Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

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

  • Alan Raybould (a1)

Abstract

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.

    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

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

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

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

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

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

Copyright

Corresponding author

Corresponding author: alan.raybould@syngenta.com

References

Hide All
[1]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: 11411156
[2]Bergelson, J (1994) Changes in fecundity do not predict invasiveness: a model study of transgenic plants. Ecology 75: 249252
[3]Brookes, G, Barfoot, P (2008) Global impact of biotech crops: socio-economic and environmental effects, 1996–2006. AgBioForum 11: 2138
[4]Caley, P, Lonsdale, WM, Pheloung, PC (2006) Quantifying uncertainty in predictions of invasiveness, with emphasis on weed risk assessment. Biol. Invasions 8: 15951604
[5]Chapman, PM, Fairbrother, A, Brown, D (1998) A critical evaluation of safety (uncertainty) factors for ecological risk assessment. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 17: 99108
[6]Craig, W, Tepfer, M, Degrassi, G, Ripandelli, D (2008) An overview of general features of risk assessments of genetically modified crops. Euphytica 164: 853880
[7]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: 274280
[8]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: 387396
[9]Economidis I, Cichocka D, Högel J eds (2010) A decade of EU-funded GMO research (2001–2010). Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg
[10]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: 5765
[11]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: 31773189
[12]Hill, RA, Sendashonga, C (2003) General principles for risk assessment of living modified organisms: lessons from chemical risk assessment. Environ. Biosafety Res. 2: 8188
[13]Johnson, KL, Raybould, AF, Hudson, MD, Poppy, GM (2007) How does scientific risk assessment fit within the wider risk analysis? Trends Plant Sci. 12: 15
[14]Keeler, KH (1989) Can genetically engineered crops become weeds? Bio/technology 7: 11341137
[15]Kessler C, Economidis I eds (2001) EC-Sponsored Research on Safety of Genetically Modified Organisms. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg
[16]Lawton, JH (2007) Ecology, politics and policy. J. Appl. Ecol. 44: 465474
[17]Lubechenko, J (1998) Entering the century of the environment: a new social contract for science. Science 279: 491497
[18]Marvier, M, McCreedy, C, Regetz, J, Kareiva, P (2007) A meta-analysis of effects of Bt cotton and maize on nontarget invertebrates. Science 316: 14751477
[19]Maule, AJ, Caranta, C, Boulton, MI (2007) Sources of natural resistance to plant viruses: status and prospects. Mol. Plant Pathol. 8: 223231
[20]McHughen, A, Smyth, S (2008) US regulatory system for genetically modified [genetically modified organism (GMO), rDNA or transgenic] crop cultivars. Plant Biotechnol. J. 6: 212
[21]National Research Council (2002) Environmental Effects of Transgenic Plants: the Scope and Adequacy of Regulation. National Academy Press, Washington
[22]Nickson, TE (2008) Planning environmental risk assessment for genetically modified crops. Plant Physiol. 147: 494502
[23]Patton, DE (1998) Environmental risk assessment: tasks and obligations. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 4: 657670
[24]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: 239251
[25]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: 120
[26]Popper KR (1959) The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Hutchinson, London
[27]Popper KR (1979) Objective Knowledge: an Evolutionary Approach. Oxford University Press, Oxford
[28]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
[29]Raybould, A (2006) Problem formulation and hypothesis testing for environmental risk assessments of genetically modified crops. Environ. Biosafety Res. 5: 119125
[30]Raybould, A (2007) Ecological versus ecotoxicological methods for assessing the environmental risks of transgenic crops. Plant Sci. 173: 589602
[31]Raybould, A (2010) Reducing uncertainty in regulatory decision-making for transgenic crops: more ecological research or clearer environmental risk assessment? GM Crops 1: 2531
[32]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: 125140
[33]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
[34]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
[35]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: 391399
[36]Raybould, A, Tuttle, A, Shore, S, Stone, T (2010) Environmental risk assessments for transgenic crops with enzyme-based output traits. Transgenic Res. 19: 595609
[37]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
[38]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: 301329
[39]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: 203208
[40]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: 235278
[41]Smith, CS, Lonsdale, WM, Fortune, J (1999) When to ignore advice: invasion predictions and decision theory. Biol. Invasions 1: 8996
[42]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: 17791799
[43]Stone, LM, Byrne, M, Virtue, JG (2008) An environmental weed risk assessment model for Australian forage improvement programs. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 48: 568574
[44]Suter, GW (1990) Endpoints for regional ecological risk assessments. Environ. Manage. 14: 923
[45]Suter, GW (1996) Abuse of hypothesis testing statistics in ecological risk assessment. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 2: 331347
[46]Sutherland, J, Poppy, G (2005) Risk assessment of Bacillus thuringiensis in wild Brassica rapa: a field simulation of introgressed transgenes. J. Plant Interact. 1: 3138
[47]Touart, LW, Maciorowski, AF (1997) Information needs for pesticide registration in the United States. Ecol. Appl. 7: 10861093
[48]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
[49]Warwick, SI, Beckie, HJ, Hall, LM (2009) Gene flow, invasiveness, and ecological impact of genetically modified crops. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1168: 7299
[50]Wilkinson, M, Tepfer, M (2009) Fitness and beyond: preparing for the arrival of GM crops with ecologically important novel characters. Environ. Biosafety Res. 8: 114
[51]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: 425436

Keywords

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

  • Alan Raybould (a1)

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed