加载中…[英文]《Scientific American》谴责转基因公司试图限制对转基因的危害的独立研究
(2011-10-08 19:21:03)
标签：
转基因孟山都教育孟山都的历史转基因观察转基因玉米 |
Scientific American condemns restrictions on GM research
Tuesday, 21 July 2009 15:48
EXTRACT: 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.
---
---
DO SEED COMPANIES CONTROL GM CROP RESEARCH?
Scientific American, Editorial, August 2009 edition, published 21 July 2009
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=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
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.
---
---
DO SEED COMPANIES CONTROL GM CROP RESEARCH?
Scientific American, Editorial, August 2009 edition, published 21 July 2009
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=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
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.
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.
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.
Note: This article was originally printed with the title, "A Seedy Practice."
Note: This article was originally printed with the title, "A Seedy Practice."
喜欢
0
赠金笔