Difference between revisions of "Peter Cotgreave"
(→Working Party on peer review) |
(→Working Party on peer review) |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
*[[Alan Malcolm]] | *[[Alan Malcolm]] | ||
| − | One | + | One ironic omission from the report, given the convergence of the topic of peer review and the special interest in GM of many of the working party members, is the fact that GM crops are authorised on the basis of tests carried out by the GM companies, that are usually neither peer reviewed nor published at the time of authorisation and which have historically been kept secret under 'commercial confidentiality' rules, prior to the intervention of civil society groups and their lawyers.<ref>Antoniou, M., C. Robinson, et al. (2012). [http://bit.ly/O0IAQS GMO myths and truths: An evidence-based examination of the claims made for the safety and efficacy of genetically modified crops]. Earth Open Source.</ref><ref>Séralini, G. E., J. S. de Vendomois, et al. (2009). [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19584953 How subchronic and chronic health effects can be neglected for GMOs, pesticides or chemicals]. Int J Biol Sci 5(5): 438-443.</ref> |
| + | |||
| + | A second irony is the involvement in this working party of [[Peter Lachmann]], who was identified by The Guardian newspaper as having made an aggressive phone call to the editor of The Lancet to try to prevent publication of the research of [[Arpad Pusztai]], which had found ill effects in rats fed GM potatoes - in spite of the fact that the study had passed a more stringent peer review process than was usual (see [[Peter Lachmann]] for details). | ||
==Affiliations== | ==Affiliations== | ||
Revision as of 21:29, 26 November 2012
Dr Peter Cotgreave is director of public affairs at the Royal Society.[1]
On the Spiked website of 2005 he is described as director of the Campaign for Science and Engineering (CaSE).[2] However, he is not listed as a director of the CaSE as at November 2012.[3]
Working Party on peer review
Cotgreave was a member of the Working Party on peer review convened by Sense About Science. Oddly enough, while the topic was the broad one of peer review, many of the other members of the working party occupied a narrow field - they were known proponents of genetically modified (GM) crops. They were:[4]
- Brian Heap
- Derek Bell
- Colin Blakemore
- Tracey Brown
- Peter Cotgreave
- Lord Paul Drayson
- Tony Gilland
- Stevan Harnad
- Peter Lachmann
- John Maddox
- Peter Main
- Alan Malcolm
One ironic omission from the report, given the convergence of the topic of peer review and the special interest in GM of many of the working party members, is the fact that GM crops are authorised on the basis of tests carried out by the GM companies, that are usually neither peer reviewed nor published at the time of authorisation and which have historically been kept secret under 'commercial confidentiality' rules, prior to the intervention of civil society groups and their lawyers.[5][6]
A second irony is the involvement in this working party of Peter Lachmann, who was identified by The Guardian newspaper as having made an aggressive phone call to the editor of The Lancet to try to prevent publication of the research of Arpad Pusztai, which had found ill effects in rats fed GM potatoes - in spite of the fact that the study had passed a more stringent peer review process than was usual (see Peter Lachmann for details).
Affiliations
Views
On biofuels: Cotgreave wrote in an article for The Guardian that he opposed a moratorium on biofuels because "there are examples of 'good' biofuels that can play an immediate part in tackling climate change."[7]
He downplayed reports that biofuels have contributed to the food crisis, arguing, "Biofuels may have played a part in rising food prices but, as the story also mentioned, estimates of the price increase caused by biofuels vary from 3% to 75%."[8]
On biofuels targets, he wrote, "The UK and EU should not scrap biofuels targets but seek to ensure that these are met through the use of sustainable crops that do not take food from people's mouths."[9]
On genetically modified (GM) crops: Cotgreave, in his role with the campaign group Save British Science (later renamed the Campaign for Science and Engineering or CaSE[10]), backed a report that he claimed concluded that "GM foods are unlikely to be a great risk to health". But Pete Riley, then GM campaigner for Friends of the Earth, had a very different interpretation of the same report: "Far from giving GM crops the green light, this report admits that there are gaps in our scientific knowledge and significant uncertainties about the long-term impacts of GM food and crops on our health and environment."[11]
Contact
- Address:
- ...
- ...
- ...
- ...
- Phone:
- ...
- Email:
- ...
- Website:
- ...
Resources
Notes
- ↑ Royal Society (2012) Dr Peter Cotgreave, acc 26 Nov 2012
- ↑ Spiked Online (2005) If you could teach the world just one thing: Dr Peter Cotgreave, acc 26 Nov 2012
- ↑ CaSE (2012) Board of directors, acc 26 Nov 2012
- ↑ Sense About Science (2004) Peer review and the acceptance of new scientific ideas, acc 26 Nov 2012
- ↑ Antoniou, M., C. Robinson, et al. (2012). GMO myths and truths: An evidence-based examination of the claims made for the safety and efficacy of genetically modified crops. Earth Open Source.
- ↑ Séralini, G. E., J. S. de Vendomois, et al. (2009). How subchronic and chronic health effects can be neglected for GMOs, pesticides or chemicals. Int J Biol Sci 5(5): 438-443.
- ↑ Peter Cotgreave, The energy debate needs to be rational - not shrill soundbites The Guardian, 16 Jul 2008, acc 26 Nov 2012
- ↑ Peter Cotgreave, The energy debate needs to be rational - not shrill soundbites The Guardian, 16 Jul 2008, acc 26 Nov 2012
- ↑ Peter Cotgreave, The energy debate needs to be rational - not shrill soundbites The Guardian, 16 Jul 2008, acc 26 Nov 2012
- ↑ CaSE (2012) Our history, acc Nov 26 2012
- ↑ George Wright, GM crops pose low health risk, says report, The Guardian, 21 July 2003, acc 26 Nov 2012
