【微评论】科学应当是中立的，公正的。针对《食物与化学毒理学》对法国科学家团队搞的撤稿行为，被指公然嘲弄科学。如果法国科学家团队的实验，还是用的现在的材料与方法，得出的是认为转基因食品无害且有益的结论的话，他们还会因方法（实验老鼠重量，老鼠数量，实验周期，统计意义等等）问题去撤稿吗？可能不会吧。。。

以下文章链接：http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4b7683ce0102eofy.html

陈一文提示要点：荷兰爱思唯尔出版集团，《食物与化学毒理学》的出版方，发表声明，承认刊物总编A·瓦莱斯·海斯博士组织对色拉里尼教授论文的重新审查“未发现欺诈或者故意歪曲数据方面的任何证据”。该项声明提到撤稿的唯一一项理由，称之为“提交的结果（尽管并非有错误）是非决定性的”。《欧洲对社会与环境负责科学家网络》评论：论文研究结果“非决定性”不是《食物与化学毒理学》参加与承诺的科学出版中撤稿的指导原则。与此相反，由于撤掉这篇文章是与转基因产业相关的许多人的愿望，不能不怀疑这是“科学”屈服于特别孟山都的产业利益的结果。《欧洲对社会与环境负责科学家网络》对总编A·瓦莱斯·海斯博士提出的问题逐点予以反驳，最后强调：色拉里尼教授的发现目前比以前更加挺立，即便该项秘密的审查在数据的技术、行为或数据的透明度方面都没有能够找到任何错误 – 这是独立科学的基础。他们的数据的决定性，将由未来独立科学决定，而非由一小圈秘密人士决定。

   《欧洲对社会与环境负责科学家网络》就撤除色拉里尼论文致《食物与化学毒理学》总编A·瓦莱斯·海斯的公开信：嘲弄科学而且看来是屈服于产业

 

Open letter to A. Wallace Hayes, editor of Food & Chemical Toxicology

致《食物与化学毒理学》总编A·瓦莱斯·海斯的公开信 

   《欧洲对社会与环境负责科学家网络》对撤除色拉里尼教授团队2012年研究论文的评论

Journal’s retraction of rat feeding paper is a travesty of science and looks like a bow to industry

   《食物与化学毒理学》撤除色拉里尼教授团队团队喂养老鼠研究论文是嘲弄科学而且看来是屈服于产业

Elsevier’s journal Food and Chemical Toxicology has retracted the paper by Prof. Gilles-Eric Séralini’s group which found severe toxic effects (including liver congestions and necrosis and kidney nephropathies), increased tumor rates and higher mortality in rats fed Monsanto’s genetically modified NK603 maize and/or the associated herbicide Roundup[1].

  荷兰爱思唯尔出版集团属下刊物《食物与化学毒理学》撤除了色拉里尼教授团队的研究论文，他们发现喂养孟山都转基因玉米NK603的老鼠出现了数项严重的毒性影响（包括肝充血与细胞坏疽以及肾病）、以及肿瘤发生率增大与死亡率更高。[1]  

The arguments of the journal’s editor for the retraction, however, violate not only the criteria for retraction to which the journal itself subscribes, but any standards of good science. Worse, the names of the reviewers who came to the conclusion that the paper should be retracted, have not been published.

   《食物与化学毒理学》编辑撤稿的理由，不仅违反该刊物参加并承诺的撤稿标准，而且践踏良好科学的任何标准。更差的是，做出这篇文章撤除决定的审查者的姓名没有公开发布。 

Since the retraction is a wish of many people with links to the GM industry, the suspicion arises that it is a bow of science to industry.

   由于撤掉这篇文章是与转基因产业相关的许多人的愿望，不能不怀疑这是“科学”屈服于产业利益的结果。 

ENSSER points out, therefore, that this retraction is a severe blow to the credibility and independence of science, indeed a travesty of science.

   《欧洲对社会与环境负责科学家网络》指出，因此，该项撤稿是对科学的可信性与毒理学的严重打击，是对科学的嘲弄。 

Inconclusive results claimed as reason for withdrawal

   将非决定性结果作为撤稿的理由 

Elsevier, the publisher of Food and Chemical Toxicology, has published a statement[2] saying that the journal’s editor-in-chief, Dr. A. Wallace Hayes, “found no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data”.

   荷兰爱思唯尔出版集团，《食物与化学毒理学》的出版方，发表了一项声明[2]，说刊物总编A·瓦莱斯·海斯博士“未发现欺诈或者故意歪曲数据方面的任何证据”。

The statement mentions only a single reason for the retraction, namely that “the results presented (while not incorrect) are inconclusive”.

   该项声明提到撤稿的唯一一项理由，称之为“提交的结果（尽管并非有错误）是非决定性的”。 

According to Hayes, the low number of rats and the tumour susceptibility of the rat strain used do not allow definitive conclusions.

   依据海斯的说法，较低数量老鼠样本以及所使用的老鼠品系的肿瘤易发生性不允许获得确定性的结论。 

Now there are guidelines for retractions in scientific publishing, set out by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)[3].

   但是，《出版伦理委员会》设立了科学出版中撤稿的指导原则。[3] 

Inconclusiveness of research results is not one of the grounds for retraction contained in these guidelines.

   科学出版中撤稿的指导原则中，研究结果非决定性并非是撤稿的基础之一。 

The journal Food and Chemical Toxicology is a member of COPE[4].

   《食物与化学毒理学》是《出版伦理委员会》成员之一。[4] 

‘Conclusive’ results are rare in science, and certainly not to be decided by one editor and a secret team of persons using undisclosed criteria and methods. Independent science would cease to exist if this were to be an accepted mode of procedure.

   “决定性”结果在科学中相当少见，而且一项研究结果是否“决定性”，肯定不能由一位编者与食用未公开标准与方法的秘密人士团队能够决定。如果存在程序的可以接受样式的话，独立科学不可能存在。 

Séralini paper a chronic toxicity study, not a full-scale carcinogenicity study

   色拉里尼教授的论文是一项毒理学研究，不是全规模致癌性研究 

Most notably, Séralini and his co-authors did not draw any definitive conclusions in the paper in the first place; they simply reported their observations and phrased their conclusions carefully, cognizant of their uncertainties.

   最明显的是，色拉里尼教授及其合作作者在论文中并没有提出任何决定性的结论，他们仅仅简单的报告了他们的观察，提出审慎用词的结论，论文也提出他们的不确定性。 

This is because the paper is a chronic toxicity study and not a full-scale carcinogenicity study, which would require a higher number of rats.

   这是因为，这篇论文不是一项慢性毒理学研究，也不是要求更大数量老鼠的全规模致癌性研究。 

The authors did not intend to look specifically for tumours, but still found increased tumour rates.

   作者们原先没有打算特定观察是否出现肿瘤，但是依然发现肿瘤发生率增加了。 

Secondly, both of Hayes’s arguments (the number of rats and their tumour susceptibility) were considered by the peer reviewers of the journal, who decided they formed no objection to publication.

   其次，编辑海斯的两项论据（老鼠的数量及其肿瘤易发生性）已经由当初的同行审查者予以考虑，这没有形成他们反对出版的决定。 

Thirdly, these two arguments have been discussed at length in the journal following the publication of the paper and have been refuted by the authors of the paper and other experts.

   第三，这篇论文发表之后刊物发表了对这两项论据长时间讨论的文章，而且遭到文章作者与其他专家的反驳。 

Higher numbers of animals are only required in this type of safety studies to avoid missing toxic effects (a ‘false negative’ result), but the study found pronounced toxic effects and a first indication of possible carcinogenic effects.

   对这种类型安全性研究而言，仅在为了避免漏掉毒性影响（“误负面”结果）情况下才要求更大数量的动物，但是该项研究已经发现非常显著毒性影响以及可能的致癌作用的第一迹象。 

The Sprague-Dawley strain of rat which was used, is the commonly used standard for this type of research.

   该项研究使用的SD品系鼠，是这种类型研究普遍使用的标准。

For these reasons, the statistical significance of the biochemical data was endorsed by statistics experts. The biochemical data confirm the toxic effects such as those on liver and kidney, which are serious enough by themselves. The tumours and mortality rates are observations which need to be confirmed by a specific carcinogenicity study with higher numbers of rats; in view of public food safety, it is not wise to simply ignore them.

  由于这些理由，统计学专家赞同论文列出的生物化学数据的统计学显著性。这些生物化学数据确认了例如对肝脏与肾脏的毒性作用，仅这些就足够严重。研究中观察到的肿瘤与死亡率，需要通过使用更大数量老鼠的特定致癌性研究予以确认；考虑到公共安全性，简单忽略这些问题并非明智。 

Unpleasant results should be checked, not ignored. And the toxic effects other than tumours and mortality are well-founded.

   不愉快的结果应当进一步核实，而不是忽略。肿瘤与死亡率以外的毒性作用是有根据的。 

Who did the reevaluation?

   谁进行了该项再审查？ 

Even more worrying than the lack of good grounds for the retraction is the fact that the journal’s editor-in-chief has not revealed who the reviewers were who helped him to come to the conclusion that the paper should be retracted; nor has he revealed the criteria and methodology of their reevaluation, which overruled the earlier conclusion of the original peer-review which supported publication.

   比撤稿缺乏有效根据更令人担心的是，刊物总编没有公开是哪些审查者帮助他得到这篇论文应当撤除的结论；他也没有公开他们推翻当初同行审查者早先支持发表结论的该项重新评价时依据的标准与方法。 

In a case like this, where many of those who denounced the study have long-standing, well-documented links to the GM industry and, therefore, a clear interest in having the results of the study discredited, such lack of transparency about how this potential decision was reached is inexcusable, unscientific and unacceptable.

   在像这样的案例中，对这篇论文进行指责的许多人士具有与转基因产业关系的长期记录，因此清楚的利益造成力图败坏这篇论文声誉。关于该项撤稿决定如何形成方面缺乏透明性，是不可原谅的、不科学的与不可接受的。 

It raises the suspicion that the retraction is a favour to the interested industry, notably Monsanto.

   此事不能不引出这样的怀疑：该项撤稿是对相关利益产业投其所好，特别是孟山都公司。 

ENSSER promotes independent critical discourse

《欧洲对社会与环境负责科学家网络》促进独立的批判性话语 

It is part of ENSSER’s mission to promote the critical discourse, particularly in Europe, on new technologies and their impacts.

   对新技术及其影响推进批评性话语，是《欧洲对社会与环境负责科学家网络》职责的一部分，特别在欧洲。 

As scientific and technological advances are increasingly driven by private interest, disinterested independent health and environmental safety information often lags behind.

   由于科学技术进展越来越收到私人利益的驱动，缺乏兴趣的独立健康与环境安全信息往往滞后。 

Uncertainty is inherent to science, as is the debate between conflicting explanations of findings. Openness of this debate and independent research to find the truth are crucial prerequisites for the survival of independent science.

   不确定性是科学固有的特性，如同对某些发现相互冲突解释之间的辩论那样。这样的辩论的公开性以及通过独立研究发现真相，是独立科学得以生存的至关重要先决条件。 

This holds true in particular for the technology of genetically modified crops, where the safety studies done by the producers for authorisation of the crops are all too often not published at all because of business confidentiality of the data and may not hold up to an independent peer-review.

   对于转基因作物技术而言，这更是真的，因为转基因作物研发者为获得授权所做的安全研究往往不公开发表，因为这些研究数据的商业秘密性使其可能通不过独立同行审查过程。

These studies, not only the independent ones like Séralini’s, should be subject to debate. The public have a right to be informed of anything related to the safety of their food.

   转基因作物研发者为获得授权所做的这些安全研究，而不是仅仅色拉里尼教授所做的独立研究，都应当成为进行辩论的议题。公众有权了解与他们食物安全性相关的所有信息。 

In short, the decision to retract Séralini’s paper is a flagrant abuse of science and a blow to its credibility and independence.

   简短的说，撤除色拉里尼教授论文的决定是公然滥用科学，对科学的可信性与独立性的严重打击。 

It is damaging for the reputation of both the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology and its publisher Elsevier. It will decrease public trust in science. And it will not succeed in eliminating critical independent science from public view and scrutiny. Such days and times are definitively over.

   撤除色拉里尼教授论文的决定损害《食物与化学毒理学》以及爱思唯尔出版集团的信誉。它减少公众对科学的信任。它在使关键独立科学从公共视野和细查中消失不会获得成功。这样的日子与时代确定性已经过去。 

Prof. Séralini’s findings stand today more than before, as even this secret review found that there is nothing wrong with either technicalities, conduct or transparency of the data – the foundations on which independent science rests. The conclusiveness of their data will be decided by future independent science, not by a secret circle of people.

   色拉里尼教授的发现目前比以前更加挺立，即便该项秘密的审查在数据的技术、行为或数据的透明度方面都没有能够找到任何错误 – 这是独立科学的基础。他们的数据的决定性，将由未来独立科学决定，而非由一小圈秘密人士决定。

Contact: office@ensser.org

联系人：office@ensser.org

参考文献：

[1] Séralini, G.-E., Clair, E., Mesnage, R., Gress, S., Defarge, N., Malatesta, M., Hennequin, D., de Vendômois, J.S.: Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize, Food and Chemical Toxicology 50 (11), pp. 4221-4231 (2012)
[2] http://www.elsevier.com/about/press-releases/research-and-journals/elsevier-announces-article-retraction-from-journal-food-and-chemical-toxicology
[3] http://publicationethics.org/files/retraction guidelines.pdf
[4] http://publicationethics.org/members/food-and-chemical-toxicology