Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T00:08:27.101Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The bucket and the searchlight: formulating and testing risk hypotheses about the weediness and invasiveness potential of transgenic crops

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 April 2011

Alan Raybould
Alan Raybould*
Affiliation:
Syngenta, Jealott’s Hill International Research Centre, Bracknell, Berkshire RG42 6EY, UK
*
∗ Corresponding author: [email protected]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The bucket and the searchlight are metaphors for opposing theories of the growth of scientific knowledge. The bucket theory proposes that knowledge is gained by observing the world without preconceptions, and that knowledge emerges from the accumulation of observations that support a hypothesis. There are many problems with this theory, the most serious of which is that it does not appear to offer a means to distinguish between the many hypotheses that could explain a particular set of observations. The searchlight theory proposes that preconceptions are unavoidable and that knowledge advances through the improvement of our preconceptions – our hypotheses – by continuous criticism and revision. A hypothesis is a searchlight that illuminates observations that test the hypothesis and reveal its flaws, and knowledge thereby increases through the elimination of false hypotheses. Research into the risks posed by the cultivation of transgenic crops often appears to apply the bucket theory; many data are produced, but knowledge of risk is not advanced. Application of the searchlight theory, whereby risk assessments test hypotheses that transgenic crops will not be harmful, seems to offer a better way to characterise risk. The effectiveness of an environmental risk assessment should not be measured by the size of the bucket of observations on a transgenic crop, but by the power of the risk hypothesis searchlights to clarify the risks that may arise from cultivation of that crop. These points are illustrated by examples of hypotheses that could be tested to assess the risks from transgenic crops and their hybrids becoming weeds or invading non-agricultural habitats.

Keywords

risk assessmentproblem formulationdata requirementsscientific methodrisk characterisation
Type
Opinion paper
Information
Environmental Biosafety Research , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , July 2010 , pp. 123 - 133
Copyright
© ISBR, EDP Sciences, 2011

References

Bennett, SJ, Virtue, JG (2004) Salinity mitigation versus weed risks – can conflicts of interest in introducing new plants be resolved? Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 44: 1141–1156 Google Scholar
Bergelson, J (1994) Changes in fecundity do not predict invasiveness: a model study of transgenic plants. Ecology 75: 249–252 Google Scholar
Brookes, G, Barfoot, P (2008) Global impact of biotech crops: socio-economic and environmental effects, 1996–2006. AgBioForum 11: 21–38 Google Scholar
Caley, P, Lonsdale, WM, Pheloung, PC (2006) Quantifying uncertainty in predictions of invasiveness, with emphasis on weed risk assessment. Biol. Invasions 8: 1595–1604 Google Scholar
Chapman, PM, Fairbrother, A, Brown, D (1998) A critical evaluation of safety (uncertainty) factors for ecological risk assessment. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 17: 99–108 Google Scholar
Craig, W, Tepfer, M, Degrassi, G, Ripandelli, D (2008) An overview of general features of risk assessments of genetically modified crops. Euphytica 164: 853–880 Google Scholar
Cummings, CL, Alexander, HM (2002) Population ecology of wild sunflowers: effects of seed density and post-dispersal vertebrate seed predation on numbers of plants per patch and seed production. Oecologia 130: 274–280 Google Scholar
Dear, BS, Ewing, MA (2008) The search for new pasture plants to achieve more sustainable production systems in southern Australia. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 48: 387–396 Google Scholar
Economidis I, Cichocka D, Högel J eds (2010) A decade of EU-funded GMO research (2001–2010). Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg
Garcia-Alonso, M, Jacobs, E, Raybould, A, Nickson, TE, Sowig, P, Willekens, H, van der Kouwe, P, Layton, R, Amijee, F, Fuentes, AM, Tencalla, F (2006) A tiered system for assessing the risk of genetically modified plants to non-target organisms. Environ. Biosafety Res. 5: 57–65 Google ScholarPubMed
Halfhill, MD, Sutherland, JP, Moon, HS, Poppy, GM, Warwick, SI, Weissing, AK, Rufty, TW, Raymer, PL, Stewart, CN (2005) Growth, productivity, and competitiveness of introgressed weedy Brassica rapa hybrids selected for the presence of Bt cry1Ac and gfp transgenes. Mol. Ecol. 14: 3177–3189 Google ScholarPubMed
Hill, RA, Sendashonga, C (2003) General principles for risk assessment of living modified organisms: lessons from chemical risk assessment. Environ. Biosafety Res. 2: 81–88 Google ScholarPubMed
Johnson, KL, Raybould, AF, Hudson, MD, Poppy, GM (2007) How does scientific risk assessment fit within the wider risk analysis? Trends Plant Sci. 12: 1–5 Google ScholarPubMed
Keeler, KH (1989) Can genetically engineered crops become weeds? Bio/technology 7: 1134–1137 Google Scholar
Kessler C, Economidis I eds (2001) EC-Sponsored Research on Safety of Genetically Modified Organisms. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg
Lawton, JH (2007) Ecology, politics and policy. J. Appl. Ecol. 44: 465–474 Google Scholar
Lubechenko, J (1998) Entering the century of the environment: a new social contract for science. Science 279: 491–497 Google Scholar
Marvier, M, McCreedy, C, Regetz, J, Kareiva, P (2007) A meta-analysis of effects of Bt cotton and maize on nontarget invertebrates. Science 316: 1475–1477 Google ScholarPubMed
Maule, AJ, Caranta, C, Boulton, MI (2007) Sources of natural resistance to plant viruses: status and prospects. Mol. Plant Pathol. 8: 223–231 Google ScholarPubMed
McHughen, A, Smyth, S (2008) US regulatory system for genetically modified [genetically modified organism (GMO), rDNA or transgenic] crop cultivars. Plant Biotechnol. J. 6: 2–12 Google ScholarPubMed
National Research Council (2002) Environmental Effects of Transgenic Plants: the Scope and Adequacy of Regulation. National Academy Press, Washington
Nickson, TE (2008) Planning environmental risk assessment for genetically modified crops. Plant Physiol. 147: 494–502 Google ScholarPubMed
Patton, DE (1998) Environmental risk assessment: tasks and obligations. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 4: 657–670 Google Scholar
Pheloung, PC, Williams, PA, Halloy, SR (1999) A weed risk assessment model for use as a biosecurity tool evaluating plant introductions. J. Environ. Manage. 57: 239–251 Google Scholar
Pimentel, D, McNair, S, Janecka, J, Wightman, J, Simmonds, C, O’Connell, C, Wong, E, Russel, L, Zern, J, Aquino, T, Tsomondo, T (2001) Economic and environmental threats of alien plant, animal, and microbe invasions. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 84: 1–20 Google Scholar
Popper KR (1959) The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Hutchinson, London
Popper KR (1979) Objective Knowledge: an Evolutionary Approach. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Raybould A (2005) Assessing the environmental risks of transgenic volunteer weeds. In Gressel J, ed, Crop Ferality and Volunteerism, CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 389–401
Raybould, A (2006) Problem formulation and hypothesis testing for environmental risk assessments of genetically modified crops. Environ. Biosafety Res. 5: 119–125 Google ScholarPubMed
Raybould, A (2007) Ecological versus ecotoxicological methods for assessing the environmental risks of transgenic crops. Plant Sci. 173: 589–602 Google Scholar
Raybould, A (2010) Reducing uncertainty in regulatory decision-making for transgenic crops: more ecological research or clearer environmental risk assessment? GM Crops 1: 25–31 Google ScholarPubMed
Raybould, AF, Cooper, JI (2005) Tiered tests to assess the environmental risk of fitness changes in hybrids between transgenic crops and wild relatives: the example of virus resistant Brassica napus. Environ. Biosafety Res. 4: 125–140 Google ScholarPubMed
Raybould AF, Wilkinson MJ (2005) Assessing the environmental risks of gene flow from genetically modified crops to wild relatives. In Poppy GM, Wilkinson MJ, eds, Gene Flow from GM Plants, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, pp 169–185
Raybould AF, Moyes CL, Maskell LC, Mogg RJ, Warman EA, Warlaw JC, Elmes GW, Edwards M-L, Cooper JI, Clarke RT, Gray AJ (1999) Predicting the ecological impacts of transgenes for insect and virus resistance in natural and feral populations of Brassica species. In Ammann K, Jacot Y, Simonsen V, Kjellsson, eds, Methods of Risk Assessment of Transgenic Plants, III. Ecological risks and prospects of transgenic plants, Bïrkhäuser Verlag, Basel, pp 3–15
Raybould, A, Stacey, D, Vlachos, D, Graser, G, Li, X, Joseph, R (2007) Non-target organism risk assessment of MIR604 maize expressing mCry3A for control of corn rootworm. J. Appl. Entomol. 131: 391–399 Google Scholar
Raybould, A, Tuttle, A, Shore, S, Stone, T (2010) Environmental risk assessments for transgenic crops with enzyme-based output traits. Transgenic Res. 19: 595–609 Google Scholar
Raybould A, Caron-Lormier G, Bohan DA (2011) The derivation and interpretation of hazard quotients to assess the ecological risks from the cultivation of insect-resistant transgenic crops. J. Agric. Food Chem., DOI: 10.1021/jf1042079
Rogers, ME, Craig, AD, Munns, RE, Colmer, TD, Nichols, PGH, Malcolm, CV, Barrett-Lennard, EG, Brown, AJ, Semple, WS, Evans, PM, Cowley, K, Hughes, SJ, Snowball, R, Bennett, SJ, Sweeney, GC, Dear, BS, Ewing, MA (2005) The potential for developing fodder plants for the salt-affected areas of southern and eastern Australia: an overview. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 45: 301–329 Google Scholar
Romeis, J, Bartsch, D, Bigler, F, Candolfi, MP, Gielkens, MMC, Hartley, SE, Hellmich, RL, Huesing, JE, Jepson, PC, Layton, R, Quemada, H, Raybould, A, Rose, RI, Schiemann, J, Sears, MK, Shelton, AM, Sweet, J, Vaituzis, Z, Wolt, JD (2008) Assessment of risk of insect-resistant transgenic crops to nontarget arthropods. Nature Biotech. 26: 203–208 Google ScholarPubMed
Sanvido, O, Romeis, J, Bigler, F (2007) Ecological impacts of genetically engineered crops: ten years of field research and commercial cultivation. Adv. Biochem. Engin. / Biotechnol. 107: 235–278 Google Scholar
Smith, CS, Lonsdale, WM, Fortune, J (1999) When to ignore advice: invasion predictions and decision theory. Biol. Invasions 1: 89–96 Google Scholar
Squire, GR, Brooks, DR, Bohan, DA, Champion, GT, Daniels, RE, Haughton, AJ, Hawes, C, Heard, MS, Hill, MO, May, MJ, Osborne, JL, Perry, JN, Roy, DB, Woiwood, IP, Firbank, LG (2003) On the rationale and interpretation of the Farm Scale Evaluations of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 358: 1779–1799 Google ScholarPubMed
Stone, LM, Byrne, M, Virtue, JG (2008) An environmental weed risk assessment model for Australian forage improvement programs. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 48: 568–574 Google Scholar
Suter, GW (1990) Endpoints for regional ecological risk assessments. Environ. Manage. 14: 9–23 Google Scholar
Suter, GW (1996) Abuse of hypothesis testing statistics in ecological risk assessment. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 2: 331–347 Google Scholar
Sutherland, J, Poppy, G (2005) Risk assessment of Bacillus thuringiensis in wild Brassica rapa: a field simulation of introgressed transgenes. J. Plant Interact. 1: 31–38 Google Scholar
Touart, LW, Maciorowski, AF (1997) Information needs for pesticide registration in the United States. Ecol. Appl. 7: 1086–1093 Google Scholar
Warwick SI, Stewart CN (2005) Crops come from wild plants – how domestication, transgenes and linkage together shape ferality. In Gressel J, ed, Crop Ferality and Volunteerism, CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 9–30
Warwick, SI, Beckie, HJ, Hall, LM (2009) Gene flow, invasiveness, and ecological impact of genetically modified crops. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1168: 72–99 Google Scholar
Wilkinson, M, Tepfer, M (2009) Fitness and beyond: preparing for the arrival of GM crops with ecologically important novel characters. Environ. Biosafety Res. 8: 1–14 Google Scholar
Wolt, J, Keese, P, Raybould, A, Fitzpatrick, JW, Burachik, M, Gray, A, Olin, SS, Schiemann, J, Sears, M, Wu, F (2010) Problem formulation in the environmental risk assessment for genetically modified plants. Transgenic Res. 19: 425–436 Google ScholarPubMed