主题：【讨论】不明白转基因有啥好争论的 -- 没那么美好

您给出链接的右侧有评论

第一篇

The Lancet, Volume 354, Issue 9187, Pages 1315 - 1316, 16 October 1999 Adequacy of methods for testing the safety of genetically modified foods

摘抄

The experiments done by Ewen and Pusztai were incomplete, included too few animals per diet group,5 and lacked controls such as a standard rodent diet containing about 15% protein (lactalbumin) as a balanced source of aminoacids6 and a test diet with potatoes containing an “empty” vector. Therefore the results are difficult to interpret and do not allow the conclusion that the genetic modification of potatoes accounts for adverse effects in animals. Similar criticisms of this work have been made by the Royal Society

实验是不完整的，每个饮食组的参试动物数量过少，缺少对应含量氨基酸的对照组，缺少带有空载体的对照组（即土豆为不含转入基因，但带有转基因载体的土豆--苏迅）。因此结论难以解释，无法得出转基因食品有副作用的结论。皇家协会也作出了同样的批评。

第二篇

The Lancet, Volume 354, Issue 9187, Pages 1314 - 1315, 16 October 1999 Genetically modified foods: “absurd” concern or welcome dialogue?

The Research Letter by Stanley Ewen and Pusztai was received by the journal towards the end of 1998. Since then, it has been peer reviewed by six specialist advisers—a nutritionist, a human pathologist, a veterinary pathologist, an agricultural geneticist, a plant molecular biologist, and a statistician—who had several requests for clarification about the design of the study, the laboratory methods used, and the statistical tests applied. Some advised rejection; others encouraged us to go ahead and publish. The authors revised their letter three times to try to meet our reviewers' criticisms. The Royal Society's own internal review of the Pusztai data had led to the damning verdict that the study “is flawed in many aspects of design, execution, and analysis and that no conclusions should be drawn from it”. So why publish the paper?

The answer lihes partly in a February, 1999, statement from the UK's chief scientific adviser, Robert May.4 While criticising the researchers' “sweeping conclusions about the unpredictability and safety of GM foods”, he pointed to the frustration that had dogged this entire debate: “Pusztai's work has never been submitted for peer review, much less published, and so the usual evaluation of confusing claim and counter-claim effectively cannot be made”. This problem was underlined by our reviewers, one of whom, while arguing that the data were “flawed”, also noted that, “I would like to see [this work] published in the public domain so that fellow scientists can judge for themselves… if the paper is not published, it will be claimed there is a conspiracy to suppress information”. Publication of Ewen and Pusztai's findings is not, as some newspapers have reported,5 a “vindication” of Pusztai's earlier claims. On the contrary, publication of a paper after substantial review and revision provides a report that deserves further scientific attention.

Stanley Ewen和Pusztai的论文在98年底就提交到了《柳叶刀》。之后由6名专家进行了评审，包括营养学家，人类病理学家，兽医病理学家，农业遗传学家，植物分子生物学专家和统计学专家，他们提出了许多实验设计，实验手段，统计方法中需要澄清的问题。有一些认为应该拒绝，其他的鼓励杂志发表。作者把自己的文章修改了3次来回应批评。皇家协会对本实验的内部评阅结论是负面的“在设计，实行，分析方面存在许多缺陷，其结论不可信”。那为什么要发表呢？

英国首席科学顾问Robert May1999年2月的声明给出了部分答案。一方面批评了研究“对于转基因食品不可预测性和安全性的结论过于笼统”，他同时指出整个辩论的沮丧之处“Pusztai的工作从未提交同行评议，很少有发表过，所以无法对其进行正常的评论”。这个问题也受到我们评委的重视，其中一位认为数据是“有缺陷的”，也指出“我希望这个工作能公诸于众从而其余科学家能够自己进行评价……如果此论文没有发表，就会引起压制信息的阴谋论的猜疑。”Stanley Ewen和Pusztai发现的发表不是像某些报纸所宣称的对Pusztai的辩护。相反，在评阅和修订之后本文的发表应该引起科学界的注意。