Ranking Genetically Modified Plants According to Familiarity

In public debate GMPs are oftenreferred to as being unnatural or a violationof nature. Some people have serious moralconcerns about departures from what is natural.Others are concerned about potential risks tothe environment arising from the combination ofhereditary material moving across naturalboundaries and the limits of scientificforesight of long-term consequences. To addresssome of these concerns we propose that anadditional element in risk assessment based onthe concept of familiarity should beintroduced. The objective is to facilitatetransparency about uncertainties inherent inthe risk assessment of the GMP. Familiarityconventionally involves data and experiencerelating to the plant species and the ecosystemin question. We would like to extend thisconcept to the molecular level of plantbreeding and suggest that GMP characteristicsshould be compared to a reference baselinedetermined by conventional breeding techniques.Three GMPs are ranked according to familiarityat the plant and ecosystem level and themolecular level. The approach may help tointegrate discussion of the scientificarguments and moral questions raised in thedebate about GMOs by providing an operationalscheme within which moral concerns are broughtwithin the framework of science-based riskassessment.     

近百年来长江中游牛轭湖沉积物铅元素富集记录及其环境意义——以长江荆江段牛轭湖群为例

通过对长江荆江段天鹅洲、中洲子和尺八3个牛轭湖钻孔沉积物进行短寿命放射性核素、粒度、磁学、铅元素测试与史志资料分析,在利用²¹⁰Pb比活度计算平均沉积速率,并结合史志资料与沉积物特征指示的事件进行沉积物年代校核基础上,运用地表物质非自然富集系数(EF值)方法,分析了牛轭湖沉积物铅元素富集状况。结果表明:三钻孔铅元素非自然因素富集特征基本一致,均起始于20世纪80年代初,并于2000年后呈下降状态,与我国铅污染历史及禁用含铅汽油的时间基本吻合;利用沉积物中铅元素非自然因素富集事件对沉积物进行断代分析,具有一定的可行性;牛轭湖河/湖沉积相转变未对沉积物铅元素的非自然因素富集产生影响,说明铅污染具有较广的“暴露面”。     

Are Scientists Right and Non-Scientists Wrong? Reflections on Discussions of GM

The aim of this article is to further our understanding of the “GM is unnatural” view, and of the critical response to it. While many people have been reported to hold the view that GM is unnatural, many policy-makers and their advisors have suggested that the view must be ignored or rejected, and that there are scientific reasons for doing so. Three “typical” examples of ways in which the “GM is unnatural” view has been treated by UK policy-makers and their advisors are explored. These are the Government’s position (DEFRA Report), the account of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, and the position of Nigel Halford, a scientist with an advisory role to the Government. I show that their accounts fail to mount a convincing critique. Then, I draw on an empirical research project held during  2003–2004 at the University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne in the north east of England. Scientists met with non-scientists in a range of facilitated one-to-one conversations (“exchanges”) on various environmental issues, one of which was on GM. Our findings show that some scientists who rejected the “GM is unnatural” view struggled to do so consistently. Their struggle is interpreted in terms of a conflict between a so-called “scientific” worldview, and a different worldview that underlies the concerns of those who held the “GM is unnatural” view. This worldview is explored further by an examination of their concerns. What distinguishes this worldview from the “scientific” worldview is that the instrumentalization of the nonhuman world is questioned to a larger extent. I conclude that, because the underlying concerns of those who held the “GM is unnatural” view were not with GM as such, yet with a worldview that was considered to be problematic, and of which many GM applications were held to be expressions, policy-makers and their advisors should reflect on the critical worldview of those who claim that GM is unnatural if they want to engage seriously with their concerns.