But 'top-down science' doesn't preclude other forms of working together, does it? And - as with Prof. Witcombe' work, some techniques have the potential to be part of a larger toolkit for more democratic food production.

Are we having an argument about the nature of science? I don't disagree that commerce and research are closely tied in much of the sciences - of course they are. But the point of what we're saying is that you don't change that by destroying publicly funded projects.

You ask "can we really believe this is a redemption project?" I don't understand what you mean. My partner is a plant scientist; perhaps it helps me to see this kind of work up-close, but I don't get how you're framing the Rothamsted project as being part of some vast global GM strategy, as it sounds like you're doing here.

As with so many of these things, we're probably both starting with such very different assumptions, it's quite hard to find a way to talk sensibly about it.