转基因痛加剧：孟山都在《自然》被点批，众推手无人敢怒

姜与炙甘草

http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4b6ea0190102dqsx.html

美国谷物协会北京办事处及美国豆协等美国驻中国力推转基因机构，自发出“整合力量”的号召后，国内有包括饶毅在内的多人被“整合”出马叫阵。不料，一个个叫阵者不是马失前蹄，就是露裆出丑。只一个回合，便纷纷落马。饶毅似乎不敢再露脸了，于是又冒出一个所谓生物学家的隐姓埋名的“柯贝”，用尽诬陷、诡辩、指鹿为马、张冠李戴之手段，为转基因产业化辩解。现在，国际权威的《自然》杂志向转基因开火，饶毅、“柯贝”要是还有一点点直面现实的勇气，那就来回答这个《自然》是咋回事？就赶紧去《自然》杂志灭火吧。否则，这把世界性的反对转基因扩散大火就会越烧越旺。
    还有，提醒一下饶毅们，别忘了对上报告一下，取得上面的支持啊？你们要是不报告，那就更证明你们是心怀鬼胎的欺骗。

原文地址：转基因痛加剧：孟山都在《自然》被点批，众推手无人敢怒作者：刘实
（求真网2011年7月21日电）昨日出版的国际顶尖杂志《自然》就其发表的一个新闻配发了题为“Growing Pains”（加剧的痛）的社论。对转基因领域缺乏有效的控制提出了严厉的批评。



其实，《自然》的新闻“Transgenic grass skirts regulators（转基因草使法规裙下走光）”只是透露了美国一公司研究出了一种能抗除草剂的转基因草，但该公司还没有想把该草上市。但就这一“风吹草动”，就把“狼来了”当了真，要对在控制转基因粮都“没问题”的法规进行修剪。而《自然》的编辑还火上浇油，把一个“必然的科学发展”说成是“Growing pains（加剧的痛）”。真是岂有此理！

连反对蛮不讲理地大面积推广转基因主粮的本网高人刘实这次都公开地对《自然》的“倒行逆施”表示了不满，还《请饶毅、方舟子、张启发等立刻登顶《自然》抗击国际反转极左势力》。



不过，到发稿时间为止，我们还没见任何一个知名的挺专人士到《自然》去为转基因科学及其安全环保的成果辩护。难道这些能在中国大陆呼风唤雨的专家推手一见他们的洋师爷“变脸”，也就一个个成了“缩头乌龟”？



但挺转派应当认识到，这次《自然》被“策反”的后果是很严重的。看看Growing pains（加剧的痛）下面的评论，把转基因的巨头孟山都都骂成什么了。



http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v475/n7356/full/475265b.html



1.                               2011-07-20 03:55 AM

Report this comment #25308

Anthony Kerwin said:

Oh, the unintended consequences. There are already problems with genetically modified herbicide-resistant agricultural crops spreading resistance to unwanted weeds, and contaminating neighboring farms who want no part of these GM strains, ...with resultant lawsuits from Monsanto..... No only should GM crops not escape regulation, but should be more tightly regulated, not let loose for the general consumer to use. ...there is enough out there already about issues of contaminating others crops and the problems we are heading into as a result.



2.                               2011-07-20 10:47 AM

Report this comment #25312

Dick Marron said:

The very last thing we need is an excuse to pour more herbicide into the environment. We just had a fiasco with a new herbicide (supposedly well tested) that just happened to kill pine trees with just a little runoff. the oversight of this industry is minimal in the best of circumstances. Have people forgotten the irish potatoe famine. The whole country was reliant on one species of potato that fell to a new blight. We are creating monocultures where only one kind of seed is useable because it's herbicide resistant.



转基因的推手们，不为你们的老板孟山都，就为你们自身的利益，请立刻登顶《自然》，发表强有力的评论抗击国际反转极左势力，同时严厉谴责《自然》的叛徒行为。

姜与炙甘草

坛子里的英文高手辛苦一下, 把这篇《自然》文章翻译一下.

原文连接在
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v475/n7356/full/475265b.html

Growing pains
Journal name:
Nature
Volume:
475,
Pages:
265–266
Date published:
(21 July 2011)
DOI:
doi:10.1038/475265b
Published online 20 July 2011
It is time to update decades-old regulation of genetically engineered crops.

Subject terms:Molecular biology Ecology Institutions
Article toolsPrint

Email

Download PDF

Download citation

Order reprints

Rights and permissions


Share/bookmark
Connotea
Cite U Like
Facebook
Twitter
Delicious
Digg


Researchers at Scotts Miracle-Gro have a vision of a greener future. The lawn-care company, based in Marysville, Ohio, wants to develop a dwarf grass that needs less frequent maintenance than standard Kentucky bluegrass. But there is a catch: such grass is unlikely to stand up to weeds. No problem, the company reasons, it will make a dwarf grass that is resistant to herbicide to help homeowners to nip those weeds in the bud.

Development of this genetically modified (GM) Kentucky bluegrass made headlines this month when the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) told Scotts that it did not have the authority to regulate it (see page 274). As a result, Scotts is free to start selling its new crop without oversight.

The reason for this is historical. US regulation of GM crops relies on its authority to control plant pests, and so the USDA has regulated crops on the basis of the way plant-pest-based tools are used to make them. It is a bizarre approach, given the low pest risk from the tools. But it had some merit when it was first developed because foreign genes were often inserted into the plant genome by a bacterium that can be lethal to some plants. Once in place, the expression of the foreign gene was guided by a series of genetic elements pulled from plant viruses.

“In the United States, genetic-modification regulation rests not on the final product but on the methods used.”
To get around this, researchers at Scotts made GM grass without using plant pests. It took more work, but the company reasoned that the streamlined regulation — as well as possible greater consumer acceptance and relief from the patent stranglehold on more traditional genetic-engineering methods — would make it worthwhile. So they mined the wealth of plant genomic data now available, snipped a herbicide-resistance gene from the model plant Arabidopsis thaliana, sewed it to genetic elements pulled from maize (corn) and rice to drive the gene's expression, and used a gene gun to blast it into the Kentucky bluegrass genome.

This technique is not the only GM method likely to fall outside USDA regulations. Plant biologists have made tremendous strides since the current rules were cobbled together in 1986, advancing both our fundamental understanding of plant genetics and the technical know-how in manipulating gene expression. Genetic changes can now be made at specific sites in the genome, and foreign genes can even be expressed in plant cells without integrating them into the genome at all. And gene expression can be regulated using RNA molecules — including, in some cases, ones made by the plant in response to attack by a pathogen.

Many of these advances are still years from commercialization. But regulators must prepare the ground. Monsanto GM soya beans, which use RNA interference to modulate the expression of endogenous genes, are already awaiting a decision from the USDA.

The USDA and others need to reconsider how they define and control GM species. If a crop developer uses genetic engineering to delete a discrete segment of a plant genome, how much regulation does that require? Would those same guidelines be appropriate for a crop that expresses half-a-dozen foreign herbicide- and insect-resistance genes, engineered without the use of plant pests? Such questions are particularly important where — as in the United States — GM regulation rests not on the final product of genetic engineering, but on the methods used in the process.

The European Commission is tackling the issue, and has commissioned a study into how new plant techniques fall under the rubric of the European Union definition of GM crops. Similarly, the USDA's Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and 21st Century Agriculture has raised the problem as a point of concern. But the USDA's proposed changes to its GM regulatory powers, released in draft form in 2008, failed to address challenges posed by new technologies.

The USDA's Kentucky bluegrass ruling comes at a crucial time for agricultural biotechnology. Some estimate that the world must increase the rate of growth in agricultural productivity by 25% per year to meet growing worldwide demand for food and biofuels. Many argue that advances in agricultural biotechnology, some of which may come from GM crops, will be needed to meet this demand. Industry, particularly smaller companies, needs to know how these crops will be regulated before they will invest to develop new techniques.

The new breed of GM crops could help gain wider acceptance for the technology, by settling long-standing unease about the use of foreign genes and the inability to target such genes to a specific location in the genome. But it is doubtful that dubious consumers are ready for GM crops to escape regulation altogether.

starteers

Researchers at Scotts Miracle-Gro have a vision of a greener future. The lawn-care company, based in Marysville, Ohio, wants to develop a dwarf grass that needs less frequent maintenance than standard Kentucky bluegrass. But there is a catch: such grass is unlikely to stand up to weeds. No problem, the company reasons, it will make a dwarf grass that is resistant to herbicide to help homeowners to nip those weeds in the bud.
SMG的研究者正在规划一个“绿色的未来”，这个位于俄亥俄州的草坪保养公司希望开发出一种矮株草，与肯州牧草（一种常见的草坪草）相比，种植矮株草将会降低割草坪的频率。但是矮株草也有其弱点，它们竞争不过野草。 公司的立场是，没关系，我们计划把抗除草基因转入矮株草中，这样可以帮业主从根本上解决杂草的困扰。

Development of this genetically modified (GM) Kentucky bluegrass made headlines this month when the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) told Scotts that it did not have the authority to regulate it (see page 274). As a result, Scotts is free to start selling its new crop without oversight.
该公司研发的转基因肯州牧草的研发成了近期的新闻头条。因为美国农业部说明他们对此类研发并无管理规范的权限，所以SMG公司，可以在没有监管的情况下，把转基因牧草推广上市。（此处原文行文有所省略，从上下文推测，SMG先开发了转基因牧草，又将进一步的开发转基因矮株草，而这类草坪用草是不在美国农业的监管范围之内的）

The reason for this is historical. US regulation of GM crops relies on its authority to control plant pests, and so the USDA has regulated crops on the basis of the way plant-pest-based tools are used to make them. It is a bizarre approach, given the low pest risk from the tools. But it had some merit when it was first developed because foreign genes were often inserted into the plant genome by a bacterium that can be lethal to some plants. Once in place, the expression of the foreign gene was guided by a series of genetic elements pulled from plant viruses.
（这一段比较绕，按句翻译过来不好理解，可跳过直接看我捋顺的大意）农业部的此项决定是有历史原因的。 美国农业部同时也是防治作物病虫害的权威管理部门，由于最初的转基因作物的外源基因来源自对植物有害的病菌或害虫，农业部也就以转基因中含有来源于病虫害的成分为依据建立条规对转基因农作物进行监管。这种监管理由本身还是有点异乎寻常的，因为转基因作物本身造成病虫害的风险很小。不管怎样，这个法规的建立还是值得的因为转基因作物需要以某种细菌为载体，这种细菌对某些植株来说是致死的。而且调控转基因表达的成分也来自于植物病毒。 （捋顺了的大意就是：转基因作物的外源基因来自害虫或对植物有害的细菌跟病毒，由于美国农业部也是防治病虫害的部门，他们就对这些来自病虫害的外源基因有了管理权限，因此，对包含这类基因的转基因作物也有了监管权限。）

“In the United States, genetic-modification regulation rests not on the final product but on the methods used.”
To get around this, researchers at Scotts made GM grass without using plant pests. It took more work, but the company reasoned that the streamlined regulation — as well as possible greater consumer acceptance and relief from the patent stranglehold on more traditional genetic-engineering methods — would make it worthwhile. So they mined the wealth of plant genomic data now available, snipped a herbicide-resistance gene from the model plant Arabidopsis thaliana, sewed it to genetic elements pulled from maize (corn) and rice to drive the gene's expression, and used a gene gun to blast it into the Kentucky bluegrass genome.

为了避开农业部的监管， SMG公司决定要研发出不含植物病虫害成分的转基因植物。好处是显而易见的：规避了冗繁的监管，更高的消费者接受度，而且还躲开了传统转基因技术商业化常见的知识产权纷争。于是SMG加大研发资金，在丰富的各种植物基因库中进行”淘金“，终于，他们在拟南芥 （一种模式植物）的基因组中发现了一个抗除草剂的基因。并将它与来自玉米的（而不是病毒）基因调控片段进行组合，最后用基因枪（而不是细菌）注射到肯州牧草的基因组里。
This technique is not the only GM method likely to fall outside USDA regulations. Plant biologists have made tremendous strides since the current rules were cobbled together in 1986, advancing both our fundamental understanding of plant genetics and the technical know-how in manipulating gene expression. Genetic changes can now be made at specific sites in the genome, and foreign genes can even be expressed in plant cells without integrating them into the genome at all. And gene expression can be regulated using RNA molecules — including, in some cases, ones made by the plant in response to attack by a pathogen.

SMG使用的技术并不是唯一在美国农业部监管范围之外的转基因技术。自从1986年转基因管理办法匆匆制定颁布以来，植物学家在植物基因研究上取得的长足的进展，这不仅包括基础的原理研究，也包括如何从技术角度上调控基因表达。现在，我们可以精确的改变基因组某个/某些位点的基因变化，外源基因也可以在不整合到植物宿主基因组的情况下在细胞内表达。 而且科学家还还发现并利用RNA分子来调控基因表达-植物本真就用这种机制来对抗某中病原体（这指的是siRNA silencing）。

Many of these advances are still years from commercialization. But regulators must prepare the ground. Monsanto GM soya beans, which use RNA interference to modulate the expression of endogenous genes, are already awaiting a decision from the USDA.
尽管上述的很多技术进展距离商业化还有数年之遥，监管部门现在必须要对这种未来的趋势有所应对。 孟山都一种应用RNA干涉技术来调控内源基因表达的转基因黄豆，已经在等待美国农业的审批。

The USDA and others need to reconsider how they define and control GM species. If a crop developer uses genetic engineering to delete a discrete segment of a plant genome, how much regulation does that require? Would those same guidelines be appropriate for a crop that expresses half-a-dozen foreign herbicide- and insect-resistance genes, engineered without the use of plant pests? Such questions are particularly important where — as in the United States — GM regulation rests not on the final product of genetic engineering, but on the methods used in the process.
美国农业部及其相关部门需要重新考虑如何定义及监管转基因物种。 如果某种作物研发者利用基因工程手段除去基因组里的某个片段，这种情形需要何种尺度的监管？ 如果某种作物转入了数种外源抗除草剂和抗虫基因，而所有过程不使用植物病毒，害虫相关的基因，上述监管指导原则仍然适用吗？ 转基因（确切的说法应该是基因修饰的）监管的不应只是基因工程制造出的产物，而是整个过程所使用的方法技术。

The European Commission is tackling the issue, and has commissioned a study into how new plant techniques fall under the rubric of the European Union definition of GM crops. Similarly, the USDA's Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and 21st Century Agriculture has raised the problem as a point of concern. But the USDA's proposed changes to its GM regulatory powers, released in draft form in 2008, failed to address challenges posed by new technologies.

欧洲委员会现在正在解决这个监管问题，他们已经开始研究如何将新兴的植物基因调控手段整合到”转基因作物“的欧盟定义中（这里”转基因“实际上是”基因修饰过的“意思）。美国农业部生物科技及21世纪农业指导委员会也开始关注这个问题。但是美国农业部2008年发表的转基因监管调整草案里，却没能考虑到新兴技术带来的挑战。

The USDA's Kentucky bluegrass ruling comes at a crucial time for agricultural biotechnology. Some estimate that the world must increase the rate of growth in agricultural productivity by 25% per year to meet growing worldwide demand for food and biofuels. Many argue that advances in agricultural biotechnology, some of which may come from GM crops, will be needed to meet this demand. Industry, particularly smaller companies, needs to know how these crops will be regulated before they will invest to develop new techniques.

美国农业部关于肯州牧场的裁决对农业生物技术非常重要。 据预测，世界农作物的生产效率要以每年25%的速度增长才能满足全世界对食物及生物燃料的需求。不少人认为只有进一步发展农业生物技术，包括研发各种转基因农作物，才能达到上述生然效率的提高。工业界，尤其是中小企业急需了解相关监管办法，才能有目的投资发展相应技术。

The new breed of GM crops could help gain wider acceptance for the technology, by settling long-standing unease about the use of foreign genes and the inability to target such genes to a specific location in the genome. But it is doubtful that dubious consumers are ready for GM crops to escape regulation altogether.

上述新一代转基因农作物将缓解大众长久以来对于转基因的两个忧虑，一是外源基因的来自害虫及病原体，二是基因插入位置的不确定性。这对于推广转基因作物是有利的。但是，这些心存疑虑的消费者做好转基因作物因此逃脱监管的心理准备了吗？

starteers

我把它加粗了。
我觉得这篇文章说的很中肯！至少我个人对转基因最大的疑虑就是那两个：外源基因的安全性及基因插入位置的不确定性。