【明辨是非】 科学是什么？是事实，是证据，不是什么推理，诬陷，造谣，游说，收买，打击报复。声称转基因技术安全的专家，为什么自己就不能做一个实验来看看呢？既然说安全，数据呢？是怎样设计的实验呢？如果都没有，现在补做也是来得及的。用静止的观点，用孤立的观点来理论推测异常复杂的生命现象，有时是会闹笑话的，是要付出代价的。不论是学问有多大的科学家，都要懂得谦虚谨慎这个基本道理啊！急赤白脸地宣布那玩意儿安全无害，比喝凉水还安全，比食盐还安全，猪吃90天没事人吃也没事，这是科学的态度吗？转基因争论这么多年，对方给我的印象是，在资本主导的科学研究方面，科学回到了中世纪的黑暗——容不得质疑，一质疑就跳，一跳就打压。人类需要再次发起对资本主导的“科学”教的文艺复兴运动了。欣喜的是，正能量在全球开始回归，中华有救矣！人类有救了！在这场新的“启蒙”运动中，法兰西人，好样的。

法国科学家塞拉利尼论文再次出版：科学自己说明一切

转载、翻译、评论者：陈一文（cheniwan@cei.gov.cn）

转载自：

http://www.gmoseralini.org/republication-seralini-study-science-speaks/

GMOSeralini.org welcomes the news of the republication of the chronic toxicity study on the glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup and a commercialized genetically modified (GM) maize, Monsanto’s NK603, led by Prof Gilles-Eric Séralini.

       GMOSeralini.org网站（＝转基因塞拉利尼网站）欢迎这个消息：G-E·塞拉利尼教授领衔对商业性转基因玉米NK 603进行的慢性毒性研究论文再次出版。

The republication restores the study to the peer-reviewed literature so that it can be consulted and built upon by other scientists.

   再次出版将该项研究重新存储到经同行专家审查的文献，使其他科学家可以引证到自己的论述中。 

The study found severe liver and kidney damage and hormonal disturbances in rats fed the GM maize and low levels of Roundup that are below those permitted in drinking water in the EU. Toxic effects were found from the GM maize tested alone, as well as from Roundup tested alone and together with the maize. Additional unexpected findings were higher rates of large tumours and mortality in most treatment groups.

   该项研究在喂养转基因玉米与地域欧盟饮用水允许微量水平的草甘膦除草剂农达的老鼠中发现严重的肝脏与肾脏损伤以及激素干扰。单独喂养转基因玉米（种植过程不喷洒草甘膦除草剂因而不含草甘膦残留的转基因玉米－－译注）的老鼠、仅喂食低微量草甘膦除草剂农达的老鼠，以及喂养含草甘膦残留的转基因玉米（种植过程喷洒草甘膦除草剂因而含草甘膦残留的转基因玉米－－译注）的老鼠，都发现了毒性作用。除此之外，在大部分处理组中，还发现了未曾预料的高比例大肿瘤与死亡率。 

The study was first published in Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT) in September 2012[1] but was retracted by the editor-in-chief in November 2013 after a sustained campaign of criticism and defamation by pro-GMO scientists.[2]

   该项研究2012年9月首先发表在《食品与化学毒理学》（FCT）[1]，但是在力挺转基因的一批科学家发动的持续抨击与诽谤运动后2013年11月遭刊物总编撤稿。[2] 

Now the study has been republished by Environmental Sciences Europe. The republished version contains extra material addressing criticisms of the original publication. The raw data underlying the study’s findings are also published – unlike the raw data for the industry studies that underlie regulatory approvals of Roundup, which are kept secret. However, the new paper presents the same results as before and the conclusions are unchanged.

   现在，该项研究由《欧洲环境科学》再次出版。再版的论文包含一些额外的资料来对付对初版论文的批评。作为该项研究基础的原始数据也发表出来--不像产业界为草甘膦除草剂农达获得监管机构批准的试验资料一直保密拒绝公布。然而，再版的新论文提出的结果与以前相同，论文结论也没有改变。 

The republished study is accompanied by a separate commentary by Prof Séralini’s team describing the lobbying efforts of GMO crop supporters to force the editor of FCT to retract the original publication.

   研究论文重新发表时，还一起发表塞拉利尼教授团队的一篇评论文章，描述转基因作物支持者的游说努力迫使《食品化学毒理学》杂志总编撤除该篇论文的情况。 

GMOSeralini.org editor Claire Robinson commented: “This study has now successfully passed no less than three rounds of rigorous peer review.

      GMOSeralini.org网站编辑克莱尔·罗宾森评论：“该项研究目前成功通过了不少于三轮严格的同行专家审查。 

“The first was for the initial publication of the study in Food and Chemical Toxicology. It passed with only minor revisions, according to the authors.[3]

   “首次在《食品与化学毒理学》上发表时，它通过了同行审查，只做了很少的修改，论文作者说。[3] 

“The second review took months. It involved a non-transparent examination of Prof Séralini’s raw data by a secret panel of unnamed persons organized by the editor-in-chief of FCT, A. Wallace Hayes, in response to criticisms of the study by pro-GMO scientists.[4,5]

   “第二次审查花费了数个月。它涉及由《食品与化学毒理学》总编A. Wallace Hayes组织的由匿名人士组成的秘密专家组对塞拉利尼教授的原始数据进行不透明审查，以应对挺转基因科学家的抨击。[4、5] 

“In a letter to Prof Séralini, Hayes admitted that the anonymous reviewers found nothing ‘incorrect’ about the results presented. However, Hayes pointed to what he said was the ‘inconclusive’ nature of some aspects of the paper, namely the tumour and mortality observations, to justify his decision to retract the study.[6]

   “在致塞拉利尼教授的一封信中，《食品与化学毒理学》总编Hayes承认匿名审查者没有发现研究论文提交的结果有任何“不正确之处”。然而，Hayes仅指出他称之为这篇论文某些方面，即对于肿瘤与死亡率的观察，的“不确定性”性质，作为他决定撤除这篇论文的理由。[6] 

“The rationale given for the retraction was widely criticized by scientists as an act of censorship and a bow to the interests of the GMO industry.[7,8] Some scientists pointed out that numerous published scientific papers contain inconclusive findings, including Monsanto’s own short (90-day) study on the same GM maize, and have not been retracted.[9] The retraction was even condemned by a former member of the editorial board of FCT.[10]

   “对撤除论文给出的理由遭到科学家们广泛的批评，认为是屈服于转基因生物产业的利益的审查制度。[7、8]某些科学家指出众多发布了的科学论文含有不确定性的发现，包括孟山都自己对转基因玉米进行的短期（90天）研究论文，而没有因此遭到撤稿。[9]撤除塞拉利尼教授论文甚至遭到《食品与化学毒理学》杂志编辑部前任成员的谴责。[10]、 

“Now the study has passed a third peer review arranged by the journal that is republishing the study, Environmental Sciences Europe.[11]

   “现在，该项研究论文通过了重新发表这篇论文的学术刊物《欧洲环境科学》杂志组织的第三轮同行专家审查。[11] 

Comments from scientists

   科学家的评论 

Dr Michael Antoniou, a molecular geneticist based in London, commented, “Few studies would survive such intensive scrutiny by fellow scientists. The republication of the study after three expert reviews is a testament to its rigour, as well as to the integrity of the researchers.

   迈克尔·安托尼博士，在伦敦工作的一位分子基因学家，评论，“很少的研究能够通过同行科学家如此严格审查。经过三轮转基因审查后再次出版这篇论文，证明了其严谨性,以及研究者工作的完整性。 

“If anyone still doubts the quality of this study, they should simply read the republished paper. The science speaks for itself.

   “如果还有人质疑这篇研究论文的质量，他们应当阅读重新发表的这篇论文。科学自我解释一切。 

“If even then they refuse to accept the results, they should launch their own research study on these two toxic products that have now been in the human food and animal feed chain for many years.”

   “阅读了重新发表的这篇论文后如果他们依然拒绝接受该项研究的结果，他们应当对于多年来在人类食品与动物饲料供应中存在的这两种毒性产品（草甘膦除草剂农达与转基因作物--译注）进行自己的试验研究。” 

Dr Jack A Heinemann, Professor of Molecular Biology and Genetics, University of Canterbury New Zealand, called the republication “an important demonstration of the resilience of the scientific community”. Dr Heinemann continued, “The first publication of these results revealed some of the viciousness that can be unleashed on researchers presenting uncomfortable findings. I applaud Environmental Sciences Europe for submitting the work to yet another round of rigorous blind peer review and then bravely standing by the process and the recommendations of its reviewers, especially after witnessing the events surrounding the first publication.

   杰克·A·海尼曼博士，新西兰大学堪培拉大学分子生物学与遗传性教授，称该研究论文的重新发表“科学界韧性的重要演示”。海尼曼博士继续说，“第一次发表这些结果显示出研究人员提出某些不舒服结果时可能披露某些邪恶情况。我赞赏《欧洲环境科学》经过又一轮严格的匿名同行评审后再次提交这篇研究论文，然后勇敢的坚持科学的程序与审查们推荐的意见，特别在见证了首次发表后发生的一系列事件后这样做。 

“This study has arguably prevailed through the most comprehensive and independent review process to which any scientific study on GMOs has ever been subjected.

   “这项研究可以说通过了对转基因生物进行的任何科学研究未曾经历的最全面的和独立的审查过程。 

“The work provides important new knowledge that must be taken into account by the community that evaluates and reports upon the risks of genetically modified organisms, indeed upon all sources of pesticide in our food and feed chains. In time these findings must be verified by repetition or challenged by superior experimentation. In my view, nothing constructive for risk assessment or promotion of GM biotechnology has been achieved by attempting to expunge these data from the public record.”

   “该项工作提供了重要的新知识，评估和报告转基因生物风险的科学界必须考虑这些知识，因为我们的食品与饲料供应链中存在着所有来源的农药。这些发现必须不断重复验证,或受到更优越的实验的挑战。以我来看，企图从公共记录中删除这些资料，对转基因生物技术的风险评估或其推动没有任何建设性。”