转基因玉米致老鼠肿瘤铁证如山！
“The second review took months. Itinvolved a non-transparent examination of Prof Séralini’s raw databy a secret panel of unnamed persons organized by theeditor-in-chief of FCT, A. Wallace Hayes, in response to criticismsof 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, Hayesadmitted that the anonymous reviewers found nothing ‘incorrect’about the results presented. However, Hayes pointed to what he saidwas the ‘inconclusive’ nature of some aspects of the paper, namelythe tumour and mortality observations, to justify his decision toretract 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 theretraction was widely criticized by scientists as an act ofcensorship and a bow to the interests of the GMO industry.[7,8]Some scientists pointed out that numerous published scientificpapers contain inconclusive findings, including Monsanto’s ownshort (90-day) study on the same GM maize, and have not beenretracted.[9] The retraction was even condemned by a former memberof 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 thirdpeer 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 fromscientists 科学家的评论 Dr Michael Antoniou, a moleculargeneticist based in London, commented, “Few studies would survivesuch intensive scrutiny by fellow scientists. The republication ofthe 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 qualityof this study, they should simply read the republished paper. Thescience 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 acceptthe results, they should launch their own research study on thesetwo toxic products that have now been in the human food and animalfeed 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。” |
手机版|小黑屋|Archiver|中国琉球网 ( 闽ICP备13003013号 )
GMT+8, 2024-5-6 11:27 , Processed in 1.394822 second(s), 11 queries , File On.
Powered by Discuz! X3.4
© 2001-2023 Discuz! Team.
