Congressmen Question NAS Food Study

April 4, 2000

Two congressmen have raised concerns about "serious conflicts of interest" they say are "pervading" a National Academy of Sciences study on biotech plants. The study is to be released this week. Any conclusions in the study are "tainted by pervasive conflicts of interest among its authors," they say. The NAS flatly rejects the charges.

Reps. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH) and Jack Metcalf (R-WA) released two letters sent recently to the NAS on the subject. A letter dated March 30 focuses on "a pattern of undeniable bias" by Michael Phillips, a former NAS staffer responsible for the study and "his bias in support of genetically-engineered foods while working for the Biotech Industry Organization (BIO)."

The congressmen raised concerns about "the potential damage to the NAS reputation given the obvious conflict of interest involving the study." They added, "The National Academies is a critical source of unbiased information for Congress, but the release of the study is likely to damage your reputation beyond repair, making the NAS ineffective in its role."

In a letter to the congressmen dated March 31 (Friday), NAS Executive Officer E. William Colglazier said the academy and its National Research Council believe the study "has not been compromised in any way by the involvement of (Phillips) as staff officer for the first four months of this year-long study."

Kucinich and Metcalf also charge that several members of the study committee have financial ties to the biotech industry. Four committee members receive research funds from the industry, they claim. "The objectivity of a researcher receiving funds from a company is potentially impaired by the individual’s need and desire to maintain the financial relationship with his benefactors, whose interest can be assumed to be primarily commercial."

To that, Colglazier said the three members of the committee to whom the congressmen referred were public disclosed on NAS’ initiative to have conflicts of interest. Two recently worked on behalf of the industry and the third on behalf of an environmental organization.

"Since the task for this study is to examine the regulatory framework for genetically modified pest protected plants, the academy determined that expertise in developing, applying and critiquing the current regulatory framework was needed on the committee," Colglazier said.

Concerning the researchers who are supported by the industry, Colglazier said they also have support from the federal government. The academy determined "that this research support was not a conflict of interest for these individuals for this study."