In a Nature commentary about the Seralini paper, Francois Houllier asks "How do we address the questions about the impact of GM crops, and how do we prevent this kind of negative reaction?" He then suggests more public finding for risk-benefit analyses, as well as "proper academic standards" - specifically, allowing data to be inspected and outside experts to comment on the results (these standards are notably lacking in the Seralini paper). He also points to a GM grapevine rootstock study that was publicly funded with no intention to develop a commercial variety, but nevertheless vandalized.
He concludes, "As scientists, we must champion the multiple concerns of society, even when they make a contradictory call for more innovation as well as more precaution."
Here's the link: