- 程序有所改变。发帖如还有问题请报告
- 【征集】西西河的经济学，及清流措施，需要主动参与者，『稷下学宫』新认证方式，24年网站打算和努力目标
主题：【讨论】不明白转基因有啥好争论的 -- 没那么美好
只给链接是理直气壮的表现吗？hwd99网友，你太懒了，给大家介绍介绍内容啊，科学界对这篇文章，到底是支持的多还是反对的多啊？
不过还是谢谢给出链接，我去看了作者的自辩以及其他科学家的评论，发现原来这篇文章当年就已经成为被痛打的落水狗了。不止一位科学家从纯实验的角度对其的不严谨做了说明。这种浑身漏气的文章被发表真是柳叶刀及编辑的耻辱。不过有人说，初衷是不能压制言论，即使是有缺陷的实验和结论，发表了也有利于其他科学家的验证和评论。换句话说，这种尝试发表在顶级科学期刊的用科学实验证明转基因作物有害的文章是非常稀少的，反转人士们都看着呢，你柳叶刀如果敢不发表，那你是什么阶级立场？于是有人对这种看法评论说，这是政治介入科学的恶劣例子，打破底线。这篇文章一发，反转/反科技人士如获至宝，因为能在这种顶级杂志发表就已经证明文章的内容是无可辩驳的铁证！没错，就是这么一篇当年就被从科学上批倒批臭的文章，至今仍是反转人士爱不释手的宝贝。其作者后来因为学术水平问题丢了工作，于是更悲情了，更阴谋论了。这么多年，反转人士们手中的宝贝，实在太少了点，所以这一件愈显珍贵。下面是一篇深得我心的comment：外链出处
Your decision to publish the research of Stanley Ewen and Arpad Pusztai1 breaks unfortunate new ground for a scientific journal. Put simply, The Lancet has placed politics and-tabloid sensationalism above its responsibility to report and assess new science. Most peer-reviewed journals are respected, and read, for the integrity of the research they publish and their dependability in weeding out irresponsible work.
Richard Horton (Oct 16, p 1314)2 argues that The Lancet might have been criticised for suppressing information by not publishing Ewen and Pusztai's work, but I believe he has jeopardised the journal's credibility, especially among readers and contributors in the scientific community. This pandering to popular debate rather than promoting responsible scientific inquiry may appeal to some, but I believe that the editor's poor judgment will strengthen the resolve of other scientific journals to adhere to the publication standards The Lancet saw fit to abandon.
I doubt if The Lancet would have published Ewen and Pusztai's research if it had implied the safety of biotech foods. But that is fine. Those who work hard to apply biotechnology to agriculture have no interest in flawed data.
Horton is nave if he really believes that “publication of Ewen and Pusztai's findings is not, as some newspapers have reported, a `vindication' of Pusztai's earlier claims”. Antitechnology activists already have seized on The Lancet's publication of this work as precisely that. They claim that publication, in itself, is proof the research is valid because that is the standard scientific journals are supposed to apply.
In the USA, biotech crops and foods have been tested more than any other agricultural products in history. We have a regulatory system that applies science-based policies to guard the health of consumers and the environment. That system would have trashed Pusztai's potatoes if they had been submitted for approval. Too bad The Lancet failed to exercise such oversight on research submissions.
- 相关回复 上下关系8
压缩 9 层
🙂没有想用普的实验证明其他转基因粮食有害，那是您的臆测 hwd99 字285 2011-09-04 09:50:37
🙂【整理】同期杂志的评论 12 苏迅 字3968 2011-08-22 21:30:34
🙂作者后来有回复 hwd99 字106 2011-08-22 21:46:51
🙂你到底是太理直气壮还是太不理直气壮？
🙂按照您的标准，比您理直气壮 1 hwd99 字11088 2011-08-30 16:54:16
🙂那我来挑刺吧 3 苏迅 字283 2011-08-30 22:39:00
🙂看起来，您比这个领域最好杂志的审稿人专业 hwd99 字126 2011-08-31 02:02:52
🙂呵呵，前面已经说了 2 苏迅 字70 2011-08-31 04:13:36