Thomas Bøhn, Angelika Hilbeck and Fern Wickson have a new publication in Nature Biotechnology.

In this correspondence, a team of natural and social scientists collaborate to argue against the use of double standards for reviewing risk-based research on GMOs and to highlight how values play an important role in risk policy and research. This correspondence is a direct response to an earlier publication that appeared in Nature Biotechnology claiming that the European bans on the cultivation of Bt maize were based on ‘bad science’. Showing how that earlier publication engaged in selective reporting, misrepresentation of results and flawed argumentation, this correspondence argues for the importance of subjecting all research conducted on the biosafety of GMOs to the same level and standard of critique. Furthermore, it highlights how in a democratic society, such a controversial and important case as GMOs and the future of agriculture requires that the selection of criteria for assessing the quality of science for policy should proceed through a broad-based deliberative process engaging a range of relevant stakeholders and implicated actors.

Use this link if you want to read the entire article.