【背景：崔永元在美國采訪了方舟子做過博士后的研究所，與方舟子的老前輩、研究所教授和實驗室主任Dave Schubert(大衛。舒伯特)進行了長談。之后，舒伯特教授以一個資深生物學家的身份在美國主流媒體CNN發表了論證嚴密、引證文獻豐富的重磅文章，挑戰了轉基因“商用科學家”(Vs.“御用文人”)和推銷團隊關于轉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

　　崔永元不愧為中國最受歡迎的節目主持人。他的“跨界”“跨語際”采訪，讓美國科學家對他單刀直入的提問以及對于科學問題核心的切入和把握大為贊嘆。舒伯特教授說：他之所以寫下面這篇文章，是因為受了崔永元對他采訪時關于“科學與誠實”的提問所激發的靈感(“It was inspired by Mr. Cui’s question about honesty in modern science……)。

　　文章的主要內容是圍繞法國科學家色拉里尼的論文展開的。色拉里尼團隊對轉基因食品的研究在全世界引起了震撼。去年，中國央視也報道過：CCTV央視 “研究指孟山都轉基因玉米或致癌”http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XNTA1MDgzNDU2.html

　　這些新聞報道是基于色拉里尼發表的科學論文，它對于轉基因利益集團的打擊是致命的!于是，利益集團在行動…… 于是，色拉里尼的論文最終被撤銷了…… 請看舒伯特教授文章對于這一事件的分析。

　　另一個小小插曲是：舒教授這篇文章發表在 ----網爆方舟子于2013年在美國購置的新居所在地的報紙 ---- 《圣地亞哥聯合論壇報。》 當然，中國某警惕性很高的化名網友已經去函向舒伯特教授查詢了小崔對他采訪的情況。那么，歡迎此網友進一步去函核實：下面這篇文章產生的國際背景……】

　　《科學領域的論戰影響到世人健康》

　　作者：大衛。舒伯特 (Dave Schubert)

　　在長大成人的過程中，我懷有成為一名科學家的抱負和渴望。我所受到的教育告訴我：選擇以科學為職業的人，具有比從事其他職業者更高尚的道德水準。

　　然而，縱觀去年震撼整個科學界的一系列丑聞，事實卻并非如此。前所未有的大量已發表的科學論文被撤回----由于數據欺詐。53篇發表在權威雜志上的關于癌癥研究的論文，有47篇無法被專家團隊驗證其結果。

　　而最近的丑聞牽涉到了更廣泛意義上的對世人健康的影響。科研信息傳播的主要工具是科學期刊。科學研究者所遞交的論文初稿會經歷同行審議的程序，如果實驗數據被確認是重要的和有效的，那么論文就會被發表。然而，就在過去幾周里，這一程序以一種新型的方式出現了腐敗，危及我們對于食物來源是否安全做出判斷的能力。

　　大多數玉米和大豆在美國是轉基因的，用以抗孟山都研發的“農達”除草劑。“農達”是由混合的化學制劑組成，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入植物內部)。因此，這種噴灑在作物上的除草劑并不如我們對于一般意義上的農藥所理解的那樣 ---- 它是無法洗掉的。自從轉基因植物被發明出來，“農達”的使用量已經增加了10倍。美國環保局提升了草甘膦在食物中被允許的含量，目前，它已經被發現出現在人類血液中。

　　法國科學家色拉里尼在《食品與化學毒理學》發表的研究顯示：使用農達的轉基因玉米以及這種除草劑本身，增加了實驗鼠的癌癥發生率。正如所有揭示轉基因植物對健康潛在危險的出版物一樣，這一篇論文引發了來自從事植物生物技術科學家們即刻的、惡意的批評，直到導致雜志編輯近期撤回論文的決定，抹去了科學文庫里一項重要的研究記錄。更為嚴重的是：撤除論文這一事件，被用來進一步推廣轉基因食品 ---- 誤導公眾不信任一個支持對于轉基因食品安全性疑慮的研究【中國的“科普作家們”，在這一法國科學家論文撤銷事件以及配合宣傳過程中，都扮演了什么角色?也請反思一下(譯者按)】

　　那么。確實有任何正當理由撤除這篇論文嗎?這一舉措對食品安全將會造成怎樣的影響?

　　對色拉里尼論文的主要批評是: 他沒有使用恰當品系的實驗鼠以及所用實驗鼠的數量太少。然而，這兩點批評的理由根本就是不成立的。因為這種品系的實驗鼠，恰好就是美國FDA所要求的、進行藥物毒理學試驗的實驗鼠品種，而色拉里尼研究清晰確鑿地表明：所得出的對實驗鼠的毒性效應是意義重大的。事實上，孟山都自己曾在8年前用同樣數目、同樣品系的實驗鼠在同樣這本雜志上發表過一個相類似的研究。只是孟山都的研究只有90天，聲稱轉基因食品對實驗鼠沒有傷害。與孟山都發表的研究之區別只在于：色拉里尼的研究時間跨度為兩年，而直到實驗持續到9個月(270天)之后，實驗鼠才發生腫瘤。因此，顯而易見的是：孟山都短期的90天喂養實驗，是不足以探測到直至9個月以上才會發生的致癌效應的。---- 這種低劑量地暴露于環境毒素，是需要一定長度的時間積累，才會顯示對于健康的危害。比如，最近美聯社的一個報道，記錄了阿根廷在種植了轉基因大豆10年以上的地區，發生了急劇增加的癌癥以及新生兒出生缺陷。基于這些事實，撤除色拉里尼論文的編委決定難道是正當的嗎?

　　雜志的編輯聲稱：撤回論文的理由是“不能得出確定的結論。” 作為一個科學家，我可以請您確信：假如這也算是一個撤除科學論文的理由的話，那么迄今為止科學文獻中的相當大一部分根本不會存在。出版倫理委員會聲明：撤回論文的原因只能是行為不端(偽造數據或誠實方面的錯誤)，抄襲剽竊，或重復出版。而編輯部說，色拉里尼的論文沒有出現以上任何一種情況。

　　但是，就在雜志撤回色拉里尼論文這件事發生之前，一位先前受孟山都雇傭的科學家被加入了這本雜志作為生物技術編輯。于是，來自科學圈的壓力加上一位新加入的支持此行業的編輯，導致了剔除這樣一個異常重要的科學研究。

　　我確信，已經存在極其重要的證據表明(就像色拉里尼研究所揭示的)---- 一些轉基因食品對人類健康是危險的。為了能讓支持這方面研究的科學實驗數據進入公共論述的領域，科學家們必須置科學倫理的責任于商業公司的利潤之上，停止對于轉基因安全性方面的科學研究之持續性的打壓。捍衛科學家之權利發表他們的科學發現而不受科學外因素的審查或打擊報復。

　　舒伯特博士，是索爾克生物研究所教授

　　刊于《圣地亞哥聯合論壇報》 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 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