On 18 June 2003, just before the first strand of the UK government’s three‐strand (scientific, economic and social) inquiry into genetically modified (GM) foods was to publish its conclusions,1 The...

Abstract This short reply to criticism of an original paper demonstrates how the critics themselves reflect the limitations originally pointed to. Public dialogue in science is about form not content. Nervous officials, and sadly a few scientists themselves, feel that they need to be seen to consult on such matters with ordinary people. They are creating a new system of patronage in the process. An army of self?appointed communications experts also go so far as to suggest that this makes for (...) better science. This projects a narrow utilitarian or instrumentalist model whereby science should serve certain pre?determined social goals. This debases science, discrediting its institutions and accentuating the very problem they seek to solve. (shrink)