下面的文章，“種子的踐行”，是我今天從《科學美國人》2009-8上挖出來的，因為修改書稿，發現草稿上引用了這個文件，卻沒有注出處，費了不少勁，才從豆丁網上找到正本，卻是嚴格的PDF版，不能抄貼，只好傳給三千里外，在北京的兒子，請他幫忙打下來。只過了不多時間，這個文件就在信箱里等著我了。

看到新老朋友每天都有上我博客來的，今天沒有能力寫新博文了，很不好意思。面對著許多無言的期待，就允許我貼個洋文，有興趣的朋友讀讀解個悶吧，我的無言的學生們，今明兩天不去網吧，讀一讀，試著翻譯一次吧！

這篇編者的話，說的是美國轉基因行業里發生的一件挺大的事情：孟山都等公司給科學家立規矩，不許他們不經過公司的批準，擅自發表批評轉基因科學和轉基因技術的研究報告，時間長達10年左右：一直到去年的8月，科學美國人發表這篇社評。在很長的時間里，如果孟山都公司不喜歡哪個報告，那么它連同行評審的階段都走不到。孟山都把它手里掌握的知識產權——種子專利，當成了隔絕監督和科學批評的盾牌，用了10年，天下奇觀。所以從1998年到2007年，將近10年之久，全世界都沒有發表認真批評轉基因作物、討論轉基因技術的實驗報告，“轉基因就是好”被孟山都利益集團喊叫了10年，不但變成了主流意識，同時也被大眾聽慣了。就像催眠術一樣。

孟山都公司在科學的世紀里能夠一手遮天，業績輝煌。但是無論如何，美國的科學界還是有底線的，對于保持批評態度、質疑任何一種現成的觀點，是認同的；中肯的意見早晚會表達出來——這一次是夠晚的。相比之下，中國的科學界差得很遠。官員不干凈，就怕打，科學家不干凈，也怕打，大部分人都不干凈，大部分都怕挨打，看著流氓把真的當做假的打、看著比自己更不干凈的人和事，只好閉上一只眼了。

希望關注我的博客的學生們，會有興趣把下面的英文文章做成一個快樂的閱讀體驗。

A Seedy Practice

Scientists must ask seed companies for permission before publishing independent research on genetically modified crops. That restriction must end.

BY THE EDITORS

Advances in agricultural technology – including, but not limited to, the genetic modification of food crops – have made fields more productive than ever. Farmers grow more crops and feed people using less land. They are able to use fewer pesticides and to reduce the amount of tilling that leads to erosion. And within the next two years, agritech companies plans to introduce advanced crops that are designed to survive heat waves and droughts, resilient characteristics that will become increasingly important in a world marked by a changing climate.

Unfortunately, it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised. That is because agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work independent researchers.

To purchase genetically modified seeds, a customer must sign an agreement that limits what can be done with them. (If you have installed software recently, you will recognize the concept of the end-user agreement.) Agreements are considered necessary to protect a company’s intellectual property, and they justifiably preclude the replication of the genetic enhancements that make the seeds unique. But agritech companies such as Monsanto, Pioneer and Syngenta go further. For a decade their user agreements have explicitly forbidden the use of the seeds for any independent research. Under the threat of litigation, scientists cannot test a seed to explore the different conditions under which it thrives or fails. They cannot compare seeds from one company against those from another company. And perhaps most important, they cannot examine whether the genetically modified crops lead to unintended environmental side effects.

Research on genetically modified seeds is still published, of course. But only studies that the seed companies have approved ever see the light of a peer-reviewed journal. In a number of cases, experiments that had the implicit go – ahead from the seed company were later blocked from publication because the results were not flattering. “It is important to understand that is not always simply a matter of blanket denial of all research requests, which is bad enough,” wrote Elson J. Shields, an entomologist at Cornell University, in a letter to an official at the Environmental Protection Agency (the body tasked with regulating the environmental consequences of genetically modified crops), “but selective denials and permissions based on industry perceptions of how ‘friendly’ or ‘hostile’ a particular scientist may be toward [seed-enhancement] technology.”

Shields is the spokesperson for a group of 24 corn insect scientists that opposes these practices. Because the scientists rely on the cooperation of the companies for their research-they must rely on the cooperation of the companies for their research-they must, after all, gain access to the seeds for studies-most have chosen to remain anonymous for fear of reprisals. The group has submitted a statement to the EPA protesting that “as a result of restricted access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology”

It would be chilling enough if any other type of company were able to prevent independent researchers from testing its wares and reporting what they find-imagine car companies trying to quash head-to-head model comparisons done by Consumer Reports, for example. But when scientists are prevented from examining the raw ingredients in our nation’s food supply from testing the plant material that covers a large portion of the country’s agricultural land, the restrictions on free inquiry become dangerous.

Although we appreciate the need to protect the intellectual property rights that have spurred the investments into research and development that have led to agritech’s successes, we also believe food safety and environmental protection depend on making plant products available to regular scientific scrutiny. Agricultural technology companies should therefore immediately remove the restriction on research from their end-user agreements. Going forward, the EPA should also require, as a condition of approving the sale of new seeds, that independent researchers have unfettered access to all products currently on the market. The agricultural revolution is too important to keep locked behind closed doors.

× 烏有之鄉 WYZXWK.COM

您的打賞將用于網站日常運行與維護。
幫助我們辦好網站，宣傳紅色文化！

歡迎掃描下方二維碼，訂閱烏有之鄉網刊微信公眾號