Flu: The Story of the Great Influenza Pandemic of 1918, a 1999 book by New York Times science reporter Gina Kolata, reminds us that this public health disaster killed at least 20 million people—more than double the number of combat deaths in World War I. In the United States, some 675,000 fell to the “Spanish flu”, almost all of them young adults. These events influence policy-making to this day, sometimes in surprising ways. Consider the flu season of 1975–76, as recounted in the book (and recalled by those of us who were around then).

That year a strain called “swine flu” was giving its victims a typical week’s worth of headaches, sneezing, and fever. But then a soldier, healthy and in his early 20s, died of influenza at Fort Dix in New Jersey. To many in the government and medical communities, it looked like a potential 1918 all over again—or at least 1968, when the “Hong Kong flu” had wiped out some 34,000 U.S. citizens. After much soul-searching and many high-level government meetings, the Gerald Ford administration called for nationwide influenza immunization. All 200 million-plus Americans were asked to get flu shots. That’s where the lawyers came in.

Four drug companies manufactured the vaccine, and before they would provide it to physicians, they asked for—and got—indemnification against lawsuits from anyone who might claim to have been adversely affected by immunization. By act of Congress, all lawsuits alleging injury due to flu shots had to be filed against the U.S. government and not the companies who manufactured the vaccine. And lawsuits there were, by the thousands. By the time it was all over in the early 1980s, a tidal wave of litigation had ensued. People who thought they had contracted Guillian-Barré syndrome, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, polymyositis, and even fainting spells were demanding compensation. By May 1980, almost 4000 claims had been filed seeking more than $3.5 billion in damages.

So what does this have to do with Today’s Chemist at Work? This month, we look at issues related to scientific manipulation of food sources. Our story on page 38 by Assistant Editor Randall Willis looks at how aquatic farming practices and products are being changed by genetic modification and hormone management. As the GMO controversy continues to build, here again people are looking for assurances that the food they consume will not adversely affect their health. This is a reasonable request, just as it was reasonable for people to expect that flu vaccines would not cause harm.

But unfortunately, science typically isn’t that definitive. There always seem to be nuances to data. Very rarely is data regarding public health risks clear-cut, especially since we usually don’t have access to control groups. That uncertainty became a problem in 1975. A small number of people got sick, some with Guillain-Barré syndrome, soon after receiving a flu shot. Was there a relationship? Probably not, but it’s very difficult to convince someone who is ill that the cause of their suffering is unknown and possibly random.

That’s why it seems to me that we’re in a no-win situation with respect to GMO foods for the next few years. There will be no general endorsement of these foods from the government, and some consumers will attribute various illnesses to GMO foods, just as there are still those today who believe that drinking-water fluoridation causes everything from Alzheimer’s disease to cancer.

Those of us who believe that science does more good than harm need to keep promoting its benefits. We also must make sure that those who receive the touted benefits of science understand that there are often risks. But don’t look for the government to indemnify those risks. For the government, it’s a no-win situation.