注册 登录  
 加关注
   显示下一条  |  关闭
温馨提示!由于新浪微博认证机制调整,您的新浪微博帐号绑定已过期,请重新绑定!立即重新绑定新浪微博》  |  关闭

蒋高明的博客

中国科学院植物研究所研究员,从事植物生态学研究

 
 
 

日志

 
 
关于我

联合国教科文组织人与生物圈中国国家委员会副秘书长、中国科学院植物研究所首席研究员、博士生导师、山东省人民政府泰山学者、中国科学院研究生院教授、联合国教科文组织人与生物圈计划城市组委员、中国生态学会副秘书长、中国生物多样性保护基金会副秘书长、中国环境文化促进会理事、中国植物学会植物生态学专业委员会委员、北京植物学会常务理事、青年工作委员会主任、中国生态系统研究网络生物分中心学术委员、中国科学院植物研究所学位委员会委员、

网易考拉推荐

自然评论转基因小麦试验田失败:虽败犹荣?(附英文原文)  

2015-07-03 08:50:47|  分类: 海外见闻 |  标签: |举报 |字号 订阅

  下载LOFTER 我的照片书  |

【明辨是非】从生态学专业角度出发,我在转基因应用对粮食安全、生态环境保护与健康安全方面的本能判断为:一是不能直接增产,不可能转一两个基因就增加产量,没有这样的增产基因(育种专家佟屏亚先生在这方面更有发言权);二是农药与除草剂使用量增加而不是减少,转基因控制了主要害虫后,次要害虫还要借助农药;抗除草剂转基因作物释放会鼓励农民使用更多除草剂,看看全球转基因技术应用后的农药与除草剂用量就知道,尤其美国的例子更具说服力;三是健康安全方面目前还没有安全定论,安全证书不能证明安全,还需要进行更多的独立第三方实验,如果不能做人体实验,也需要对实验动物尤其灵长类动物做超越90天的长期实验,从而确保安全。下面刊登自然杂志评论转基因小麦失败的报道,所报道的一些迹象证明我们前面的判断,这对国内的转基因大跃进或许是个降温的提醒。老外是客观的认真的,这种态度值得我们学习。国内转基因学家也应当认真做一些类似大田实验,对转基因水稻、小麦、玉米、棉花、花生等都认真设计长期实验,看看产量、农药、除草剂用量的变化,不要看一两季,要看三五年甚至十年以上,用科学事实说话,强于做无休止的争论一百辈。如果我们成功了,英国人失败了,那是中国人的骄傲啊。同时转载著名生物学家留实先生的评论,从他的评论来看,目前的转基因科技,政治的成分已经大于科学的成分了,这是全球资本市场化造成的苦果,科学研究也难保净土。。。


本文链接:http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_502041670102w1t5.html


“失败中成功?《自然》如此评价转基因小麦试验田失败

今日出版的国际顶奸杂志《自然》针对不久前报道的英国转基因小麦田间试验完全失败的消息,发表了题为“失败中成功的社论。

2012年开始在英国伦敦北部进行的转基因小麦田间试验不仅没有达到预期的增产,甚至于连应当有的驱虫效果也没见到。该失败的试验结果发表在自然出版集团旗下的《科学报告》上。

面对如此现实,老奸巨滑的挺转杂志《自然》尽发表社论称A failed crop trial of genetically modified wheat still provides crucial lessons for those battling to provide the planet’s growing population with a sustainable food supply(一个失败的转基因小麦田间试验仍然为要为星球增长人口提供可持续食物供给的人提供关键教训)。真是见过无耻的,没见过这么无耻的。

在这篇社论里,《自然》还不忘讥讽那些反转人士,称The crop failed, but so did the protests. The research was done; a useful result was obtained. Ironically, had the protests succeeded and the trial been abandoned, the protesters would be unable to crow about the crop’s failure.(转基因作物失败了,但它的反对者也同样失败。研究完成了并获得了有用的结果。如果反对者成功地迫使该试验放弃,那反对者就不可能拿转基因作物失败说事了)。真是见过混蛋的,没见过这么混蛋的。

《自然》社论最后说All who care about evidence-based policy-making should thank those who continue to struggle against both the difficulties of doing science and the added difficulties caused by people who would see science abandoned. We will all need the fruits — and the cereals — of their labours.(所有关心以证据为基础制定政策的人都应当感谢那些与科学的艰难以及由于那些希望科学被放弃而增加的困难继续斗争的人。我们都需要他们辛劳的“水果”及谷物食品)可《自然》别忘了,它对中国科学家蒋高明等的的增加粮食作物产量增加经济财政收入环保生态农业的硕果是个什么态度《今日中国》以9种语言报道了弘毅生态农场的成功实践,但这样好的研究结果试图登顶《自然》却不能成功。   
《自然》,你是不是被转基因转昏了头,不知啥叫失败?啥叫成功?   
附:

 http://www.nature.com/news/success-in-failure-1.17855

 

Nature | Editorial

Success in failure

A failed crop trial of genetically modified wheat still provides crucial lessons for those battling to provide the planet’s growing population with a sustainable food supply.

25 June 2015 Updated:

1.     01 July 2015

It is rare for failures to be lauded in science. History, as it is often said, is written by the winner. The history of research is no different.

Related stories

·        GM wheat that emits pest alarm signals fails in field trials

·        Departing head of biotech institute defends GM field trials

·        Misplaced protest

More related stories

But failure in science is vital. Another cliché about history is equally applicable to scientific flops: people who are ignorant of them are doomed to repeat them. Which brings us to a green — and to some, an unpleasant — field in England.

In 2012, a team based at Rothamsted Research, an agricultural-science institute a short train ride north of London, planted wheat that they had genetically modified to emit a chemical used by aphids as a warning that they are under attack. The researchers wanted to see whether this would give the crops a way of repelling the damaging pests. They thought that the chemical might also attract insect parasites alerted to the promised presence of aphids.

Before they got the chance, the crops attracted a swarm of protesters. Opponents of genetic modification (GM) technology mounted an imaginative, if sometimes bizarre, campaign against the trial, complete with dubious scientific claims, loaves of bread adorned with cartoon cow heads, and videos promising to ‘Take the Flour Back’ complete with rock-music soundtrack. The research itself cost £732,000 (US$1.2 million) over five years. Securing the site from those who threatened to tear it up cost nearly £1.8 million.

The idea behind what has, rather unfortunately, become known as ‘whiffy wheat’ showed promise in the laboratory. Yet in field trials the crop is an unquestionable failure. A paper published on 25 June in the journalScientific Reports notes that the GM crops “showed no reduction in aphids or increase in parasitism” compared with controls (T. J. A. Bruce et al. Sci. Rep. http://doi.org/5sr; 2015).

This is disappointing on many levels. First, because of the effort — and money — that has gone into the concept. Second, because GM crops will surely have a major role in providing a future sustainable food supply. As Earth’s population grows, so does its appetite. Work aimed at increasing crop yields, by both GM and non-GM methods, is among the most crucial research being conducted on the planet. So hostility towards GM research — one reason why it is rare for such crop trials to reach field-scale studies in Europe — is still among the most important societal issues for science to address.

Some opponents of GM crops have reacted with predictable claims: that the trial was a waste of money, that investment in GM science should therefore be cut off, and that this one set-back means the entire concept is flawed. Hardly.

“Considering all GM crops as a single case is increasingly problematic.”

As with most negative results in research, things can still be learnt from this trial. The team might yet modify the way their crop emits the alarm pheromone and may experiment in areas with higher densities of parasites.

The crop failed, but so did the protests. The research was done; a useful result was obtained. Ironically, had the protests succeeded and the trial been abandoned, the protesters would be unable to crow about the crop’s failure. GM research continues at Rothamsted, as it does around the world. Some of it will work and some will not.

Those who wish to make an argument against GM crops face major problems. The rise of new techniques such as CRISPR means that what is and is not a GM organism is an increasingly grey area, both scientifically and for regulators.

And these crops, with all the controversy that comes with them, are no longer the sole preserve of huge agri-businesses. The use of GM technology is increasingly being passed to the people who really need it — those in developing countries who are trying to improve the agriculture of their nations.

Considering all GM crops as a single case is increasingly problematic. Consumer-friendly traits, such as apples that do not turn brown, now vie with nutritional enhancement for developing nations and drought resistance. Small academic groups around the world are producing locally tailored varieties alongside the engineered staples that major companies sell in huge quantities to farmers in the developed world. And the debate is no longer limited to crops — on page 13, we report on GM pigs that could soon make their way into the human food chain.

All who care about evidence-based policy-making should thank those who continue to struggle against both the difficulties of doing science and the added difficulties caused by people who would see science abandoned. We will all need the fruits — and the cereals — of their labours.

Journal name:

Nature

Volume:

523,

Pages:

5

Date published:

(02 July 2015)

DOI:

doi:10.1038/nature.2015.17855

 

 

Nature20150625_GM wheat that emits pest alarm signals fails in field trials

http://www.nature.com/news/gm-wheat-that-emits-pest-alarm-signals-fails-in-field-trials-1.17854

Nature | News

GM wheat that emits pest alarm signals fails in field trials

Wheat modified to send out insect pheromones does not repel aphids.

·        Daniel Cressey

25 June 2015

 

A pioneering genetically modified (GM) wheat crop that emits an insect alarm pheromone to ward off pests has not worked in field trials, disappointed researchers say.

Scientists at Rothamsted Research, an agricultural science institute north of London, had hoped that promising experiments in the laboratory1 — where the wheat did repel damaging aphids — would translate into the field, and would mean that crops could be grown using less insecticide.

“The disappointing thing was when we tested it in the field we didn’t find any significant reduction [in aphids]. We didn’t get the result that would have been useful in taking this forward,” says Toby Bruce, a chemical ecologist at Rothamsted. “It was quite sad.”

Related stories

·        Departing head of biotech institute defends GM field trials

·        Misplaced protest

·        Nature news blog: Rothamsted trial attacked

More related stories

The field trials, whch started in 2012, attracted notoriety when anti-GM protestors threatened to destroy the crop and staged protests at the Rothamsted site. The protests did not disrupt the research, but making the site secure added around £1.8 million (US$2.8 million) to the study's research cost of £732,000.

The levels of aphids seen in the field trials were low — so low that the wheat might not have needed to be sprayed with pesticides had it been a commercially planted field, the Rothamsted team says in a paper published today in Scientific Reports2. But compared to a control crop of wheat, the GM crops showed no improved yields, no reduction in aphids and no increase in attacks by aphid predators (such as parasitic wasps and ladybirds).

“The field is the ultimate arbiter,” says John Pickett, a chemical ecologist who led the work. “This hypothesis was tested false.”

Try, try again

Pickett says that the researchers are not abandoning the pheromone idea altogether, because there are reasons to believe that it might work if the field trial is modified.

Fran?ois Verheggen, who works on insect pheromones and pest management at the University of Liège in Belgium, says that it takes high levels of alarm pheromones to attract aphid predators. The pheromones emitted by the wheat in the Rothamsted trial would have reached sufficient levels only after around 71 days, leaving crops unprotected before then, he says. And, he adds, because the wheat in the trial released pheromones continually, the aphids might have become used to the signal. Aphids are repelled when they sense strong differences in pheromone emissions between one area and the next, he says.

The Rothamsted team plans to modify their crop to emit the pheromone in a burst — simulating natural release — rather than continuously. They may also try to test the crop in areas that have much higher concentrations of parasitic wasps, Pickett says.

Jonathan Gershenzon, who studies plant chemistry at the Max Planck Institute for Chemical Ecology in Jena, Germany, says that he would not have expected continuous emission of a pheromone to work. His team has previously shown that a transgenic version of the flowering plant Arabidopsis thaliana, which emits an alarm pheromone, is not protected against aphids3.

“It was good that they tried. It’s a different system with wheat, it’s a different aphid,” and they did it in field conditions, he says. “I give them lots of points for trying and even more points for being willing to publish negative data. It shows how science can work.”

Journal name:

Nature

DOI:

doi:10.1038/nature.2015.17854

References

1.     Beale, M. H. et alProc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 1031050910513 (2006).

1.     Article

2.     PubMed

3.     ChemPort

Show context

2.     Bruce, T. J. A. et alSci. Rep. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep11183 (2015).

0.     PubMed

Show context

3.     Kunert, G., Reinhold C. & Gershenzon, J. et alBMC Ecol. 10, 23 (2010).

0.     Article

1.     PubMed

2.     ChemPort

本文地址: http://www.sciencenets.com/home.php?mod=space&uid=38&do=blog&quickforward=1&id=6236 
本文发表在《华人科学网博客,转载请注明出处并署上作者姓名,商业用途须获得作者和本站授权。。。。




本文引用地址:http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-475-902436.html  此文来自科学网蒋高明博客,转载请注明出处。 
  评论这张
 
阅读(58)| 评论(0)
推荐 转载

历史上的今天

评论

<#--最新日志,群博日志--> <#--推荐日志--> <#--引用记录--> <#--博主推荐--> <#--随机阅读--> <#--首页推荐--> <#--历史上的今天--> <#--被推荐日志--> <#--上一篇,下一篇--> <#-- 热度 --> <#-- 网易新闻广告 --> <#--右边模块结构--> <#--评论模块结构--> <#--引用模块结构--> <#--博主发起的投票-->
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

页脚

网易公司版权所有 ©1997-2017