【背景：崔永元在美国采访了方舟子做过博士后的研究所，与方舟子的老前辈、研究所教授和实验室主任Dave Schubert(大卫。舒伯特)进行了长谈。之后，舒伯特教授以一个资深生物学家的身份在美国主流媒体CNN发表了论证严密、引证文献丰富的重磅文章，挑战了转基因“商用科学家”(Vs.“御用文人”)和推销团队关于转基因食品安全性的谎言：http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/03/opinion/schubert-gmo-labeling/index.html?iid=article_sidebar
崔永元不愧为中国最受欢迎的节目主持人。他的“跨界”“跨语际”采访，让美国科学家对他单刀直入的提问以及对于科学问题核心的切入和把握大为赞叹。舒伯特教授说：他之所以写下面这篇文章，是因为受了崔永元对他采访时关于“科学与诚实”的提问所激发的灵感(“It was inspired by Mr. Cui’s question about honesty in modern science……)。
文章的主要内容是围绕法国科学家色拉里尼的论文展开的。色拉里尼团队对转基因食品的研究在全世界引起了震撼。去年，中国央视也报道过：CCTV央视 “研究指孟山都转基因玉米或致癌”http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XNTA1MDgzNDU2.html
这些新闻报道是基于色拉里尼发表的科学论文，它对于转基因利益集团的打击是致命的!于是，利益集团在行动…… 于是，色拉里尼的论文最终被撤销了…… 请看舒伯特教授文章对于这一事件的分析。
另一个小小插曲是：舒教授这篇文章发表在 ----网爆方舟子于2013年在美国购置的新居所在地的报纸 ---- 《圣地亚哥联合论坛报。》 当然，中国某警惕性很高的化名网友已经去函向舒伯特教授查询了小崔对他采访的情况。那么，欢迎此网友进一步去函核实：下面这篇文章产生的国际背景……】
《科学领域的论战影响到世人健康》
：大卫。舒伯特 (Dave Schubert)
在长大成人的过程中，我怀有成为一名科学家的抱负和渴望。我所受到的教育告诉我：选择以科学为职业的人，具有比从事其他职业者更高尚的道德水准。
然而，纵观去年震撼整个科学界的一系列丑闻，事实却并非如此。前所未有的大量已发表的科学论文被撤回----由于数据欺诈。53篇发表在权威杂志上的关于癌症研究的论文，有47篇无法被专家团队验证其结果。
而最近的丑闻牵涉到了更广泛意义上的对世人健康的影响。科研信息传播的主要工具是科学期刊。科学研究者所递交的论文初稿会经历同行审议的程序，如果实验数据被确认是重要的和有效的，那么论文就会被发表。然而，就在过去几周里，这一程序以一种新型的方式出现了腐败，危及我们对于食物来源是否安全做出判断的能力。
大多数玉米和大豆在美国是转基因的，用以抗孟山都研发的“农达”除草剂。“农达”是由混合的化学制剂组成，包括主要成分“草甘膦”以及“表面活化剂”(“表面活化剂”使得草甘膦得以有效地穿透进入植物内部)。因此，这种喷洒在作物上的除草剂并不如我们对于一般意义上的农药所理解的那样 ---- 它是无法洗掉的。自从转基因植物被发明出来，“农达”的使用量已经增加了10倍。美国环保局提升了草甘膦在食物中被允许的含量，目前，它已经被发现出现在人类血液中。
法国科学家色拉里尼在《食品与化学毒理学》发表的研究显示：使用农达的转基因玉米以及这种除草剂本身，增加了实验鼠的癌症发生率。正如所有揭示转基因植物对健康潜在危险的出版物一样，这一篇论文引发了来自从事植物生物技术科学家们即刻的、恶意的批评，直到导致杂志编辑近期撤回论文的决定，抹去了科学文库里一项重要的研究记录。更为严重的是：撤除论文这一事件，被用来进一步推广转基因食品 ---- 误导公众不信任一个支持对于转基因食品安全性疑虑的研究【中国的“科普作家们”，在这一法国科学家论文撤销事件以及配合宣传过程中，都扮演了什么角色?也请反思一下(译者按)】
那么。确实有任何正当理由撤除这篇论文吗?这一举措对食品安全将会造成怎样的影响?
对色拉里尼论文的主要批评是: 他没有使用恰当品系的实验鼠以及所用实验鼠的数量太少。然而，这两点批评的理由根本就是不成立的。因为这种品系的实验鼠，恰好就是美国FDA所要求的、进行药物毒理学试验的实验鼠品种，而色拉里尼研究清晰确凿地表明：所得出的对实验鼠的毒性效应是意义重大的。事实上，孟山都自己曾在8年前用同样数目、同样品系的实验鼠在同样这本杂志上发表过一个相类似的研究。只是孟山都的研究只有90天，声称转基因食品对实验鼠没有伤害。与孟山都发表的研究之区别只在于：色拉里尼的研究时间跨度为两年，而直到实验持续到9个月(270天)之后，实验鼠才发生肿瘤。因此，显而易见的是：孟山都短期的90天喂养实验，是不足以探测到直至9个月以上才会发生的致癌效应的。---- 这种低剂量地暴露于环境毒素，是需要一定长度的时间积累，才会显示对于健康的危害。比如，最近美联社的一个报道，记录了阿根廷在种植了转基因大豆10年以上的地区，发生了急剧增加的癌症以及新生儿出生缺陷。基于这些事实，撤除色拉里尼论文的编委决定难道是正当的吗?
杂志的编辑声称：撤回论文的理由是“不能得出确定的结论。” 作为一个科学家，我可以请您确信：假如这也算是一个撤除科学论文的理由的话，那么迄今为止科学文献中的相当大一部分根本不会存在。出版伦理委员会声明：撤回论文的原因只能是行为不端(伪造数据或诚实方面的错误)，抄袭剽窃，或重复出版。而编辑部说，色拉里尼的论文没有出现以上任何一种情况。
但是，就在杂志撤回色拉里尼论文这件事发生之前，一位先前受孟山都雇佣的科学家被加入了这本杂志作为生物技术编辑。于是，来自科学圈的压力加上一位新加入的支持此行业的编辑，导致了剔除这样一个异常重要的科学研究。
我确信，已经存在极其重要的证据表明(就像色拉里尼研究所揭示的)---- 一些转基因食品对人类健康是危险的。为了能让支持这方面研究的科学实验数据进入公共论述的领域，科学家们必须置科学伦理的责任于商业公司的利润之上，停止对于转基因安全性方面的科学研究之持续性的打压。捍卫科学家之权利发表他们的科学发现而不受科学外因素的审查或打击报复。
舒伯特博士，是索尔克生物研究所教授
刊于《圣地亚哥联合论坛报》 2014年1月9日
(曹明华 译)
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
相关文章
「 支持！」
WYZXWK.COM
您的打赏将用于网站日常运行与维护。
帮助我们办好网站，宣传红色文化！
欢迎扫描下方二维码，订阅网刊微信公众号
