The debate surrounding the environmental implications of using genetically modified (GM) crops is growing increasingly complex, intense and emotional. This is complicated by the continuing twists and turns as new research is published; the conclusions of which are often misrepresented or even misinterpreted. The extensive media coverage that followed the report on monarch butterflies and transgenic plants expressing Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) toxins 1, work that has subsequently received considerable scientific criticism 2 is a typical example. There have been several other notable studies addressing the ecological effect of insect-resistant GM crops on important non-target beneficial insects, such as ladybirds3, lacewings 4,5 and parasitic wasps 6. A recent study showed the asynchronous development of Bt-resistant and Bt-susceptible pink bollworm larvae reared in greenhouse bioassays 7. Since this study, several questions have been raised concerning the use of the refugia management strategy as a means of reducing the development of resistance by lepidopteran targets on Bt crops. A central premise to the refugia management strategy is that there will be significant interbreeding between resistant and susceptible moths but that there will be little or no assortative mating within strains of moths. These scientific studies, coupled with disputes over the economic and environmental benefits of using Bt crops 8,9 , have intensified the debate rather than building public confidence in GM technology. The credibility of science is jeopardized when the public is not provided with the perspective and context of experiments. This could lead to science being viewed by the public as incapable of providing the credible information needed to resolve complex issues.