David DicksonThe G8 group of the leaders of the world’slargest industrialized nations agreed at theirannual meeting last weekend on the need toaccelerate the application of a “science-based, rule-based” approach to ensuringfood safety — including the regulation ofgenetically modified (GM) crops.

But the meeting failed to bridge a splitover political strategy on handling GMfoods. US President Bill Clinton, backed byBritish Prime Minister Tony Blair, arguedthat their future regulation “should be basedon science”. In response, Blair was reportedto have said that consumers needed “the bestscience available. You get the real facts, notthe prejudices.”

In contrast, other members of the Euro-pean Union called for a more ‘precautionary’approach, and a greater involvement of con-sumer associations and other interest groupsin decision-making on the safety of GMfoods — neither of which appeal to the USbiotechnology industry.

The final communiqué of the three-daymeeting, held in the Japanese city of Oki-nawa, attempted to reach a compromise. Thedocument pledges the support of the G8leaders to efforts “to achieve greater consen-sus on how precaution should be applied tofood safety in circumstances where availablescientific information is incomplete or con-tradictory”.

But, in a further indicator of the split, themeeting failed to endorse a proposal to set upan international forum to assess both the sci-ence and the social implications of GMfoods. This had been suggested by a numberof senior scientists, including John Krebs,head of Britain’s Food Standards Agency, ata meeting in Edinburgh earlier this year,organized in response to concerns about GMcrops voiced at last year’s G8 summit (seeNature 404, 112; 2000).

Supporters of the proposed forum hadargued that such a body could take its modelfrom the successful operation of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change,using the scientific dimensions of the debateas a framework within which to construct adialogue between participants with widelydiffering views.

But the United States, keen to limit oppo-sition to its agribiotech industry, is saidto have remained firmly opposed to any suchinitiative. Reflecting this view, a proposalthat such a committee be set up by the Paris-based Organization for Economic Coopera-tion and Development was rejected earlierthis year.

Similarly, the proposal was merely“noted” in the summit’s final communiqué ,with the G8 leaders only promising toexplore “in consultation with international

organizations and interested bodies includ-ing scientific academies” how to integrate“the best scientific knowledge available” intoa global consensus on biotechnology.

In the same document, the G8 leadersalso welcomed the “nearly complete” map-ping of the human genome. They calledfor “further rapid release of all raw funda-mental data on human DNA sequences assuch” — thus aligning themselves with thebilateral appeal on the same issue made byClinton and Blair in March (see Nature 404,324–325; 2000).

In addition, the leaders emphasized “theimportance of pursuing the post-genome-sequence research on the basis of multilateralcollaboration”. And although declining toendorse proposals that are said to have beenput to the meeting for a new initiative toharmonize international rules on gene

news

NATURE | VOL 406 | 27 JULY 2000 | www.nature.com 335

patenting, they did agree on “the need for abalanced and equitable intellectual propertyprotection for gene-based inventions”. ■

Summit leaders fail to bridge GM food split

Odd two out? Clinton and Blair oppose Europe’smore ‘precautionary’ approach to biotechnology.

Natasha Loder, LondonInformation technology, bioinformatics,nanotechnology and post-genomic researchare all set for a funding boost from the UKgovernment. They are some of the areas ofinterest identified by the UK researchcouncils in their bid for a share of the extraspending on science announced last week(Nature 406, 225; 2000).

Over the next three months, the researchcouncils will battle it out to see how much ofthese extra funds each will receive. Theprecise allocation will not be announceduntil the autumn. Overall, the sciencebudget will grow by more than 4% over theprevious year in each of the next three years.

In addition to next year’s increase, thegovernment is to provide an extra £50million (US$76 million) fund for recruitingand retaining top academics. Although littlehas yet been announced about how this fundwill operate, it might be used to top-up thesalaries of high-performing academics in abid to make their income moreinternationally competitive, reducing therisks of them leaving the country.

The Association of University Teacherstrade union says that it expects paymentsfrom the fund to be linked to improvementsin management performance. A 23%increase to the stipends of research studentshas already been announced (Nature 406,113–114; 2000).

The overall settlement has been warmlygreeted both by the individual researchcouncils and by the Royal Society. “Thebroad message is we are very happy,” saysBob Ward, manager of the science advicesection of the Royal Society. “We wereamazed that the government appears to haveaddressed all the main areas we wereworried about.”

But universities must still find £1 forevery £3 of taxpayers’ money invested inresearch infrastructure — an attempt toencourage them to strengthen their linkswith business. ■

UK science plans spending spree

AP

Cross-council● Bioinformatics ● Post-genome research● Advanced computing and ‘the Grid’

Particle Physics and Astronomy ResearchCouncil● Application of the Gridto Large Hadron Collider● UK membership ofEuropean SouthernObservatory*

Engineering andPhysical SciencesResearch Council● Nanotechnology and quantum computing ● Photonics

*This requires thegovernment to fund aseparate request for theone-off entry fee

Biotechnology andBiological SciencesResearch Council● Functional andstructural genomics ● Application of the Gridto accessing and mani-pulating data generatedthrough genomics● Nanobiotechnologyand bioscienceengineering

Medical ResearchCouncil● Application of genomicsto human health● Health of the public

Natural EnvironmentResearch Council● Environmental genomics● Sustainable land use ● Application of the Gridto climate modelling

Research council priorities in bids for new money

© 2000 Macmillan Magazines Ltd