【微观察】一篇影响因子不很高的论文，引起全球的关注，其实际影响力已经超过了美国的《科学》和英国的《自然》，通过专家评审正式发表的论文，却不是因为学术问题而撤稿，背后的利益之争是相当激烈的。问题是，撤稿的理由是捏造的，且捏造的相当荒唐。明显造假的论文不撤稿，严谨第一手数据的论文却遭人暗算。具体原因，且听留美学者直言了先生的分析。 科学也会很无耻。 直言了，2013-12-04 | 2013-12-5 14:32:17 http://zhiyanle.blog.hexun.com/90345093_d.html . 关于学术杂志服从孟山都公司商业意志而撤掉法国学者塞拉利尼调查报告论文的事情，新华社做了报道。我很同意吕永远先生等人的批评见解：该媒体报道只报道撤稿方故事和理由、却不报道被撤方和国际社会学界的故事和理由（尽管新华社记者编辑上网做做查询、那些信息是垂手可得的），用虚假信息或至少是片面信息搞挺转宣传的倾向足够明显。下面，就本人所见所闻来说说新华社报道没告诉您的一些相关事实。 一：撤稿的理由是捏造的、且捏造得很荒唐。 那整个故事情节不复杂：法国学者塞拉利尼的调查报告论文说明了老鼠长期食用转基因食品可发生病变、因而相关观察实验不能只是90天。该调查结果粉碎了孟山都等转基因种子公司规定的相关实验只要90天的所谓“规范”，当然，妨碍了转基因食品商业利益，孟山都公司就要想方设法地铲除那样的调查报告；14个月后，终于搞通了发表报告的学术杂志、把法国学者的论文撤掉，理由是该报告的对癌症肿瘤的 风险调查来说、数据“不完整”。 按照欧美学界规范，因数据问题撤稿，成因大体是：一是数据作弊即涉及学术不端问题，这是要有道德规范惩罚的；二是数据本身有错误而难以成立、但因正直错误造成而不实行道德规范惩罚。 法国学者的调查报告论文之数据，与上述两个成因都是毫无关系的。诚如福布斯等欧美媒体报道所说，欧美学界一些人指明，该调查数据既没任何作弊问题、本身也没任何错误（对任何统计数据，目标不同、审视、分析和应用角度也不同；那些不同不是数据本身的错误导致）；所谓“不完整”的借口也不成立：该调查及报告的目标并非是肿瘤癌症问题，而是超过90天食用转基因食品是否会发生病变（有常识就该知道：就此实验目标，不要说一组或更多的样品老鼠发生了病变，就是发生一例、也足以说明病变可能存在、即该调查报告成立）。此外，该调查实验方法采用的主要就是孟山都公司自己的方法、不同点是食用观察时间的长短而已；由此，法国学者的为时720天的实验数据“不完整”、而孟山都公司90天的实验数据倒是“完整”了？ 可见，该杂志的撤稿理由整个就是捏造、且捏造得十分荒唐，其撤稿行为是违背了国际学术规范的。大概正因为如此吧，那些欧美媒体报道说，该学术杂志不但面临服从商业利益而违背学术规范的信用危机问题，且还面临被撤稿方把该杂志告上法庭的法律责任问题。 注：其实，不管该官司结果如何，撤稿难以挽回转基因食品全球化在欧洲和发达国家的惨败命运：首先，转基因种子公司已被赶出了欧洲市场，而法国德国等发达国家早在塞拉利尼报告发表之前、就已经采取严限或禁止转基因食品作物商业化的政策措施了。其次，美国本身也正在开始纠正或抛弃转基因食品作物商业化的进程了，譬如：夏威夷通过了严限转基因作物商业化的法规、加州等正考虑采取同样措施；要求转基食品标识的立法工作此起彼伏，不管成败，许多食品公司由此听到了消费者拒绝转基因食品的强烈呼声、决定或已开始采取拒绝出售含有转基因成分的食品的管理措施。第三，美国官方已经在联合国会议表态、不反对转基食品标识的贸易立法，意味着美国官方已经开始抛弃转基食品作物商业化所依据的“实质等同”原则，……。简而言之，转基因化工食品就是含有毒素农药的有害食品或垃圾食品；跟其它垃圾食品或有害食品被淘汰一样，转基因化工食品被淘汰是必然趋势。 一：挺转数据作弊，却拒绝撤稿、甚至拒绝改正。 就本人的一段亲身经历，来看看挺转帮的表现。那是2010年，我与纽约时报的一位资深记者发生了一个关于挺转或反转的双方谁的数据可靠的讨论。讨论后，我看到所谓“权威”学术刊物《科学》发表的一篇调查报告论文，鼓吹孟山都公司等转基因种子为美国某农区农户带来了多大“经济效益”、譬如收入多大多高等等。因当时讨论数据可靠性，我就格外注意该论文的数据如何，发现那是作弊夸张。估计没多少人对那报告数据数字做字字阅读，这里就用简单比方来说说它搞作弊伪造的主要手段： 净水原料出售：10美元；咖啡原料出售：15美元；咖啡成品出售：30美元；合计收入：55美元。 鉴于咖啡成品包括水份和咖啡原料，论文把咖啡成品收入添加到净水和咖啡原料，为： 净水出售：10+30=40美元；咖啡原料出售：15+30=45美元；合计收入：40+45=85美元。 显然，知道小学算术就该知道，那是用重叠加法搞了数字夸张、即虚假数据。您把净水、咖啡原料和咖啡成品换成BT类型、HT类型和STACKED类型的转基因作物，那就是该报告的数据手段。 我指出了该报告数据系伪造作弊。开始，他们狡辩；后来，我说：那好，请你们说明获得所谓“经济效益”和多大收入的具体农户名单，我就请美国税务局按照你们报告说的收入数据去征税；否则，你们就是逃税、是故意犯法。这一来，报告的数据作者成了哑巴、以此表示拒绝改正虚假数据的立场；而《科学》杂志呢，明明知道和不得不承认了那报告使用的是故意伪造的虚假数据来为转基因商业做宣传服务、是应该按照学术刊物规范做处理的，可却耍赖、把他们编辑部的责任推到了我这读者的头上。譬如，该编辑部给我的相关信件说： Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 18:04:56： I apologize for the long delay in reply but there was some question regarding who should handle your request and there was some delay due to the Thanksgiving and end of year Holidays. We have looked over your comment and wanted to inform you that we only issues corrections from the author. It seems you have already discussed this with the author and they have declined so we will uphold their decision in this matter. 大意说，既然我已经向作者指明了问题，那该杂志就尊重作者的立场（即以哑巴方式拒绝改错）。于是，我回答该杂志编辑部，说： Sent: Fri 1/07/11 12:01 PM： The mentioned data is obviously wrong. How to avoid knowingly misleading/how to make a correction is an obligation/integrity issue of your author(s) and of your magazine, which published the information, and not of the reader. I do not want to see this matter snowball. A public correction should be made. 大意说：很明显，所说数据是错误数据。针对故意误导的错误数据，如何防范等等是你们编辑部和作者的责任、而不是读者的责任。我不想看到这件事情成为“滚雪球”。（当时，我看到那些报告背后可能有联邦官员的参与、甚至可能与联邦预算有关。在美国，通过虚假统计数据搞联邦预算或获得联邦资助，那不但是政治丑闻且属于刑事犯罪。我不想搞什么“学术打假”而使之成为政治丑闻。因此，我对该杂志编辑部说了，我不想看到那个本来是一个声明就可解决的问题、象滚雪球一样越搞越大。）。 一：科学也会很无耻。 以上两个案例，都是跟调查数据有关，可对比十分鲜明：指明了转基因食品作物有危害风险的调查报告，被扣上莫须有的罪名而予以撤稿；而用伪造数据和虚假信息为转基因商业服务的调查报告却受到权威科学刊物的袒护而可逍遥法外。两个例子都说明：科学可以走向高尚、更可以是很无耻的。 按说，科学也会很无耻，应该不是新鲜事。有作品《拿破仑以后的欧洲简史》的“19世纪的两类文化”篇章说：工业革命和现代化创造了两类新的世俗文化，其中一类是“科学”的“世俗化”（尤其是产业化或商业化），即：“科学”在宗教经院的象牙塔里发展为独立而走了出来、成为世俗社会的一个文化组成部分；因此，世俗社会的生活有什么欢乐，科学就可以给人们带来什么欢乐；同样，世俗社会有什么诈骗和罪恶行径，科学也都可以做得出来；由于“科学”和“科学家”往往以“真理”和“真理代言人”的面目出现，因而，“科学”搞诈骗的欺骗性更大、其犯罪行径之危害性更大，甚至是前所未有的；越是落后愚昧的地方，“科学”出来搞欺骗和犯罪等无耻行为就越容易发生、破坏性也越大。 比较看看：转基因食品作物的推销行为是很厚颜无耻和不择手段的，其手段包括上述的掩盖事实和封杀真话、或是用伪造数据搞欺骗。在中国，其手段还包括官商勾结公开搞各种营私舞弊而逍遥法外，还有打击报复、砸饭碗、造谣诽谤、政治攻击、软禁，还有莫名其妙的桑律师的死亡，等等。不过分地说，在中国，转基因食品推销是建国以来规模最大和程度最严重的商业诈骗活动，其旗号就是“科学”、其推销人往往以“科学家”、“院士”或“科学共同体”等面目出现。 再来比较看看：孟山都和盖兹基金会大力推销转基因食品，可他们自己却是使用天然有机食品和避免转基因食品的；同样，中国农业部官员以“科学”旗号大力诱骗民众食用转基因化工食品，可他们自己却有食堂制度保障他们和他们的子女能享用天然有机食品和避免转基因食品。嘿嘿，不管洋的还是国产的，用“科学”搞欺骗手段都是一样的。 看看传统的、健康的、安全的和货真价实的食品，有哪个是要用那样的手段搞推销的？古今中外的一个市场事实：只有假货才需要用欺骗等不择手段的推销，转基因食品就是那样的假货，所以其推销需要搞欺骗等等不择手段的无耻行为是一再发生。 今年年初，美国白宫发布了继续强化防御以转基因技术武器攻击为主要内容的生物国防政策之公文，名称就是“生物科技应用研究的双重性”，明白说明“科学”及其应用和研究也有危害风险，转基因技术及其应用也不例外。因此，为国家安全、为美国的国土安全和人口安全，在生物技术应用一开始的科研阶段，就要辨别真假和危害风险、防止其落到搞欺骗和危害活动的坏人手里。 美国官方被看作是全球最大的转基因食品作物推手。可是，那是对外国。对本国，美国当局不仅反复说明转基因化工食品的危害风险和不断强化防范措施，且还有奥巴马总统夫人出面和带领全家以身作则、鼓励全国民众使用天然有机健康食品和尽量防用转基因化工等垃圾食品。为维护本国人口安全和食品安全，美国方面和欧盟与日本先后签定了保障各方市场有充足的天然有机食品供应的合作协约；至此，发达国家保障天然有机健康食品的框架大体完成；与此同时，转基因化工食品的作物商业化及其种植却开始从发达国家向发展中国家做规模战略转移、其主要转移目标就是中国。 又来比较看看，中国将怎么办？中国当局能不能象美国当局那样，清楚地看到和明确地向民众说明“生物科技应用研究的双重性”即转基因技术应用和转基因食品的危害风险？在“与国际接轨”的时候，为什么中国农业部门不能与发达国家保障本国有充足的天然有机食品供应的政策做法搞接轨、而偏偏要与发达国家已经开始向外转移的转基因化工食品作物搞什么“国际接轨”呢？ 在这类问题方面，我赞同一些国内学者提出的见解：西欧二三百年前形成的“科学主义”邪门歪道，在中国已经盛行了多年、在思想理论方面为不择手段的转基因食品推销活动即“科学也会很无耻”泛滥成灾而打开了方便之门。因此，要保障国家安全、要维护国土安全和人口安全而做好防御转基因技术武器的攻击的生物国防建设，不仅需要国家行政政策措施等等来保障其实现，且还需要在思想理论方面清除“科学主义”的危害或毒害。用国内一位学者的话来说，那就是：科学技术可以是第一生产力，也可以是第一破坏力和第一杀伤力。一句话：“科学”也会很无耻的；不要以为贴上个“科学”和“科学家”的标签、就是“真理”或“真理代言人”了。说实在的，越是“科学”和自封“科学家”叫得响亮的、就越可能是在搞欺骗，其叫得有多响、那背后的欺骗性和罪恶性也就有多大。 参考阅读： 吕永岩评点漏洞百出的转基因歪嘴报道 2013-12-01 20:21. http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4b7683ce0102eod8.html . # # #
【微评论】科学应当是中立的，公正的。针对《食物与化学毒理学》对法国科学家团队搞的撤稿行为，被指公然嘲弄科学。如果法国科学家团队的实验，还是用的现在的材料与方法，得出的是认为转基因食品无害且有益的结论的话，他们还会因方法（实验老鼠重量，老鼠数量，实验周期，统计意义等等）问题去撤稿吗？可能不会吧。。。 以下文章链接：http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4b7683ce0102eofy.html 陈一文提示要点： 荷兰爱思唯尔出版集团，《食物与化学毒理学》的出版方，发表声明，承认刊物总编A·瓦莱斯·海斯博士组织对色拉里尼教授论文的重新审查“未发现欺诈或者故意歪曲数据方面的任何证据”。该项声明提到撤稿的唯一一项理由，称之为“提交的结果（尽管并非有错误）是非决定性的”。《欧洲对社会与环境负责科学家 网络》评论： 论文研究结果“非决定性”不是《食物与化学毒理学》参加与承诺的科学出版中撤稿的指导原则。与此相反， 由于撤掉这篇文章是与转基因产业相关的许多人的愿望，不能不怀疑这是“科学”屈服于特别孟山都的产业利益的结果。《 欧洲对社会与环境负责科学家 网络》对 总编A·瓦莱斯·海斯博士提出的问题逐点予以反驳，最后强调：色拉里尼教授的发现目前比以前更加挺立，即便该项秘密的审查在数据的技术、行为或数据的透明度方面都没有能够找到任何错误 – 这是独立科学的基础。他们的数据的决定性，将由未来独立科学决定，而非由一小圈秘密人士决定。 《 欧洲对社会与环境负责科学家网络》就撤除色拉里尼论文 致《食物与化学毒理学》总编 A ·瓦莱斯·海斯的公 开信： 嘲弄科学而且看来是屈服于产业 转载自《转基因 — 色拉里尼教授教授》网站： http://gmoseralini.org/ensser-comments-on-the-retraction-of-the-seralini-et-al-2012-study/ Open letter to A. Wallace Hayes, editor of Food Chemical Toxicology 致《食物与化学毒理学》总编 A ·瓦莱斯·海斯的公开信 ENSSER (European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility), 30 Nov 2013 《欧洲对社会与环境负责科学家网络》（ ENSSER ） 2013 年 11 月 30 日 ENSSER Comments on the retraction of the Séralini et al. 2012 study 《 欧洲对社会与环境负责科学家 网络》对撤除色拉里尼教授团队 2012 年研究论文的评论 Journal’s retraction of rat feeding paper is a travesty of science and looks like a bow to industry 《食物与化学毒理学》 撤除 色 拉里尼教授团队团队喂养老鼠研究论文是嘲弄科学而且看来是屈服于产业 Elsevier’s journal Food and Chemical Toxicology has retracted the paper by Prof. Gilles-Eric Séralini’s group which found severe toxic effects (including liver congestions and necrosis and kidney nephropathies), increased tumor rates and higher mortality in rats fed Monsanto’s genetically modified NK603 maize and/or the associated herbicide Roundup . 荷兰爱思唯尔出版集团属下刊物《食物与化学毒理学》撤除了色拉里尼教授团队的研究论文，他们发现喂养孟山都转基因玉米NK603的老鼠出现了数项严重的毒性影响（包括肝充血与细胞坏疽以及肾病）、以及肿瘤发生率增大与死亡率更高。 The arguments of the journal’s editor for the retraction, however, violate not only the criteria for retraction to which the journal itself subscribes, but any standards of good science. Worse, the names of the reviewers who came to the conclusion that the paper should be retracted, have not been published. 《食物与化学毒理学》编辑撤稿的理由，不仅违反该刊物参加并承诺的撤稿标准，而且 践踏良好科学的任何标准。更差的是，做出这篇文章撤除决定的审查者的姓名没有公开发布。 Since the retraction is a wish of many people with links to the GM industry, the suspicion arises that it is a bow of science to industry. 由于撤掉这篇文章是与转基因产业相关的许多人的愿望，不能不怀疑这是“科学”屈服于产业利益的结果。 ENSSER points out, therefore, that this retraction is a severe blow to the credibility and independence of science, indeed a travesty of science. 《欧洲对社会与环境负责科学家 网络》指出，因此， 该项撤稿是对科学的可信性与毒理学的严重打击，是对科学的嘲弄。 Inconclusive results claimed as reason for withdrawal 将非决定性结果作为撤稿的理由 Elsevier, the publisher of Food and Chemical Toxicology, has published a statement saying that the journal’s editor-in-chief, Dr. A. Wallace Hayes, “found no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data”. 荷兰爱思唯尔出版集团，《食物与化学毒理学》的出版方，发表了一项声明 ，说刊物总编A·瓦莱斯·海斯博士“未发现欺诈或者故意歪曲数据方面的任何证据”。 The statement mentions only a single reason for the retraction, namely that “the results presented (while not incorrect) are inconclusive”. 该项声明提到撤稿的唯一一项理由，称之为“提交的结果（尽管并非有错误）是非决定性的”。 According to Hayes, the low number of rats and the tumour susceptibility of the rat strain used do not allow definitive conclusions. 依据海斯的说法，较低数量老鼠样本以及所使用的老鼠品系的肿瘤易发生性不允许获得确定性的结论。 Now there are guidelines for retractions in scientific publishing, set out by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) . 但是，《出版伦理委员会》设立了科学出版中撤稿的指导原则。 Inconclusiveness of research results is not one of the grounds for retraction contained in these guidelines. 科学出版中撤稿的指导原则中，研究结果非决定性并非是撤稿的基础之一。 The journal Food and Chemical Toxicology is a member of COPE . 《食物与化学毒理学》是《出版伦理委员会》成员之一。 ‘Conclusive’ results are rare in science, and certainly not to be decided by one editor and a secret team of persons using undisclosed criteria and methods. Independent science would cease to exist if this were to be an accepted mode of procedure. “决定性”结果在科学中相当少见，而且一项研究结果是否“决定性”， 肯定不能由一位编者与食用未公开标准与方法的秘密人士团队能够决定 。如果存在程序的可以接受样式的话，独立科学不可能存在。 Séralini paper a chronic toxicity study, not a full-scale carcinogenicity study 色拉里尼教授的论文是一项毒理学研究，不是全规模致癌性研究 Most notably, Séralini and his co-authors did not draw any definitive conclusions in the paper in the first place; they simply reported their observations and phrased their conclusions carefully, cognizant of their uncertainties. 最明显的是，色拉里尼教授及其合作作者在论文中并没有提出任何决定性的结论，他们仅仅简单的报告了他们的观察，提出审慎用词的结论，论文也提出他们的不确定性。 This is because the paper is a chronic toxicity study and not a full-scale carcinogenicity study, which would require a higher number of rats. 这是因为，这篇论文不是一项慢性毒理学研究，也不是要求更大数量老鼠的全规模致癌性研究。 The authors did not intend to look specifically for tumours, but still found increased tumour rates. 作者们原先没有打算特定观察是否出现肿瘤，但是依然发现肿瘤发生率增加了。 Secondly, both of Hayes’s arguments (the number of rats and their tumour susceptibility) were considered by the peer reviewers of the journal, who decided they formed no objection to publication. 其次，编辑海斯的两项论据（老鼠的数量及其肿瘤易发生性）已经由当初的同行审查者予以考虑，这没有形成他们反对出版的决定。 Thirdly, these two arguments have been discussed at length in the journal following the publication of the paper and have been refuted by the authors of the paper and other experts. 第三，这篇论文发表之后刊物发表了对这两项论据长时间讨论的文章，而且遭到文章作者与其他专家的反驳。 Higher numbers of animals are only required in this type of safety studies to avoid missing toxic effects (a ‘false negative’ result), but the study found pronounced toxic effects and a first indication of possible carcinogenic effects. 对这种类型安全性研究而言，仅在为了避免漏掉毒性影响（“误负面”结果）情况下才要求更大数量的动物，但是该项研究已经发现非常显著毒性影响以及可能的致癌作用的第一迹象。 The Sprague-Dawley strain of rat which was used, is the commonly used standard for this type of research. 该项研究使用的SD品系鼠，是这种类型研究普遍使用的标准 。 注：2003年， 中国疾病预防控制中心营养与食品安全所接受孟山都委托与样品对孟山都抗草甘膦转基因大豆“食用安全性”做的《抗农达大豆 40-3-2及其产品食用安全性检验的大鼠90 天喂养试验》与对抗草甘膦转基因玉米 NK603 “食用安全性”做的《NK 603 玉米大鼠 90 天喂养试验报告》 都选用了同样的 SD 鼠。 For these reasons, the statistical significance of the biochemical data was endorsed by statistics experts. The biochemical data confirm the toxic effects such as those on liver and kidney, which are serious enough by themselves. The tumours and mortality rates are observations which need to be confirmed by a specific carcinogenicity study with higher numbers of rats; in view of public food safety, it is not wise to simply ignore them. 由于这些理由，统计学专家赞同论文列出的生物化学数据的统计学显著性。 这些生物化学数据确认了例如对肝脏与肾脏的毒性作用，仅这些就足够严重 。研究中观察到的肿瘤与死亡率，需要通过使用更大数量老鼠的特定致癌性研究予以确认； 考虑到公共安全性，简单忽略这些问题并非明智。 Unpleasant results should be checked, not ignored. And the toxic effects other than tumours and mortality are well-founded. 不愉快的结果应当进一步核实，而不是忽略。 肿瘤与死亡率以外的毒性作用是有根据的。 Who did the reevaluation? 谁进行了该项再审查？ Even more worrying than the lack of good grounds for the retraction is the fact that the journal’s editor-in-chief has not revealed who the reviewers were who helped him to come to the conclusion that the paper should be retracted; nor has he revealed the criteria and methodology of their reevaluation, which overruled the earlier conclusion of the original peer-review which supported publication. 比撤稿缺乏有效根据更令人担心的是，刊物总编没有公开是哪些审查者帮助他得到这篇论文应当撤除的结论；他也没有公开他们推翻当初同行审查者早先支持发表结论的该项重新评价时依据的标准与方法。 In a case like this, where many of those who denounced the study have long-standing, well-documented links to the GM industry and, therefore, a clear interest in having the results of the study discredited, such lack of transparency about how this potential decision was reached is inexcusable, unscientific and unacceptable. 在像这样的案例中，对这篇论文进行指责的许多人士具有与转基因产业关系的长期记录，因此清楚的利益造成力图败坏这篇论文声誉。关于该项撤稿决定如何形成方面缺乏透明性， 是不可原谅的、不科学的与不可接受的 。 It raises the suspicion that the retraction is a favour to the interested industry, notably Monsanto. 此事不能不引出这样的怀疑： 该项撤稿是对相关利益产业投其所好，特别是孟山都公司。 ENSSER promotes independent critical discourse 《 欧洲对社会与环境负责科学家 网络》促进独立的批判性话语 It is part of ENSSER’s mission to promote the critical discourse, particularly in Europe, on new technologies and their impacts. 对新技术及其影响推进批评性话语，是《欧洲对社会与环境负责科学家 网络》职责的一部分，特别在欧洲。 As scientific and technological advances are increasingly driven by private interest, disinterested independent health and environmental safety information often lags behind. 由于 科学技术进展越来越收到私人利益的驱动， 缺乏兴趣的独立健康与环境安全信息往往滞后。 Uncertainty is inherent to science, as is the debate between conflicting explanations of findings. Openness of this debate and independent research to find the truth are crucial prerequisites for the survival of independent science. 不确定性是科学固有的特性，如同对某些发现相互冲突解释之间的辩论那样。这样的辩论的公开性以及通过独立研究发现真相，是独立科学得以生存的至关重要先决条件。 This holds true in particular for the technology of genetically modified crops, where the safety studies done by the producers for authorisation of the crops are all too often not published at all because of business confidentiality of the data and may not hold up to an independent peer-review. 对于转基因作物技术而言，这更是真的，因为转基因作物研发者为获得授权所做的安全研究往往不公开发表，因为这些研究数据的商业秘密性使其可能通不过独立同行审查过程。 These studies, not only the independent ones like Séralini’s, should be subject to debate. The public have a right to be informed of anything related to the safety of their food. 转基因作物研发者为获得授权所做的这些安全研究，而不是仅仅色拉里尼教授所做的独立研究，都应当成为进行辩论的议题。公众有权了解与他们食物安全性相关的所有信息。 In short, the decision to retract Séralini’s paper is a flagrant abuse of science and a blow to its credibility and independence. 简短的说，撤除色拉里尼教授论文的决定是公然滥用科学，对科学的可信性与独立性的严重打击。 It is damaging for the reputation of both the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology and its publisher Elsevier. It will decrease public trust in science. And it will not succeed in eliminating critical independent science from public view and scrutiny. Such days and times are definitively over. 撤除色拉里尼教授论文的决定损害《食物与化学毒理学》以及 爱思唯尔出版集团的信誉。它减少公众对科学的信任。它在使关键独立科学从公共视野和细查中消失不会获得成功。这样的日子与时代确定性已经过去。 Prof. Séralini’s findings stand today more than before, as even this secret review found that there is nothing wrong with either technicalities, conduct or transparency of the data – the foundations on which independent science rests. The conclusiveness of their data will be decided by future independent science, not by a secret circle of people. 色拉里尼教授的发现目前比以前更加挺立，即便该项秘密的审查在数据的技术、行为或数据的透明度方面都没有能够找到任何错误 – 这是独立科学的基础。他们的数据的决定性，将由未来独立科学决定，而非由一小圈秘密人士决定。 Contact: office@ensser.org 联系人： office@ensser.org 参考文献： Séralini, G.-E., Clair, E., Mesnage, R., Gress, S., Defarge, N., Malatesta, M., Hennequin, D., de Vendômois, J.S.: Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize, Food and Chemical Toxicology 50 (11), pp. 4221-4231 (2012) http://www.elsevier.com/about/press-releases/research-and-journals/elsevier-announces-article-retraction-from-journal-food-and-chemical-toxicology http://publicationethics.org/files/retraction guidelines.pdf http://publicationethics.org/members/food-and-chemical-toxicology
【本博注】 法国科学家塞拉利尼团队的转基因安全科学实验，再次引起了利益集团的恐慌，大量事实揭示了转基因食品可引起动物癌变和早衰。文章发表后，利益集团故伎重演，继续采取已往的做法，对塞拉利尼进行围攻，甚至动员了《科学》和《自然》这样的高级别刊物，欲将其变成第二个普兹泰（因首次公开揭露转基因食品危害的匈牙利籍英国科学家）。不过法国人是好样的，塞氏用其不屈的科学精神，呼唤全球有正义感的科学家，用事实来回答那些被金钱收买的“科学家”的攻击。 塞拉利尼关于科学的公开信--2012-10-2译文 (2012-10-04 16:14:44) 转载 ▼ 标签： 杂谈 分类： 法国塞拉利尼 【按：法国科学家塞拉利尼提出一个问题：在一个被大公司主导的世界中，科学所面临的挑战，究竟是什么挑战？我来概括一下他的问题： 在金钱的世界里，科学家有没有去推磨？ 公开信的结尾说：“所谓安全性检测、所谓基于科学的管理、甚至科学程序本身，这一切是否能够实行，完全取决于科学家群体是否真诚地献身于公众利益、是否整体忠于科学操守。假如把这一切反过来，让一个科学产品的评估从起点开始就作弊，仅仅朝研发者的利益倾斜，依赖全面地一贯地压制独立科学家为公众利益所做的研究而推行，那么 所谓诚实、理性或者科学的辩论，就是根本不可能的事情。 ”——可不是吗，关于转基因风险的科学辩论在哪里？也许在生物技术公司大总裁的裤兜里？】 塞拉利尼与科学；一封公开的信 (Authors listed below) 其他起草人的名单附后 A new paper by the French group of Gilles-Eric Seralini describes harmful effects on rats fed diets containing genetically modified maize (variety NK603), with and without the herbicide Roundup, as wellas Roundup alone. This peer-reviewed study (Seralini et al., 2012), has been criticized by some scientists whose views have been widely reported in the popular press (Carmen, 2012; Mestel, 2012; Revkin,2012; Worstall, 2012). Seralini et al. (2012) extends the work of other studies demonstrating toxicity and/or endocrine-based impacts of Roundup (Gaivo et al., 2012; Kelly et al., 2010; Paganelli et al.,2010; Romano et al., 2012), as reviewed by Antoniou et al. (2010). The Seralini publication, and resultant media attention, raise the profile of fundamental challenges faced by science in a world increasingly dominated by corporate influence. These challenges are important for all of science but are rarely discussed in scientific venues. 塞拉利尼等人发表的报告及其招致的媒体关注，揭示了一个非常深刻的问题：在一个被大公司主导的世界中，科学所面临的挑战，究竟是什么挑战？ Gilles-Eric Seralini 吉利斯 - 埃里克 塞拉利尼 1) History of Attacks on Risk-finding Studies. Seralini and colleagues are just the latest in a series of researchers whose findings have triggered orchestrated campaigns of harassment. Examples from just the last few years include Ignacio Chapela, a then untenured Assistant Professor at Berkeley, whose paper on GM contamination of maize in Mexico (Quist and Chapela, 2001) sparked an intensive internet-based campaign to discredit him. This campaign was reportedly masterminded by the Bivings Group, a public relations firm specializing in viral marketing – and frequently hired by Monsanto (Delborne, 2008). 1） 一贯攻击对风险的研究 塞拉利尼和同事遭受的，不过是最新的一轮有组织的攻击。在最近几年发生过的同类事件中，有伯克利大学当时的助理教授 Ignacio Chapela 关于墨西哥转基因玉米污染的文章 (Quist and Chapela, 2001) ，他遭到的是来自互联网的污名式攻击浪潮；据报道，那一轮攻击由黑客公关公司 Bivings Group 策划实施；该公司经常性地受雇于孟山都公司，提供服务。 The distinguished career of biochemist Arpad Pusztai, came to an effective end when he attempted to report his contradictory findings on GM potatoes (Ewen and Pusztai, 1999a). Everything from a gag order, forced retirement, seizure of data, and harassment by the British Royal Society were used to forestall his continued research (Ewen and Pusztai, 1999b; Laidlaw, 2003). Even threats of physical violence have been used, most recently against Andres Carrasco, Professor of Molecular Embryology at the University of Buenos Aires, whose research (Paganelli et al. 2010) identified health risks from glyphosate, theactive ingredient in Roundup (Amnesty International, 2010). 杰出的生物化学家阿帕德 . 普兹泰在他报告了转基因土豆的问题后，学术生涯就终结了 (Ewen and Pusztai, 1999a) 。英国皇家学会竟然下封口令，强制他退休、没收他的数据，目的是不让他继续做研究 (Ewen and Pusztai, 1999b; Laidlaw, 2003) 。人身暴力都被用到过，最近的一次是针对布宜诺斯艾利斯大学的分子胚胎学家安德烈斯 . 卡拉斯科教授（ Andres Carrasco ），因为他的研究显示农达中的草甘膦有危害健康的风险 (Amnesty International, 2010) 。 It was no surprise therefore, that when in 2009, 26 corn entomologists took the unprecedented step of writing directly to the US EPA to complain about industry control of access to GM crops for research, the letter was sent anonymously (Pollack, 2009). 因此毫不奇怪， 2009 年当 26 位昆虫学家首次直接致信美国环保署，批评大公司控制对转基因农作物的研究时，他们提交的文件是一封匿名信件 (Amnesty International, 2010) 。 2) The Role of the Science Media. An important but often unnoticed aspect of this intimidation is that it frequently occurs in concert with the science media (Ermakova, 2007; Heinemann and Traavik, 2007; Latham and Wilson, 2007). Reporting of the Seralini paper in arguably the most prestigious segments of the science media: Science, the New York Times, New Scientist, and the Washington Post uniformly failed to “balance” criticism of the research, with even minimal coverage of support for the Seralini paper (Carmen, 2012; Enserink, 2012; MacKenzie, 2012; Pollack, 2012). Nevertheless, less well-resourced media outlets, such as the UK Daily Mail appeared to have no trouble finding a positive scientific opinion on the same study (Poulter, 2012). 2 ）科学媒体的角色。 一个很重要但是很少被注意到问题是，施加压力时通常少不了 科学媒体【按：我马上就忍不住想到了中国的《科学报》和贾鹤鹏大主编，不久前咱俩还有过不很愉快的交流呢】 参与其中 (Ermakova, 2007; Heinemann and Traavik, 2007; Latham and Wilson, 2007) 。塞拉利尼等人的报告发表后，享有最高科学名望的媒体如“科学”，“纽约时报”，“新科学家”，还有“华盛顿邮报”，全都不能对批评性的评论“掌握平衡”，它们都尽可能不刊发支持的意见，而且无一例外 (Carmen, 2012; Enserink, 2012; MacKenzie, 2012; Pollack, 2012) 。然而实力远不如它们的媒体，如英国每日电讯报，就能很容易地发现对同一个研究的支持性的科学观点 (Poulter, 2012) 。 3) Misleading Media Reporting. A key pattern with risk-finding studies is that the criticisms voiced in the media are often red herrings, misleading, or untruthful. Thus, the use of common methodologies was portrayed as indicative of shoddy science when used by Seralini et al. (2012) but not when used by industry (see refs above and Science Media Centre, 2012). The use of red herring arguments appears intended to sow doubt and confusion among non-experts. For example, Tom Sanders of Kings College, London was quoted as saying: “This strain of rat is very prone to mammary tumors particularly when food intake is not restricted” (Hirschler and Kelland, 2012 ). 3 ）媒体误导性报道。 针对研究转基因风险的报道， 它们 最拿手的做法是声东击西、鱼目混珠——让批评意见出现时像条“青熏鱼”，云里雾里讲不清、很容易被调转方向，或直接就是谣言。照此，塞拉利尼等人运用常规的研究方法，被媒体暗示为不靠谱、是假冒的科学（ 2012 ），而大公司用同样的研究方法，就是正道（见上面的引述，以及科学媒体中心， 2012 ）。媒体采用的这种无诚意手法，在非专业读者中播下了疑问和迷惘。例如，伦敦国王学院（ Kings College ）的 Tom Sanders 被引述说：“这种实验鼠特别容易罹患乳腺肿瘤，尤其是在不限制摄食量的时候” (Hirschler and Kelland, 2012 ) 。 He failed to point out, or was unaware, that most industry feeding studies have used Sprague-Dawley rats (e.g. Hammond et al., 1996, 2004, 2006; MacKenzie et al., 2007). In these and other industry studies (e.g. Malley et al. 2007), feed intake was unrestricted. Sanders’ comments are important because they were widely quoted and because they were part of an orchestrated response to the Seralini study by the Science Media Centre of the British Royal Institution. The Science Media Centre has a long history of quelling GMO controversies and its funders include numerous companies that produce GMOs and pesticides. 但是他并没有指出，也许他不知道，几乎所有的大公司自己做喂养实验用的都是同一种 SD 大鼠 (e.g. Hammond et al., 1996, 2004, 2006; MacKenzie et al., 2007) ，并且在那些实验中，摄食量也不受限 (e.g. Malley et al. 2007) 。 Sanders 的评论很重要，不仅因为被引述了很多次，更因为他是英国皇家学会下面的科学媒体中心对塞拉利尼报告所策划的有组织的回击之一。科学媒体中心长期以来一直在镇压转基因争论，它的出资人中有多是生产转基因和杀虫剂的公司。 4) Regulator Culpability. In our view a large part of the ultimate fault for this controversy lies with regulators. Regulators, such as EFSA (the European Food Safety Authority) in Europe and the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and FDA (Food and Drug Administration) in the US, have enshrined protocols with little or no potential to detect adverse consequences of GMOs (Schubert, 2002; Freese and Schubert, 2004; Pelletier, 2005). GMOs are required to undergo few experiments, few endpoints are examined, and tests are solely conducted by the applicant or their agents. Moreover, current regulatory protocols are simplistic and assumptions-based (RSC, 2001), which by design, will miss most gene expression changes – apart from the target trait - induced by the process of transgene insertion (Heinemann et al., 2011; Schubert, 2002). 4 ）管理者失职。 在我们看来，在针对转基因的冲突中，最严重的问题之一是管理者失职。欧洲食品安全局（ EFSA ），美国的环保署（ EPA ）和食品药品监督管理局（ FDA ）等，它们制定的规则在检测转基因是否有危害时，没有什么真实的用处。 对转基因产品其实没有做过什么实验，做过了的检测项目，数量也是非常小，全部检测都由申请者或者它们的代理机构提交。更严重的是，目前的规则要求太简单，所依据的不过是一些假设 (RSC, 2001) ，按照那些设计去干，除了目标基因的性状外，由异源基因插入而导致的绝大部分基因表达的改变，都可以轻易逃脱检测 (Heinemann et al., 2011; Schubert, 2002) 。 Puzstai (2001) and others have consequently argued that well-conducted feeding trials are one of the best ways of detecting such unpredictable changes. Yet feeding trials are not mandatory for regulatory approval, and the scientific credibility of those which have been published to date has been challenged (Domingo, 2007; Pusztai et al., 2003; Spiroux de Vendmois et al., 2009). For example, Snell et al. (2012), who assessed the quality of 12 long term (96 days) and 12 multigenerational studies, concluded: “The studies reviewed here are often linked to an inadequate experimental design that has detrimental effects on statistical analysis…the major insufficiencies not only include lack of use of near isogenic lines but also statistical power underestimation , absence of repetitions…”. 普兹泰等人（ 2001 ）有根据地指出，全面的、完善的动物喂养实验，是检测转基因非预期改变的最佳途径之一。然而转基因产品获得管理机构的批准时，却无需喂养实验结果，（按照这种规范）发表的论文是否具有科学可信度，已经遭到质疑 (Domingo, 2007; Pusztai et al., 2003; Spiroux de Vendmois et al., 2009) 。例如，施奈尔等人（ 2012 ）对 12 项 96 天以上的长期实验和 12 项多代实验进行评估研究之后，认为：“这些实验很多设计不当，难于进行统计分析 …… 最重大的不足是：缺乏相同基因序列（对比），统计信度弱，而且没有做重复实验 …… ” Apparently, the same issues of experimental design and analysis raised about this (Seralini) risk-finding study were not of concern to critics when the studies did not identify risk, resulting in ill-informed decision-makers. In the end, it is a major problem for science and society when current regulatory protocols approve GMO crops based on little to no useful data upon which to assess safety. 批评者质疑了塞拉利尼报告的实验设计和分析方法，同样的质疑对于不以风险为目标的研究项目也同样适用，却被堂而皇之地放过。因此决策者得到的是有错误的信息，在批准转基因农作物时，当前的管理规定对判断安全性时，没有以实验数据做依据。对于科学和社会来说，这样做下去最终会有极其严重的问题。 5) Science and Politics. Governments have become habituated to using science as a political football. For example, in a study conducted by the Royal Society of Canada at the request of the Canadian government, numerous weaknesses of GM regulation in Canada were identified (RSC, 2001). The failure of the Canadian government to meaningfully respond to the many recommended changes was detailed by Andree (2006). Similarly, the expert recommendations of the international IAASTD report, produced by 400 researchers over 6 years, that GMOs are unsuited to the task of advancing global agriculture have been resolutely ignored by policymakers. Thus, while proclaiming evidence-based decision-making, governments frequently use science solely when it suits them. 5 ）科学与政治 。 政府学会了并已惯于在科学问题上踢皮球。例如，加拿大皇家学会应加拿大政府要求而做的一项研究，暴露了转基因管理中的无数弱点（ RSC, 2001 ），加拿大政府却不能认真回应许多认真的建议（加以改进），如安德利所描述（ 2006 ）。由 400 名 IAASTD 专家工作了 6 年提出的专家建议指出，转基因不适用于全球的农业发展，这份报告也被决策者断然拒绝。自己声称是依据科学做决策的政府，其实只是选择性地采用仅仅对它们有好处的研究结果。 6) Conclusion: When those with a vested interest attempt to sow unreasonable doubt around inconvenient results, or when governments exploit political opportunities by picking and choosing from scientific evidence, they jeopardize public confidence in scientific methods and institutions, and also put their own citizenry at risk. Safety testing, science-based regulation, and the scientific process itself, depend crucially on widespread trust in a body of scientists devoted to the public interest and professional integrity. If instead, the starting point of a scientific product assessment is an approval process rigged in favour of the applicant, backed up by systematic suppression of independent scientists working in the public interest, then there can never be an honest, rational or scientific debate. 6 ）结语 当既得利益者面对不利于自己的科学研究结果尽力传播不讲理的质疑时，当政府从科学的发现中仅仅挑选和利用对自己有利的一部分以获得政治利益时，他们就伤害了公众对科学研究方法的信任、对科研机构的信任，同时把人民置于风险之中。所谓安全性检测、所谓基于科学的管理、甚至科学程序本身，这一切是否能够实行，完全取决于科学家群体是否真诚地献身于公众利益、是否整体忠于科学操守。假如把这一切反过来，让一个科学产品的评估从起点开始就作弊，仅仅朝研发者的利益倾斜，依赖系统性地压制独立科学家为公众利益所做的研究而推行，那么所谓诚实、理性或者科学的辩论，就是根本不可能的事情。 起草者： The Authors: 1. Susan Bardocz (4, Arato Street, Budapest, 1121 Hungary) （布达佩斯，匈牙利） ; 2 Ann Clark (University of Guelph, ret.); Stanley Ewen (Consultant Histopathologist, Grampian University Hospital); Michael Hansen Consumers Union); Jack Heinemann (University of Canterbury); Jonathan Latham (The Bioscience Resource Project); Arpad Pusztai (4, Arato Street, Budapest, 1121 Hungary); David Schubert (The Salk Institute); Allison Wilson (The Bioscience Resource Project) Signatories: 签名人 1. Brian Wynne (Professor of Science Studies, UK Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Centre for Economic and Social Aspects of Genomics, Cesagen, Lancaster University) 兰卡斯特大学 英国 2. Irina Ermakova, Dr of Biology, Russian Academy of Sciences 俄国科学院 3. Jo Cummins (Professor Emeritus University of Western Ontario) 美国加拿大 大略大学 4. Michael Antoniou, (Reader in Molecular Genetics his university (King’s College, London) has a policy not to allow Dr Antoniou to use his affiliation here) 伦敦大学国王学院 5. Philip L. Bereano (Professor Emeritus University of Washington Washington Biotechnology Action Council) 华盛顿大学 6. Dr P M Bhargava (Former and Founder director, Centre for Cellular Molecular Biology, Government of India) 细胞与分子生物学中心 印度 7. Carlo Leifert (Professor for Ecological Agriculture Newcastle University) 英国纽卡斯尔大学 8. Peter Romilly (formerly University of Abertay, Dundee) 阿伯泰大学 9. Robert Vint (FRSA) 10. Dr Brian John (Durham University, UK, retired) 杜伦大学，英国 11. Professor C. Vyvyan Howard, University of Ulster) Diederick Sprangers Genethics Foundation) 阿尔斯特大学 哈沃德 美国华盛顿 12. Mariam Mayet (African Centre for Biosafety, South Africa) 非洲生物安全中心 南非 13. Eva Novotny (ret. University of Cambridge) 剑桥大学 14. Ineke Buskens (Research for the Future) 未来研究（所） 15. Hector Valenzuela (Professor, University of Hawaii) 美国夏威夷大学教授 16. Ronald Nigh, (Centro de Investigaciones y Estudio Superiores en Antropología Social, Chiapas, Mexico) 墨西哥 17. Marcia Ishii-Eiteman (PhD, Senior Scientist, Pesticide Action Network North America) 农药行动网络 北美 18. Naomi Salmon (Dept. of Law, Aberystwyth University, Wales) 威尔士大学 19. Michael W, Fox (Minnesota, Veterinarian Bioethicist, PhD, MRCVS) 美国明尼苏达州 20. Neil J. Carman (PhD Sierra Club) 美国 塞拉俱乐部 21. Vandana Shiva (India) 印度 22. Hans Herren (President, Millennium Institute, Washington DC, USA) 美国华盛顿 23. John Fagan (PhD Earth Open Source, UK and USA) 英国和美国 24. Sheila Berry and the Global Environmental Trust 25. Av Singh (PhD, Perennia) 26. Laurel Hopwood (for the Sierra Club, USA) 美国 塞拉俱乐部 27. Philip H. Howard (Associate Professor of Community, Food and Agriculture, Michigan State University ) 美国密西根州大学 28. Donald B. Clark (on behalf of Cumberland Countians for Peace Justice and Network for Environmental Economic Responsibility, United Church of Christ, Pleasant Hill, TN) 基督联合教会，美国田纳西 29. Robert Mann (Senior Lecturer in Biochemistry in Environmental Studies (rtd) University of Auckland, NZ) 新西兰 奥克兰大学 30. Chris Williams (PhD, FRSA, University of London) 英国伦敦大学 31. Mae-Wan Ho (PhD Director Institute of Science in Society) 英国 社会科学研究所 32. Peter Saunders (Prof. Emeritus of Applied Mathematics, King’s College London) 英国 伦敦大学国王学院 33. Dr. Terje Traavik (Prof. Gene Ecology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Troms) 挪威 特罗姆瑟大学 34. Oscar B. Zamora (Prof. Crop Science University of the Philippines Los Banos College, Philippines). 菲律宾 洛斯巴诺斯学院 and if you are a scientist or academic and would like your name added to this list, please email: isneditor@bioscienceresource.org and write ‘Seralini letter’ in the headline, providing an affiliation if you wish. 可以联署，发电邮至上述邮箱。本人已经去电邮要求联署了！ Footnotes (1) In addition, US scientists who publish studies finding adverse environmental effects are frequently vehemently attacked by other pro-GM scientists. As a report in Nature, which discusses numerous examples, points out, “Papers suggesting that biotech crops might harm the environment attract a hail of abuse from other scientists. Behind the attacks are scientists who are determined to prevent papers they deem to have scientific flaws from influencing policy-makers.When a paper comes out in which they see problems, they react quickly, criticize the work in public forums, write rebuttal letters, and send them to policy-makers, funding agencies and journal editors” (pg. 27 in Waltz. 2009a).Indeed, when one of us wrote a Commentary in Nature Biotechnology ten years ago suggesting that more attention needs to be paid to the potential unintended effects associated with insertional mutagenesis, we received a flood of responses, and an administrator at the Salk Institute even said that the publication “was jeopardizing funding for his institution” (see Waltz, 2009a). Similar attacks have greeted studies on adverse effects of Bt toxins on ladybird beetles and green lacewing larvae, which were used by German authorities to ban cultivation of Mon810, a Bt corn variety (see: Hilbeck et al.2012a,b, respectively). In 2009, a group of 26 public sector corn entomologists sent a letter to the US Environmental Protection Agency which stated “No truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions involving these crops ” (pg. 880 in Waltz, 2009b it was no surprise that the letter was sent anonymously as the scientists feared retribution from the companies that funded their work (Pollack, 2009).?Furthermore, industry control over what research can be conducted in the US means that adverse findings can effectively be suppressed. In one example cited in the article, Pioneer was developing a binary Bt toxin, Cry34Ab1/Cry35Ab1, against the corn rootworm. In 2001, Pioneer contracted with some university laboratories to test for unintended effects on a lady beetle. The laboratories found that 100% of the lady beetles died after eight days of feeding. Pioneer forbade the researchers from publicizing the data. Two years later Pioneer received approval for a Bt corn variety with Cry34Ab1/Cry35Ab1 and submitted studies showing that lady beetles fed the toxin for only 7 days were not harmed. The scientists were not allowed to redo the study after the crop was commercialized (Waltz, 2009b). In another example, Dow AgroSciences threatened a researcher with legal action if he published information he had received from US EPA. As the article notes, “The information concerned an insect-resistant variety of maize known as TC1507, made by Dow and Pioneer. The companies suspended sales of TC1507 in Puerto Rico after discovering in 2006 that an armyworm had developed resistance to it. Tabashnik was able to review the report the companies filed with the EPA by submitting a Freedom of Information Act request. “I encouraged an employee of the company to publish the data and mentioned that, alternatively, I could cite the data,” says Tabashnik. “He told me that if I cited the information…I would be subject to legal action by the company,” he says. “These kinds of statements are chilling” (pg. 882 in Waltz, 2009b). References 参考文献 Amnesty International. 2010. Argentina: Threats deny community access to research UA: 173/10 Index: AMR 13/005/2010 Argentina Date: 12 August 2010 Andree, Peter. 2006. An analysis of efforts to improve genetically modified food regulation in Canada. Science and Public Policy 33(5):399-389. Antoniou, Michael., Paolo Brack, Andres Carrasco, John Fagan, Mohamed Habib, Paolo Kageyama, Carlo Leifert, Rubens Nodari, Walter Pengue. 2010. GM Soy: Sustainable? Responsible? GLS Gemeinschaftsbank and ARGE Gentechnik-frei. Carmen, Tim. 2012. French scientists question safety of GM corn. Washington Post 19 Sept 2012. Delborne, Jason. 2008. Transgenes and transgressions: scientific dissent as heterogeneous practice. Social Studies of Science 38(4):509-541 Domingo, Jose L. 2007. Toxicity studies of genetically modified plants: a review of the published literature. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 47:721–733 Enserink, Martin. 2012. France and European Commission order review of controversial GM study in rats. ScienceInsider 21 Sept 2012 Ermakova, Irina. 2007. GM soybeans: revisiting a controversial format. Nature Biotech 25:1351-1354 Ewen, Stanley W.B. and Arpad Pusztai. 1999a Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine. The Lancet 354 (9187):1353-1354 Ewen, Stanley W.B. and Arpad Pusztai. 1999b. Health risks of genetically modified foods. The Lancet 354(Issue 9179):684. HYPERLINK” Freese, W. and D. Schubert. 2004. Safety Testing and Regulation of Genetically Engineered Foods. Biotechnol Genet Eng Rev 21:299-324 Gaivo I, Guilherme S, M.A. Santos MA, M. Pacheco. 2012. DNA damage in fish (Anguilla anguilla) exposed to a glyphosate-based herbicide —elucidation of organ-specificity and the role of oxidative stress. Mutat Res 18 743(1-2):1-9. Hammond, Bruce, John L Vicini, Cary F. Hartnell, Mark W. Naylor, Christopher D. Knight, Edwin H. Robinson, Roy L. Fuchs and Stephen R. Padgette. 1996. The feeding value of soybeans fed to rats, chickens, catfish and dairy cattle is not altered by genetic incorporation of glyphosate tolerance. J. Nutr. 126:717-272 Hammond, B., R. Dudek, J. Lemen, M. Nemeth. 2004. Results of a 13 week safety assurance study with rats fed grain from glyphosate tolerant corn. Food Chem Toxicol 42:1003–1014 Hammond, B., R. Dudek, J. Lemen, M. Nemeth. 2006. Results of a 90-day safety assurance study with rats fed grain from corn borer-protected corn. Food Chem Toxicol 44:1092–1099 Heinemann, J.A. and Traavik, T. 2007. GM soybeans—revisiting a controversial format. Nature Biotech 25: 1355-1356 Heinemann, J. A., B. Kurenbach, B. and D. Quist. 2011. Molecular profiling — a tool for addressing emerging gaps in the comparative risk assessment of GMOs. Env. Int. 37: 1285-1293. Hilbeck, A., J.M. McMillan, M. Meier, A. Humbel, J. Schlpfer-Miller and M. Trtikova. 2012. A controversy revisited: Is the coccinellid Adalia bipunctata adversely affected by Bt toxins? Environmental Sciences Europe, 24:10 Hilbeck, A., M. Meier and M. Trtikova. 2012. Underlying reasons of the controversy over adverse effects of Bt toxins on lady beetle and lacewing larvae.Environmental Sciences Europe, 24:9. Hirschler, Ben and Kate Kelland. 2012. Study on Monsanto GM corn concerns draws skepticism. Reuters: Ed UK 20 Sept 2012 Kelly, David, Robert Poulin, Daniel M. Tompkins and Colin R. Townsend. 2010. Synergistic effects of glyphosate formulation and parasite infection on fish malformations and survival. J. Appl. Ecol. 47(2): 498-504 Laidlaw, Stuart. 2003. Ch. 4 What’s Good for GM. In: Secret Ingredients. McClelland and Stewart Ltd., Toronto. Latham, Jonathan and Allison Wilson. 2007. What is Nature Biotechnology good for? Independent Science News 4 Dec 2007. MacKenzie, Debora. 2012. Study linking GM crops and cancer questioned. New Scientist 19 Sept 2012. MacKenzie and 12 others. 2007. Thirteen week feeding study with transgenic maize grain containing event DAS-157-1 in Sprague–Dawley rats. Food Chem. Toxicol. 45:551–562 Malley and 14 others. 2007. Subchronic feeding study of DAS-59122-7 maize grain in Sprague-Dawley rats. Food Chem. Toxicol. 45:1277–1292 Mestel, Rosie. 2012. Study points to health problems with genetically modified foods. LA Times 20 Sept 2012 Paganelli, Alejandra, Victoria Gnazzo, Helena Acosta, Silvia L. Lopez, and Andres E. Carrasco. 2010. Glyphosate-based herbicides produce teratogenic effects on vertebrates by impairing retinoic acid signaling. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 23(10):1586–1595 Pelletier, D. 2005. Science, Law, and Politics in the Food and Drug Administration’s Genetically Engineered Foods Policy: FDA’s 1992 Policy Statement. Nutr. Rev. 63:171-181 Pollack, Andrew. 2009. Crop scientists say biotechnology seed companies are thwarting research. New York Times 19 Feb 2009. Pollack, Andrew. 2012. Foes of modified corn find support in a study. New York Times 19 Sept 2012. Poulter, Sean. 2012. Cancer row over GM foods as study says it did THIS to rats… and can cause organ damage and early death in humans. Mail OnLine 19 Sept 2012. Pusztai, Arpad. 2001. Genetically Modified Foods: Are They a Risk to Human/Animal Health? American Institute of Biological Sciences Pusztai, A,, S. Bardocz, and S.W.B. Ewen. 2003. Ch. 16. Genetically Modified Foods: Potential Human Health Effects. pp. 347-372. In: J.P.F. D’Mello (ed) Food Safety: Contaminants and Toxins. CAB International 472 pp. Quist, David and Ignacio Chapela. 2001. Transgenic DNA introgressed into traditional maize landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico. Nature 414 (6863): 541–543 Revkin, Andrew. 2012. Single-Study Syndrome and the G.M.O. Fight. New York Times 20 Sept 2012 HYPERLINK “” http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/20/the-gmo-food-fight-rats-cancer-and-single-study-syndrome/ Romano M.A., R.M. Romano, L.D. Santos, P. Wisniewski, D.A. Campos, P.B. de Souza, P. Viau, M.M. Bernardi, M.T. Nunes, C.A. de Oliveira. 2012. Glyphosate impairs male offspring reproductive development by disrupting gonadotropin expression. Arch. Toxicol. 86(4):663-73. RSC (Royal Society of Canada). 2001. Elements of Precaution: Recommendations for the Regulation of Food Biotechnology In Canada Science Media Centre. 2012. Study on cancer and GM maize – experts respond. Posted 20 Sept 2012. Schubert, David. 2002. A different perspective on GM food. Nature Biotech. 20: 969 Séralini, G-E., E. Clair, R. Mesnage, S. Gress, N. Defarge, M. Malatesta, D. Hennequin, J. Spiroux de Vendmois. 2012. Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Food Chem. Toxicol. Snell, C., A. Bernheim, J-B. Berge, M. Kuntz, G. Pascal, A. Paris, and A.E. Ricroch. 2012. Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials: A literature review. Food Chem. Toxicol. 50:1134-1148 Spiroux de Vendmois, J., F. Roullier, D. Cellier, and G.-E. Séralini. 2009. A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health. Int. J. Biol. Sci. 5(7):706–726 Waltz, E. 2009a. Battlefield. Nature 461: 27-32. Waltz, E. 2009b. Under Wraps. Nature Biotechnology 27(10): 880-882. Worstall, Tim. 2012. Proof Perfect That The Seralini Paper On GM Corn And Cancer In Rats Is Rubbish. Forbes 21 Sept 2012. 塞拉利尼关于科学的公开信 (Authors listed below) 其他起草人的名单附后 A new paper by the French group of Gilles-Eric Seralini describes harmful effects on rats fed diets containing genetically modified maize (variety NK603), with and without the herbicide Roundup, as wellas Roundup alone. This peer-reviewed study (Seralini et al., 2012), has been criticized by some scientists whose views have been widely reported in the popular press (Carmen, 2012; Mestel, 2012; Revkin,2012; Worstall, 2012). Seralini et al. (2012) extends the work of other studies demonstrating toxicity and/or endocrine-based impacts of Roundup (Gaivo et al., 2012; Kelly et al., 2010; Paganelli et al.,2010; Romano et al., 2012), as reviewed by Antoniou et al. (2010). The Seralini publication, and resultant media attention, raise the profile of fundamental challenges faced by science in a world increasingly dominated by corporate influence. These challenges are important for all of science but are rarely discussed in scientific venues. 塞拉利尼等人发表的报告及其招致的媒体关注，揭示了一个非常深刻的问题：在一个被大公司主导的世界中，科学所面临的挑战，究竟是什么挑战？ Gilles-Eric Seralini 吉利斯 - 埃里克 塞拉利尼 1) History of Attacks on Risk-finding Studies. Seralini and colleagues are just the latest in a series of researchers whose findings have triggered orchestrated campaigns of harassment. Examples from just the last few years include Ignacio Chapela, a then untenured Assistant Professor at Berkeley, whose paper on GM contamination of maize in Mexico (Quist and Chapela, 2001) sparked an intensive internet-based campaign to discredit him. This campaign was reportedly masterminded by the Bivings Group, a public relations firm specializing in viral marketing – and frequently hired by Monsanto (Delborne, 2008). 1） 一贯攻击对风险的研究 塞拉利尼和同事遭受的，不过是最新的一轮有组织的攻击。在最近几年发生过的同类事件中，有伯克利大学当时的助理教授 Ignacio Chapela 关于墨西哥转基因玉米污染的文章 (Quist and Chapela, 2001) ，他遭到的是来自互联网的污名式攻击浪潮；据报道，那一轮攻击由黑客公关公司 Bivings Group 策划实施；该公司经常性地受雇于孟山都公司，提供服务。 The distinguished career of biochemist Arpad Pusztai, came to an effective end when he attempted to report his contradictory findings on GM potatoes (Ewen and Pusztai, 1999a). Everything from a gag order, forced retirement, seizure of data, and harassment by the British Royal Society were used to forestall his continued research (Ewen and Pusztai, 1999b; Laidlaw, 2003). Even threats of physical violence have been used, most recently against Andres Carrasco, Professor of Molecular Embryology at the University of Buenos Aires, whose research (Paganelli et al. 2010) identified health risks from glyphosate, theactive ingredient in Roundup (Amnesty International, 2010). 杰出的生物化学家阿帕德 . 普兹泰在他报告了转基因土豆的问题后，学术生涯就终结了 (Ewen and Pusztai, 1999a) 。英国皇家学会竟然下封口令，强制他退休、没收他的数据，目的是不让他继续做研究 (Ewen and Pusztai, 1999b; Laidlaw, 2003) 。人身暴力都被用到过，最近的一次是针对布宜诺斯艾利斯大学的分子胚胎学家安德烈斯 . 卡拉斯科教授（ Andres Carrasco ），因为他的研究显示农达中的草甘膦有危害健康的风险 (Amnesty International, 2010) 。 It was no surprise therefore, that when in 2009, 26 corn entomologists took the unprecedented step of writing directly to the US EPA to complain about industry control of access to GM crops for research, the letter was sent anonymously (Pollack, 2009). 因此毫不奇怪， 2009 年当 26 位昆虫学家首次直接致信美国环保署，批评大公司控制对转基因农作物的研究时，他们提交的文件是一封匿名信件 (Amnesty International, 2010) 。 2) The Role of the Science Media. An important but often unnoticed aspect of this intimidation is that it frequently occurs in concert with the science media (Ermakova, 2007; Heinemann and Traavik, 2007; Latham and Wilson, 2007). Reporting of the Seralini paper in arguably the most prestigious segments of the science media: Science, the New York Times, New Scientist, and the Washington Post uniformly failed to “balance” criticism of the research, with even minimal coverage of support for the Seralini paper (Carmen, 2012; Enserink, 2012; MacKenzie, 2012; Pollack, 2012). Nevertheless, less well-resourced media outlets, such as the UK Daily Mail appeared to have no trouble finding a positive scientific opinion on the same study (Poulter, 2012). 2 ）科学媒体的角色。 一个很重要但是很少被注意到问题是，施加压力时通常少不了科学媒体参与其中 (Ermakova, 2007; Heinemann and Traavik, 2007; Latham and Wilson, 2007) 。塞拉利尼等人的报告发表后，享有最高科学名望的媒体如“科学”，“纽约时报”，“新科学家”，还有“华盛顿邮报”，全都不能对批评性的评论“掌握平衡”，它们都尽可能不刊发支持的意见，而且无一例外 (Carmen, 2012; Enserink, 2012; MacKenzie, 2012; Pollack, 2012) 。然而实力远不如它们的媒体，如英国每日电讯报，就能很容易地发现对同一个研究的支持性的科学观点 (Poulter, 2012) 。 3) Misleading Media Reporting. A key pattern with risk-finding studies is that the criticisms voiced in the media are often red herrings, misleading, or untruthful. Thus, the use of common methodologies was portrayed as indicative of shoddy science when used by Seralini et al. (2012) but not when used by industry (see refs above and Science Media Centre, 2012). The use of red herring arguments appears intended to sow doubt and confusion among non-experts. For example, Tom Sanders of Kings College, London was quoted as saying: “This strain of rat is very prone to mammary tumors particularly when food intake is not restricted” (Hirschler and Kelland, 2012 ). 3 ）媒体误导性报道。 它们针对研究转基因风险的报道最拿手的做法，是声东击西、鱼目混珠——让批评意见出现时像条“青熏鱼”，云里雾里讲不清、很容易被调转方向，或直接就是谣言。照此，塞拉利尼等人运用常规的研究方法，被媒体暗示为不靠谱、是假冒的科学（ 2012 ），而大公司用同样的研究方法，就是正道（见上面的引述，以及科学媒体中心， 2012 ）。媒体采用的这种无诚意手法，在非专业读者中播下疑问和迷惘。例如，伦敦国王学院（ Kings College ）的 Tom Sanders 被引述说：“这种实验鼠特别容易罹患乳腺肿瘤，尤其是在不限制摄食量的时候” (Hirschler and Kelland, 2012 ) 。 He failed to point out, or was unaware, that most industry feeding studies have used Sprague-Dawley rats (e.g. Hammond et al., 1996, 2004, 2006; MacKenzie et al., 2007). In these and other industry studies (e.g. Malley et al. 2007), feed intake was unrestricted. Sanders’ comments are important because they were widely quoted and because they were part of an orchestrated response to the Seralini study by the Science Media Centre of the British Royal Institution. The Science Media Centre has a long history of quelling GMO controversies and its funders include numerous companies that produce GMOs and pesticides. 但是他并没有指出，也许他不知道，几乎所有的大公司自己做喂养实验用的都是同一种 SD 大鼠 (e.g. Hammond et al., 1996, 2004, 2006; MacKenzie et al., 2007) ，并且在那些实验中，摄食量也不受限 (e.g. Malley et al. 2007) 。 Sanders 的评论很重要，不仅因为被引述了很多次，更因为他是英国皇家学会下面的科学媒体中心对塞拉利尼报告所策划的有组织的回击之一。科学媒体中心长期以来一直在镇压转基因争论，它的出资人中有多是生产转基因和杀虫剂的公司。 4) Regulator Culpability. In our view a large part of the ultimate fault for this controversy lies with regulators. Regulators, such as EFSA (the European Food Safety Authority) in Europe and the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and FDA (Food and Drug Administration) in the US, have enshrined protocols with little or no potential to detect adverse consequences of GMOs (Schubert, 2002; Freese and Schubert, 2004; Pelletier, 2005). 4 ）管理者失职。 在我们看来，在针对转基因的冲突中，最严重的问题之一是管理者失职。欧洲食品安全局（ EFSA ），美国的环保署（ EPA ）和食品药品监督管理局（ FDA ）等，它们制定的规则在检测转基因是否有危害时，没有什么真实的用处。 GMOs are required to undergo few experiments, few endpoints are examined, and tests are solely conducted by the applicant or their agents. Moreover, current regulatory protocols are simplistic and assumptions-based (RSC, 2001), which by design, will miss most gene expression changes – apart from the target trait - induced by the process of transgene insertion (Heinemann et al., 2011; Schubert, 2002). 对转基因产品其实没有做过什么实验，做过了的检测项目，数量也是非常小，全部检测都由申请者或者它们的代理机构提交。更严重的是，目前的规则要求太简单，所依据的不过是一些假设 (RSC, 2001) ，按照那些设计去干，除了目标基因的性状外，由异源基因插入而导致的绝大部分基因表达的改变，都可以轻易逃脱检测 (Heinemann et al., 2011; Schubert, 2002) 。 Puzstai (2001) and others have consequently argued that well-conducted feeding trials are one of the best ways of detecting such unpredictable changes. Yet feeding trials are not mandatory for regulatory approval, and the scientific credibility of those which have been published to date has been challenged (Domingo, 2007; Pusztai et al., 2003; Spiroux de Vendmois et al., 2009). For example, Snell et al. (2012), who assessed the quality of 12 long term (96 days) and 12 multigenerational studies, concluded: “The studies reviewed here are often linked to an inadequate experimental design that has detrimental effects on statistical analysis…the major insufficiencies not only include lack of use of near isogenic lines but also statistical power underestimation , absence of repetitions…”. 普兹泰等人（ 2001 ）有根据地指出，全面的、完善的动物喂养实验，是检测转基因非预期改变的最佳途径之一。然而转基因产品获得管理机构的批准时，却无需喂养实验结果，（按照这种规范）发表的论文是否具有科学可信度，已经遭到质疑 (Domingo, 2007; Pusztai et al., 2003; Spiroux de Vendmois et al., 2009) 。例如，施奈尔等人（ 2012 ）对 12 项 96 天以上的长期实验和 12 项多代实验进行评估研究之后，认为：“这些实验很多设计不当，难于进行统计分析 …… 最重大的不足是：缺乏相同基因序列（对比），统计信度弱，而且没有做重复实验 …… ” Apparently, the same issues of experimental design and analysis raised about this (Seralini) risk-finding study were not of concern to critics when the studies did not identify risk, resulting in ill-informed decision-makers. In the end, it is a major problem for science and society when current regulatory protocols approve GMO crops based on little to no useful data upon which to assess safety. 批评者质疑了塞拉利尼报告的实验设计和分析方法，同样的质疑对于不以风险为目标的研究项目也同样适用，却被堂而皇之地放过。因此决策者得到的是有错误的信息，在批准转基因农作物时，当前的管理规定对判断安全性时，没有以实验数据做依据。对于科学和社会来说，这样做下去最终会有极其严重的问题。 5) Science and Politics. Governments have become habituated to using science as a political football. For example, in a study conducted by the Royal Society of Canada at the request of the Canadian government, numerous weaknesses of GM regulation in Canada were identified (RSC, 2001). The failure of the Canadian government to meaningfully respond to the many recommended changes was detailed by Andree (2006). Similarly, the expert recommendations of the international IAASTD report, produced by 400 researchers over 6 years, that GMOs are unsuited to the task of advancing global agriculture have been resolutely ignored by policymakers. Thus, while proclaiming evidence-based decision-making, governments frequently use science solely when it suits them. 5 ）科学与政治 。 政府学会了并已惯于在科学问题上踢皮球。例如，加拿大皇家学会应加拿大政府要求而做的一项研究，暴露了转基因管理中的无数弱点（ RSC, 2001 ），加拿大政府却不能认真回应许多认真的建议（加以改进），如安德利所描述（ 2006 ）。由 400 名 IAASTD 专家工作了 6 年提出的专家建议指出，转基因不适用于全球的农业发展，这份报告也被决策者断然拒绝。自己声称是依据科学做决策的政府，其实只是选择性地采用仅仅对它们有好处的研究结果。 6) Conclusion: When those with a vested interest attempt to sow unreasonable doubt around inconvenient results, or when governments exploit political opportunities by picking and choosing from scientific evidence, they jeopardize public confidence in scientific methods and institutions, and also put their own citizenry at risk. Safety testing, science-based regulation, and the scientific process itself, depend crucially on widespread trust in a body of scientists devoted to the public interest and professional integrity. If instead, the starting point of a scientific product assessment is an approval process rigged in favour of the applicant, backed up by systematic suppression of independent scientists working in the public interest, then there can never be an honest, rational or scientific debate. 6 ）结语 当既得利益者面对不利于自己的科学研究结果尽力传播不讲道理的质疑时，当政府从科学的发现中仅仅挑选和利用对自己有利的一部分以获得政治利益时，他们就伤害了公众对科学研究方法的信任、对科研机构的信任，同时把人民置于风险之中。所谓安全性检测、基于科学的管理、甚至科学程序本身，这一切是否能够实行，完全取决于科学家群体是否真诚地献身于公众利益、是否整体忠于科学操守。假如把这一切反过来，让一个科学产品的评估从起点开始就作弊，仅仅朝研发者的利益倾斜，依赖系统性地压制独立科学家为公众利益所做的研究而推行，那么所谓诚实、理性或者科学的辩论，就是根本不可能的事情了。 起草者： The Authors: 1. Susan Bardocz (4, Arato Street, Budapest, 1121 Hungary) （布达佩斯，匈牙利） ; 2 Ann Clark (University of Guelph, ret.); Stanley Ewen (Consultant Histopathologist, Grampian University Hospital); Michael Hansen Consumers Union); Jack Heinemann (University of Canterbury); Jonathan Latham (The Bioscience Resource Project); Arpad Pusztai (4, Arato Street, Budapest, 1121 Hungary); David Schubert (The Salk Institute); Allison Wilson (The Bioscience Resource Project) Signatories: 签名人 1. Brian Wynne (Professor of Science Studies, UK Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Centre for Economic and Social Aspects of Genomics, Cesagen, Lancaster University) 兰卡斯特大学 英国 2. Irina Ermakova, Dr of Biology, Russian Academy of Sciences 俄国科学院 3. Jo Cummins (Professor Emeritus University of Western Ontario) 美国加拿大 大略大学 4. Michael Antoniou, (Reader in Molecular Genetics his university (King’s College, London) has a policy not to allow Dr Antoniou to use his affiliation here) 伦敦大学国王学院 5. Philip L. Bereano (Professor Emeritus University of Washington Washington Biotechnology Action Council) 华盛顿大学 6. Dr P M Bhargava (Former and Founder director, Centre for Cellular Molecular Biology, Government of India) 细胞与分子生物学中心 印度 7. Carlo Leifert (Professor for Ecological Agriculture Newcastle University) 英国纽卡斯尔大学 8. Peter Romilly (formerly University of Abertay, Dundee) 阿伯泰大学 9. Robert Vint (FRSA) 10. Dr Brian John (Durham University, UK, retired) 杜伦大学，英国 11. Professor C. Vyvyan Howard, University of Ulster) Diederick Sprangers Genethics Foundation) 阿尔斯特大学 哈沃德 美国华盛顿 12. Mariam Mayet (African Centre for Biosafety, South Africa) 非洲生物安全中心 南非 13. Eva Novotny (ret. University of Cambridge) 剑桥大学 14. Ineke Buskens (Research for the Future) 未来研究（所） 15. Hector Valenzuela (Professor, University of Hawaii) 美国夏威夷大学教授 16. Ronald Nigh, (Centro de Investigaciones y Estudio Superiores en Antropología Social, Chiapas, Mexico) 墨西哥 17. Marcia Ishii-Eiteman (PhD, Senior Scientist, Pesticide Action Network North America) 农药行动网络 北美 18. Naomi Salmon (Dept. of Law, Aberystwyth University, Wales) 威尔士大学 19. Michael W, Fox (Minnesota, Veterinarian Bioethicist, PhD, MRCVS) 美国明尼苏达州 20. Neil J. Carman (PhD Sierra Club) 美国 塞拉俱乐部 21. Vandana Shiva (India) 印度 22. Hans Herren (President, Millennium Institute, Washington DC, USA) 美国华盛顿 23. John Fagan (PhD Earth Open Source, UK and USA) 英国和美国 24. Sheila Berry and the Global Environmental Trust 25. Av Singh (PhD, Perennia) 26. Laurel Hopwood (for the Sierra Club, USA) 美国 塞拉俱乐部 27. Philip H. Howard (Associate Professor of Community, Food and Agriculture, Michigan State University ) 美国密西根州大学 28. Donald B. Clark (on behalf of Cumberland Countians for Peace Justice and Network for Environmental Economic Responsibility, United Church of Christ, Pleasant Hill, TN) 基督联合教会，美国田纳西 29. Robert Mann (Senior Lecturer in Biochemistry in Environmental Studies (rtd) University of Auckland, NZ) 新西兰 奥克兰大学 30. Chris Williams (PhD, FRSA, University of London) 英国伦敦大学 31. Mae-Wan Ho (PhD Director Institute of Science in Society) 英国 社会科学研究所 32. Peter Saunders (Prof. Emeritus of Applied Mathematics, King’s College London) 英国 伦敦大学国王学院 33. Dr. Terje Traavik (Prof. Gene Ecology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Troms) 挪威 特罗姆瑟大学 34. Oscar B. Zamora (Prof. Crop Science University of the Philippines Los Banos College, Philippines). 菲律宾 洛斯巴诺斯学院 35. Xiulin Gu (Prof. of Yunnan University of Finance P.R.C. PH.D University of Hawaii U.S.A) 中国云南财经大学教授 （美国夏威夷大学博士） and if you are a scientist or academic and would like your name added to this list, please email: isneditor@bioscienceresource.org and write ‘Seralini letter’ in the headline, providing an affiliation if you wish. 可以连署，发电邮至上述邮箱 Footnotes (1) In addition, US scientists who publish studies finding adverse environmental effects are frequently vehemently attacked by other pro-GM scientists. As a report in Nature, which discusses numerous examples, points out, “Papers suggesting that biotech crops might harm the environment attract a hail of abuse from other scientists. Behind the attacks are scientists who are determined to prevent papers they deem to have scientific flaws from influencing policy-makers.When a paper comes out in which they see problems, they react quickly, criticize the work in public forums, write rebuttal letters, and send them to policy-makers, funding agencies and journal editors” (pg. 27 in Waltz. 2009a).Indeed, when one of us wrote a Commentary in Nature Biotechnology ten years ago suggesting that more attention needs to be paid to the potential unintended effects associated with insertional mutagenesis, we received a flood of responses, and an administrator at the Salk Institute even said that the publication “was jeopardizing funding for his institution” (see Waltz, 2009a). Similar attacks have greeted studies on adverse effects of Bt toxins on ladybird beetles and green lacewing larvae, which were used by German authorities to ban cultivation of Mon810, a Bt corn variety (see: Hilbeck et al.2012a,b, respectively). In 2009, a group of 26 public sector corn entomologists sent a letter to the US Environmental Protection Agency which stated “No truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions involving these crops ” (pg. 880 in Waltz, 2009b it was no surprise that the letter was sent anonymously as the scientists feared retribution from the companies that funded their work (Pollack, 2009).?Furthermore, industry control over what research can be conducted in the US means that adverse findings can effectively be suppressed. In one example cited in the article, Pioneer was developing a binary Bt toxin, Cry34Ab1/Cry35Ab1, against the corn rootworm. In 2001, Pioneer contracted with some university laboratories to test for unintended effects on a lady beetle. The laboratories found that 100% of the lady beetles died after eight days of feeding. Pioneer forbade the researchers from publicizing the data. Two years later Pioneer received approval for a Bt corn variety with Cry34Ab1/Cry35Ab1 and submitted studies showing that lady beetles fed the toxin for only 7 days were not harmed. The scientists were not allowed to redo the study after the crop was commercialized (Waltz, 2009b). In another example, Dow AgroSciences threatened a researcher with legal action if he published information he had received from US EPA. As the article notes, “The information concerned an insect-resistant variety of maize known as TC1507, made by Dow and Pioneer. The companies suspended sales of TC1507 in Puerto Rico after discovering in 2006 that an armyworm had developed resistance to it. Tabashnik was able to review the report the companies filed with the EPA by submitting a Freedom of Information Act request. “I encouraged an employee of the company to publish the data and mentioned that, alternatively, I could cite the data,” says Tabashnik. “He told me that if I cited the information…I would be subject to legal action by the company,” he says. “These kinds of statements are chilling” (pg. 882 in Waltz, 2009b). References 参考文献 Amnesty International. 2010. Argentina: Threats deny community access to research UA: 173/10 Index: AMR 13/005/2010 Argentina Date: 12 August 2010 Andree, Peter. 2006. An analysis of efforts to improve genetically modified food regulation in Canada. Science and Public Policy 33(5):399-389. Antoniou, Michael., Paolo Brack, Andres Carrasco, John Fagan, Mohamed Habib, Paolo Kageyama, Carlo Leifert, Rubens Nodari, Walter Pengue. 2010. GM Soy: Sustainable? Responsible? GLS Gemeinschaftsbank and ARGE Gentechnik-frei. Carmen, Tim. 2012. French scientists question safety of GM corn. Washington Post 19 Sept 2012. Delborne, Jason. 2008. Transgenes and transgressions: scientific dissent as heterogeneous practice. Social Studies of Science 38(4):509-541 Domingo, Jose L. 2007. Toxicity studies of genetically modified plants: a review of the published literature. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 47:721–733 Enserink, Martin. 2012. France and European Commission order review of controversial GM study in rats. ScienceInsider 21 Sept 2012 Ermakova, Irina. 2007. GM soybeans: revisiting a controversial format. Nature Biotech 25:1351-1354 Ewen, Stanley W.B. and Arpad Pusztai. 1999a Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine. The Lancet 354 (9187):1353-1354 Ewen, Stanley W.B. and Arpad Pusztai. 1999b. Health risks of genetically modified foods. The Lancet 354(Issue 9179):684. HYPERLINK” Freese, W. and D. Schubert. 2004. Safety Testing and Regulation of Genetically Engineered Foods. Biotechnol Genet Eng Rev 21:299-324 Gaivo I, Guilherme S, M.A. Santos MA, M. Pacheco. 2012. DNA damage in fish (Anguilla anguilla) exposed to a glyphosate-based herbicide —elucidation of organ-specificity and the role of oxidative stress. Mutat Res 18 743(1-2):1-9. Hammond, Bruce, John L Vicini, Cary F. Hartnell, Mark W. Naylor, Christopher D. Knight, Edwin H. Robinson, Roy L. Fuchs and Stephen R. Padgette. 1996. The feeding value of soybeans fed to rats, chickens, catfish and dairy cattle is not altered by genetic incorporation of glyphosate tolerance. J. Nutr. 126:717-272 Hammond, B., R. Dudek, J. Lemen, M. Nemeth. 2004. Results of a 13 week safety assurance study with rats fed grain from glyphosate tolerant corn. Food Chem Toxicol 42:1003–1014 Hammond, B., R. Dudek, J. Lemen, M. Nemeth. 2006. Results of a 90-day safety assurance study with rats fed grain from corn borer-protected corn. Food Chem Toxicol 44:1092–1099 Heinemann, J.A. and Traavik, T. 2007. GM soybeans—revisiting a controversial format. Nature Biotech 25: 1355-1356 Heinemann, J. A., B. Kurenbach, B. and D. Quist. 2011. Molecular profiling — a tool for addressing emerging gaps in the comparative risk assessment of GMOs. Env. Int. 37: 1285-1293. Hilbeck, A., J.M. McMillan, M. Meier, A. Humbel, J. Schlpfer-Miller and M. Trtikova. 2012. A controversy revisited: Is the coccinellid Adalia bipunctata adversely affected by Bt toxins? Environmental Sciences Europe, 24:10 Hilbeck, A., M. Meier and M. Trtikova. 2012. Underlying reasons of the controversy over adverse effects of Bt toxins on lady beetle and lacewing larvae.Environmental Sciences Europe, 24:9. Hirschler, Ben and Kate Kelland. 2012. Study on Monsanto GM corn concerns draws skepticism. Reuters: Ed UK 20 Sept 2012 Kelly, David, Robert Poulin, Daniel M. Tompkins and Colin R. Townsend. 2010. Synergistic effects of glyphosate formulation and parasite infection on fish malformations and survival. J. Appl. Ecol. 47(2): 498-504 Laidlaw, Stuart. 2003. Ch. 4 What’s Good for GM. In: Secret Ingredients. McClelland and Stewart Ltd., Toronto. Latham, Jonathan and Allison Wilson. 2007. What is Nature Biotechnology good for? Independent Science News 4 Dec 2007. MacKenzie, Debora. 2012. Study linking GM crops and cancer questioned. New Scientist 19 Sept 2012. MacKenzie and 12 others. 2007. Thirteen week feeding study with transgenic maize grain containing event DAS-157-1 in Sprague–Dawley rats. Food Chem. Toxicol. 45:551–562 Malley and 14 others. 2007. Subchronic feeding study of DAS-59122-7 maize grain in Sprague-Dawley rats. Food Chem. Toxicol. 45:1277–1292 Mestel, Rosie. 2012. Study points to health problems with genetically modified foods. LA Times 20 Sept 2012 Paganelli, Alejandra, Victoria Gnazzo, Helena Acosta, Silvia L. Lopez, and Andres E. Carrasco. 2010. Glyphosate-based herbicides produce teratogenic effects on vertebrates by impairing retinoic acid signaling. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 23(10):1586–1595 Pelletier, D. 2005. Science, Law, and Politics in the Food and Drug Administration’s Genetically Engineered Foods Policy: FDA’s 1992 Policy Statement. Nutr. Rev. 63:171-181 Pollack, Andrew. 2009. Crop scientists say biotechnology seed companies are thwarting research. New York Times 19 Feb 2009. Pollack, Andrew. 2012. Foes of modified corn find support in a study. New York Times 19 Sept 2012. Poulter, Sean. 2012. Cancer row over GM foods as study says it did THIS to rats… and can cause organ damage and early death in humans. Mail OnLine 19 Sept 2012. Pusztai, Arpad. 2001. Genetically Modified Foods: Are They a Risk to Human/Animal Health? American Institute of Biological Sciences Pusztai, A,, S. Bardocz, and S.W.B. Ewen. 2003. Ch. 16. Genetically Modified Foods: Potential Human Health Effects. pp. 347-372. In: J.P.F. D’Mello (ed) Food Safety: Contaminants and Toxins. CAB International 472 pp. Quist, David and Ignacio Chapela. 2001. Transgenic DNA introgressed into traditional maize landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico. Nature 414 (6863): 541–543 Revkin, Andrew. 2012. Single-Study Syndrome and the G.M.O. Fight. New York Times 20 Sept 2012 HYPERLINK “” http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/20/the-gmo-food-fight-rats-cancer-and-single-study-syndrome/ Romano M.A., R.M. Romano, L.D. Santos, P. Wisniewski, D.A. Campos, P.B. de Souza, P. Viau, M.M. Bernardi, M.T. Nunes, C.A. de Oliveira. 2012. Glyphosate impairs male offspring reproductive development by disrupting gonadotropin expression. Arch. Toxicol. 86(4):663-73. RSC (Royal Society of Canada). 2001. Elements of Precaution: Recommendations for the Regulation of Food Biotechnology In Canada Science Media Centre. 2012. Study on cancer and GM maize – experts respond. Posted 20 Sept 2012. Schubert, David. 2002. A different perspective on GM food. Nature Biotech. 20: 969 Séralini, G-E., E. Clair, R. Mesnage, S. Gress, N. Defarge, M. Malatesta, D. Hennequin, J. Spiroux de Vendmois. 2012. Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Food Chem. Toxicol. Snell, C., A. Bernheim, J-B. Berge, M. Kuntz, G. Pascal, A. Paris, and A.E. Ricroch. 2012. Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials: A literature review. Food Chem. Toxicol. 50:1134-1148 Spiroux de Vendmois, J., F. Roullier, D. Cellier, and G.-E. Séralini. 2009. A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health. Int. J. Biol. Sci. 5(7):706–726 Waltz, E. 2009a. Battlefield. Nature 461: 27-32. Waltz, E. 2009b. Under Wraps. Nature Biotechnology 27(10): 880-882. Worstall, Tim. 2012. Proof Perfect That The Seralini Paper On GM Corn And Cancer In Rats Is Rubbish. Forbes 21 Sept 2012.
9.0级地震引发的日本福岛核电站危机已经有2个多月了,法国科学家2011年5月23日在《环境与科技》（ Environmental Science Technology 2011 45 (10), p 4193）网站发表了一项最新研究报告,对于福岛核电站事故对其电厂附近的野生生物的影响进行评估，指出有些物种可能已经吸收到的辐射剂量远超过敏感物种的安全水平。 这项报告由法国辐射防护与核安全研究所（French Institute of Radioprotection and Nuclear Safety）的 Jacqueline Garnier-Laplace, Karine Beaugelin-Seiller以及Thomas G. Hinton合作完成。这也是首次对福岛核事故的生态后果作出的评价。关心福岛核事故的朋友们不妨可以看看Garnier-Laplace和她的同事研究报告。 原文下载： http://doc.sciencenet.cn/upload/file/20116374917265.pdf
标签: 法国科学家
