Subject: reports Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 07:27:59 +0100 From: Arpad Pusztai To: Rebecca.Bowden@royalsoc.ac.uk Dear Dr Bowden, It is to let you know that I shall by this weekend publish the six unnamed RS referees' reports + my short answers to them on the Internet. I am sure you will agree that this will add to the transparency of your process of inquiry into GM-food. Although this is by now old news, please, let me know if you are still interested in my comments, in which case I can send you a hard copy. I know that it will make no difference at all to the process of the inquiry itself but you may all the same wish to keep them on your file. At least I had a little more time to consider the reports since I received your last peer-review by fax in Bergen 35 min before your deadline of 13 May and therefore my comments may be more to the point of essence. As you are fully aware of that I never agreed to your peer-reviewing of an internal document that I submitted to the Rowett on 24 October 1998 and which was published by the Rowett on the Internet without my consent. You also know that I offered the RS in a letter of 19 March my fullest cooperation with updated data and my latest thinking and evaluation providing the reviewing process was done with my written and verbal input and involvement and postponed till my return after a much-needed holiday to restore my health. However, this was not accepted by the RS because apparently you had to keep to your own time schedule and therefore speed was the essence of your enquiry. Moreover, the decision of the RS was that my role should be confined only to provide the, at the time unnamed, Working Group with updated documents which then should be peer-reviewed by six unnamed referees. I am afraid, as in my opinion this was not the right way to go, particularly if one wanted to arrive at the truth, I felt that I had to decline to assist you in such a defective process. As a result your panel of experts reviewed old and somewhat defective documents instead of updated data, ideas and conclusions which you knew existed even though the referees might not have been aware of their existence. I have to tell you that nothing that happened since changed my mind, in fact, quite the opposite. I am now even more convinced that because of the way chosen by the RS to conduct the enquiry it necessarily led to flawed conclusions. Thus, my motives to publish your referees' reports is to show those who are interested in your enquiry the text of these reports that apparently served as a basis for compiling the RS Report of 18 May (and as a supplement to it). Perhaps, the very same people my also be interested in my reaction to the various reports and conclusions which flowed from them. Yours sincerely Arpad Pusztai Ps. I also attach a copy of my Press release of 18 May 1999 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Press Release The Royal Society (RS) have updated their report on GM-food of September 1998. They have peer-reviewed the nutritional and immunology data on GM-potato work carried out at the Rowett Research Institute (Rowett) between 1995 & 1998. The data reviewed were the Rowett Audit Report and my reply to it (Alternative Report; an internal document not meant for publication) which were put on the Internet by the Rowett, the latter without my consent jeopardising the publication of the data in a peer-reviewed journal. None of the data in the RS enquiry has been forwarded by me. These data have already been peer-reviewed by a Rowett Audit Committee and thereafter by 20 senior scientists who found them to be of a standard acceptable for scientific publication and signed and released a Memorandum to that effect early in 1999. Accordingly, the results of this new enquiry by the RRS without new scientific input are likely to be of limited value. I had offered the RS in a letter of 19th March my fullest cooperation. I indicated I would be happy to interact with the RS Working Group both verbally and in writing, provide them in confidence a copy of my updated final report incorporating the results of the independent statistical analysis of our data which was deposited with the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee on 2nd March 1999 and discuss with them our interpretation of the data and our conclusions. Unfortunately, the RS felt that speed was of the essence and did not accept my offer of cooperation. It was their view that my role should be limited to making comments on the reports of the six unnamed referees appointed by them. Thus, although the RS was fully aware that a more up to date report could shortly be made available, they still proceeded with a third peer-reviewing of the data in the two reports. Having asked for my comments by noon on 13th May, the RS forwarded to me 3 reports on the 8th May, 2 on the 10th May and the final one on 11th May, with a rewritten version on 13th May allowing me 35 minutes to reply to this last one. As in my opinion the standard of most of the refereeing was not up to that expected from referees of international journals probably because of the undue haste and the referees' unfamiliarity with the type of nutritional work carried out by us, commenting on them would have taken much longer than the allowed time. I felt therefore that under the circumstances it would be inappropriate and unwise to attempt to make any valued judgements. I feel considerable sadness that we have all missed a great opportunity to find ways to move forward on this important issue. It is my belief that most people find tampering with the genetic make up of our basic foodstuffs a cause for concern given the perceived lack of proper and exhaustive biological testing. It is essential that GM-foods are made as safe as can be, and I reiterate my concerns about the lack of stringency in their testing at present. Arpad Pusztai 18 May 1999