DNAgene分享 http://blog.sciencenet.cn/u/DNAgene 我的博客都是随兴而发,随便写点感想。随便收录、修改完善。写不写我的名字怎么写,都没关系。如果改了,还写我的名字,请通知我一下。

博文

《Science》关于中国黄金大米争论的报道

已有 5389 次阅读 2012-9-14 11:29 |个人分类:国家和社会|系统分类:论文交流| 中国人, CHILDREN, 河北大学, 中国黄金

今天的Science报道了中国黄金大米的争论。写得很详细,建议大家认真看看。我就不翻译了。以免再次惹恼了河北大学物理科学与技术学院副教授杨荣佳勇士,他不敢对外国作者怎么样,但是敢威武地将翻译转述外国新闻的中国人胖揍一顿。封建社会文人因言获罪,现在社会网民因转述言论遭到恐吓。中国离言论自由还差得远呢。

杨荣佳勇士的原话,请见他对另一博文《转基因玉米在欧盟法庭赢了,意大利可以种了》的评论 。“。。。否则,你就该当别人对你的谩骂和攻击,甚至极端。” 我对这句话的理解是,比谩骂和攻击更极端是胖揍一顿,如果我理解错误,比谩骂和攻击更极端的不是胖揍一顿,我在此向杨荣佳道歉。如果杨荣佳网友不认为自己要说胖揍一段,请在评论中说明一下,谩骂和攻击后面那个“甚至极端”是指什么?什么比谩骂和攻击更极端。

他逼着我发了毒誓,“如果嘴上说支持转基因,买食物时故意避开转基因,这样的人天打雷劈。。。。”,而后他说,等着看我是否要遭天打雷劈。我发完毒誓之后,似乎可以免于“甚至极端”。他可以等着看我是否遭天打雷劈。我告诉他,我不做亏心事,不怕鬼叫门。但同时我也告诉他,整天以小人之心看世界的人,世界对他也不会是友好的。

------------------------------------------------------------------
杨荣佳后来说,那几句话是他转的其他网友的评论。我回复如下“。。。既然转载,又没声明强调是转载的,也就可以说代表了你的观点。我们的争论也就是必要的。”经查证,他是转的苏州大学的周公朴的评论。我将有关争吵的链接告诉了周公朴,提醒他看看,觉得需要反思就反思一下,觉得不需要反思也随他便。虽说我已发过毒誓,可以免于“甚至极端”,还是很希望周公朴回答一下,谩骂和攻击后面那个“甚至极端”是指什么?什么比谩骂和攻击更极端。

杨荣佳对“甚至极端”的解释是,“可以是扔牛老师几个臭鸡蛋,可以是到牛老师面前抗议反对转基因”。我回复如下,
“如果我们中国人的极端行为就是这些,我们应该为国人的素质而欣慰。”大家都极端到这个程度,我们国家文革的武斗悲惨历史也就不会重演了。我相信这是杨荣佳的真心话,不用他发毒誓来证明。

-------------------------------------------------------------
苏州大学的周公朴坚持他的说法,认为对支持转基因、传播转基因新闻的人就应当视作汉奸,就应该像对待汉奸一样的极端措施对待这些人,原话如下:牛教授要我来谈谈对“眜着良心的科学家”的极端措施。
在谈这个措施之前,我有必要重申一下我的主张。
我前面讲到,科学的验证,往往需要很长的时间。不用匆忙把转基因食品作为主粮推广。
如果有专家武断地认为,转基因食品无害,那么我建议他多承担一些试吃的工作,我愿意发起成立一个基金会,为他提供免费的转基因食品,我个人承诺每月捐赠100元人民币,用于购买转基因食品供给这个专家吃。
有些专家不怕死,但是可能会担心子孙的安危,所以,我们要求专家在把转基因食品推广为主粮之前,先让自己的儿子、孙子试吃,长期吃。我保证这个社会可以为 专家的子孙提供源源不断的免费的各种转基因改良后的食物。如果他肯长期大量吃转基因食品,那么我们认为他对转基因食品的安全性只是认识不足的问题,他还不 是昧良心的。
现在我要谈对“昧良心的科学家”的极端:
我认为,在转基因食品推广这个问题上,昧良心的科学家比汉奸卖国贼还要坏。


国人对待汉奸卖国贼的措施是什么,大家都是清楚的。我是觉得很多人,对待他人很极端,对待自己却很温柔。并做了如下回复:
    敢于公开自己的态度就好。
    但你也不要忘掉另外一种可能。由于一群杞人忧天人士的反对,中国大豆种植区的农民坚持种非转基因大豆,已经面临被淘汰的境地。过分夸大转基因的风险,使本来就贫苦的农民愈加贫穷,这虽不是汉奸,但与文革中胡闹而祸国殃民的四人帮害人的效果是一样的。
    对支持转基因的,哪怕传播一下国外的转基因新闻,你都要视作汉奸,鼓动国人对之采取极端措施。那反过来,如果若干年后,美日欧韩等外国人都吃了转基因食品 (尤其日韩人,跟我们国人遗传基因基本一致,怕都怕,不怕都不怕),没事。中国却由于你们的反对种植转基因而很多农民破产,你们这些人有人出来用你们对待 他人一样的极端态度来谢罪吗?
    我们中国人,不兴日本武士以死谢罪那一套。但你呼吁对别人采取极端的同时,如果几十年后证明你错了,总得拿出一个像样的谢罪方式吧。

-------------------------------------------------------------------
GM Research
Charges Fly, Confusion Reigns Over Golden Rice Study in Chinese ChildrenSHANGHAI, CHINA—A U.S.-funded study in which Chinese schoolchildren were fed genetically modified (GM) rice 4 years ago has triggered a firestorm in the Chinese media. Newspaper columnists accused the main authors, both of Tufts University in Boston, of using children as “guinea pigs”; some stories likened the study to Japanese biowarfare experiments on Chinese prisoners in World War II. The furor has prompted several Chinese collaborators on the study to distance themselves from the work, and one of them was suspended.

The criticism targets a trial of golden rice, a controversial crop developed to fight vitamin A deficiency (Science, 25 April 2008, p. 468). The results of the trial, funded by the U.S. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), were published online to little notice by The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition on 1 August. But on 29 August, Greenpeace China claimed in a press release that the study had violated a Chinese government “decision to abort plans for the trial,” which it called “a scandal of international proportions.”

The group offered little evidence to support its allegations, but in a 5 September statement, Tufts University said it is “deeply concerned” and is conducting a “thorough review.” Pending the outcome, an interview with the paper's first author, Guangwen Tang, would be “not appropriate,” a spokesperson says. (Tang is a Chinese-born researcher at a USDA-funded nutrition lab at Tufts.) The paper's last author, renowned nutrition scientist Robert Russell, was out earlier this week due to family circumstances.

The study had come under fire before. In 2008, the advocacy group GM Free Cymru (Wales) sounded the alarm, and 22 researchers decried the study as a breach of medical ethics in an open letter to Russell, arguing that golden rice was unsafe to eat. In a 2009 letter, an NIDDK communication officer said the study had been approved by ethical panels at Tufts and the Chinese Academy of Preventive Medicine, that there were “many safeguards” to protect participants, and that the U.S. Department of State had cleared the trial after a review for “any potentially negative foreign policy implications.”

By that time, the trial was already finished, says Adrian Dubock, manager of the Golden Rice Project in Dornach, Switzerland. (While not involved in the study, Dubock says he has followed it closely.) But Greenpeace says it had assumed the Chinese government halted the trial in 2008, citing an e-mail from that year from an official in the Chinese agriculture ministry's GMO Biological Safety Administration Office. The e-mail said the Zhejiang Provincial Department of Agriculture had been instructed to ask the Zhejiang Academy of Medical Sciences to stop the study. The ministry's office did not respond to interview requests.

Golden rice was created in the 1990s as an attempt to help people worldwide suffering from vitamin A deficiency, which is estimated to cause blindness in more than a quarter of a million children annually. By making rice produce β-carotene, a precursor to vitamin A, researchers hoped to solve that problem in countries where rice is a staple.

The study in China sought to find out how efficiently β-carotene from golden rice is converted to vitamin A once it's ingested. To be relevant, Dubock says, the trial had to be done in a rice-growing country and in children, who are most vulnerable to vitamin A shortages. According to the published study, the researchers fed 72 children either golden rice, spinach, or capsules with β-carotene in oil. They reported that golden rice was as good a vitamin source as the capsules and better than spinach—a “fantastic result,” Dubock says, because it means modest amounts of rice will provide benefits.

In the wake of the uproar, the Chinese co-authors have denied their involvement. On 5 September, the state-run People's Daily quoted Hu Yuming, a researcher at the Hunan Center for Disease Control and Prevention, as saying he was “completely baffled” as to why his name appeared on the paper. “I am unaware of that paper,” another co-author, Wang Yin of the Zhejiang Academy of Medical Sciences, reportedly told the same newspaper. (Neither could be reached for comment by Science.)

The Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (Chinese CDC), however, confirmed that the Chinese researchers, including the CDC's Yin Shi'an, collaborated with Tang, but stated that they only gave the students spinach and capsules; the golden rice part was a Tufts project of which Yin had been unaware, the statement suggested. Nonetheless, the CDC suspended Yin for “inconsistencies” in his story.

The Chinese CDC account contradicts that of the Zhejiang Academy of Medical Sciences, which on 7 September said that Yin was listed as a principal investigator, with the academy's Wang, on an agreement the academy signed with Tufts in 2004 to research golden rice. (Yin declined to be interviewed.)

Dubock says he has received information that the Chinese researchers had been “intimidated” by home visits from police. “Of course they knew” that golden rice was being tested, he says. He calls Greenpeace's actions “callous and cynical” and says there's a “xenophobic” element to the outrage. One cartoon on the website of state news agency Xinhua showed a curly-haired scientist wearing a tie emblazoned with the American flag, staring through a microscope while dropping unnaturally colored kernels of rice into a Chinese child's mouth.

China's leaders are generally supportive of GM crop research (Science, 5 September 2008, p. 1279). The new controversy could mean “short-term adverse effects,” says Huang Jikun, director of the Chinese Academy of Sciences' Center for Chinese Agricultural Policy in Beijing. But ultimately, he says, “China's GM technology will continue to develop as the nation has planned.”



http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-61772-612653.html

上一篇:北师大员工食堂:站着吃饭快
下一篇:生物信息学,可以安于非主流,而且应该庆幸非主流

3 虞左俊 dangping hangzhou

该博文允许注册用户评论 请点击登录 评论 (39 个评论)

数据加载中...
扫一扫,分享此博文

Archiver|手机版|科学网 ( 京ICP备07017567号-12 )

GMT+8, 2020-8-7 01:01

Powered by ScienceNet.cn

Copyright © 2007- 中国科学报社

返回顶部