Sir, Since my letter of May 21st drew an adverse response from other correspondents, much of it denying the accuracy of my facts (Derry Chambers and Quentin Gargan, May 28th), I hope I might be accorded the right to reply. I can confirm that the facts stated in my letter were accurate.
I have now spoken with Dr Jimmy Burke of Teagasc's Oak Park Research Centre, Carlow, who confirms that Teagasc will conduct the trials concerned in an independent manner, under conditions laid down by the EPA. Dr Burke is a highly respected research scientist and I'm sure the many people in the agricultural sector who know him will attest that he is nobody's stooge.
I feel Mr Gargan might give me credit for agreeing that these issues need debating, since this was the point I made myself in the first sentence of my own letter. However, such a debate needs to be kept clean and honest. My initial criticism of John McKenna's article was that he did not do this when portraying the scientific side of genetic modification. Mr Gargan welcomes both Mr McKenna's feature and my letter as contributions to the debate. However, he criticises me for a perceived inaccuracy, yet not Mr McKenna for phrases such as some tasty scorpion gene.
I'm certain Mr Gargan realises that this is nonsense. I should imagine Mr McKenna does too, and probably intended it to be tongue in cheek, but it conjures a vivid image which is hard to dispel through rational argument.
I too am what Mr Gargan calls an "unpaid volunteer", albeit a reluctant one, since it is certainly not my professional role to be defending the biotechnology industry. I would far rather concentrate my efforts on my academic duties and fundamental research, but felt the absurdities in Mr McKenna's article couldn't be allowed to pass without comment.
My "eulogy of the biotechnology industry", as Derry Chambers puts it, is not uncritical. Both your correspondents might be surprised to learn that some of my views have been robustly attacked recently by a senior representative of that industry. I hope this debate can be sober and reasoned, and not excessively polarised. - Yours, etc.,
Biology Department,
National University of Ireland, Maynooth,
Co Kildare.