顧秀林：美國(guó)《大西洋月刊》“轉(zhuǎn)基因食品有非常真實(shí)的危險(xiǎn)”

美國(guó)《大西洋月刊》“轉(zhuǎn)基因食品有非常真實(shí)的危險(xiǎn)”

【顧秀林按：美國(guó)《大西洋月刊》是1857年11月創(chuàng)辦的精英刊物（見《南方日?qǐng)?bào)》 2001年4月09日 “《大西洋月刊》——美國(guó)精神的覺醒 ”介紹）。2012年1月12日，該刊刊登了題為《轉(zhuǎn)基因食品有非常真實(shí)的危險(xiǎn)（The Very Real Danger of Genetically Modified Foods ）》一文；下面是我的譯文、英文原文及幾點(diǎn)感想。

    世界上始終存在著一批反對(duì)轉(zhuǎn)基因技術(shù)濫用的科學(xué)家。多年前他們提出的嚴(yán)重警告，今天正一一應(yīng)驗(yàn)，而且問題比他們?cè)缦阮A(yù)計(jì)的還要嚴(yán)重得多，千百倍地更糟糕。濫用轉(zhuǎn)基因技術(shù)于農(nóng)業(yè)是錯(cuò)誤的，美國(guó)這家精英刊物終于承認(rèn)了。此文指出：

   （1）中國(guó)南京大學(xué)報(bào)告的最新發(fā)現(xiàn)miRNA（微小核糖核酸）功能，可能會(huì)（或者已經(jīng)）顛覆了許多研究領(lǐng)域中的行規(guī)；具體說，從分子生物學(xué)一開始到現(xiàn)在始終被信奉的理論如中心法則，已經(jīng)被證明是錯(cuò)誤的（至少是過度簡(jiǎn)單化了）;

   （2）轉(zhuǎn)基因生物安全的問題，不僅在于轉(zhuǎn)進(jìn)去的那個(gè)基因片段“烤”出了一個(gè)什么樣的“比薩餅”（被編碼合成的蛋白質(zhì)），更是在于發(fā)生在“比薩餅”之外的事情，特別是科學(xué)家至今知之甚少的miRNA（微小核糖核酸），以及更多尚不明了的東西;

   （3）孟山都公司以一己利益為基礎(chǔ)，炮制出來的著名信條“實(shí)質(zhì)上等同”，是徹底的謬誤、是反科學(xué)，轉(zhuǎn)基因是“實(shí)質(zhì)上、根本上不相同”；

   （4）改寫教科書關(guān)于轉(zhuǎn)基因生物知識(shí)的時(shí)刻已經(jīng)來臨。

    僅看現(xiàn)在已經(jīng)了解的證據(jù)，就足夠判斷“轉(zhuǎn)基因食品有非常真實(shí)的危險(xiǎn)”。美國(guó)的精英，給美國(guó)政府深謀遠(yuǎn)慮的“21世紀(jì)生物技術(shù)戰(zhàn)略”橫著打了一悶棍。

此文并沒有明確、具體地說，那些“非常真實(shí)的危險(xiǎn)”具體表現(xiàn)為什么，正如南京大學(xué)的報(bào)告沒有討論，微小核糖核酸（miRNA）的跨界信息交流功能，同轉(zhuǎn)基因食品安全性有什么直接的關(guān)系。但是，此文作者明明白白地暗示，用“敲除”一個(gè)RNA的方法，可以開發(fā)殺蟲轉(zhuǎn)基因植物，“孟山都公司把RNA（核糖核酸）干擾原理用于殺蟲了，而那個(gè)能致死昆蟲的生物學(xué)機(jī)理，在人類身上也是同樣存在的”！

在中國(guó)突然出現(xiàn)的廣泛的、高比率的不孕不育現(xiàn)象，難道就不能給人們一點(diǎn)警示？難道是還想看見更“真實(shí)”的、更明確的危險(xiǎn)？那該是一個(gè)什么樣的“非常真實(shí)的危險(xiǎn)”？在統(tǒng)計(jì)上還必須很顯著吧？

    在真正的科學(xué)家面前，問題是逃不掉的，即使逃得了一時(shí)，也決逃不了一世。但是，就在在“一時(shí)”與“一世”的間隔里，美國(guó)的“21世紀(jì)生物技術(shù)戰(zhàn)略”很快就要取得戰(zhàn)略性勝利了！看看最近，2012年以來，杜邦公司多么高興，中國(guó)中央政府的一號(hào)文件，簡(jiǎn)直就像是為它寫的！一號(hào)文件讓杜邦公司感到很舒服！杜邦公司的種子、機(jī)器、肥料、農(nóng)藥，都睜圓了眼睛，瞪著中國(guó)肥大的“市場(chǎng)”——你是不是垂涎三丈了？可不要太失態(tài)啊！

    真正的科學(xué)精神，是不斷求真、不斷糾錯(cuò)。不過，走出實(shí)驗(yàn)室后的偽科學(xué)，是堅(jiān)決隱瞞真相、是從來不肯糾錯(cuò)的。“非常危險(xiǎn)”的轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆，2012年又以排山倒海之勢(shì)，繼續(xù)像洪水泥石流一樣往中國(guó)“市場(chǎng)”涌來；“轉(zhuǎn)基因食品無害”的鼓噪，仍然充斥主流媒體，甚至更加甚囂塵上。

    悲哀啊，中國(guó)的轉(zhuǎn)基因“國(guó)策”——本屆政府正快馬加鞭沖向終點(diǎn)嗎？！】

下面是中英對(duì)照譯文。謝謝沈陽提出的修訂意見。

By Ari LeVaux

Jan 9 2012, 7:57 AM ET457

最新研究表明：我們?cè)谑秤檬澄锏臅r(shí)候不僅僅是吸收了維他命和蛋白質(zhì)，而且還攝取了生命信息和微核糖核酸。
New research shows that when we eat we're consuming more than just vitamins and protein. Our bodies are absorbing information, or microRNA.

感謝Christie Wilcox和Emily Willingham分別發(fā)表在“科學(xué)美國(guó)人”博客網(wǎng)和《生物檔案》上的科學(xué)和生物學(xué)博文，介紹阿里·勒沃（ Ari LeVaux'）在最近的《曇花一現(xiàn)》專欄中指出的“科學(xué)中的非自洽”。這篇文章已為多家報(bào)社和雜志網(wǎng)站所轉(zhuǎn)載了。這個(gè)專欄是為Alternet做的擴(kuò)展和更新，勒沃在評(píng)論欄中做了進(jìn)一步潤(rùn)色。

Update 1/12: Thanks to science and biology bloggers, Christie Wilcox and Emily Willingham at the Scientific American blog network and The Biology Files, respectively, we've learned of the scientific inconsistencies made in Ari LeVaux's most recent Flash in the Pan column, which is syndicated by a number of newspapers and magazine websites. This column has been expanded and updated for AlterNet, with LeVaux discussing specific improvements in the comments.

在食用大米的人體血液和器官中，中國(guó)的研究人員已經(jīng)找到了一種來自大米的微小核糖核酸片段。這個(gè)以南京大學(xué)為基地的研究團(tuán)隊(duì)稱：這種遺傳物質(zhì)會(huì)粘附在受體的肝臟細(xì)胞上，并且左右人體從血液中清除膽固醇。

Chinese researchers have found small pieces of rice ribonucleic acid (RNA) in the blood and organs of humans who eat rice. The Nanjing University-based team showed that this genetic material will bind to receptors in human liver cells and influence the uptake of cholesterol from the blood.

此種核糖核酸因其本身非常小，被稱作微小核糖核酸（縮寫為miRNA）。miRNA是在十年前才被發(fā)現(xiàn)的，之后進(jìn)行了廣泛研究，并且己被確認(rèn)為是癌癥、老年癡呆癥和糖尿病等多種人類疾病的誘因。這些miRNA通過壓制或關(guān)閉特定基因來發(fā)揮作用。中國(guó)專家的研究，首次展示了植物中的微小核糖核酸能通過人類消化道而不被降解、首次找到了這些來自植物組織的活性微小生物基因信息物質(zhì)對(duì)人類細(xì)胞發(fā)號(hào)施令的例子。

The type of RNA in question is called microRNA (abbreviated to miRNA) due to its small size. MiRNAs have been studied extensively since their discovery ten years ago, and have been implicated as players in several human diseases including cancer, Alzheimer's, and diabetes. They usually function by turning down or shutting down certain genes. The Chinese research provides the first in vivo example of ingested plant miRNA surviving digestion and influencing human cell function in this way.

如果該研究中的關(guān)鍵點(diǎn)能通過嚴(yán)格的科學(xué)評(píng)審------它將會(huì)顛覆許多的研究研究。因?yàn)樗馕吨覀兂韵氯サ牟恢皇蔷S生素、蛋白質(zhì)和能量，可能還包含有基因調(diào)控因子。

Should the research survive scientific scrutiny -- a serious hurdle -- it could prove a game changer in many fields. It would mean that we're eating not just vitamins, protein, and fuel, but gene regulators as well.

    這個(gè)新發(fā)現(xiàn)將會(huì)加深科學(xué)家對(duì)許多研究領(lǐng)域的理解，其中包括：跨物種的信息交流方式、協(xié)同演化和（細(xì)胞的）吞噬-關(guān)聯(lián)等問題。它還可能提出代謝紊亂的新模型，甚至解釋某些草藥和現(xiàn)代藥物是如何發(fā)揮功能的。

That knowledge could deepen our understanding of many fields, including cross-species communication, co-evolution, and predator-prey relationships. It could illuminate new mechanisms for some metabolic disorders and perhaps explain how some herbal and modern medicines function.

中國(guó)專家的這項(xiàng)研究本身未涉及轉(zhuǎn)基因食品問題，其實(shí)它對(duì)此有更大的價(jià)值。這項(xiàng)研究為我們打開了眼界，展現(xiàn)了一條認(rèn)識(shí)新食品如轉(zhuǎn)基因食品如何影響人類健康的新途徑，這是我們完全沒有意料到的。

This study had nothing to do with genetically modified (GM) food, but it could have implications on that front. The work shows a pathway by which new food products, such as GM foods, could influence human health in previously unanticipated ways.

在孟山都公司的官方網(wǎng)站上，有這樣的宣告：“測(cè)試轉(zhuǎn)基因食品對(duì)人類的安全性是完全沒有必要、也沒有意義的”。這是一個(gè)有利于商業(yè)的說法，它依據(jù)的基礎(chǔ)是1960年前后的遺傳學(xué)。它遵循的是被稱為“中心法則”的遺傳學(xué)，中心法則假說是這樣的：是DNA在主導(dǎo)細(xì)胞；從DNA到細(xì)胞之間存在一種單方向運(yùn)行的指令控制鏈。

Monsanto's website states, "There is no need for, or value in testing the safety of GM foods in humans." This viewpoint, while good for business, is built on an understanding of genetics circa 1960. It follows what's called the "Central Dogma" of genetics, which postulates a one-way chain of command between DNA and the cells DNA governs.

“中心法則”——這事很像我們?cè)诒人_餅店訂購(gòu)一個(gè)比薩餅的過程：在這里，DNA（脫氧核糖核酸Deoxyribonucleic acid的英文縮寫）是指所要的比薩餅類型；下的那個(gè)訂單叫RNA（核糖核酸 Ribonucleic acid英文縮寫），訂單指示廚師所定制的比薩餅有什么特點(diǎn)。隨后烤好交貨的比薩餅，就是DNA所編碼合成的那個(gè)“蛋白質(zhì)”。

The Central Dogma resembles the process of ordering a pizza. The DNA codes for the kind of pizza it wants, and orders it. The RNA is the order slip, which communicates the specifics of that pizza to the cook. The finished and delivered pizza is analogous to the protein that DNA codes for.

幾十年來，科學(xué)家們?cè)絹碓矫靼祝爸行姆▌t”理論只是在大體上正確，它太過簡(jiǎn)化了。例如不執(zhí)行編碼過程的微小核糖核酸miRNA，并不編碼烤制比薩餅的指令、也不干什么事，卻能在細(xì)胞中移動(dòng)、并把某些人體的基因表達(dá)“沉默”掉。因此，當(dāng)一段DNA片段在訂制一個(gè)比薩餅時(shí)，它同時(shí)有可能攻擊帶有某個(gè)RNA信號(hào)的另一家比薩餅店。結(jié)果有可能是：別的DNA片段定制的另外的一個(gè)比薩餅訂單，最終無法完成。

We've known for decades that the Central Dogma, though basically correct, is overly simplistic. For example: MiRNAs that don't code for anything, pizza or otherwise, travel within cells silencing genes that are being expressed. So while one piece of DNA is ordering a pizza, it could also be bombarding the pizzeria with RNA signals that can cancel the delivery of other pizzas ordered by other bits of DNA.

科學(xué)家們已經(jīng)在利用這個(gè)發(fā)現(xiàn)了。他們可以合成一個(gè)幾乎與miRNA一模一樣的小型人工RNA鏈。通過一種叫作RNA干擾或RNA“敲除”的方法，這些RNA微小片段就能被用來關(guān)閉或者“敲除”特定的基因。

Researchers have been using this phenomena to their advantage in the form of small, engineered RNA strands that are virtually identical to miRNA. In a technique called RNA interference, or RNA knockdown, these small bits of RNA are used to turn off, or "knock down," certain genes.

在1994年，RNA敲除方法第一次用于制造商品，開發(fā)出來的是一種保鮮期較長(zhǎng)的轉(zhuǎn)基因西紅柿——“莎佛”（Flavor Savr）。從2007年以來，多個(gè)研究團(tuán)隊(duì)報(bào)告過，通過敲除特定RNA，己開發(fā)成功具有殺蟲功能的植物RNA。2007年11月5日，發(fā)表在麻省理工學(xué)院的《科技評(píng)論》雜志上的報(bào)告說，中國(guó)的研究人員利用RNA敲除法，開發(fā)了一種轉(zhuǎn)基因棉花：

RNA knockdown was first used commercially in 1994 to create the Flavor Savr, a tomato with increased shelf life. In 2007, several research teams began reporting success at engineering plant RNA to kill insect predators, by knocking down certain genes. As reported in MIT's Technology Review on November 5, 2007, researchers in China used RNA knockdown to make:

棉花植株中的一種基因被“沉默”了，這種基因原來的功能，是讓棉鈴蟲產(chǎn)生消化棉花中的天然棉酚毒素的能力。吃了基因“沉默”的轉(zhuǎn)基因棉花的棉鈴蟲，因?yàn)椴荒墚a(chǎn)生處理毒素的蛋白質(zhì)而致死。

...cotton plants that silence a gene that allows cotton bollworms to process the toxin gossypol, which occurs naturally in cotton. Bollworms that eat the genetically engineered cotton can't make their toxin-processing proteins, and they die.

And:

另外

還有孟山都和一家比利時(shí)公司（Devgen）的研究人員用基因沉默的辦法開發(fā)出一種轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米，它可以干擾玉米根葉甲蟲消化吸收能量所必須的某種基因，令這種昆蟲在12天內(nèi)死亡。

Researchers at Monsanto and Devgen, a Belgian company, made corn plants that silence a gene essential for energy production in corn rootworms; ingestion wipes out the worms within 12 days.

人類和昆蟲在基因方面有很多相同之處。假如miRNA的確夠通過消化道而存活，那么能夠影響昆蟲基因調(diào)控的miRNA，完全有可能，也會(huì)如此影響人類的基因。

Humans and insects have a lot in common, genetically. If miRNA can in fact survive the gut then it's entirely possible that miRNA intended to influence insect gene regulation could also affect humans.

孟山都公司聲稱，轉(zhuǎn)基因食品“沒有必要做人體毒理學(xué)測(cè)試”，它的根據(jù)是“實(shí)質(zhì)性等同”。根據(jù)它這個(gè)說法，轉(zhuǎn)基因和非轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物之間做比較，只需要檢測(cè)那個(gè)外源DNA本身表達(dá)的最終產(chǎn)物（新烤的比薩餅）。孟山都公司認(rèn)為，那個(gè)新插入的DNA不會(huì)構(gòu)成除此“比薩餅”以外的任何問題。

Monsanto's claim that human toxicology tests are unwarranted is based on the doctrine of "substantial equivalence." According to substantial equivalence, comparisons between GM and non-GM crops need only investigate the end products of DNA expression. New DNA is not considered a threat in any other way.

孟山都公司網(wǎng)站上是這樣說的：“只要引入的那個(gè)蛋白質(zhì)被認(rèn)為是安全的，轉(zhuǎn)基因的農(nóng)產(chǎn)品就被認(rèn)為在實(shí)質(zhì)上等同，不會(huì)對(duì)健康構(gòu)成任何威脅”。

"So long as the introduced protein is determined to be safe, food from GM crops determined to be substantially equivalent is not expected to pose any health risks," reads Monsanto's website.

孟山都公司的意思就是說，只要轉(zhuǎn)基因的最終產(chǎn)物——那個(gè)比薩餅——沒有毒性，那么外來的DNA就算是沒有差異，也不會(huì)造成任何食品安全問題。在這里，非常需要指出的一點(diǎn)是，如果把這一法則（實(shí)質(zhì)性等同）用于知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)法，那么孟山都公司的許多專利應(yīng)該是不能成立的。

In other words, as long as the final product -- the pizza, as it were -- is non-toxic, the introduced DNA isn't any different and doesn't pose a problem. For what it's worth, if that principle were applied to intellectual property law, many of Monsanto's patents would probably be null and void.

中國(guó)RNA（核糖核酸）研究的領(lǐng)銜研究員是張辰宇。他并沒有評(píng)論他的工作會(huì)如何影響轉(zhuǎn)基因食品安全性的爭(zhēng)論。但是，這項(xiàng)發(fā)現(xiàn)讓公眾都對(duì)孟山都公司的“實(shí)質(zhì)性等同”深感憂慮。而事實(shí)上，在很多年前，科學(xué)共同體中就提出了這個(gè)危害性問題。

Chen-Yu Zhang, the lead researcher on the Chinese RNA study, has made no comment regarding the implications of his work for the debate over the safety of GM food. Nonetheless, these discoveries help give shape to concerns about substantial equivalence that have been raised for years from within the scientific community.

一批科學(xué)家1999年就向著名的《自然》雜志寫過一封信，題為《在實(shí)質(zhì)性等同的背后》。埃里克·米爾斯通等人在這封信中指出：“‘實(shí)質(zhì)性等同’是一個(gè)‘偽科學(xué)概念’，在本質(zhì)上是反對(duì)科學(xué)的，因?yàn)榘阉岢鰜碇皇菫椴蛔錾锘瘜W(xué)檢驗(yàn)或毒理學(xué)檢驗(yàn)找了個(gè)借口。”

In 1999, a group of scientists wrote a letter titled "Beyond Substantial Equivalence" to the prestigious journal Nature. In the letter, Erik Millstone et. al. called substantial equivalence "a pseudo-scientific concept" that is "inherently anti-scientific because it was created primarily to provide an excuse for not requiring biochemical or toxicological tests."

對(duì)于科學(xué)家的指控，孟山都公司是這樣回應(yīng)的：“在1991年的時(shí)候，‘實(shí)質(zhì)等同性原則’這一概念在一個(gè)由‘經(jīng)濟(jì)合作與發(fā)展組織(OECD)’所召開的國(guó)際科學(xué)專家會(huì)議上制定了細(xì)節(jié)。那是早在生物工程產(chǎn)品還沒有上市之前的事情了。”

To these charges, Monsanto responded: "The concept of substantial equivalence was elaborated by international scientific and regulatory experts convened by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in 1991, well before any biotechnology products were ready for market."

孟山都公司這個(gè)回應(yīng)，在表面上是反駁一項(xiàng)指責(zé)，實(shí)際上它是把這件事處理成一項(xiàng)監(jiān)管性事務(wù)了。“實(shí)質(zhì)上等同”顯然需要在孟山都公司的轉(zhuǎn)基因產(chǎn)品上市之前提出。這是為它的轉(zhuǎn)基因食品全球化商業(yè)所做的一項(xiàng)政策準(zhǔn)備。我們都己看見：在世界上任何一個(gè)地方，只要接受了“實(shí)質(zhì)等同性”原則，轉(zhuǎn)基因食品市場(chǎng)銷售的準(zhǔn)入合法性便順理成章地辦妥了。當(dāng)“實(shí)質(zhì)性等同”被世界采納時(shí)，孟山都公司已經(jīng)種出大量轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)產(chǎn)品，不失時(shí)機(jī)地把它們包裝起來推向市場(chǎng)了。

This response is less a rebuttal than a testimonial to Monsanto's prowess at handling regulatory affairs. Of course the term was established before any products were ready for the market. Doing so was a prerequisite to the global commercialization of GM crops. It created a legal framework for selling GM foods anywhere in the world that substantial equivalence was accepted. By the time substantial equivalence was adopted, Monsanto had already developed numerous GM crops and was actively grooming them for market.

擁有34個(gè)成員國(guó)的經(jīng)濟(jì)合作與發(fā)展組織(OECD)，主要是發(fā)達(dá)、富裕、以白人為主的國(guó)家,而且是“親”大公司的。這個(gè)組織有一個(gè)使命，把經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展推延到世界上的每一個(gè)角落。在這項(xiàng)使命的推進(jìn)當(dāng)中，OECD的確為孟山都公司向全球推廣“實(shí)質(zhì)性等同”助了一臂之力。

The OECD's 34 member nations could be described as largely rich, white, developed, and sympathetic to big business. The group's current mission is to spread economic development to the rest of the world. And while the mission has yet to be accomplished, OECD has helped Monsanto spread substantial equivalence globally.

許多轉(zhuǎn)基因食品的支持者喜歡說：如果必須測(cè)試轉(zhuǎn)基因食品的毒性，那么對(duì)世界上的全部食品都應(yīng)該做毒性測(cè)試。

Many GM fans will point out that if we do toxicity tests on GM foods, we should also have to do toxicity testing on every other kind of food in the world.

可是，現(xiàn)有一切食物植物的毒性？——測(cè)試早就做完了。我們做了幾千年艱難的測(cè)試，我們?cè)噰L陌生的植物，導(dǎo)致有人死亡、或者瀕臨死亡。我們就是這樣學(xué)會(huì)的識(shí)別有毒植物。我們每一個(gè)人都在以一生的時(shí)間不斷地確認(rèn)，我們究竟會(huì)對(duì)哪些食物過敏。

But we've already done the testing on the existing plants. We tested them the hard way, by eating strange things and dying, or almost dying, over thousands of years. That's how we've figured out which plants are poisonous. And over the course of each of our lifetimes we've learned which foods we're allergic to.

我們食用的一切非轉(zhuǎn)基因的或雜交品種的植物，它們的遺傳特性都包容在各自的父母親本中，而它們的基因足夠相似，以使它們能夠通過固有的交配方式、嫁接方式甚至人工受精（試管）方式，繁育和它們自己相似的后代。

All of the non-GM breeds and hybrid species that we eat have been shaped by the genetic variability offered by parents whose genes were similar enough that they could mate, graft, or test tube baby their way to an offspring that resembled them.

給我吃一顆轉(zhuǎn)入了魚類基因的土豆？且慢。對(duì)我來說，那是一種新型植物，需要做測(cè)試。今天的科學(xué)是多么的新奇；新植物有沒有有毒、會(huì)不會(huì)造成過敏，我們可不能用老掉牙的方法去察看它。

A tomato with fish genes? Not so much. That, to me, is a new plant and it should be tested. We shouldn't have to figure out if it's poisonous or allergenic the old fashioned way, especially in light of how new-fangled the science is.

時(shí)光流轉(zhuǎn)，物換星移。承認(rèn)眼前的事實(shí)吧：改寫轉(zhuǎn)基因知識(shí)藍(lán)本的時(shí)刻已經(jīng)到來！基因系統(tǒng)的復(fù)雜性超過我們的監(jiān)管系統(tǒng)千百倍，比制定這些規(guī)則的公司更復(fù)雜千百倍。

It's time to re-write the rules to acknowledge how much more complicated genetic systems are than the legal regulations -- and the corporations that have written them -- give credit.

孟山都公司說“測(cè)試轉(zhuǎn)基因食品對(duì)人類健康的安全性，既沒必要也沒有價(jià)值”，無助于提升該公司的公眾形象。應(yīng)該承認(rèn)，食品安全性測(cè)試很不好做，因?yàn)闆]有哪一個(gè)人愿意，去吃一盤轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米，只是為了證明轉(zhuǎn)基因食品對(duì)人類健康有害，或者無害？真正的問題是：孟山都公司把RNA（核糖核酸）干擾原理用于殺蟲了，而那個(gè)能致死昆蟲的生物學(xué)機(jī)理，在人類身上也是同樣存在的。這樣的話，在實(shí)驗(yàn)室先做個(gè)安全測(cè)試，就是十分必要的了。

Monsanto isn't doing itself any PR favors by claiming "no need for, or value in testing the safety of GM foods in humans." Admittedly, such testing can be difficult to construct -- who really wants to volunteer to eat a bunch of GM corn just to see what happens? At the same time, if companies like Monsanto want to use processes like RNA interference to make plants that can kill insects via genetic pathways that might resemble our own, some kind of testing has to happen.

應(yīng)該從這里開始：測(cè)試異源DNA被插入后導(dǎo)致的其他后果，如miRNA，而不是僅限于那塊預(yù)期的“比薩餅”。但是在孟山都公司網(wǎng)站上，我們看到的卻是：

A good place to start would be the testing of introduced DNA for other effects -- miRNA-mediated or otherwise -- beyond the specific proteins they code for. But the status quo, according to Monsanto's website, is:

“對(duì)轉(zhuǎn)基因農(nóng)作物中的外源DNA不必做安全性測(cè)試。因?yàn)樗械氖澄镏卸加蠨NA（以及相應(yīng)的RNA）。DNA自身是無毒的、在植物中也無毒，不會(huì)構(gòu)成威脅。”

There is no need to test the safety of DNA introduced into GM crops. DNA (and resulting RNA) is present in almost all foods. DNA is non-toxic and the presence of DNA, in and of itself, presents no hazard.

在我們已知的事實(shí)目前，孟山都公司太傲慢了。時(shí)間將會(huì)證明，它這個(gè)行為太過輕率。

Given what we know, that stance is arrogant. Time will tell if it's reckless.

    有很多可用的測(cè)試方法，可以分析RNAs是否會(huì)不小心“敲掉”人類的某些基因。我們真心希望孟山都公司會(huì)做這樣的檢測(cè)。不過，既然孟山都公司連貼轉(zhuǎn)基因食品的標(biāo)簽都不干，顯然它想要的就是讓你閉上眼睛、張開嘴巴，乖乖地咽下它的轉(zhuǎn)基因“安全”食品。

There are computational methods of investigating whether unintended RNAs are likely to be knocking down any human genes. But thanks to this position, the best we can do is hope they're using them. Given it's opposition to the labeling of GM foods as well, it seems clear that Monsanto wants you to close your eyes, open your mouth, and swallow.

此時(shí)此刻，孟山都公司應(yīng)該做的事情，是如實(shí)公告，它對(duì)轉(zhuǎn)基因食品安全性所知很少。DNA編碼不僅可以合成蛋白質(zhì)，更有相當(dāng)多未知功能。RNA的功能很復(fù)性，不是當(dāng)年發(fā)現(xiàn)DNA/RNA結(jié)構(gòu)的沃森和克拉克兩位科學(xué)家所能想象的。

It's time for Monsanto to acknowledge that there's more to DNA than the proteins it codes for -- even if it's for no other reason than the fact that RNA alone is a lot more complicated that Watson and Crick could ever have imagined.

Image: Dirk Ercken/Shutterstock.

The current version of this article originally appeared on AlterNet.

× 烏有之鄉(xiāng) WYZXWK.COM

您的打賞將用于網(wǎng)站日常運(yùn)行與維護(hù)。
幫助我們辦好網(wǎng)站，宣傳紅色文化！

歡迎掃描下方二維碼，訂閱烏有之鄉(xiāng)網(wǎng)刊微信公眾號(hào)