http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_6a62c35b0100m2m6.html
Nile按：nile很奇怪，轉(zhuǎn)基因食品上市十年了，為什么在經(jīng)過(guò)同行評(píng)議的專業(yè)期刊上發(fā)表的安全性研究難覓蹤跡。而那些“聳人聽(tīng)聞的”毒性事件在大眾媒體上層出不窮。原來(lái)其中的奧秘就是“最終用戶協(xié)議”。這篇《科學(xué)美國(guó)人》的文章告訴人們，當(dāng)學(xué)術(shù)自由遇到轉(zhuǎn)基因會(huì)發(fā)生什么。
Scientific American 301 (2): 22. August 2009
種子公司是否控制了轉(zhuǎn)基因作物的研究
科學(xué)家們?cè)诎l(fā)表他們對(duì)轉(zhuǎn)基因作物的研究結(jié)果時(shí)必須得到批準(zhǔn)，這種限制必須終止。
農(nóng)業(yè)技術(shù)進(jìn)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(nóng)民使用更少的土地可以種植更多的作物并且養(yǎng)活更多的人。他們能夠使用更少的殺蟲(chóng)劑，減少耕作以降低損耗。在未來(lái)兩年內(nèi)，農(nóng)業(yè)科技公司計(jì)劃推出能夠在熱浪和干旱生存的農(nóng)作物，以適應(yīng)世界氣候變化的需要。
不幸的是，人們無(wú)法核實(shí)轉(zhuǎn)基因作物的真實(shí)表現(xiàn)是不是真的像它們的廣告一樣。這是因?yàn)檗r(nóng)業(yè)技術(shù)公司給自己賦予了否決獨(dú)立研究人員工作的權(quán)利。
要購(gòu)買轉(zhuǎn)基因種子，客戶必須簽署一份最終用戶協(xié)議。這份協(xié)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(huì)認(rèn)識(shí)到最終用戶協(xié)議的概念。）協(xié)議被認(rèn)為是要保護(hù)公司的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)，而且他們有理由防止他人復(fù)制種子的獨(dú)特遺傳品質(zhì)。但是，諸如孟山都，先鋒和先正達(dá)農(nóng)業(yè)科技公司走得更遠(yuǎn)。十年來(lái)，他們的用戶協(xié)議已明確禁止了任何獨(dú)立的種子研究。在訴訟的威脅下，科學(xué)家無(wú)法在不同的條件測(cè)試種子能否生長(zhǎng)。他們也不能用另一家公司的種子對(duì)這些公司的種子進(jìn)行比較。也許最重要的是，他們無(wú)法檢查是否轉(zhuǎn)基因作物對(duì)環(huán)境會(huì)導(dǎo)致意想不到的副作用。
關(guān)于轉(zhuǎn)基因種子的研究當(dāng)然依舊可以發(fā)表。但只有經(jīng)過(guò)種子公司批準(zhǔn)的研究可以在同行評(píng)審的期刊走光。在一些情況下，種子公司一開(kāi)始暗示可以進(jìn)行實(shí)驗(yàn)，后來(lái)又不允許發(fā)表結(jié)果，因?yàn)榻Y(jié)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(qǐng)求，這是夠糟糕的事情?！?Elson J. Shields，一位康奈爾大學(xué)的昆蟲(chóng)學(xué)家在給環(huán)境保護(hù)署官員的一封信中寫道，環(huán)境保護(hù)署負(fù)責(zé)規(guī)范轉(zhuǎn)基因作物的環(huán)境后果?！八麄兏鶕?jù)科學(xué)家對(duì)他們技術(shù)的態(tài)度是‘友好’或‘?dāng)硨?duì)’有選擇性地拒絕或同意?！?/p>
Elson J. Shields所代表的是24位反對(duì)這種作法的玉米昆蟲(chóng)科學(xué)家?？茖W(xué)家們依靠這些公司的合作以獲得種子進(jìn)行研究，由于害怕報(bào)復(fù)，大多數(shù)人選擇留的匿名。該小組提交了一份聲明，抗議美國(guó)環(huán)保局說(shuō)：“由于限制使用種子，不能合法實(shí)施真正的獨(dú)立的研究以厘清這個(gè)技術(shù)的許多關(guān)鍵問(wèn)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(dú)立研究人員測(cè)試其產(chǎn)品并報(bào)告他們的發(fā)現(xiàn)。想象一下汽車公司試圖推翻“消費(fèi)者報(bào)告”進(jìn)行的一對(duì)一比較研究的結(jié)果。但是，當(dāng)科學(xué)家們被禁止檢測(cè)我們國(guó)家糧食供應(yīng)的原材料，或測(cè)試覆蓋全國(guó)的大部分農(nóng)地植物材料，對(duì)自由質(zhì)詢的限制就變得危險(xiǎn)。
我們明白要保護(hù)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)，這樣作鼓勵(lì)投資研究和開(kāi)發(fā)，并且導(dǎo)致了農(nóng)業(yè)技術(shù)的成功。我們也相信食品安全和環(huán)境的保護(hù)依賴對(duì)產(chǎn)品提供規(guī)范的科學(xué)審查。因此，農(nóng)業(yè)技術(shù)公司應(yīng)該立即取消通過(guò)最終用戶協(xié)議對(duì)研究的限制。展望未來(lái)，環(huán)保署也應(yīng)要求，作為批準(zhǔn)出售新種子的先決條件，獨(dú)立的研究人員應(yīng)該不受阻礙地使用在市場(chǎng)上目前銷售所有的產(chǎn)品。農(nóng)業(yè)革命是太重要了，不能繼續(xù)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.