One pattern I've noticed in my 3 decades offering public advice on
dangerous technologies is that some people use a contentious issue  -  say,
fluoridation (a particularly extreme, nasty example, as it turns out)  -
as an arena in which to indulge in rude behavior they never would show in
other contexts.  I suspect there's a correlation between the magnitude of
hazard (scope for harm) of the technology and the degree of oafishness
shown in public by its proponents.  The opponents will also include some
individuals who want to let off steam (anger, frustration etc) and
subconsciously think "disputatiousness is rife on this topic, so I can let
loose".  GM fits these patterns.  It is all the more menacing because it is
more technically complex than even nuclear fission reactors.
        It would be convenient if people would accept, at least
provisionally for working purposes, those correlations.
        Their immediate practical significance is that we must be
exceptionally careful in discussing GM.
        Some who have invested, directly or thru mutual funds, in big
chemical companies (the main GM-experimenters) will want to believe it's
OK; let them consider the limitations of wishful thinking against
infectious pathogens of plant or bee.  Others are motivated by what we call
in Australasia 'the tall poppy syndrome', which is evidently not absent
from N. Amer.   Yet others don't really care about the topic but think that
because it's contentious they can cut up ugly.  Some people even think it
doesn't really matter whether their utterances are sincerely offered as
reliable.
        To resist such temptations, we'll be well advised to check facts v
carefully if they are to be used as a basis for some contention re GM.
Another guide, particularly important in this here depauperate
communication medium, is to refrain from irony, sarcasm, and even humour
unless reasonably clear.



What Nick Wallingford calls
>the press item upon which Robert Mann has seen fit to make such
>a conclusion
                I did not allude to.
        Dr Goodwin was asked at one of his good talks for beekeepers "when
the chemicals don't work well enough, what will be the answer?"  Goodwin
responded that we may have to try GM-bees.  The questioner expressed
misgivings.  Goodwin then vaguely expressed warm attitudes to the general
notion of GM-bees.
        I naturally checked this with him.  He was v vague, claiming he had
no opinion on the issue, and tried to make out it didn't much matter what
he said as long as it provoked discussion.
        No scientist undertaking to inform beekeepers should adopt this
flippant, insincere attitude.  It is the scientist's duty to say what he
thinks, not just to toss out squibs that may stimulate discussion.


N Wallingford continues:
>I think Dr Mann's personal fears re: GM are outstripping his ability to
>read for content and meaning.
>My personal reading of it is that Robert Mann, in his fervour to oppose GM
>in any form he might encounter it  ...

        These attacks are without foundation, and readily shown to be
false.  Ever since GM was invented (when I was a senior lecturer in
biochemistry) I have consistently said not all GM is dangerous or
undesirable.  Many gene-splicing expts are OK by me (and by almost every
scientist I know of), given proper precautions in containment.
        Nick's accusation of extremism is false & unfair.


>I certainly think it is wrong of Dr Mann to continue to attack him
>as he does on the basis of this press reporting.

        I never suggested this or any other press reporting was the basis
of my knowledge of Goodwin's attitude to GM.  It isn't.


        The main comptroller of this here list recently wrote to us:
> for the sake of the list and its mandate, I would like to
>actively discourage ... personal insults

                and yet, so soon, our List Owner approves the above
insults, devoid of basis or justice.

        Perhaps it may help if I mention a bit more reason for my presuming
to speak out as I do upon GM.  For my public comments against dangerous
technologies, I've been vilified by hi-ranking professorial apologists for
nuclear fallout, 2,4,5-T, leaded petrol, etc;  been threatened with
lawsuits by a certain notorious NZ prime minister; originated what are now
the NZ bipartisan policies on nuclear weapons & nuclear reactors; had to
rally hundreds of staff against a serious attempt (1977) to end my academic
career; nevertheless been appointed by successive ministers of health (on
the nomination of labour unions) to the statutory poisons board; and dealt
with untold ignorant &/or aggressive reporters.  More practice than most
have had at avoiding lawsuits by speaking the provable truth, you may
agree.  This is not trumpet-blowing but merely an attempt  -  after a
couple of y  -  to make myself better known to listees, so they may assess
my jottings more accurately.
        Among my hero scientists at telling the public are the late great
Henry Kendall of MIT, D T Suzuki (UBC), Linus Pauling of course, and Frank
von Hippel of Princeton who told me in 1983 that he had entered the public
debate about nuclear reactor hazards out of a wish to "raise the level of
the debate"  -  which he has certainly done.  I ask Bee-L participants to
accept the same goal.  Technologies that can devastate an area the size of
Pennsylvania ( = area of my island) deserve careful discussion, not
insolent raving.

        Some on Bee-L may not have noticed that Wallingford lives in my
country.  Please overlook this unseemly spat in front of youse.  I'll deal
with him when I can get at him.
        Meanwhile, let's stick to the rules and dicuss properly what is  -
in GM-crops now, and quite possibly in GM-bees soon  -  a major issue for
beekeeping.

R