WITH food security firmly on the international agenda, there鈥檚 a growing appetite to look again at the opportunities promised by agricultural biotechnology.

快猫短视频s working in this area are excited by new techniques that enable them to edit plant DNA with unprecedented accuracy. Even epigenetic markers, which modulate the activity of genes, can now be altered. The promise is to modify crops to make them more nutritious or resistant to disease.

But there鈥檚 a problem, notably in Europe: genetic modification.

Much of agricultural biotechnology 鈥� including conventional breeding 鈥� involves genetic modification of one kind or another. But 鈥淕M鈥� has come to mean something quite specific, and is loaded with baggage. To many people it means risky or unnatural mixing of genes from widely disparate species, even across the plant and animal kingdoms, to create hybrids such as corn with scorpion genes. That baggage now threatens to undermine mature debate about the future of food production.

It is no longer a simple yes/no choice between high-tech agribusiness and conventional production driven by something ill-defined as more 鈥渘atural鈥�.

The battle lines of this latest wave of agricultural advance are already being drawn. The UK鈥檚 Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, for example, is working on a position statement on the new technologies, which it expects to release later this summer.

It is clear that, over the coming years, the general public will have to decide which of these technologies we find acceptable and which we do not.

So where did it all go wrong to begin with? In the late 1990s, when I was reporting on early GM research for the BBC鈥檚 current affairs programme 快猫短视频night, anti-GM protestors realised that vivid images made good TV and rampaged through fields in white boiler suits destroying trial crops.

On the other side, industry representatives brushed aside public concerns and tried to control the media message, thumping the table in the office of at least one bemused newspaper editor (who went on to co-script a TV drama about a darker side to GM). They also lobbied hard for the relaxation of regulations governing agribusiness.

In the middle was the public, just coming to terms with farming鈥檚 role in the BSE crisis. There was little space for calm, rational debate. Instead, GM became the cuckoo in the nest of agricultural biotechnology and its industry backers became ogres, shouting down any discussion of alternatives.

As a result, many people remain unaware that there are other high-tech ways to create crops. Many of these techniques involve the manipulation of genes, but they are not primarily about the transfer of genes across species.

鈥淢any people remain unaware that there are high-tech ways to create crops besides GM鈥�

But for GM to be discussed alongside such approaches as just another technology, scientists will have to work harder to dispel the public鈥檚 remaining suspicions.

I recently chaired a debate on biotech at the UK鈥檚 Cambridge Festival of Plants, where one audience member identified a public unease about what he called the slightly 鈥渟pooky鈥� aspect of GM crops. He meant those scorpion genes, or fish genes placed into tomatoes 鈥� the type of research that helped to coin the phrase 鈥測uck factor鈥�.

To my surprise, a leading plant scientist on the panel said she would be prepared to see cross-species manipulation of food crops put on hold if the public was overwhelmingly uncomfortable with it. Ottoline Leyser, director of the University of Cambridge鈥檚 Sainsbury Laboratory, said she believed valuable GM crop development could still be done even if scientists were initially restricted to species that can swap their genes naturally, outside of the laboratory. An example of this might be adding a trait from one variety of rice to another.

Nevertheless, Leyser remains adamant that there is 鈥渘othing immensely fishy about a fish gene鈥�. What鈥檚 more, she added, the notion of a natural separation between species is misplaced: gene-swapping between species in the wild is far more prevalent than once thought.

But Leyser insisted that scientists must respect the views of objectors 鈥� even if 鈥測uck鈥� is their only complaint. That concession from a scientist is unusual. I鈥檝e spoken to many of her peers who think such objections are irrational.

快猫短视频s cannot expect people to accept their work blindly and they must make time to listen. Above all, more of them should be prepared to halt experiments that the public is uncomfortable with. And it鈥檚 beginning to happen.

Paul Freemont is co-director of the Centre for Synthetic Biology and Innovation at Imperial College London. He designs organisms from scratch but would be prepared to discontinue projects that the public is unhappy about. He says scientists need an occasional reality check.

鈥淲e are going to have to address some of the consequences of what we鈥檙e doing, and have agreements about what鈥檚 acceptable to society in terms of manipulating biology at this level,鈥� Freemont says.

快猫短视频s funded with public money may already feel some obligation to adopt this approach. But those working in industry should consider its advantages too. A more open and engaged conversation with the public could surely benefit the companies trying to sell us novel crop technologies.

Society, for its part, will need to listen to the experts with an open mind. And as we work out how to feed an expanding population, we will need to ask questions that are bigger than 鈥淕M: yes or no?鈥�

This article appeared in print under the headline 鈥淕enetic moderation鈥�

MOST of us want to reach our full potential. We might drink a cup of coffee to stay alert, or go for a run to feel on top of the job. So where鈥檚 the harm in taking a pill that can do the same thing?

So-called cognitive-enhancing drugs are usually prescribed to treat medical conditions, but they are also known for their ability to improve memory or focus. Many people buy them over the internet, which is risky because they don鈥檛 know what they are getting. We also know next to nothing about their long-term effects on the brains of healthy people, particularly the young. But some scientists believe they could have a beneficial role to play in society, if properly regulated.

So who鈥檚 taking what? The BBC鈥檚 flagship current affairs show and 快猫短视频 ran an anonymous online questionnaire to find out. I also decided to .

The questionnaire was completed by 761 people, with 38 per cent saying they had taken a cognitive-enhancing drug at least once. Of these, nearly 40 per cent said they had bought the drug online and 92 per cent said they would try it again.

Though not representative of society, the survey is an interesting, anecdotal snapshot of a world for which there is little data. The drugs people said they had taken included modafinil, normally prescribed for sleep disorders, and Ritalin and Adderall, taken for ADHD. The range of experiences is striking. One respondent wrote: 鈥淚t helps me extend my concentration. I can study a topic for six hours, for example, that would have me bored to tears in two.鈥� Another wrote: 鈥淒id not help me do anything but feel anxious and excited, could not sit still even 15 hours later.鈥�

When asked about the drugs鈥� potential impact on society, people reported concerns beyond safety, for example warning that the drugs might create a two-tier education system in which some can afford the drugs and others can鈥檛. They voiced wider concerns too, such as: 鈥淚f society has come to the point that we have to take cognitive enhancers to function or perform to certain expected levels, then it is a society that has placed performance over happiness and health.鈥�

Laurie Pycroft, a student at the University of Oxford, talked to Newsnight about his experiences with modafinil. 鈥淚鈥檝e taken it a few times, primarily for its ability to increase wakefulness and allow me to concentrate and stay awake for very extended periods of time. I don鈥檛 take it very often but if I want to stay awake for 20 or 30 hours working on an essay it鈥檚 very useful,鈥� he said.

Keen to learn more, I contacted , a neuroscientist at the University of Cambridge. She and her team work with people who have conditions such as Alzheimer鈥檚 and Parkinson鈥檚 disease. One area of their research is testing whether cognitive-enhancing drugs such as modafinil help.

Sahakian thinks these drugs could play a wider role in society. Her most recent research showed that sleep-deprived surgeons performed better on modafinil. 鈥淚 do think we鈥檝e undervalued [the drugs]. As a society we could perhaps move forward if we all had a form of cognitive enhancement that was safe,鈥� she told me.

Before I could self-experiment with the drug I had to satisfy Sahakian鈥檚 colleague James Rowe that there were no risks. We also had trained medical staff nearby.

I took a tablet on two separate days without knowing which one was modafinil and which was a placebo. I then did an hour or so of tests involving memory, strategy, planning and tests of impulsiveness.

On the second day I felt more focused and in control and thought I performed better in the tests. That was the day I had been given modafinil. Rowe summed up my performance: 鈥淲hat we鈥檝e seen today is some very striking improvements鈥� in memory and, for example, your planning abilities and on impulsivity.鈥�

It鈥檚 human nature to want to push against our limitations, but what about the risks? Before sanctioning a drug as a cognitive enhancer for healthy people, regulators would require long-term safety studies so they could weigh up the risks and benefits. Pharmaceutical companies are not rushing to carry out such studies, but Sahakian is calling for such work to be done before someone comes to harm.

Some cognitive enhancers, such as Ritalin, are controlled drugs. Modafinil is not, so it is legal to buy it online, though it is illegal to supply it without a prescription. The UK government, through the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, told Newsnight that tackling the illegal sale and supply of medicines over the internet is a priority.

It鈥檚 not just students who claim to find the drug beneficial. of the Future of Humanity Institute at the University of Oxford talks openly about using cognitive-enhancing drugs. He is about to start a study in Germany to compare the effects of a range of cognitive enhancers, including two hormones 鈥� ghrelin, which promotes hunger, and oxytocin, which is associated with empathy 鈥� to test their powers at what he calls 鈥渕oral enhancement鈥�.

鈥淥nce we have figured out how morality works as an emotional and mental system there might be ways of improving it,鈥� he told me.

The bottom line is that cognitive-enhancing pills are a reality and people are using them. But how comfortable are we with the knowledge that some of our children鈥檚 classmates might be taking such drugs to perform better at school, or that one candidate for a job interview might use modafinil to outshine the others? And who was the real me, the one on modafinil, or the one not? Perhaps we should start thinking these questions through, before a drug offering far more than a few percentage points of enhancement comes our way.

Lacey, professor of clinical microbiology at the University of Leeds, sums up his position towards the end of the book: 鈥淚f we don鈥檛 act, not only will farming wither, but so almost certainly will the human population. It is not just the current generation which is at risk, but future generations which must be considered.鈥� Lacey is not a man to mince his words.

His contentious line, that we do not know the extent of BSE infection in cattle but know enough to predict that huge numbers of beef-eaters will develop a human form of the disease, has ensured his notoriety. He has become the bogeyman of Britain鈥檚 beef industry and of the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food (MAFF), which he sees as the industry鈥檚 protector.

BSE, first recognised in November 1986, has proved a devastating blight on British farming. Eight years later, almost 140 000 animals had been confirmed as having the disease, on around 32 000 farms. MAFF鈥檚 scientists are now adamant that the numbers of BSE infected cattle will dwindle over the next five years. But the history of the disease has been characterised by the public alarm and fear generated when government departments act slowly and in secret. Only over the past few months has a clearer picture of the pattern of the disease begun to emerge.

The latest MAFF figures fit the government thesis that feed, contaminated with an infectious agent from sheep, was to blame for the sudden appearance of the disease. An official ban in 1988 on what many came to regard as the repulsive practice of feeding cattle with the remains of sheep and cows appears to have averted a wider BSE epidemic.

But why should we believe MAFF when it has got its estimates so badly wrong in the past? In February 1989, a government committee of inquiry headed by Richard Southwood predicted that between 17 000 and 20 000 cattle would succumb to BSE by 1993, at a rate of between 350 and 400 cases per month, and that the numbers would then decline. In fact, reported cases were running at 900 per month by December 1989, and 34 369 cattle died from BSE in 1993 alone.

At the tail end of 1993, however, the government鈥檚 leading scientific adviser on 鈥渕ad cow鈥� disease, John Wilesmith, put his job on the line and, in the process, helped to restore faith in MAFF鈥檚 analysis. If there were not a 鈥渟ignificant鈥� fall in the numbers of infected cattle over the following 12 months he would be 鈥渓ooking for another job鈥�, he said. But his job is secure. Thousands fewer cattle went down with BSE during 1994 than in 1993.

But Lacey still disputes MAFF鈥檚 view that contaminated feed is the prime source of BSE. He says 11 000 cattle, born after the feed ban, have developed BSE. He accuses MAFF of massaging its figures, and is scathing about the ministry鈥檚 records of a decline in the number of younger cattle affected. Decreases in the numbers of three-year old cattle succumbing to the disease, Lacey contends, have more to do with changes in reporting procedures and compensation payments for farmers.

Lacey does make some valuable points, however. He highlights MAFF鈥檚 tardiness. Certainly, the ministry has been astonishingly slow to acknowledge the scale of the BSE epidemic, and has reacted at almost every stage with bewildering sluggishness. Why the gap of two years from the recognition of BSE in 1986 and government insistence on compulsory slaughter of affected animals 鈥� leaving at least 600 diseased carcasses to enter the food chain?

Why did it take four years for MAFF to decide to carry out the laboratory tests that would help to verify its feed theory? And, crucially, why the delay in pushing research into a diagnostic test to detect infection in animals with no symptoms of BSE, which would help to prevent these from entering the food chain?

Today, understanding the future shape of the disease requires MAFF to unravel routes of infection, other than feed, that might maintain the epidemic. It is now clear that both vertical and horizontal transmission 鈥� from mother to offspring in the uterus or at birth, and between unrelated animals in the field 鈥� is possible. The ministry鈥檚 new-found willingness to discuss infection other than through feed is a sign that it may be opening up over BSE. This is too little, too late for Lacey and his predictions of an impending national crisis.

Overall, Lacey鈥檚 tale is to be welcomed although its telling is repetitive. It can be no bad thing at all for MAFF to be reminded now and again that somebody is watching it.

Most people have a vague idea that a genetic fingerprint looks like
a supermarket bar code, and is more or less unique to an individual. Few
understand the significance of the black stripes that form the coded sequences,
or how scientists construct these patterned clues to a person鈥檚 DNA. This
23-minute video from Science Pictures should help.

The programme is informative. Most of the script is clear and concise,
although scattered with phrases such as 鈥榓garose gel鈥� and 鈥榤ixed forensic
samples鈥� without explanation. The narrator describes the process of gathering
forensic material and illustrates this with entertaining, if unnecessarily
gory and slightly patronising, reconstructions of violent crime.

The film goes on to describe the use of DNA fingerprints in immigration
cases, and provides a detailed description of the scientific principles
and chemical steps that lie behind the creation of the fingerprints themselves.
It is careful to explain the limitations of the technique as well as its
impressive scope. The producers have been diligent in describing well founded
and growing anxieties, particularly in the US, about the introduction of
errors in the production of genetic fingerprints. These include laboratory
error, varying experimental conditions and human error in reading and interpreting
the codes. There is also a mention of the uncertainties in the statistics
used to estimate the chance of a fingerprint matching that of a suspect.
In all this, the programme鈥檚 makers should be praised for their honesty.

If the video is intended to be 鈥榚ducational鈥�, however, as its producers
claim, then the choice of a jazzy commercial soundtrack was a mistake. Its
volume seems to rise whenever the viewer is expected to grapple with a complicated
piece of science. More worrying than this is the underlying promotional
message of the programme.

The final few minutes rush through a panoply of the triumphs of genetic
analysis. It can detect traces of viral DNA in cells before the symptoms
of disease appear, and will help to solve the mysteries of cancer and trace
the migration of ancient civilisations. It will move forward the frontiers
of veterinary science and agriculture by ensuring pedigrees and improving
livestock and crops. It will even help the biotechnology industry to trace
its patented lifeforms back to their 鈥榬ightful owner鈥� 鈥� contentious stuff.

Surely a new technique, almost universally recognised as one of the
century鈥檚 most powerful scientific advances, does not require a PR video
to sell it to the public? Why mar a potentially invaluable educational programme
by propaganda? Who stands to make money from the widespread use of genetic
fingerprinting? Perhaps we should look to the origins of the film for an
answer. The programme was made in association with Cellmark, a British company
that earns its keep selling the process, and Alec Jeffreys, the technique鈥檚
inventor.

*Science Pictures, 11a Bucklersbury, Hitchin, Hertfordshire SG5 1BB.
Tel: 0462 421110; fax: 0462 421092.

On Monday, the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) announced that
it has commissioned an independent review of Link, to 鈥榓dress concern that
projects were not getting underway quickly enough鈥�. The Link Steering Group
confirmed in June that it had failed to persuade academia and companies
in a broad range of industries to spend more than a tiny fraction of the
420 million Pounds the government has set aside to support joint R&D
through Link (This Week, 23 June).

This poor take-up reflects widespread dissatisfaction with Link, and
the rules by which the programme operates. The government is now reconsidering
several of these rules, most importantly, one which states that projects
must involve more than one industrial partner.

This stipulation has been a major problem for companies wishing to set
up joint research with universities, and is cited by Celltech as one reason
for its reluctance to continue its involvement. The company also says the
Link projects lack focus and are largely irrelevant to its plans for the
future.

Celltech has just appointed a new chief executive and managing director,
Peter Fellner, to steer it through its second decade. Fellner, formerly
chief executive of the British arm of Roche, the Swiss pharmaceuticals giant,
says that although the Link projects are scientifically sound, they are
not directly applicable to the drugs on which the company plans to concentrate.
Celltech has refused to sign contracts for two new projects, but is legally
bound to stay in four others for their four-year duration.

Fellner has appointed a new research director, David Bloxham, a former
colleague from Roche. Bloxham says one of the problems with the Link projects
is the timescale in which they operate. 鈥楾he aim is to come up with good
fundamental science, rather than science that can be used practically within
a lifetime of the project.鈥� This may suit large companies with money coming
in from existing products, but Celltech is not in this position, he says.

Celltech committed itself to Link under the stewardship of Gerard Fairtlough,
the company鈥檚 founding chief executive and a member of the Link Steering
Group. Under Fairtlough, Celltech had a separate department to handle its
liaison with academia. Its academic liaison officer, Gwyn Humphreys, has
since left full-time employment with the company. Humpreys described Celltech鈥檚
desire to withdraw from Link as 鈥榮omewhat short-sighted鈥�.

Fairtlough nurtured Celltech, which is based in Slough, through its
early days when most of its funding came from the government鈥檚 National
Enterprise Board. At this time the company also had exclusive rights to
exploit relevant discoveries by the Medical Research Council. The council
hoped this would encourage Celltech to collaborate with academia.

鈥業 think he (Fairtlough) believed there was a necessity for industrial
concerns to invest in British academia. But he had forgotten that the first
objective of British industry is to gain money,鈥� Bloxham says.

Fairtlough points out that Celltech鈥檚 planned involvement with academia
through Link projects amounted to only a small percentage of the company鈥檚
expenditure on academic R&D. 鈥榃hat Celltech does and whether the Link
programmes are the best approach for British industry and the scientific
community are separate questions,鈥� he said. He still believes that industry
and academia should collaborate.

Fellner intends Celltech to become a pharmaceuticals company, concentrating
on likely money-spinners, such as cancer therapies and treatments to stop
the body rejecting transplanting organs. The company must bring in hard
cash to offset high spending on research during its first ten years.

Bloxham believes the best way for companies such as Celltech to carry
out external research is to deal with individual university groups. One
of the four projects that Celltech is now involved in has 11 industrial
partners. 鈥榊ou can imagine the nightmare of even 5 or 6 industrial partners
funding one academic centre. At the end of the day what industrial group
owns what?鈥� he says.

The only solution, according to Bloxham, is to ensure the project sticks
to pre-competitive technologies with few short-term applications. But this
means only big companies can afford to indulge in Link, he says. Bloxham
says one of the four Link projects amounts to 鈥榯echnology flowing from a
small Slough-based company to a giant Basel-based company in Switzerland鈥�.

A report published in July by the Science and Engineering Research Council鈥檚
Biological Sciences Committee warns: 鈥楨vidence is accumulating .. that
the chemicals and pharmaceuticals industries are becoming increasingly reluctant
to participate in such programmes.鈥� The four projects to which Celltech
remains committed involve research on carbohydrates, the production of mammalian
cells, drug delivery and catalytic antibodies.