法国人塞拉利尼（Gilles Eric Seralini）是“转基因玉米致癌”风波的绝对主角。按理说，作为一个著名的反转基因人士，知名度应该很高吧？可是，查来查去，维基百科对他的介绍仅有法文版和德文版，没有英文版，无法了解这个人的背景。很多媒体链接的有关他的个人资料的公司网站却打不开。

我绞尽脑汁，想知道塞拉利尼究竟是何许人也，终于在维基百科的Genetically modified food controversies词条下找到了对他个人及其背景的详细介绍。我想很多人只知道他是个反转基因人士，至于细节应该就知道的不多吧？

下面我就把这篇英文资料择要翻译出来，供关注者参考。

In 2004 Monsanto sought approval in Europe to introduce a rootworm resistant (MON863) maize, which led to controversy over acceptance by regulatory bodies of industry-funded toxicity studies and over the design of those studies. Pr Gilles Eric Séralini, who was on the committee that reviewed MON863 for the French government,^[64] was a major figure in those controversies and continues to be a critic of toxicity study design.^[46]

^{2004年，孟山都寻求在欧洲获准引进一个抗根际蠕虫的玉米品种（MON863），此举在管理部门是否接受企业赞助的毒性研究及针对这些研究的设计上引起很大争议。Pr Gilles Eric Seralini是为法国政府评估MON863的一个委员会的成员，他在这场争议中扮演主要角色，而且一直批评其毒性试验设计。}

In 2004 the GMO Panel of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) twice concluded that it had no reservations about recommending the authorisation of MON863, and published its opinion on MON863 maize.^[65] The report described the data that Monsanto provided, and referenced changes in some blood cell parameters and in kidney weights of rats that were tested.^[65] Because of concerns in general but specifically referencing these changes, Greenpeace sued for release of the rat feeding studies that Monsanto had provided. A German court released the original study^[66] in June 2005.^[67] With the full study in hand, critics of GM foods, including Séralini, pointed to differences in kidney size and blood composition found in this study, suggesting that the observed differences, as well as the design of the studies, raised questions about the regulatory concept of substantial equivalence.^[68]

^{同样在2004年，欧洲食品安全局（EFSA）的基因修饰生物委员会两次做出结论，关于推荐MON863的授权无异议，并就MON863玉米发表其观点。这份报告描述了孟山都提供的数据和供试大鼠中某些血细胞指标与肾脏重量的相关变化。由于对这些变化的关注仅仅是一般意义上而非专业上，绿色和平组织诉请公布孟山都已经提供的大鼠饲喂研究结果。在2005年，一所德国法庭判决公布研究的原始数据。在掌握了完整数据后，转基因食品的批评人士（包括Seralini）指出，该研究显示肾脏大小和血液组成存在差异，表明所观察到的差异像这些研究的设计一样有悖于实质等同性的监管概念。}

In 2007, Séralini and two other authors from Caen University and the University of Rouen published a study of these data, funded by Greenpeace.^[5][69][70] This study found that the weights of female weight increased by 3.7%, while male weight decreased by 3.3%. These weight changes could be indicative of organ dysfunction. Triglyceride levels increased in females, and urine phosphorus and sodium excretions decreased in males. Séralini also claimed that MON 863 adversely affects liver and kidney function, as well as causes varying degrees of damage to the adrenal glands, heart, spleen, and other components of the haematopoietic system. The study concluded that experiments longer than 90-days must be conducted before the safety of MON 863 can be known, as chronic organ problems are rarely evident within such a short amount of time.^[5] Greenpeace cited the study in a press release, in which it demanded that MON 863 be completely recalled from the global market and called for a strict review of current testing methods.^[71]

^{2007年，Seralini与来自法国另外两所大学的共同作者发表了一篇含有上述数据的研究论文，由绿色和平组织赞助。该研究发现，雌鼠体重增加3.7%，雄鼠体重减少3.3%。这种体重的变化可能是器官功能失调的指征。同时，三酰甘油酯水平在雌鼠中升高，而尿中磷和钠分泌水平在雄鼠中降低。Seralini还声称，MON863对肝肾功能有不良影响，并能引起肾上腺、心脏、脾脏及其他造血系统的组织器官出现不同程度的损害。该研究得出结论，在已知MON863的安全性之前，必须做长于90天的实验，因为在一段很短的时间内无法发现慢性器官问题。绿色和平组织在散发的一份报告中引用了这项研究结果，它要求将MON863从全球市场全部召回，呼吁对现有的测定方法进行严格的评估。}

The Séralini 2007 paper prompted the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to reexamine the safety data on this strain of corn. This task force also asked countries from the European Union if they had any new data on MON 863 or new views on the original Monsanto toxicity study and had a technical meeting with the authors of the 2007 CRIIGEN paper. The EFSA concluded that the observed small numerical decrease in rat kidney weights were not biologically meaningful, and the weights were well within the normal range of kidney weights for control animals. There were no corresponding microscopic findings in the relevant organ systems, and they stated that all blood chemistry and organ weight values fell within the "normal range of historical control values" for rats.^[72] In addition the EFSA review stated that the statistical methods used in Séralini 2007 paper were incorrect.^[73] These conclusions were reported by Markos Kyprianou (European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Policy) to the European Parliament on 9 July 2010.^[74] The EFSA's critical conclusions (and also those of the French Commission du Génie Biomoléculaire^[75]) were the subject of a subsequent article in Le Figaro, titled "European Experts claim GMO is harmless",Food Standards Australia New Zealand also reviewed the 2007 Séralini study and concluded that "...all of the statistical differences between rats fed MON 863 corn and control rats are attributable to normal biological variation."^[76][77]

^{Seralinin在2007年发表的论文促使欧洲食品安全局（EFSA）重新审查这个玉米品系的安全性数据，同时要求欧盟各国密切关注是否有MON803的任何新数据，是否对孟山都毒性研究有任何新评论，并与2007GRIIGEN论文的作者举行一场技术研讨会。EFSA的结论是，在大鼠肾脏重量上观察到的细微减轻不具有生物学意义，而且重量的数字恰好处于对照动物肾脏重量的正常范围之内。在相关器官系统内未发现相应的显微变化，而且他们声称全部血液化学及器官重量等数字都处于大鼠的“历史对照值的正常范围”。此外，EFSA的评估报告强调，Seralini的2007年论文中的统计学方法是不正确的。上述结论由Markos Kyprianou（欧洲健康与消费者政策执行官）于2010年7月9日报告给欧洲议会。EFSA的关键结论（连同法国基因生物分子委员会）成为《费加罗报》后续文章的主题，题目是“欧洲专家说遗传修饰生物无害”。澳大利亚和新西兰食品标准也评估了2007年Seralini的研究，得出如下结论：。。。饲喂MON863玉米的大鼠与对照大鼠的全部统计学差异均归因于正常的生物学误差。}

The Séralini 2007 paper was also assessed by a panel of independent toxicologists from the US, Germany, UK and Canada funded by Monsanto; that panel also dismissed the findings on the grounds that it "...failed to demonstrate a dose–response relationship, reproducibility over time, association with other relevant changes (e.g., histopathology), occurrence in both sexes, difference outside the normal range of variation, or biological plausibility with respect to cause-and-effect.".^[78]

^{Seralini的2007年论文也由孟山都资助的一组来自美国、德国、英国和加拿大的独立的毒理学家进行过评估，并给予驳回，因为它“。。。未能说明剂量-应答关系、随时间变化的生殖性能、与其他相关变化（如组织病理学）的关联、不同性别中的发生、正常变异范围以外的差异、有关因效关系的生物学可能性”。}

In 2009 the Séralini lab published another re-analysis study.^[6] (This paper is often called the "Vendômois et al. 2009" paper as the first author listed on the paper is Joël Spiroux de Vendômois; however the paper came from the Séralini lab and Séralini is listed as the last author.) This paper re-analyzed toxicity data submitted by Monsanto for NK603 (glyphosate resistance) maize, and included three rat feeding studies published by Monsanto scientists on MON 810 (Bt corn).^[79][80][81] The Séralini 2009 article concluded that the three crops caused liver, kidney, and heart damage in the rats.^[6]

 ^{2009年，Seralini实验室又发表了另一篇重新分析的研究论文。该论文重新分析了由孟山都提交的NK603（草甘膦抗性）玉米，并纳入了孟山都科学家在评价MON810（Bt玉米）所用的3个大鼠饲喂试验。Seralini的2009年论文结论是，3种作物都能引起大鼠肝脏、肾脏、心脏损害。}

The European Food Safety Authority reviewed the 2009 Séralini paper and concluded that the authors' claims were not supported by the data in their paper, that many of their fundamental statistical criticisms of the 2007 paper also applied to the 2009 paper, and that there was no new information that would change the EFSA's conclusions that the three GM maize types were safe for human and animal health, and for the environment.^[82]

^{欧洲食品安全局评估了2009年Seralini论文，结论是作者的结论不受该论文数据的支持、对其2007年论文中基本统计学方法的批评同样也适用于2009年论文、没有新资料能改变EFSA的结论，即3种转基因玉米对人畜健康及环境都是安全的。}

The French High Council of Biotechnologies Scientific Committee (HCB) also reviewed the Séralini 2009 study and concluded that it "..presents no admissible scientific element likely to ascribe any haematological, hepatic or renal toxicity to the three re-analysed GMOs."^[83] The HCB also questioned the authors' independence, noting that, in 2010, the Séralini web page still showed a 2008 Austrian anti-GM article which had been previously withdrawn by the authors themselves as flawed.

法国生物技术科学委员会高级理事会（HCB）也评估了Seralini的2009年论文，结论是它“。。。未能展示可能将任何血液、肝脏、肾脏毒性归结于3个重新分析的基因修饰生物的被他人承认的科学要素”。HCB还质疑作者的独立性，指出2010年Seralini的网页依然列出一篇2008年的澳大利亚反转基因文章，该文早已被作者认为有误而撤销。

Food Standards Australia New Zealand concluded that the results from the 2009 Séralini study were due to chance alone.^[84]

^{澳大利亚和新西兰食品标准的结论是，2009年Seralini研究的结果纯粹是由于几率所致。}

A 2011 review by the Séralini lab, which used 19 published animal feeding studies as well as data from several animal feeding studies submitted for regulatory approval, continued to find that GM food had liver and kidney effects that were sex and dose dependent, and advocated for longer and more elaborate toxicology tests for regulatory approval.^[46]

^{2011年由Seralini实验室的评估使用了19篇已经发表的饲喂试验论文以及提交给监管部门批准的几个动物饲喂试验数据，仍然发现转基因食品有肝肾毒性，并且是性别和剂量依赖性的，倡议监管部门批准时应要求提供更长时间及更全面的毒理学测试结果。}

In September 2012 the Séralini lab published a paper entitled "Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize".^[85] The abstract indicates: "The health effects of a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize (from 11% in the diet), cultivated with or without Roundup, and Roundup alone (from 0.1 ppb in water), were studied 2 years in rats. In females, all treated groups died 2–3 times more than controls, and more rapidly. This difference was visible in 3 male groups fed GMOs. All results were hormone and sex dependent, and the pathological profiles were comparable." The study used 200 Sprague-Dawley rats, 100 male and 100 female, and divided them into twenty groups with 10 rats each; ten experimental conditions were tested on male rats and separately on female rats for two years. The paper's method section states: "For each sex, one control group had access to plain water and standard diet...; six groups were fed with 11, 22 and 33% of GM NK603 maize either treated or not with R (Roundup). The final three groups were fed with the control diet and had access to water supplemented with respectively 1.1x10^-8% of R (0.1 ppb of R or 50 ng/L of glyphosate, the contaminating level of some regular tap waters), 0.09% of R (400 mg/kg, US MRL of glyphosate in some GM feed) and 0.5% of R (2.25 g/L, half of the minimal agricultural working dilution)."^[85]

^{2012年9月，Seralini实验室发表了一篇题为“农达除草剂和耐农达基因修饰玉米的长期毒性”的论文，摘要写道：“（略）”。该研究一共选用了200只SD大鼠，100只雄鼠和100只雌鼠，分成20组，每组10只大鼠。该论文的方法部分写道：“（略）”。}

After the study was released there was widespread criticism of the study, and much of the criticism claimed that Séralini's conclusions were impossible to justify given the statistical power of the study. Sprague-Dawley rats have a lifespan of about two years and have a high tendency to get cancer over their lifespan - 86% of males and 72% of females get cancer under normal conditions.^[86] The Séralini experiment lasted the normal lifespan of these rats, and the longer the experiment goes, the more statistical "noise" there is. So for the experiment to have adequate statistical power, all the groups - control groups and test groups - would have to include a large number of rats in order to sort out any experimentally caused cancers from cancers that would occur anyway - but the Séralini study had only ten per group.^[86] Others questioned the statistical methods, and said that the results were difficult to interpret because the amount of food given to the rats was not reported nor the growth rate of the rats, both of which factors effect development of cancer in the rat strain used in the study.^[87][88] The Washington Post quoted Marion Nestle, the Paulette Goddard professor in the Department of Nutrition, Food Studies and Public Health at New York University and food safety advocate: "'[I] can’t figure it out yet....It’s weirdly complicated and unclear on key issues: what the controls were fed, relative rates of tumors, why no dose relationship, what the mechanism might be. I can’t think of a biological reason why GMO corn should do this.....So even though I strongly support labeling, I’m skeptical of this study.'"^[89]

^{当这篇文章发表后，引来许多批评，其中批评最多的是，假如对研究进行严格的统计分析，Seralini的结论是不可能成立的。SD大鼠的寿命约为两年，在其生活史中罹患肿瘤的几率很高——在正常条件下86%雄鼠和72%雌鼠易患肿瘤。Seralini的实验终其一生，试验时间越长，统计“噪音”就越高。如果实验要达到适当的统计水平，对照组与测试组都要纳入更多的大鼠，以便鉴别肿瘤确实是由实验本身诱发的，但Seralini的实验每组只有10只大鼠。还有人质疑他们的统计学方法，而且说结果很难解释，因为给大鼠饲喂的饲料用量以及大鼠的生长速率都没有报道，而这两种因素都能影响大鼠肿瘤的发育。《华盛顿邮报》援引纽约大学食品研究及公共卫生学院营养学系Paulette Goddard教授、食品安全人士Marion Nestle的话说：“（我）还搞不明白。。。它显得出奇的复杂，在一些关键问题上不清楚：对照大鼠饲喂的是什么，肿瘤的相对发生率是多少，为何没有剂量关系，可能的机理是什么。我想不出为什么基因修饰生物的玉米应该做这些的生物学原因。。。所以尽管我强烈支持标识（转基因），但我质疑这个研究”。}

The Seralini group has responded to some of these criticisms.^[90] In response to the criticism that not enough rats were used, Seralini provided only a denial as opposed to statistical reasoning: "The 20 animal control group is big enough to get a measure of tumour frequency. You don't need to look at hundreds of animals. If he (Prof Anthony Trewavas, one of the critics) believes this, then he should also agree that the studies done by others including industry are also invalid."

Seralini小组已经部分回应了这些批评。在回应所使用的大鼠数量不够的批评时，Seralini仅仅用矢口否认来反击统计学质疑：“20只动物的对照组足以用来测定肿瘤发生频率，你不必观察成百只动物。如果他（批评者之一的Anthony Trewavas教授）承认这一点，他就应该同意由包括企业在内的其他人所做的研究也是无效的”。

The method by which the Séralini team publicized their 2012 paper has been widely criticized as well. The original Agence France-Presse story noted: "Breaking with a long tradition in scientific journalism, the authors allowed a selected group of reporters to have access to the paper, provided they signed confidentiality agreements that prevented them from consulting other experts about the research before publication."^[91] An editorial at the prestigious scientific journal, Nature, noted: "With such strong claims and the predictably large effect they will have on public opinion, researchers should take care how they present their findings to the public and the media. They should spell out their results clearly; emphasize the limitations and caveats; and make it clear that the data still need to be assessed, and replicated, by the scientific community. That didn’t happen. The paper was promoted in a public-relations offensive, with a related book and film set for release this week. Furthermore, journalists wishing to report the research had to sign confidentiality agreements that prevented them from contacting other scientists for comment on the paper until after the embargo had expired. Some, to their credit, refused, or accepted and then revisited the story critically once their hands were no longer tied by these outrageous restrictions. The result was the exclusion of critical comment in many of the breaking stories — the ones that most people will remember."^[92] National Public Radio's program, On the Media, discussed the way the paper was released to the media on Sept 28, 2012, with Carl Zimmer, a science journalist, who was especially critical of science journalists who allowed themselves to be manipulated, saying "Science journalists need to talk to scientists whenever they are reporting on research. It's especially important when it's extremely controversial. We've had this huge debate over genetically modified food, screaming matches around the world. In California they are considering whether to label genetically modified food, and the people who are advocating for that immediately grabbed onto this study.... So, you have to be able to check with other scientists, other experts, to see whether the science really holds up. And in this case, as soon as other scientists took a look at this paper, they said, 'Whoa, the science is a mess.'... This (signing confidentiality agreements and reporting only what the authors have to say) is wrong. I learned that the BBC ... had been offered the paper a day in advance, if they signed this confidentiality agreement. And they just said, 'Forget it.' They walked away. You are not going to be doing any legitimate reporting if you take that paper and can't talk to anybody else. What you're going to come out with, is bad journalism."^[93] Zimmer had earlier posted on his blog at Discover magazine, "This is a rancid, corrupt way to report about science. It speaks badly for the scientists involved, but we journalists have to grant that it speaks badly to our profession, too. If someone dangles a press conference in your face but won’t let you do your job properly by talking to other scientists, WALK AWAY. If someone hands you confidentiality agreements to sign, so that you will have no choice but to produce a one-sided article, WALK AWAY. Otherwise, you are being played."^[94]

Seralinin团队发表的论文中所使用的方法饱受各界批评（略）。