Transgenic Communication

EFSA, the European Food Safety Agency, has received many criticisms these last months. After a bitter controversy between a group of researchers and EFSA experts (http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v13/n2/full/embor2011254a.html), Science publishes today an interesting opinion  article on systematic communication failures at EFSA, and highlights the negative perception that might arise from the fact that many researchers are “too close” to biotech companies: http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/09/report-efsa-is-sufficiently-inde.html

Regarding the uncomfortable ties of the EFSA experts and the industry, Monica Macovei, a member of the European proposes a "cooling-down period" of 3 to 5 years for experts switching from industry to EFSA or back”. And she adds "If the best expert has worked for the industry, no problem. But be transparent about it. That is the least they can do." This seems reasonable: public opinion must trust EFSA. But if we take literally many of the arguments given in Science’s article today, it seems that the best expert in terms of public perception is the one not having any link with the technology he/she is evaluating. Communication in science (yes, all this is about science) is indeed imperative, but not at any cost.