評論
打印
Passage Two
Supporters of the biotech industry have accused an American scientist of misconduct after she testified to the New Zealand government that a genetically modified(GM) bacterium could cause serious damage if released.
The New Zealand Life Sciences Network, an association of pro-GM scientists and organizations, says the view expressed by Elaine Ingham, a soil biologist at Oregon State University in Corvallis, was exaggerated and irresponsible. It has asked her university to discipline her.
But Ingham stands by her comments and says the complaints are an attempt to silence her. "They're trying to cause trouble with my university and get me fired," Ingham told New Scientist.
The controversy began on 1 February, when Ingham testified before New Zealand's Royal Commission on Genetic Modification, which will determine how to regulate GM organisms. Ingham claimed that a GM version of a common soil bacterium could spread and destroy plants if released into the wild. Other researchers had previously modified the bacterium to produce alcohol from organic waste. But Ingham says that when she put it in soil with wheat plants, all of the plants died within a week..
"We would lose terrestrial(陸生的)plants... this is an organism that is potentially deadly to the continued survival of human beings," she told the commission. She added that the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) canceled its approval for field tests using the organism once she had told them about her research in 1999.
But last week the New Zealand Life Sciences Network accused Ingham of "presenting inaccurate, careless and exaggerated information" and "generating speculative doomsday scenarios (世界末日的局面)that are not scientifically supportable". They say that her study doesn't even show that the bacteria would survive in the wild, much less kill massive numbers of plants. What's more, the network says that contrary to Ingham's claims, the EPA. was never asked to consider the organism for field trials.
The EPA has not commented on the dispute. But an e-mail to the network from Janet Anderson, director of the EPA's bio pesticides (生物殺蟲劑)division, says "there is no record of a review and/or clearance to field test".
Ingham says EPA officials had told her that the organism was approved for field tests, but says she has few details. It's also not clear whether the organism, first engineered by a German institute for biotechnology, is still in use.
Whether Ingham is right or wrong, her supporters say opponents are trying unfairly to silence her.
"I think her concerns should be taken seriously. She shouldn't be harassed in this way," says Ann Clarke, a plant biologist at the University of Guelph in Canada who also testified before the commission. "It's an attempt to silence the opposition."
57. The passage centers on the controversy ______.
A) between American and New Zealand biologists over genetic modification
B) as to whether the study of genetic modification should be continued
C) over the possible adverse effect of a GM bacterium on plants
D) about whether Elaine Ingham should be fired by her university
58. Ingham insists that her testimony is based on ______.
A) evidence provided by the EPA of the United States
B) the results of an experiment she conducted herself
C) evidence from her collaborative research with German biologists
D) the results of extensive field tests in Corvallis, Oregon
59. According to Janet Anderson, the EPA ______.
A) has canceled its approval for field tests of the GM organism
B) hasn't reviewed the timings of Ingham's research
C) has approved field tests using the GM organism
D) hasn't given permission to field test the GM organism
60. According to Ann Clarke, the New Zealand Life Sciences Network ______.
A) should gather evidence to discredit Ingham's claims
B) should require that the research by their biologists be regulated
C) shouldn't demand that Ingham be disciplined for voicing her views
D) shouldn't appease the opposition in such a quiet way
61. Which of the following statements about Ingham is TRUE?
A) Her testimony hasn't been supported by the EPA.
B) Her credibility as a scientist hasn't been undermined.
C) She is firmly supported by her university.
D) She has made great contributions to the study of GM bacteria.
