方舟子的前輩確信：一些轉(zhuǎn)基因食品對(duì)人類(lèi)是危險(xiǎn)的

　　【背景：崔永元在美國(guó)采訪了方舟子做過(guò)博士后的研究所，與方舟子的老前輩、研究所教授和實(shí)驗(yàn)室主任Dave Schubert(大衛(wèi)。舒伯特)進(jìn)行了長(zhǎng)談。之后，舒伯特教授以一個(gè)資深生物學(xué)家的身份在美國(guó)主流媒體CNN發(fā)表了論證嚴(yán)密、引證文獻(xiàn)豐富的重磅文章，挑戰(zhàn)了轉(zhuǎn)基因“商用科學(xué)家”(Vs.“御用文人”)和推銷(xiāo)團(tuán)隊(duì)關(guān)于轉(zhuǎn)基因食品安全性的謊言：http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/03/opinion/schubert-gmo-labeling/index.html?iid=article_sidebar

　　崔永元不愧為中國(guó)最受歡迎的節(jié)目主持人。他的“跨界”“跨語(yǔ)際”采訪，讓美國(guó)科學(xué)家對(duì)他單刀直入的提問(wèn)以及對(duì)于科學(xué)問(wèn)題核心的切入和把握大為贊嘆。舒伯特教授說(shuō)：他之所以寫(xiě)下面這篇文章，是因?yàn)槭芰舜抻涝獙?duì)他采訪時(shí)關(guān)于“科學(xué)與誠(chéng)實(shí)”的提問(wèn)所激發(fā)的靈感(“It was inspired by Mr. Cui’s question about honesty in modern science……)。

　　文章的主要內(nèi)容是圍繞法國(guó)科學(xué)家色拉里尼的論文展開(kāi)的。色拉里尼團(tuán)隊(duì)對(duì)轉(zhuǎn)基因食品的研究在全世界引起了震撼。去年，中國(guó)央視也報(bào)道過(guò)：CCTV央視 “研究指孟山都轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米或致癌”http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XNTA1MDgzNDU2.html

　　這些新聞報(bào)道是基于色拉里尼發(fā)表的科學(xué)論文，它對(duì)于轉(zhuǎn)基因利益集團(tuán)的打擊是致命的!于是，利益集團(tuán)在行動(dòng)…… 于是，色拉里尼的論文最終被撤銷(xiāo)了…… 請(qǐng)看舒伯特教授文章對(duì)于這一事件的分析。

　　另一個(gè)小小插曲是：舒教授這篇文章發(fā)表在 ----網(wǎng)爆方舟子于2013年在美國(guó)購(gòu)置的新居所在地的報(bào)紙 ---- 《圣地亞哥聯(lián)合論壇報(bào)。》 當(dāng)然，中國(guó)某警惕性很高的化名網(wǎng)友已經(jīng)去函向舒伯特教授查詢(xún)了小崔對(duì)他采訪的情況。那么，歡迎此網(wǎng)友進(jìn)一步去函核實(shí)：下面這篇文章產(chǎn)生的國(guó)際背景……】

　　《科學(xué)領(lǐng)域的論戰(zhàn)影響到世人健康》

　　作者：大衛(wèi)。舒伯特 (Dave Schubert)

　　在長(zhǎng)大成人的過(guò)程中，我懷有成為一名科學(xué)家的抱負(fù)和渴望。我所受到的教育告訴我：選擇以科學(xué)為職業(yè)的人，具有比從事其他職業(yè)者更高尚的道德水準(zhǔn)。

　　然而，縱觀去年震撼整個(gè)科學(xué)界的一系列丑聞，事實(shí)卻并非如此。前所未有的大量已發(fā)表的科學(xué)論文被撤回----由于數(shù)據(jù)欺詐。53篇發(fā)表在權(quán)威雜志上的關(guān)于癌癥研究的論文，有47篇無(wú)法被專(zhuān)家團(tuán)隊(duì)驗(yàn)證其結(jié)果。

　　而最近的丑聞牽涉到了更廣泛意義上的對(duì)世人健康的影響。科研信息傳播的主要工具是科學(xué)期刊。科學(xué)研究者所遞交的論文初稿會(huì)經(jīng)歷同行審議的程序，如果實(shí)驗(yàn)數(shù)據(jù)被確認(rèn)是重要的和有效的，那么論文就會(huì)被發(fā)表。然而，就在過(guò)去幾周里，這一程序以一種新型的方式出現(xiàn)了腐敗，危及我們對(duì)于食物來(lái)源是否安全做出判斷的能力。

　　大多數(shù)玉米和大豆在美國(guó)是轉(zhuǎn)基因的，用以抗孟山都研發(fā)的“農(nóng)達(dá)”除草劑。“農(nóng)達(dá)”是由混合的化學(xué)制劑組成，包括主要成分“草甘膦”以及“表面活化劑”(“表面活化劑”使得草甘膦得以有效地穿透進(jìn)入植物內(nèi)部)。因此，這種噴灑在作物上的除草劑并不如我們對(duì)于一般意義上的農(nóng)藥所理解的那樣 ---- 它是無(wú)法洗掉的。自從轉(zhuǎn)基因植物被發(fā)明出來(lái)，“農(nóng)達(dá)”的使用量已經(jīng)增加了10倍。美國(guó)環(huán)保局提升了草甘膦在食物中被允許的含量，目前，它已經(jīng)被發(fā)現(xiàn)出現(xiàn)在人類(lèi)血液中。

　　法國(guó)科學(xué)家色拉里尼在《食品與化學(xué)毒理學(xué)》發(fā)表的研究顯示：使用農(nóng)達(dá)的轉(zhuǎn)基因玉米以及這種除草劑本身，增加了實(shí)驗(yàn)鼠的癌癥發(fā)生率。正如所有揭示轉(zhuǎn)基因植物對(duì)健康潛在危險(xiǎn)的出版物一樣，這一篇論文引發(fā)了來(lái)自從事植物生物技術(shù)科學(xué)家們即刻的、惡意的批評(píng)，直到導(dǎo)致雜志編輯近期撤回論文的決定，抹去了科學(xué)文庫(kù)里一項(xiàng)重要的研究記錄。更為嚴(yán)重的是：撤除論文這一事件，被用來(lái)進(jìn)一步推廣轉(zhuǎn)基因食品 ---- 誤導(dǎo)公眾不信任一個(gè)支持對(duì)于轉(zhuǎn)基因食品安全性疑慮的研究【中國(guó)的“科普作家們”，在這一法國(guó)科學(xué)家論文撤銷(xiāo)事件以及配合宣傳過(guò)程中，都扮演了什么角色?也請(qǐng)反思一下(譯者按)】

　　那么。確實(shí)有任何正當(dāng)理由撤除這篇論文嗎?這一舉措對(duì)食品安全將會(huì)造成怎樣的影響?

　　對(duì)色拉里尼論文的主要批評(píng)是: 他沒(méi)有使用恰當(dāng)品系的實(shí)驗(yàn)鼠以及所用實(shí)驗(yàn)鼠的數(shù)量太少。然而，這兩點(diǎn)批評(píng)的理由根本就是不成立的。因?yàn)檫@種品系的實(shí)驗(yàn)鼠，恰好就是美國(guó)FDA所要求的、進(jìn)行藥物毒理學(xué)試驗(yàn)的實(shí)驗(yàn)鼠品種，而色拉里尼研究清晰確鑿地表明：所得出的對(duì)實(shí)驗(yàn)鼠的毒性效應(yīng)是意義重大的。事實(shí)上，孟山都自己曾在8年前用同樣數(shù)目、同樣品系的實(shí)驗(yàn)鼠在同樣這本雜志上發(fā)表過(guò)一個(gè)相類(lèi)似的研究。只是孟山都的研究只有90天，聲稱(chēng)轉(zhuǎn)基因食品對(duì)實(shí)驗(yàn)鼠沒(méi)有傷害。與孟山都發(fā)表的研究之區(qū)別只在于：色拉里尼的研究時(shí)間跨度為兩年，而直到實(shí)驗(yàn)持續(xù)到9個(gè)月(270天)之后，實(shí)驗(yàn)鼠才發(fā)生腫瘤。因此，顯而易見(jiàn)的是：孟山都短期的90天喂養(yǎng)實(shí)驗(yàn)，是不足以探測(cè)到直至9個(gè)月以上才會(huì)發(fā)生的致癌效應(yīng)的。---- 這種低劑量地暴露于環(huán)境毒素，是需要一定長(zhǎng)度的時(shí)間積累，才會(huì)顯示對(duì)于健康的危害。比如，最近美聯(lián)社的一個(gè)報(bào)道，記錄了阿根廷在種植了轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆10年以上的地區(qū)，發(fā)生了急劇增加的癌癥以及新生兒出生缺陷。基于這些事實(shí)，撤除色拉里尼論文的編委決定難道是正當(dāng)?shù)膯?

　　雜志的編輯聲稱(chēng)：撤回論文的理由是“不能得出確定的結(jié)論。” 作為一個(gè)科學(xué)家，我可以請(qǐng)您確信：假如這也算是一個(gè)撤除科學(xué)論文的理由的話，那么迄今為止科學(xué)文獻(xiàn)中的相當(dāng)大一部分根本不會(huì)存在。出版?zhèn)惱砦瘑T會(huì)聲明：撤回論文的原因只能是行為不端(偽造數(shù)據(jù)或誠(chéng)實(shí)方面的錯(cuò)誤)，抄襲剽竊，或重復(fù)出版。而編輯部說(shuō)，色拉里尼的論文沒(méi)有出現(xiàn)以上任何一種情況。

　　但是，就在雜志撤回色拉里尼論文這件事發(fā)生之前，一位先前受孟山都雇傭的科學(xué)家被加入了這本雜志作為生物技術(shù)編輯。于是，來(lái)自科學(xué)圈的壓力加上一位新加入的支持此行業(yè)的編輯，導(dǎo)致了剔除這樣一個(gè)異常重要的科學(xué)研究。

　　我確信，已經(jīng)存在極其重要的證據(jù)表明(就像色拉里尼研究所揭示的)---- 一些轉(zhuǎn)基因食品對(duì)人類(lèi)健康是危險(xiǎn)的。為了能讓支持這方面研究的科學(xué)實(shí)驗(yàn)數(shù)據(jù)進(jìn)入公共論述的領(lǐng)域，科學(xué)家們必須置科學(xué)倫理的責(zé)任于商業(yè)公司的利潤(rùn)之上，停止對(duì)于轉(zhuǎn)基因安全性方面的科學(xué)研究之持續(xù)性的打壓。捍衛(wèi)科學(xué)家之權(quán)利發(fā)表他們的科學(xué)發(fā)現(xiàn)而不受科學(xué)外因素的審查或打擊報(bào)復(fù)。

　　舒伯特博士，是索爾克生物研究所教授

　　刊于《圣地亞哥聯(lián)合論壇報(bào)》 2014年1月9日

　　(曹明華 譯)

　　SCIENCE STUDY CONTROVERSY IMPACTS WORLD HEALTH

　　By David Schubert 12:01 a.m. Jan. 9, 2014

　　Growing up with the aspiration of becoming a scientist, I was told that those who pursued this occupation held themselves to higher ethical standards than other vocations.

　　However, during the last year the scientific community has been rocked by a series of scandals, suggesting otherwise. The largest-ever number of publications have been retracted because of fraudulent data, and 47 of 53 cancer studies published in prestigious journals could not be reproduced by a team of experts.

　　The latest scandal has even greater implications for world health. The major vehicles through which scientific information is disseminated are journals. Submitted manuscripts undergo a peer review process, and if the experimental data appear significant and valid, publication proceeds. During the last few weeks this process has been corrupted in a new way, jeopardizing our ability to assess the safety of our global food supply.

　　Most of the corn and soy in the United States is genetically modified (GM) to be resistant to the herbicide Roundup, developed by Monsanto. Roundup is a mixture of chemicals, including the active ingredient glyphosate as well as surfactants that allow glyphosate to get inside the plant. The herbicide cannot be washed off, as commonly assumed. The use of Roundup has increased tenfold since the appearance of GM plants, and the Environmental Protection Agency increased the allowance of glyphosate in food. It is now

　　found in human blood.

　　Gilles-Eric Seralini published a study in the Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology showing that Roundup-treated GM corn as well as the herbicide itself increases cancer in rats. As with all publications that demonstrate the potential health risk of GM plants, this one drew immediate, venomous criticism from plant biotechnology scientists, leading to its recent retraction by the journal editors, and erasing an important study from the scientific literature. Most importantly, the retraction is being used to promote GM foods by throwing into doubt a study that supports concerns about GM food safety.

　　Was there any justification for retraction — and how does this action reflect upon food safety?

　　The major criticisms of the Seralini manuscript were that the proper strain of rats was not used and their numbers were too small. Neither criticism is valid. The strain of rat is that required by the FDA for drug toxicology, and the toxic effects were unambiguously significant. In fact, Monsanto published a similar study in the same journal eight years before using the same number and strain of rats. Their study was for 90 days and claimed no harm. In contrast, the Seralini study was for two years and did not see any tumors until after nine months. Therefore, it is clear that the short 90-day feeding paradigm is not sufficiently long to detect the carcinogenic

　　effects of GM products. It takes a long time before low-level exposure to environmental toxins affect health. For example, a recent Associated Press report documented the dramatic increase in birth defects and cancer in areas of Argentina that have grown GM soy for a decade. Given these facts, what was the justification for the editorial decision to retract the Seralini manuscript?

　　The editors claim the reason was that “no definitive conclusions can be reached.” As a scientist, I can assure you that if this were a valid reason for retracting a publication, a large fraction of the scientific literature would not exist. A committee on publication ethics states that the only reason for retraction is misconduct (data fabrication or honest error), plagiarism, or redundant publication. The editors stated that none of these occurred with Seralini.

　　However, before the retraction of the Seralini paper, a former Monsanto scientist was brought into the journal as biotechnology editor. Therefore, a combination of intense pressure from scientists and a new pro-industry editor led to the elimination of an exceptionally important study.

　　I am convinced that there is significant evidence, like that presented by Seralini, that some GM foods are hazardous to human health. In order for data supporting this possibility to enter public discourse, scientists must place their ethical responsibilities above corporate profits and cease their continual assault on the science relating to GM safety. The protection of scientists’ right to publish their findings without censorship or retribution must be preserved.

　　Schubert, Ph.D., is a professor with the Salk Institute for Biological Studies.

　　© Copyright 2014 The San Diego Union-Tribune, LLC. An MLIM LLC Company. All rights rese

× 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)