(歡迎翻印、流通本文及網路連接;欲做其他用途,請先連絡作者易象乾博士。電郵地址:namofo@adelohia.net)
通常有學術背景的人,與生物科技公司有很大的利害關係(註32),而且主要的大學與生物科技企業所訂立的合約,危害學術自由,並且把專利權交給企業。在各大學日漸倚賴主要的企業提供資金之際,多數的大學科學家,將無法在基因工程與公眾安全的事務上,以獨立客觀的專家身份發揮作用。(註32a)
科學家成功實驗了將「移轉基因」,與「標記基因」轉移到細菌病原體和土壤蕈類中。這意味著基因工程改造的生物,將進入土壤中散佈到土中生長的一切。基因工程改造的物質,可以從植物的根部移轉到土壤細菌,而且至少在其中一個個案中,澈底抑制土壤生長作物的能力。(註33)一旦細菌在土壤中自由活動,就沒有自然界來抑制它們的擴散。一般性的土壤污染,可以劃限和移走污染區(除非污染己擴及地下水)。如果基因工程過的「土壤細菌」散佈到野外,將嚴重削弱土壤提供植物生長的能力惜別,其可能引起的災禍可想而知。
水和空氣也容易為基因工程改造的濾過性病原體與細菌所毒害。
以基因工程培育出新型抗除草劑的作物,將導致化學除草劑用量的增加,而影響環境。孟山都等大國際化學、製藥、農產企業,將其未來的財源押注在以基因工程培育的抗除草劑植物上(註33b)。
最近,科學家找出方法,使通過基因工程培育的植物種子,失去繁殖能力,除非這些種子經過以抗生素為主要原料的專利配方喷撒劑處理。其用意在於防止農人採集基因工程改造過的種子,以迫使他們每年重新購買種子。參與的企業明知基因散佈到野外,顯然會引起災難性後果,其可能性從科學上講是明擺著的,卻視若無睹。(註34
)
附註:
32.羅素﹒摩克柏著,登載於一九九八年三/
四月刊的《生態學家》的「拍賣「客觀」科學」一文。亦參考丹﹒費根、瑪莉安﹒勒斐,與「公義中心」著,博奇連出版社一九九七年出版的「毒害的詭計:化學公司如何操縱科學、歪曲法律、危害您的健康」。
32a.根據一九九一年對美國各大學的調查,顯示,麻省理工學院、史丹福大學與哈佛大學,生物科技相關部門,被商業滲透的情況,比率最高。(薛爾頓﹒布里辛斯基等著、刊載於一九九一年夏季第十六冊,第三期〈科學、科技與人性價值〉第二七五至二八七頁的「生物科技中學術與企業的關係:一項數據調查」一文。)柏克萊加州大學的自然資源學院,最近與諾瓦提斯公司旗下的子公司,簽訂五千萬元的合約,將學院基因工程研究的獨家專利權的管道,給與後者。諾瓦提斯也有權指派部分教職員。見卡爾﹒霍而著,刊載於一九九八年十月九日《舊金山紀事報》的「加大與生物科技公司開展研究生意:本自克萊加大可獲得五千萬」一文;彼得﹒羅塞與莫妮卡﹒摩爾著,刊載於一九九八年十一月十六日《舊金山紀事報》的「研究合作引發辯論」一文;察爾斯﹒布若斯著、刊載於一九九八年十一月二十四日〈舊金山紀事報〉的「生意敲定:加大與生科公司合作做前瞻性研究。擲「派」者(派即pie,糕餅之意)讓加大飽嘗抗議的滋味
*」一文。[中註:指抗議者對加大人員擲「派」。]
33.何(譯音)著《基因工程:美夢抑或噩夢 ?》第一三三頁。亦見M.T.福爾摩斯與E.R英格恩合著、刊載於一九九四年第七十五冊《美國生態協會公報》(副刊)第九十七頁的「基因工程對土壤食物網的影響」一文。
33a.蓄意選擇少數基因而加以動用,並大規模複製,是以人為的判斷取代自然的淘選。就神學觀點而言,對於基因的取捨,農商科學人員是否有群體的智慧來決定什麼是「好的J」,令人懷疑。更令人擔憂的是,他們的選擇可能會自我繁衍(例如,基因如果流失到野外)。大規模的轉移基因的作法,造成這類或其他的影響,最初可能看不出來。倚賴基因工程的抗除草劑科技,可能衍生的詭譎後果之一,是重複使用一種配方的除草劑。典型的橫貫轉移基因農作方式,按設定的順序,重複施用四種以上不同的除草劑,將會短暫地影響土壤的微生物。可以預見的是,如果長期地倚賴一種除草劑,例如glysophate[Roundup]或bromoxynil,將會較長期地轉變土壤的微植物群,甚或無法逆轉地改變土壤生物整體的組成。這樣的後果如果發生了,可能影響日後種植的土質,尤其是有報告指出,在某些經過除草劑處理過的土壤裏,發芽的過程受到損害。在這方面,道德上的考量關係到我們對後代子孫的責任......。馬克﹒賴普與卜蕊特﹒貝利合著,緬因州蒙露市平凡勇氣出版社』一九九八年出版的〈背道而馳:生物科技和企業接管你的食物〉第一一四頁。
33b.同上,重點在第五十至六十二頁。
34.一九九八年三月三日,美國農業部與美國 一家名為Delta & Pine Land
Co.的棉花種子公司,得到美國授與改造種子基因,令其再種植時無法發芽的科技專利權。這種科技,是專為防止農人從他們收成的作物來儲蓄種子,以做為下一季播種之用。由於這是一種潛在的「滅絕」科技,「國際鄉間振興基金會(RAFI)J稱之為「絕種」科技。.....如果商業上可行的話,「絕種」科技將對農業造成深遠的影響。對全球的農人,生態多樣化、食品安全是一大威脅。斷絕種子繁殖的科技,勢將斷絕農人世世代代以來,從收成儲存種子的權利,並危害到倚賴農田儲存的種子,以保障其食物來源的十四億南方資源短缺的農民人口。科技開發人聲明,此項科技的用途主要將針對南方,以防止農人儲存美國各種子公司推銷的專有權種子。Delta
& Pine
Land公司與美國農業部,已向七十八個國家申請科技專利。如果「絕種」科技被廣泛使用,它將賦予跨國種子與農化工業史無前例的能力,來掌控世界食物的供應。(「國際鄉間振興基金會」一九九八年三/四
月公報,http:www.rafi.ca/communique/11982.html
。 )
基因學家約瑟夫﹒康明斯評論道:
......自滅絕者作物流失的花粉無生殖能力,無法傳播給雜草或其他作物。而來自被四環徽素處理過的結子作物的花粉,能散播阻擋「滅絕」者的基因。例如,當雜草被「滅絕」者花粉所受精,新一代的種子將生出具繁殖力花粉的植物。下一代中,百分之二十五的「絕種」植物會產生不孕的花粉。由於不孕的花粉無法散播終結者基因,通過正常有性繁植而散播的「絕種」基因會很有限,然而終結者基因將會一直存在植物群中。此種情況類似人類的致命性基因疾病。「絕種」基因若僅靠有性繁殖而散播,並不威脅到其他的植物。但是,以其他方式來散播終結者基因,則構成更大的威脅......。以濾過性病原體來散播終結者基因,可能輕易地令大批雜草和作物失去繁殖能力,而且,重組基因可能會輕易地消除四環徽素的逆轉/反制作用。「滅絕」者濾過性病原體對作物的生產,可能會造成深遠的影響......
。[此類的基因]具有造成基因突變的潛能,從而導致基因的磨耗,以及在基因規則與表現上不利的改變。它們活動性強,並且一旦被引入高等植物與動物,很可能會繼續蔓延,永遠不停!
(康明斯教授一九九八年六月十七日、星期三,「終結者的基因學」電子郵件,部份標點符號為筆者所加。)
亦見伏卡﹒雷曼著、一九九八年六月刊、第三十五冊《生物科技與發展評論》第六至八頁的「種子不孕專利威脅種子的保存」•「國際鄉間振興基金會」發佈於http:
/www.rafi.org/ misc/terminator.html的「終結者科技」新聞稿;以及瑪莎﹒克若持著,一九九八年重訂,華盛頓州艾德蒙斯市,艾德蒙斯研究院的「終結者如何終結:為非科學家解釋一項消滅第二代作物種子的驚人專利」一文,公佈於
http:/ /www.bio.indiana.edul
/people/
terminator.html。
英國的Zeneca生物科學公司,最近為它自己版本的終結者基因,提出專利申請。見《國際鄉間振興基金會》,一九九八年八月二十四日,發佈於http
/www.rafi.org/
pr/ release 19 .html的「......接下來
是「終結鼠!」,肥貓公司能以肥鼠基因消滅作物」新聞稿。
待續
|
|
(permission is granted to reproduce this
article, to distribute it without charge, and to provide
links to it. Please contact the author at
namofo@adelphia.net regarding other uses.)
Those who come from academic positions
often have large financial stakes in biotech companies,32
and major universities are making agreements with biotech
corporations that compromise academic freedom and give
patent rights to the corporations. As universities become
increasingly dependent on major corporations for funding,
the majority of university scientists will no longer be able
to function as independent, objective experts in matters
concerning genetic engineering and public safety.32a
Scientists have already demonstrated the
transfer of transgenes and marker genes to both bacterial
pathogens and soil fungi. This means that genetically
engineered organisms are going to enter the soil and spread
to whatever grows in it. Genetically engineered material can
migrate from the roots of plants into soil bacteria, in at
least one case radically inhibiting the ability of the soil
to grow plants.33 Once the bacteria are free in
the soil, no natural barriers inhibit their spread. With
ordinary soil pollution, the pollution can be confined and
removed (unless it reaches the groundwater). If genetically
engineered soil bacteria spread into the wild, the ability
of the soil to support plant life may seriously diminish.33a
It does not take much imagination to see what the disastrous
consequences might be.
Water and air are also subject to
poisoning by genetically engineered viruses and bacteria.
The development of new genetically
engineered crops with herbicide resistance will affect the
environment through the increased use of chemical
herbicides. Monsanto and other major international chemical,
pharmaceutical, and agricultural corporations have staked
their financial futures on genetically engineered
herbicide-resistant plants.33b
Recently scientists have found a way to
genetically engineer plants so that their seeds lose their
viability unless sprayed with patented formulae, most of
which turn out to have antibiotics as their primary
ingredient. The idea is to keep farmers from collecting
genetically engineered seed, thus forcing them to buy it
every year. The corporations involved are unconcerned about
the gene escaping into the wild, with obvious disastrous
results, even though that is a clear scientific possibility.34
NOTES:
32. Russell Mokhiber, "'Objective' Science at Auction" (The
Ecologist March/April, 1998). See also Dan Fagin, Marianne
Lavelle and the Center for Public Integrity; Toxic
Deception: How the Chemical Industry Manipulates Science,
Bends the Law and Threatens Your Health (Birch Lane Press,
1997).
32a. According to a 1991 study of
universities in the United States, MLT., Stanford, and
Harvard respectively had the highest rates of commercial
penetration into their biotechnology-related departments
(Sheldon Krinsky et al., "Academic-Corporate Ties in
Biotechnology: A Quantitative Study," Science, Technology
and Human Values 16(3) Summer 1991,275-287). The College of
Natural Resources, University of California at Berkeley
recently signed a $50 million agreement with a subsidiary of
Novartis Corporation to give the latter exclusive access to
patent rights on genetic engineering research done at the
college. Novartis also has the right to appoint some faculty
members. See Carl T. Hall, "Research Deal Evolving between
UC Biotech Firm: Berkeley Campus Could Get $50 Million," San
Francisco Chronicle, Oct. 9, 1998; Peter Rosset and Monica
Moore, "Research Alliance Debated," San Francisco Chronicle,
November 16, 1998; Charles Burress, "UC Finalizes Pioneering
Research Deal with Biotech Firm: Pie Tossers Leave Taste of
Protest," San Francisco Chronicle, November 24, 1998.
33. Ho, Genetic Engineering: Dream or
Nightmare?, p. 133. See also M.T. Holmes and E.R. Ingham,
"The Effects of Genetically Engineered Micro-organisms on
Soil Food-webs," Bulletin of the Ecological Society of
America (Supplement), 75 (1994): 97.
33a. The conscious choice of a few genes
for mobilization and widespread replication substitutes
human judgment for natural selection. From a theological
viewpoint, it is questionable that the agribusiness
scientific staff have the collective wisdom to determine
what constitutes the "good" when it comes to desirable
genes. The fact that their choice could become
self-sustaining (e.g., if the gene escaped into the wild) is
cause for further concern. Initially, this and other adverse
impacts potentially resulting from mass scale transgenic
operations are likely to be invisible. One potentially
insidious effect of reliance on genetically engineered
herbicide resistant technology is the repeated use of single
herbicide preparations. The repeated applications of a
controlled sequence of four or more different herbicides
typical of transgenic farming could be expected to
transiently affect soil micro-organisms. But the sustained
reliance on a single herbicide such as glyphosate [Roundup]
or bromoxynil would predictably shift the soil microflora
for longer periods, perhaps changing the overall composition
of the soil's living matter irrevocably. Such an effect,
should it occur, could affect soil quality for future
plantings, particularly since germination in some herbicide
treated soils has been reported to be impaired. Here the
ethical concern is responsibility for future generations
.... (Marc Lappe and Britt Bailey, Against the Grain:
Biotechnology and the Corporate Takeover of Your Food,
Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1998, 114).
33b. Ibid., esp. 50-62.
34. On March 3,1998 the US Department of
Agriculture (USDA) and an American cotton seed company,
Delta & Pine Land Co., received a US patent on a technique
that genetically alters seed so that it will not germinate
if replanted a second time. The technology aims to prevent
farmers from saving seed from their harvest to replant the
following season. Because it is a potentially "lethal"
technology, Rural Advancement Foundation International
(RAFI) has dubbed it the "Terminator technology." ... If
commercially viable, the Terminator technology will have
profound implications for agriculture. It is a global threat
to farmers, biodiversity and food security. The
seed-sterilizing technology threatens to eliminate the
age-old right of farmers to save seed from their harvest and
it jeopardizes the food security of 1.4 billion
people--resource-poor farmers in the South--who depend on
farm-saved seed. The developers of the technology say that
it will be targeted for use primarily in the South as a
means of preventing farmers from saving proprietary seeds
marketed by American seed corporations. Delta & Pine Land
Co. and USDA have applied for patents on the Terminator
technology in at least 78 countries. If the Terminator
technology is widely utilized, it will give the
multinational seed and agrochemical industry an
unprecedented and extremely dangerous capacity to control
the world's food supply (RAFI
Communique,
March/April1998http://www.rafi.ca/communique/19982.html).
Geneticist Joseph Cummins has commented: ... Pollen escaping
from the terminator crop is sterile and cannot spread to
weeds or other crops. Pollen escaping from the tetracycline
treated seed producing crop can spread the terminator
blocking genes. When a weed is fertilized, for example, with
the terminator pollen, the new generation of seeds will bear
plants with fertile pollen. In the next generation, 25% of
the terminator plants will produce sterile pollen. Since the
sterile pollen cannot spread the terminator genes, the
spread of terminator genes by normal sexual means is
limited, but the terminator genes will always be in the
population. The situation is similar to lethal genetic
diseases in humans. Terminator doesn't threaten plant
populations if it is spread only by normal sexual processes.
However, spread of terminator by other means is more
intimidating .... Spreading terminator genes by virus could
easily cause a wide array of weeds and crops to be rendered
sterile, and genetic recombination could easily eliminate
the reversing action of tetracycline. The terminator virus
could have a profound influence on crop production ....
[Such genes] are potentially able to create chromosome
mutations leading to genetic erosion and untoward changes in
gene regulation and expression. They are very highly mobile,
and, once introduced into higher plants and animals, are
likely to spread and not want to leave ever!
("Genetics of Terminator," e-mail from
Prof. Cummins, Wednesday, June 17, 1998. Some punctuation
added.)
See also Volker Lehmann, "Patent on seed
sterility threatens seed saving," Biotechnology and
Development Monitor, No. 35 (June, 1998); 6-8; Rural
Advancement Foundation Internationals (RAFI) news releases
on "Terminator Technology
; and Martha L. Crouch, "How the Terminator terminates: an
explanation for the non-scientist of a remarkable patent for
killing second generation seeds of crop plants," rev. ed.
Edmonds, WA:. Edmonds Institute, 1998
.
Zeneca BioSciences (UK) has recently
applied for a patent for their own version of the
Terminator. See Rural Advancement Foundation International's
(RAFI) news release ‘…and now, the "Verminator"!: Fat Cat
Corp, with Fat Rat Gene Can Kill Crops'(Aug.24,1998)
. <http://www.rafi.org/pr/release19.html>
~ To be continued
|