In a 1995 paper, 'Assessing weediness of transgenic crops: industry plays plant ecologist,' Purrington and Bergelson1 criticized the quantity and quality of data used to determine the weediness potential of genetically engineered (GE) crops then under regulatory review.  The implication of the title was that risk assessments need some serious plant ecology that was not being provided by regulatory studies.  Purrington and Bergelson's critique is an example of a widely held view that data obtained by basic ecological research is essential for environmental risk assessment; however, while basic research and risk assessment are similar, there are important differences that, if not recognized, can be detrimental to effective risk assessment.