Dr. Arpad Pusztai I present the following Facts:- The origins of the controversy 1. I commenced my research work at the Rowett Research Institute in 1963. The director of the Rowett, Professor James decided early in June 1998 that it would be to the advantage of the Rowett if it participated in a World in Action TV programme. I was requested to contribute to that programme: it was not my idea and I had not previously had experience in television and only marginally with radio. 2. It was agreed that the information I should provide would be limited to what was already in the public domain. I recorded the programme on 24th June 1998 and this was in the presence of Ms. Hilary Robertson the PR employed by the Rowett. The transmission was scheduled for Monday 10th August 1998 some 7 weeks after it was recorded. On Sunday the 9th August Granada issued its own trailer and Press Release respecting the programme. There was no prior consultation with Rowett or myself regarding the release or its content and the first I knew of its existence came from a phone call to my home around 7 p.m. on the Sunday evening. This was from a journalist and other journalists followed: that was the start of the affair. The flurry that developed into a crisis arose before the programme was screened and it was that (and not the programme) which provoked the rushed Press Releases by the Rowett on the 10th August, both made without any reference to myself, appeared in advance of the programmes transmission and, to make matters worse, contained defective information. Those Releases by the Rowett gave the impression that I had conducted experiments involving the use of a known [toxic protein Con A and its gene which, in reality, had never taken place and to which (understandably) I had made no reference in the programme itself. It was that which created the confusion, and afterwards the non-existent experiment was conveniently attributed to me in the aftermath of the programme. 4. The reality was that the experiment as conducted comprised the use of potatoes expressing the snowdrop lectin gene, a lectin GNA that our previous six years of work had shown to be non-toxic and it was the fact that this resulted in impairment in the condition of the rats that promoted my expression of concern regarding safety of the specifically modified potato. 5. By the time Professor James realised his error, the Rowett was under siege from all quarters and as part of Professor James decision as to how the “crisis” should be handled, I was arbitrarily suspended (after 36 years work at the Rowett) and subsequently my employment contract was not renewed at the end of 1998 notwithstanding that there was at least another 18 months to 24 months work to be concluded on six major research programmes of work and in which I had been engaged over the preceding 3-5 years and for which I was responsible. Moreover, the procedure adopted by Professor James for suspending was more appropriate to a situation where there is an allegations of fraud or other professional misconduct. This was particularly damaging to my reputation. The whole issue then became the subject of intense media interest. I was precluded from making any comment or responding to matters raised by virtue of the restrictive terms of my contractual relationship with the Rowett, That inhibition did not apply to others. Professor Alan Malcolm, Chief Executive of the Institute of Biology went into print in the November1998 issue of the Institute’s publication “Biobits” in which he alleged that I had “fabricated findings”. A view he appears to have come to wholly in the absence of seeing any of my working data. The sequence of events at the Rowett is set out in greater detail in the Memoranda submitted by me to the House of Commons. The Science and Technology Committee 8. On or about 16th February 1999, I was requested to make a presentation to this Committee of the House of Commons. The Committee, as it is stated in the Preface to its First Report dated 18th May 1999 was to enquire into “the role of the scientific advisory system, its effectiveness and independence" how this relates to government and provides the “scientific advice used to underpin government activity in a broad range of fields but particularly in critical areas affecting health and safety, transport and environmental protection”. 9. At the time I was coping with the contractual restrictions referred to in paragraph 7 above. The Rowett, however, in response to considerable media pressure, issued a Press Release and letters to me on the 16th February 1999 acknowledging my entitlement to deal publicly with these matters given the public interest nature of them. 10. I prepared a Memorandum to which was annexed updated technical data preparatory to the hearing before the Committee arranged for Monday 8th March 1999. Having presented my evidence to the Committee I then listened to Professor James presentation and arising out of points made by him, I presented a further Memorandum on 20th March 1999. This further Memorandum was necessary in order to rebut Professor James continuing allegations relating to the content of my contribution to the programme transmitted by Granada as well as his justification for the Press Releases issued on his authority before the programme was transmitted and which he continued to assert I had approved (See para 3 above). In the Minutes of Evidence, however, he acknowledged that I had not seen the final version of his Press Release namely the one that was grossly inaccurate with the allegation of using Con A rather than the non-toxic GNA. One of the specialist advisers to the Committee and who was present throughout the evidence given was Professor Alan Malcolm. (See para 7 above). The First Report issued by the Committee contains a primary sub-heading “Dr. Pusztai’s Research” comprising six paragraphs of which one only (number 26) relates to my evidence before the Committee. I can find no equivalent or indeed any reference to evidence given by Professor James. Under paragraph 26 there is acceptance that the Rowett “Press Release had misreported the scientific findings of the experiments and indeed that the experiments referred to had not been carried out”. There is then the assertion that the interpretation placed by me on my research data was disputed, not only by the Rowett but by an independent statistical analysis which I had commissioned. There is the quotation that the analysis found “no consistent pattern of changes in organ weights” resulting from which the Committee questioned “the validity of the design of the experiment”. Beyond that there is the assertion that I had told the Committee “that in his hundred and ten day feeding trials no differences between parent and GM potatoes could be found”. This, the Committee concluded “directly contradicted his statement on World in Action”. There is then regret that my appearances “attracted far more press interest than did some of our more credible witnesses” and that my claims were “contradicted by his own evidence”. The partiality of this finding is quite shocking. The points used in the Report appear to hinge upon exchanges between Dr. Lynne Jones and myself appearing under paragraphs 157 to 162 in the Minutes of Evidence. Paragraph 157 records that it was put to me that the analysis taken by Dr. Graham Horgan indicated “no consistent pattern of changes” and that the ensuing results “are open to other interpretations”. My reply was that we had four different experiments but which were carried out with two substantially not equivalent GM potatoes. I was endeavouring to develop the explanation not only that there were two different substantially non equivalent potatoes but that they were also other differences including the duration of the experiments and in the protein concentration in the diets, etc. I was then requested by the Chairman not to go into the detail since “we are here really to enquire into procedures and treatment”. Dr. Jones (paragraph 161) then raised the question of the 110 days experiment and whether there was a growth retardation. She asked me to confirm that there was in fact no growth retardation and that in the 110 day feeding no differences between parents and GM potatoes were to be found. My answer to that was that we had to put in more protein to compensate “for the 20 per cent less protein” in the GM potatoes. Had we not done this the rats would have grown more slowly resulting in a useless experiment. Dr. Jones then pressed me again making the point “can you confirm there were no differences at 110 days?” to that I answered “no, because the design of the experiment prevented it”. In my submitted Final Report (1.3.99) which Dr. Jones clearly had not read, these procedures are expressed in more scientific terms. Growth is usually expressed in relation to the amount of diet eaten called feed conversion ratio. Thus feed conversion ratio (gram rat growth per gram potato) with GM line 74/2 was significantly less than that with the parent line (see page 14 of Final Report). The content and conclusions of paragraph 26 of the Report however, presented a wholly different picture and appraisal. It is this selectivity on the part of the Committee, flying directly in the face of what actually was said, that is the justification for describing my evidence as less credible than other witnesses. As to the treatment of other witnesses, for example, Professor James, any reading of the Minutes of Evidence shows very clearly that Members of the Committee were far from satisfied with many of Professor James’ explanations and yet there is absolutely no reference to the reliability of his evidence. More particularly, there is no comment as to the implications of this case study in relation to the effectiveness and independence of the scientific advisory system, notwithstanding the Chairman’s opening remarks as recorded in paragraph 126 of the Minutes. The Royal Society At the time I was preparing to present my evidence to the House of Commons Committee, I was approached by the Royal Society. I was able to write to the Society on the [19th] March 1999 in response to the enquiry whether I would [contribute to a working party] that the Society was in the process of establishing. My reply was that I would be happy to co-operate with that working party and provide updated data at that stage lodged with the House of Commons Committee but there were points of clarification that I needed for before releasing that new technical data. I also advised the Society that I would be out of the country from the 24th March to the [14th] April. The Royal Society sent a letter to me in reply on the 23rd March, knowing it would arrive subsequent to my departure abroad. Following my return to this country I found that letter and the assurances it gave on some of the preliminary points raised. There was the express comment in the letter that the working party had not yet been constituted but that “nevertheless as soon as the group is finalised we will be able to give you an indication of their range of expertise and would take any comments on board”. I had various commitments outside Scotland and I heard nothing more from the Royal Society until an e-mail of the 3rd May. Throughout this time, I had no indication that a working party had been created nor of course any information as to its composition. Indeed, I thought from the silence that the Society was having difficulty in establishing a sufficiently independent and competent body! To my astonishment, the 3rd May e-mail referred to commentaries provided by “three of our reviewers”. It subsequently emerged that the first of those reviews was dated 31st March 1999 and the others 8th April and the 12th April. None of them, of course, had the benefit of the data provided to the House of Commons nor was I aware of the nature of the ‘review’ they were asked to conduct and how this related to working of the unknown as I thought the unconstituted working party. Other “reviews” given in the same circumstances subsequently appeared. One such review dated 12th April 1999 inferred dishonesty or scientific inadequacy on my part. This damaging conclusion was reached upon a reading of incomplete data, known not to be my final and most detailed data as provided to the House of Commons. All this was somewhat reminiscent of the comments made by Nineteen Fellows of the Royal Society whose letter in the Daily Telegraph on the 23rd February 1999 referred to the need to distinguish between good science and bad science and which was understood to be a public condemnation of my work, albeit that these distinguished Fellows had not themselves seen any of my data or discussed any aspect of my work with me. I wrote to the Secretary of the Royal Society, Mr. Stephen Cox, on the 12th May 1999 setting out my objections to the manner in which the Royal Society had conducted matters. By its adopted course, the Royal Society was exposing me to premature, incomplete and unsound comment as well as adding to the damage to my reputation. Mr. Cox responded by a letter dated 13th May side stepping the points made by me and on the 18th May 1999 the Royal Society issued its “Review of Data on possible toxicity of GM potatoes”. It there identified the Working Group of six, among whom I understand was Professor Brian Heap, the first signatory to the February letter in the Daily Telegraph and Professor William Hill whose name appeared as one of the 19 concerned Fellows. In describing the methodology used, there is reference to having “sought information from all possible sources” and which, I note, included the informal commentary that I gave on the 22nd October 1998, intended simply as an internal Memo within the Rowett but deliberately put on to the Internet by the Rowett at the time when it was intent upon justifying my suspension. There is also reference to the Minutes of Evidence to the House of Commons Committee: it does not however include the various Memoranda I submitted to the House of Commons nor to the updated technical data which I told the Royal Society existed. There is a note “that Dr. Pusztai indicated to us that further information existed but not provided”. The findings of the Royal Society Working Group was that “on the basis of information available” my work was flawed. CONCLUSIONS It is interesting to note the similarity in the use by the Rowett, the House of Commons Committee and the Royal Society, of incomplete and selective information. I refer also to the report in the ‘Independent on Sunday’ in its issue of [23rd] May 1999 disclosing an awareness by government of an opportunity to discredit me and my findings further as a result of the then impending Commons and Royal Society findings. To that can be added the intemperate and unprofessional attacks on me by scientific colleagues intent on disparaging the messenger rather than dealing responsibly with the message.