东方古柯算毒品吗:孟山都公司禁止科学家发表转基因研究报告

下面的文章，“种子的践行”，是我今天从《科学美国人》2009-8上挖出来的，因为修改书稿，发现草稿上引用了这个文件，却没有注出处，费了不少劲，才从豆丁网上找到正本，却是严格的PDF版，不能抄贴，只好传给三千里外，在北京的儿子，请他帮忙打下来。只过了不多时间，这个文件就在信箱里等着我了。

看到新老朋友每天都有上我博客来的，今天没有能力写新博文了，很不好意思。面对着许多无言的期待，就允许我贴个洋文，有兴趣的朋友读读解个闷吧，我的无言的学生们，今明两天不去网吧，读一读，试着翻译一次吧！

这篇编者的话，说的是美国转基因行业里发生的一件挺大的事情：孟山都等公司给科学家立规矩，不许他们不经过公司的批准，擅自发表批评转基因科学和转基因技术的研究报告，时间长达10年左右：一直到去年的8月，科学美国人发表这篇社评。在很长的时间里，如果孟山都公司不喜欢哪个报告，那么它连同行评审的阶段都走不到。孟山都把它手里掌握的知识产权——种子专利，当成了隔绝监督和科学批评的盾牌，用了10年，天下奇观。所以从1998年到2007年，将近10年之久，全世界都没有发表认真批评转基因作物、讨论转基因技术的实验报告，“转基因就是好”被孟山都利益集团喊叫了10年，不但变成了主流意识，同时也被大众听惯了。就像催眠术一样。

孟山都公司在科学的世纪里能够一手遮天，业绩辉煌。但是无论如何，美国的科学界还是有底线的，对于保持批评态度、质疑任何一种现成的观点，是认同的；中肯的意见早晚会表达出来——这一次是够晚的。相比之下，中国的科学界差得很远。官员不干净，就怕打，科学家不干净，也怕打，大部分人都不干净，大部分都怕挨打，看着流氓把真的当做假的打、看着比自己更不干净的人和事，只好闭上一只眼了。

希望关注我的博客的学生们，会有兴趣把下面的英文文章做成一个快乐的阅读体验。

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.