%0 Journal Article
%T Underlying reasons of the controversy over adverse effects of Bt toxins on lady beetle and lacewing larvae
%A Angelika Hilbeck
%A Matthias Meier
%A Miluse Trtikova
%J Environmental Sciences Europe
%D 2012
%I BioMed Central
%R 10.1186/2190-4715-24-9
%X In 2008/2009, Schmidt and colleagues [1] published a study reporting lethal effects of the microbial Bt toxins Cry1Ab and Cry3Bb on the biological control organisms Adalia bipunctata, a lady beetle. Based on this study and in concert with at least 30 other publications, Mon810 cultivation was banned in Germany in 2009. This policy response triggered two commentaries and one experimental study all published in the journal Transgenic Research that question the scientific basis of the German ban or claim to disprove the adverse effects of the Bt toxins on A. bipunctata reported by Schmidt and colleagues, respectively [2-4]. In a parallel paper, we report new data of a study that was undertaken to investigate the underlying reasons for the different outcomes and rebut some of the scientific aspects of the criticism voiced in the three publications. Here, we wish to take the opportunity to comment on some broader scientific aspects and issues that go beyond the experimental science delivered in the parallel paper. Given the strong language and the seemingly concerted effort we were confronted with in these three counter papers and, of course, in blogs and other fora, we find it justified, even necessary to, at least once, offer our evaluation and position on these criticisms.In principle, we welcome the fact that our studies continue to stimulate debate and occasionally more research. However, it is unfortunate that the study by Alvarez-Alfageme et al. [2] was apparently set up primarily with the aim of disproving the results reported by Schmidt et al. [1]. Of course, any science has to withstand attempts at falsification just as any research result stands until new data emerges, pushing the frontiers of knowledge forward. However, the uncalled for, unnecessarily confrontational, and at times rather disrespectful unscientific nature of the language chosen obviously indicates deeper underlying issues. Other such confrontational responses and deliberate counter studies com
%U http://www.enveurope.com/content/24/1/9