title: Stretched peer-review on unexpected results (GMOs).
abstract: Science is the basis for governance of risk from genetically modified organisms (GMO), and it is also a primary source of legitimacy for policy decision. However, recently the publication of unexpected results has caused controversies and challenged the way in which science should be performed, be published in scientific journals, and how preliminary results should be communicated. These studies have subsequently, after being accepted for publication within the peer-review process of leading scientific journals, been thoroughly re-examined by many actors active within the GMO debate and thereby drawn extensive media coverage. The publicized charges that the research involved does not constitute significant evidence or represent bad science have in fact deflected attention away from the important questions related to ecological and health risks raised by the research. In this paper, I will argue that unexpected findings may represent "early warnings." Although early warnings may not represent reality, such reports are necessary to inform other scientists and regulators, and should be followed up by further research to reveal the validity of the warnings. Furthermore, science that embraces robust, participatory and transparent approaches will be imperative in the future to reduce the present controversy surrounding GMO use and release.
authors.affiliation: Norwegian Institute of Gene Ecology, The Science Park, Tromsø, Norway. annem@fagmed.uit.no
authors.forename: A I
authors.initials: AI
authors.lastname: Myhr
mesh_terms: D004782:Environmental Health; D030781:Organisms, Genetically Modified; D010380:Peer Review; D018570:Risk Assessment; D035501:Uncertainty