http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_6a62c35b0100m2m6.html

Nile按：nile很奇怪，轉基因食品上市十年了，為什么在經過同行評議的專業期刊上發表的安全性研究難覓蹤跡。而那些“聳人聽聞的”毒性事件在大眾媒體上層出不窮。原來其中的奧秘就是“最終用戶協議”。這篇《科學美國人》的文章告訴人們，當學術自由遇到轉基因會發生什么。

Scientific American 301 (2): 22. August 2009

種子公司是否控制了轉基因作物的研究

科學家們在發表他們對轉基因作物的研究結果時必須得到批準，這種限制必須終止。

農業技術進步—包括糧食作物的基因改造等等方面—取得了比以往更加富有成效。農民使用更少的土地可以種植更多的作物并且養活更多的人。他們能夠使用更少的殺蟲劑，減少耕作以降低損耗。在未來兩年內，農業科技公司計劃推出能夠在熱浪和干旱生存的農作物，以適應世界氣候變化的需要。

不幸的是，人們無法核實轉基因作物的真實表現是不是真的像它們的廣告一樣。這是因為農業技術公司給自己賦予了否決獨立研究人員工作的權利。

要購買轉基因種子，客戶必須簽署一份最終用戶協議。這份協議限制用這些種子可以作什么事情。（如果你最近安裝了軟件，你會認識到最終用戶協議的概念。）協議被認為是要保護公司的知識產權，而且他們有理由防止他人復制種子的獨特遺傳品質。但是，諸如孟山都，先鋒和先正達農業科技公司走得更遠。十年來，他們的用戶協議已明確禁止了任何獨立的種子研究。在訴訟的威脅下，科學家無法在不同的條件測試種子能否生長。他們也不能用另一家公司的種子對這些公司的種子進行比較。也許最重要的是，他們無法檢查是否轉基因作物對環境會導致意想不到的副作用。

關于轉基因種子的研究當然依舊可以發表。但只有經過種子公司批準的研究可以在同行評審的期刊走光。在一些情況下，種子公司一開始暗示可以進行實驗，后來又不允許發表結果，因為結果并不討人喜歡。 “重要的是要明白，它并不總是一攬子拒絕所有研究的請求，這是夠糟糕的事情。” Elson J. Shields，一位康奈爾大學的昆蟲學家在給環境保護署官員的一封信中寫道，環境保護署負責規范轉基因作物的環境后果。“他們根據科學家對他們技術的態度是‘友好’或‘敵對’有選擇性地拒絕或同意。”

Elson J. Shields所代表的是24位反對這種作法的玉米昆蟲科學家。科學家們依靠這些公司的合作以獲得種子進行研究，由于害怕報復，大多數人選擇留的匿名。該小組提交了一份聲明，抗議美國環保局說：“由于限制使用種子，不能合法實施真正的獨立的研究以厘清這個技術的許多關鍵問題”

這真是令人毛骨悚然，如果任何其他類型的公司能夠阻止獨立研究人員測試其產品并報告他們的發現。想象一下汽車公司試圖推翻“消費者報告”進行的一對一比較研究的結果。但是，當科學家們被禁止檢測我們國家糧食供應的原材料，或測試覆蓋全國的大部分農地植物材料，對自由質詢的限制就變得危險。

我們明白要保護知識產權，這樣作鼓勵投資研究和開發，并且導致了農業技術的成功。我們也相信食品安全和環境的保護依賴對產品提供規范的科學審查。因此，農業技術公司應該立即取消通過最終用戶協議對研究的限制。展望未來，環保署也應要求，作為批準出售新種子的先決條件，獨立的研究人員應該不受阻礙地使用在市場上目前銷售所有的產品。農業革命是太重要了，不能繼續閉門落鎖。

附原文：

Do Seed Companies Control GM Crop Research?

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

By The Editors August 13, 2009

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 more 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 plan 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 of 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 it 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, 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 or 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