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

Nile按：nile很奇怪，转基因食品上市十年了，为什么在经过同行评议的专业期刊上发表的安全性研究难觅踪迹。而那些“耸人听闻的”毒性事件在大众媒体上层出不穷。原来其中的奥秘就是“最终用户协议”。这篇《科学美国人》的文章告诉人们，当学术自由遇到转基因会发生什么。

Scientific American 301 (2): 22. August 2009

种子公司是否控制了转基因作物的研究

科学家们在发表他们对转基因作物的研究结果时必须得到批准，这种限制必须终止。

农业技术进步—包括粮食作物的基因改造等等方面—取得了比以往更加富有成效。农民使用更少的土地可以种植更多的作物并且养活更多的人。他们能够使用更少的杀虫剂，减少耕作以降低损耗。在未来两年内，农业科技公司计划推出能够在热浪和干旱生存的农作物，以适应世界气候变化的需要。

不幸的是，人们无法核实转基因作物的真实表现是不是真的像它们的广告一样。这是因为农业技术公司给自己赋予了否决独立研究人员工作的权利。

要购买转基因种子，客户必须签署一份最终用户协议。这份协议限制用这些种子可以作什么事情。（如果你最近安装了软件，你会认识到最终用户协议的概念。）协议被认为是要保护公司的知识产权，而且他们有理由防止他人复制种子的独特遗传品质。但是，诸如孟山都，先锋和先正达农业科技公司走得更远。十年来，他们的用户协议已明确禁止了任何独立的种子研究。在诉讼的威胁下，科学家无法在不同的条件测试种子能否生长。他们也不能用另一家公司的种子对这些公司的种子进行比较。也许最重要的是，他们无法检查是否转基因作物对环境会导致意想不到的副作用。

关于转基因种子的研究当然依旧可以发表。但只有经过种子公司批准的研究可以在同行评审的期刊走光。在一些情况下，种子公司一开始暗示可以进行实验，后来又不允许发表结果，因为结果并不讨人喜欢。 “重要的是要明白，它并不总是一揽子拒绝所有研究的请求，这是够糟糕的事情。” Elson J. Shields，一位康奈尔大学的昆虫学家在给环境保护署官员的一封信中写道，环境保护署负责规范转基因作物的环境后果。“他们根据科学家对他们技术的态度是‘友好’或‘敌对’有选择性地拒绝或同意。”

Elson J. Shields所代表的是24位反对这种作法的玉米昆虫科学家。科学家们依靠这些公司的合作以获得种子进行研究，由于害怕报复，大多数人选择留的匿名。该小组提交了一份声明，抗议美国环保局说：“由于限制使用种子，不能合法实施真正的独立的研究以厘清这个技术的许多关键问题”

这真是令人毛骨悚然，如果任何其他类型的公司能够阻止独立研究人员测试其产品并报告他们的发现。想象一下汽车公司试图推翻“消费者报告”进行的一对一比较研究的结果。但是，当科学家们被禁止检测我们国家粮食供应的原材料，或测试覆盖全国的大部分农地植物材料，对自由质询的限制就变得危险。

我们明白要保护知识产权，这样作鼓励投资研究和开发，并且导致了农业技术的成功。我们也相信食品安全和环境的保护依赖对产品提供规范的科学审查。因此，农业技术公司应该立即取消通过最终用户协议对研究的限制。展望未来，环保署也应要求，作为批准出售新种子的先决条件，独立的研究人员应该不受阻碍地使用在市场上目前销售所有的产品。农业革命是太重要了，不能继续闭门落锁。

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.

微信扫一扫，进入读者交流群

献一朵花： 鲜花数量：