrity chef Clodagh McKenna along with people from "food, farming, conservation and human rights sectors" gathered in Dublin to speak about what their press release called the "inherent dangers of new moves to allow a relaxing of laws in relation to genetically modified food and feed". See the bottom of this post for a video from Monday's press conference.

Calling the GM "lobby" the "Anglo-Irish Bank" of the food sector, the grouping called for (amongst other things) another moratorium on GMO.

Representatives from the Irish Organic Farmers and Growers Association (IOFGA), Western Organic Network, Irish Seed Savers, and Afri amongst others met to denounce what they called a "dubious scientific review" of the GM issue.

All very predictable. It is to the direct economic benefit of the organic sector to ensure that GM does not get a fair hearing. It is to the direct economic benefit of the organic sector to scare consumers into rejecting GM food products.

It is analogous to the guy who produces white bread telling consumers that brown bread will give them leprosy - it has absolutely no scientific basis, but as a marketing ploy, it does wonders for white bread sales!
What was most surprising about the press conference was the very visible presence of Labour spokesperson on Education and Science Ruairi Quinn TD.

Labour are against the cultivation of GM crops on the island of IrelandIt is surprising given the stated position of the Labour Party on the issue.  Although Labour are against the cultivation of GM crops on the island of Ireland, they are in favour of the importation of animal feed potentially containing trace amounts of GM material.

The party's 2006 21-part plan for "A Quality Future for Rural Ireland" commits the party to "work towards the aspiration of a GMO production free island of Ireland within the context of the relevant EU and UK legislation and in the relevant national and international fora.

"Until that aim is achieved", the policy document continues, "the Labour Party will push for the strongest possible evidence-based rules governing the release of GMOs into the environment".

Two things strike me as interesting about this statement. First is the careful wording of the the first paragraph and the aspiration of a "GMO production free island", clearly not ruling out the importation of GM animal feed - as is the party's stated policy.

Secondly, the plan calls for "evidence-based rules" governing the release of GMOs. These evidence-based rules do not seem to be important when deciding the core position- that of being for or against GM crops.

While the Labour Party are to be commended on clearly spelling out their position on GM (the party line of anti-GM cultivation but pro GM  importation seems quite straightforward), the presence of the party's science spokesperson at Monday's launch suggests a different viewpoint.

Speaking at a meeting of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Debate in 2008, Sean Sherlock, Labour Spokesperson on Agriculture and Food pointed out: "The EU scientific committee has applied a certain rationale which is based on common sense and practical solutions. If it is advocating a certain position [on the GM feed issue], I do not understand why the Government is not adhering to that advice or why it would abstain on votes when the time comes".

"if the EU scientific committee advises and recommends that we import certain feedstuffs, I do not see why the Government cannot approve it" - Sean SherlockThere is no dichotomy or contradiction between maintaining the biodiversity of this island and the importation of EU-approved feedstuffs. The two are not mutually exclusive. It is reasonable to express reservations about scientific trials on the growth of GM feedstuffs pending further debate and dialogue. However, if the EU scientific committee advises and recommends that we import certain feedstuffs, I do not see why the Government cannot approve it. We have all bought into that process by virtue of our membership of the EU", said Sherlock.

The labour spokesperson continued: "The precautionary principle is rolled out when it is politically expedient to do so. The Green wedge or wing of the Government has a politically philosophical position on these issues and there is a certain constituency to which it must play. This is to the detriment of Irish agriculture and ultimately the Irish consumer who will end up, if we continue on this route, paying less but without a guarantee that imported livestock or meat products from third countries are GM-free."

In a brief statement on twitter, a Labour Party spokesperson confirmed to Communicate Science that Quinn was representing the party at Monday's event and said that the party "are against growing GM crops here, but are not opposed to importing GM feed". This seems directly at odds with Ruairi Quinn's

very visible endorsement of a GM-free Ireland concept which specifically, according to the groups own press release, is also strongly opposed to the importation of animal feed potentially containing trace amounts of GM material.

it is sending senior figures to campaign for a GM free IrelandThat the Labour Party is against the cultivation of GM crops in Ireland is clearly laid out in their 2006 policy document. I would argue that there is no scientific basis for this position, but that is beside the point. What is problematic for the party is that on the one hand it is sending senior figures to campaign for a GM free Ireland - and against imported animal feed potentially containing trace amounts of GM material; while on the other hand saying that it is not opposed to the importation of such feed. 

As I've said, the Labour Party have a clear policy on this issue and while I disagree with it, they are to be commended for outlining that position, unlike a number of other parties. However, the voting public deserve to know whether or not a potential Minister for Science in the next government has rejected the overwhelming volume of scientific advice on this matter and has arguably been used as part of a marketing strategy for the anti-GM lobby.

The following video is from Monday's press conference. Ruairi Quinn sets out Labour party policy from 2:30 min onwards.

Is GM now an election issue in Ireland?

Amidst the background of one of the most divisive and stormy parliamentary elections in Ireland's history, the outgoing government has made a significant move on GM crops.

Outgoing Minister for Agriculture, Brendan Smith, from the ruling Fianna Fáil party, confirmed in a statement this week (Tuesday, Feb 8th) that Ireland has changed its voting position and will now support a number of EU Commission proposals designed to allow for the marketing of GM food, feed and food ingredients.

The move, although welcomed in many quarters will no doubt cause controversy, not least from the ruling party's former coalition allies the Green Party, whose departure from government triggered a general election to be held on February 25^th next.

Up till now, the GM issue has been absent from the debate over who should form the next government. Understandably, voters have been more worried about their jobs and the future of Ireland's economy than to be interested in the details of EU policy and rhetoric from pro- and anti-GM sides.

It's not the first time that the GM issue has impacted on this coalition government. Back in 2009, the Green Party - Fianna Fáil government had to renegotiate their terms of agreement and their programme for government (pdf). This led to a major concession to the Greens - the promise of making Ireland a 'GM-Free Zone'.

Although much trumpeted by the Greens then, it has never become a reality. Neither has the promise to introduce a GM-Free logo modelled on the German "Ohne Gentechnik" logo.

In a short response on twitter, Green Party Chairman and Senator Dan Boyle replied that the u-turn had shown “what Fianna Fáil really thinks of consumer fears” and that, in government, the Green party “had stopped this”.

Meanwhile, the Green Party’s Agriculture spokesperson Trevor Sargent said the party was “alarmed” by the move and that “in government, the Green Party ensured that Ireland abstained on this vote”.

Calling the move a backward step, Sargent said that the issue was about “consumer choice” and that the decision “damages the quality image of Irish food produce”.

Brendan Smith explained this week that "it has been a matter of great concern to Ireland, in recent years, that there has been a severe disruption to trade of animal feed, caused by the delays in the authorisation, by the EU, of GM varieties which have already been approved in the exporting countries."

According to Smith, the difficulty of importing certified GM-free animal feed  (90% of which comes from North and South America) has led to the shortfall having been made up by more expensive feed which puts Irish meat producers at a serious disadvantage. The Irish Farmers Association say this disadvantage can be as much as €15 on every pig produced.

The greens however dispute this argument asserting that “as cattle eat grass most of the year, this small premium would represent a tiny price differential for the customer (e.g. 2c on a Sunday roast)”. That’s fine, I guess if you’re eating beef and not pork on a Sunday.

Ireland's support for the EU Commission proposals was confirmed at a meeting of the EU Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health in Brussels on Tuesday.

GM-Free Ireland, had called (pdf) for Smith to vote against the proposals saying they would "undermine our Government's agreed GM-Free policy". The Irish Organic Farmers and Growers Association called the move “short-sighted” and argued that the decision did not reflect the wishes of the people.  Clearly though, with the Greens now out of government, the remaining Fianna Fáil ministers were free to make decisions without the input of their former partners.

The EU proposal seeks to remove the "zero tolerance" policy towards GM components of animal feed and allow trace amounts, up to 0.1% to be imported.

It will be interesting to see whether one of the final decisions of the outgoing administration will lead to GM becoming an issue in this election. One suspects not, but it may at least allow the public to hear from each political party where they stand on the GM issue.

The author will be presenting a talk entitled Trust Me, I'm A Scientist: Genetically Modified Crops and the Public Perception of Science to a meeting of Cork Skeptics in Blackrock Castle Observatory, Cork on Friday February 18th, 2011 at 8pm. All Welcome.

This article also appears, in an edited form on The Guardian science blog: Notes and Theories.

Assessing Risk: GM, Food Safety and Science in Europe

Recent revelations from WikiLeaks show that the US government was deeply concerned about opposition to GM crops in Europe back in 2007. However, a recent poll suggests that just 8% of European consumers believe it is the most important food safety concern.

When respondents to the Eurobarometer survey (pdf) were asked to explain, in their own words, what possible problems or risks they associate with food and eating, there was no single, widespread concern that was cited by a majority of respondents. 

The survey found that the presence of chemicals (such as pesticides, herbicides, etc.) in the food was the concern most cited (19% of respondents). Food poisoning was the second most frequently cited (12%), followed by diet-related diseases (10%), lack of freshness (9%), the presence of food additives (9%), with other issues such as the traceability of food and ‘BSE’ (‘mad cow disease’) also being mentioned.

Eight percent of the respondents throughout the 27 EU member states spontaneously (i.e. without prompting) cited GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) as a problem or risk associated with their food. A similar percentage of respondents “Didn’t know” of any potential risks and 9% said they could think of no problem associated with their food.

When specifically asked about  genetically modified organisms, the percentage of respondents worried about GMOs in their food ranges from under half of the sample in Ireland (46%), Sweden and UK (both 48%) up to 81% in both Greece and Lithuania. Overall 66% of the total EU respondents said they were “very worried” or “fairly worried” about GMOs in their food. This ranked in fifth place when compared to 16 other possible risks that respondents were specifically asked about.

In fact, GMOs in food and drink was a topic found to fit into the “Medium Levels of Worry” list in the survey, alongside such topics as the quality and freshness of food; the welfare of farmed animals; and the risk of food poisoning.

The survey also found that European consumers are almost evenly divided over whether they believe scientific advice on food related risks is independent of commercial or political interference.  The results pose interesting questions for scientists across Europe, particularly in light of the WikiLeak revelations.

Just 47% of respondents agreed that such scientific advice was “independent of commercial or political interests”. A significant minority of 41% of consumers disagreed on this point.

The survey found that consumers felt most confident about information regarding food safety that they obtained from health professionals (84% totally confident) and family and friends (82%). 73% of consumers were totally confident about such information being provided by scientists. In contrast, 19% of respondents were “not very confident” in information of this type from scientists and 4% were “not at all confident”.

The highest levels of total confidence in scientists were in the Czech Republic (87%) and Finland (86%) with the lowest levels of confidence in Germany and Slovenia (both 65%). The EU average was 73%.

While a high level of trust in scientists appears to exist across Europe on this issue of food safety, the results should be seen in light of findings published in June (pdf) of this year where 53% of Europeans felt that because of their knowledge, scientists “have a power that makes them dangerous”.

Consumers appear to be reluctant to rely on the media for information about food safety, with 48% of respondents citing mainstream media (TV, newspapers, etc.) as a source of information they would have confidence in, compared to “the internet” which was a trusted source of information on food safety for 41% of respondents. 

Interestingly, the report shows that when consumers hear news about unsafe or unhealthy food, 25% of them worry about the problem but ultimately don’t do anything about it, by changing diet, etc. Approximately another quarter ignore the news story and do nothing about it. 

The most common reaction (approx one third of respondents) was to avoid the food mentioned for a while, but then return to eating it. Just one in ten said that they permanently changed their eating habits in response to a news story.

The results of this survey indicate that, while GMOs are a concern for European consumers, they are by no means at the top of the list when it comes to concerns about food. Europeans appear to be much more worried about, what we might call ‘traditional’ food concerns like food poisoning and pesticide residues, than the presence or absence of genetically modified organisms in the food chain.

Despite some misgivings, scientists are seen by European consumers as being the third most trustworthy grouping from which to obtain food-safety information. This makes the need for scientists to communicate effectively about the issues involved in food safety all the more important.

In search of the White Coat Vote

Is there such a thing as the science vote? We've heard of the green vote, the pink vote and so on, but do political parties take any notice of the White Coat Vote?

A recent survey of UK scientists by the science journal Nature, has shown that an overwhelming number of scientists surveyed think that the Liberal Democrats (31%) and Labour (33%) would give scientific research the best chance of thriving in the UK. Just 10% thought the Conservative Party would provide such a boost.

The survey of 262 scientists, the majority (64%) of whom worked in academia, also asked which party was most likely to use science or scientific advice to formulate their policies. The Lib Dem's were the clear winner on this point with 36% of scientists opting for them, 24% saying Labour and again, just 10% saying Conservative.

A massive 36% of respondents asserted that none of the main contenders for the PM job, Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg have any grasp of science.

And, with spending cuts high on the agenda, 71% of scientists polled thought the Conservatives most likely to cut science funding. Just 18% suggested Labour and 2% suggested the Lib Dem's. Given the reality of the economic situation in the UK and elsewhere, it seems odd that there was no "all of the above" option for this particular question.

The full results of the poll are available here.

Some citizen-scientists felt so let down by conventional parties that Michael Brooks and Sumit Paul-Choudhury founded The Science Party in April of this year and Brooks himself will contend the parliamentary election in the constituency of Bosworth.

Brooks has made clear who's seat he is aiming for - that of the Conservative David Tredinnick. According to The Science Party, Tredinnick has  little grasp of science and claimed more than £700 on MP's expenses for astrology software and training.

Tredinnick has also recently stood by a comment he made recently that those who rubbish facets of eastern medicine (including homeopathy and astrology) are being racist.

“David Tredinnick is the thick end of the wedge, but there are plenty of MPs who dismiss scientific results,” Brooks says. “When you are making decisions about what kind of healthcare our country can offer its people, that is potentially disastrous.”

Brooks is a writer and broadcaster who is a consultant with the well-known science magazine New Scientist.

In June of 2009, it emerged that Tredinnick had sought to claim expenses for his attendance at a seminar on how to "honour the female and also the male essence and the importance of each". The course was designed to teach those attending about "polarity and neutrality" and the "deep passions of our intimate relationships".
An official in the Commons fees office wrote to Mr Tredinnick to explain that "costs relating to Intimate Relationships courses do not fall within the remit of this allowance" and the claim was turned down.

***Update Friday 7th May***

With the results now becoming clearer, it seems that the scientists' choice for government (if the Nature poll is to believed), the Liberal Democrats, will not make anything like the gains which Nigel Clegg's popularity throughout the campaign suggested. The Science Party also performed badly, if the result from Bosworth (see below, via The Guardian) are anything to go by. So much for the White Coat Vote!