-
我是植物基因學家,我研究能使植物抵抗疾病和壓力的基因。近年來世上許多人認為基因改造具有某些風險,今天我將提出一個不同的觀點。首先讓我介紹一下我的丈夫Raoul,他是一位有機農民,他的田地裡種植著各種不同的農作物,這是他用來保持耕地健康的眾多生態耕作實踐之一。想像一下我們得到的反應:「沒搞錯吧?有機農民與植物基因學家?你們能達成任何共識嗎?」是的,我們能,這並不困難,因為我們有共同目標,我們希望在不使環境遭受進一步破壞的情況下幫助滋養與日俱增的人口,我認為這是這個時代最大的挑戰。
展開英文
收合英文
-
I am a plant geneticist. I study genes that make plants resistant to disease and tolerant of stress. In recent years, millions of people around the world have come to believe that there's something sinister about genetic modification. Today, I am going to provide a different perspective. First, let me introduce my husband, Raoul. He's an organic farmer. On his farm, he plants a variety of different crops. This is one of the many ecological farming practices he uses to keep his farm healthy. Imagine some of the reactions we get: "Really? An organic farmer and a plant geneticist? Can you agree on anything?" Well, we can, and it's not difficult, because we have the same goal. We want to help nourish the growing population without further destroying the environment. I believe this is the greatest challenge of our time.
-
如今基因改造並非新鮮事,事實上我們所吃的每一樣食物以某種程度來說都經過基因改造,讓我舉幾個例子。左邊圖片是現代玉米的始祖,你看見一排包在硬殼中的玉米粒,除非你有一把錘子,野生玉蜀黍不適合用來做玉米餅。現在來看香蕉的始祖。你可以看見很大的籽,無法引起食慾的球芽甘藍,還有茄子,十分美麗。為了創造這些變種,多年來培育專家使用了許多不同的基因技術,有些創意十足,例如使用所謂的嫁接法將兩個不同品種結合在一起,創造出這個:一半是蕃茄、一半是馬鈴薯的變種。培育專家也使用其他類型的基因技術,例如隨機突變,誘發植物內部基因,產生非典型突變,許多人用來餵養嬰兒的穀物粥裡的米就是用這種方法產生的。
展開英文
收合英文
-
Now, genetic modification is not new; virtually everything we eat has been genetically modified in some manner. Let me give you a few examples. On the left is an image of the ancient ancestor of modern corn. You see a single roll of grain that's covered in a hard case. Unless you have a hammer, teosinte isn't good for making tortillas. Now, take a look at the ancient ancestor of banana. You can see the large seeds.And unappetizing brussel sprouts, and eggplant, so beautiful. Now, to create these varieties, breeders have used many different genetic techniques over the years. Some of them are quite creative, like mixing two different species together using a process called grafting to create this variety that's half tomato and half potato. Breeders have also used other types of genetic techniques, such as random mutagenesis, which induces uncharacterized mutations into the plants. The rice in the cereal that many of us fed our babies was developed using this approach.
-
如今培育專家甚至有更多選擇,其中有許多是相當精確的,我想舉幾個與我的工作有關的例子。我研究水稻,這是全球過半人口的主食,每年有40%的潛在產量損失由蟲害與疾病造成,因此農民種植攜帶抗病蟲害基因的水稻品種,這種方法已使用將近100年。然而,當我開始唸研究所時,沒人知道這些基因是什麼。直到1990年代,科學家才發現具抗病蟲害特性的遺傳基礎。在我的實驗室中,我們分離出對盛行於亞洲和非洲的細菌性疾病具免疫功能的基因,我們發現可將這種基因移植到易染病的傳統水稻品種,你可以看見底部兩片葉子對感染具高度抵抗性。我們實驗室在同一個月裡發表了對於水稻免疫基因的發現,我朋友兼同事Dave Mackill來到我的辦公室,他說:「七千萬米農在種植水稻上遇到困難。」因為他們的田地被洪水淹沒。這些米農每天靠不到2美元過活,雖然水稻能在積水中生存,如果浸在水中的時間超過三天,大部分品種的水稻都無法存活。隨著氣候變化,洪災的發生越來越無法預測。他告訴我,他和他指導的研究生Kenong Xu正在研究一種具有驚人特性的古老水稻品種,它能在完全浸入水中的情況下存活兩周,他詢問我是否願意協助他們分離這種基因。我答應了-我相當興奮,因為我知道,如果成功,我們就有機會幫助數百萬農民種植水稻,即使他們的耕地被洪水淹沒。
展開英文
收合英文
-
Now, today, breeders have even more options to choose from. Some of them are extraordinarily precise. I want to give you a couple examples from my own work. I work on rice, which is a staple food for more than half the world's people. Each year, 40 percent of the potential harvest is lost to pest and disease. For this reason, farmers plant rice varieties that carry genes for resistance. This approach has been used for nearly 100 years. Yet, when I started graduate school, no one knew what these genes were. It wasn't until the 1990s that scientists finally uncovered the genetic basis of resistance. In my laboratory, we isolated a gene for immunity to a very serious bacterial disease in Asia and Africa. We found we could engineer the gene into a conventional rice variety that's normally susceptible, and you can see the two leaves on the bottom here are highly resistant to infection. Now, the same month that my laboratory published our discovery on the rice immunity gene, my friend and colleague Dave Mackill stopped by my office. He said, "Seventy million rice farmers are having trouble growing rice." That's because their fields are flooded, and these rice farmers are living on less than two dollars a day. Although rice grows well in standing water, most rice varieties will die if they're submergedfor more than three days. Flooding is expected to be increasingly problematic as the climate changes. He told me that his graduate student Kenong Xu and himself were studying an ancient variety of rice that had an amazing property. It could withstand two weeks of complete submergence. He asked if I would be willing to help them isolate this gene. I said yes -- I was very excited, because I knew if we were successful, we could potentially help millions of farmers grow rice even when their fields were flooded.
-
Kenong花了十年時間尋找這種基因,某天他說:「過來看看這個實驗,你一定要看一下。」我前往溫室,看見浸入水中18天的傳統水稻品種死了,但經過基因改造的品種活了下來,植入我們所發現的名叫Sub1的新基因。Kenong和我既驚訝又興奮,僅僅一個基因就能產生如此顯著的效果。但這只是在溫室中進行的實驗,在耕地裡也有同樣效果嗎?現在我想展示一部由國際水稻研究所拍攝了四個月的影片。培育專家培育了攜帶Sub1基因的水稻品種,使用另一種名叫「精密培育」的基因技術。你在左邊看見的是攜帶Sub1的品種,右邊是傳統水稻品種。最初兩個品種都生長得很好,但當耕地被水淹沒17天後,你可以看見Sub1品種生長得非常好,事實上它的產量是傳統品種的3.5倍。我喜歡這部影片,因為它顯示植物遺傳學幫助農民的強大能力。去年在比爾與梅琳達.蓋茲基金會的幫助下,三百五十萬農民種植Sub1水稻(掌聲),謝謝。現在,許多人不介意基因改造,當談到在水稻上進行基因轉殖,將水稻基因轉殖於水稻作物,或甚至藉由嫁接或隨機突變的方式進行混種。但當談到提取病毒或細菌基因殖入作物中,很多人會說:「不。」為何如此?原因在於有時這是增進食品安全與發展永續農業最廉價、最安全、最有效的科技,我來舉三個例子。
展開英文
收合英文
-
Kenong spent 10 years looking for this gene. Then one day, he said, "Come look at this experiment. You've got to see it." I went to the greenhouse and I saw that the conventional variety that was flooded for 18 days had died, but the rice variety that we had genetically engineered with a new gene we had discovered, called Sub1, was alive. Kenong and I were amazed and excited that a single gene could have this dramatic effect. But this is just a greenhouse experiment. Would this work in the field? Now, I'm going to show you a four-month time lapse video taken at the International Rice Research Institute. Breeders there developed a rice variety carrying the Sub1 gene using another genetic technique called precision breeding. On the left, you can see the Sub1 variety, and on the right is the conventional variety. Both varieties do very well at first, but then the field is flooded for 17 days. You can see the Sub1 variety does great. In fact, it produces three and a half times more grain than the conventional variety. I love this video because it shows the power of plant genetics to help farmers. Last year, with the help of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, three and a half million farmers grew Sub1 rice. Now, many people don't mind genetic modification when it comes to moving rice genes around, rice genes in rice plants, or even when it comes to mixing species together through grafting or random mutagenesis. But when it comes to taking genes from viruses and bacteria and putting them into plants, a lot of people say, "Yuck." Why would you do that? The reason is that sometimes it's the cheapest, safest, and most effective technology for enhancing food security and advancing sustainable agriculture. I'm going to give you three examples.
-
首先看看這個木瓜,很美味,對嗎?但現在看看這個木瓜。這個木瓜感染了木瓜輪點病毒,1950年代,這種病毒幾乎摧毀了夏威夷歐胡島所有的木瓜作物,許多人認為夏威夷木瓜在劫難逃,然而,一位夏威夷當地人,名叫Dennis Gonsalves的植物病理學家決定嘗試用基因工程對抗這種疾病。他提取病毒DNA的一個片段,將它插入木瓜基因組中,有點像人類接種疫苗。現在看看他的田野試驗。你可以看見中間是經基因改造的木瓜,對病毒感染免疫,外圍的傳統木瓜遭受嚴重病毒感染。Dennis的開拓性工作拯救了木瓜產業,二十年後的今天依然沒有其他方法能控制這種疾病。沒有有機方法、沒有傳統方法,夏威夷80%的木瓜都經過基因改造。現在,有些人或許仍然對食品中的病毒基因感到不安,但考慮一下:經基因改造的木瓜僅攜帶病毒的一小部分,如果你咬一口被病毒感染的有機或傳統木瓜,你將吃下多十倍的病毒蛋白質。現在看一下這隻正在吃茄子的害蟲,你所見的褐色部分是蟲糞,由蟲體尾部排出。為了控制這種能摧毀孟加拉所有茄子作物的嚴重害蟲,孟加拉農民每週噴灑兩至三次殺蟲劑,蟲災嚴重時甚至一天噴灑兩次。但我們知道有些殺蟲劑嚴重危害人類健康,尤其是有些農民和他們的家人買不起適當的防護裝備,如同這些孩子。在開發程度較低的國家,估計每年有三十萬人死於殺蟲劑的濫用和暴露。康乃爾和孟加拉的科學家決定使用以有機農業為基礎的基因技術對抗這種疾病,像我丈夫Raoul這樣的有機農民噴灑一種以細菌為基礎、名為B.T.的殺蟲劑,這種殺蟲劑專門針對毛蟲。事實上它對人類、魚類、鳥類不具毒性,它的毒性比食鹽還小。但這種方法不適用於孟加拉,因為這種殺蟲劑的噴灑裝置難以取得且價格高昂,它們無法阻止害蟲進入植物內部。藉由基因技術方法,科學家擷取一段細菌基因直接插入茄子的基因組中。這種方法能減少孟加拉的殺蟲劑噴灑量嗎?當然可以。上一季,農民反映他們已能夠大幅減少殺蟲劑的使用,幾乎不必使用。他們能收穫作物並在下一季重新種植。
展開英文
收合英文
-
First, take a look at papaya. It's delicious, right? But now, look at this papaya. This papaya is infected with papaya ringspot virus. In the 1950s, this virus nearly wiped out the entire production of papaya on the island of Oahu in Hawaii. Many people thought that the Hawaiian papaya was doomed, but then, a local Hawaiian, a plant pathologist named Dennis Gonsalves, decided to try to fight this disease using genetic engineering. He took a snippet of viral DNA and he inserted it into the papaya genome. This is kind of like a human getting a vaccination. Now, take a look at his field trial. You can see the genetically engineered papaya in the center. It's immune to infection. The conventional papaya around the outside is severely infected with the virus. Dennis' pioneering work is credited with rescuing the papaya industry. Today, 20 years later, there's still no other method to control this disease. There's no organic method. There's no conventional method. Eighty percent of Hawaiian papaya is genetically engineered. Now, some of you may still feel a little queasy about viral genes in your food, but consider this: The genetically engineered papaya carries just a trace amount of the virus. If you bite into an organic or conventional papaya that is infected with the virus, you will be chewing on tenfold more viral protein. Now, take a look at this pest feasting on an eggplant. The brown you see is frass, what comes out the back end of the insect. To control this serious pest, which can devastate the entire eggplant crop in Bangladesh, Bangladeshi farmers spray insecticides two to three times a week,sometimes twice a day, when pest pressure is high. But we know that some insecticides are very harmful to human health, especially when farmers and their families cannot afford proper protection, like these children. In less developed countries, it's estimated that 300,000 peopledie every year because of insecticide misuse and exposure. Cornell and Bangladeshi scientists decided to fight this disease using a genetic technique that builds on an organic farming approach. Organic farmers like my husband Raoul spray an insecticide called B.T., which is based on a bacteria. This pesticide is very specific to caterpillar pests, and in fact, it's nontoxic to humans, fish and birds. It's less toxic than table salt. But this approach does not work well in Bangladesh. That's because these insecticide sprays are difficult to find, they're expensive, and they don't prevent the insect from getting inside the plants. In the genetic approach, scientists cut the gene out of the bacteria and insert it directly into the eggplant genome. Will this work to reduce insecticide sprays in Bangladesh? Definitely. Last season, farmers reported they were able to reduce their insecticide use by a huge amount, almost down to zero. They're able to harvest and replant for the next season.
-
現在我已舉了幾個基因工程如何用於抵抗病蟲害的例子,並減少殺蟲劑使用量。最後一個例子是基因工程如何減少營養不良的情況。在開發程度較低的國家,每年有五十萬兒童因缺乏維生素A而失明,其中半數將會喪命。因此科學家在洛克菲勒基金會的援助下,基因改造出能產生β-胡蘿蔔素的黃金水稻。β-胡蘿蔔素是維生素A的前驅物,這與我們在胡蘿蔔裡找到的色素相同。研究人員估計,每天僅需一杯黃金水稻,就能拯救數千名兒童的生命。但黃金水稻遭受反基因改造人士的強烈反對,就在去年,這些人入侵並摧毀菲律賓的田野試驗區。當我聽見這個消息時,我心想,他們是否知道他們摧毀的不僅是一個科學研究項目,他們摧毀的是兒童迫切需要能拯救他們視力與生命的醫療方案。我的一些朋友與家人仍然擔心:你怎麼知道食品裡的基因安全無虞?我以基因工程解釋,物種間基因轉移的方法已使用超過40年,在酒中、藥物中、植物中、乳酪中,一直以來都不曾出現對人類健康或環境造成傷害的案例。但我的目的並非要求你們相信我,科學並非信仰體系,我的觀點無關緊要,重要的是證據。經過20年來數千名獨立科學家謹慎的研究與嚴格的同儕審查,世上每一個主要科研機構都斷定目前上市的基因改造作物都可安全食用,基因轉殖技術的風險並不比傳統基因改造方法來得大。這些機構對其他重要科學議題的看法均獲得大多數人信任,例如全球氣候變化或疫苗安全問題。
展開英文
收合英文
-
Now, I've given you a couple examples of how genetic engineering can be used to fight pests and disease and to reduce the amount of insecticides. My final example is an example where genetic engineering can be used to reduce malnutrition. In less developed countries,500,000 children go blind every year because of lack of Vitamin A. More than half will die. For this reason, scientists supported by the Rockefeller Foundation genetically engineered a golden rice to produce beta-carotene, which is the precursor of Vitamin A. This is the same pigment that we find in carrots. Researchers estimate that just one cup of golden rice per day will save the lives of thousands of children. But golden rice is virulently opposed by activists who are against genetic modification. Just last year, activists invaded and destroyed a field trial in the Philippines. When I heard about the destruction, I wondered if they knew that they were destroying much more than a scientific research project, that they were destroying medicines that children desperately needed to save their sight and their lives. Some of my friends and family still worry: How do you know genes in the food are safe to eat? I explained the genetic engineering, the process of moving genes between species, has been used for more than 40 years in wines, in medicine, in plants, in cheeses. In all that time, there hasn't been a single case of harm to human health or the environment. But I say, look, I'm not asking you to believe me. Science is not a belief system. My opinion doesn't matter. Let's look at the evidence. After 20 years of careful study and rigorous peer review by thousands of independent scientists, every major scientific organization in the world has concluded that the crops currently on the market are safe to eatand that the process of genetic engineering is no more risky than older methods of genetic modification. These are precisely the same organizations that most of us trust when it comes to other important scientific issues such as global climate change or the safety of vaccines.
-
Raoul和我都認為,與其擔心食物中的基因,我們更應該關注如何幫助孩子健康成長。我們必須關注農村社區的農民是否能夠營生,是否每個人都買得起食物,我們必須盡可能減少環境的破壞。關於植物基因改造的激烈爭論與錯誤資訊中,最令我害怕的是,最需要這些科技的貧困者可能無法獲得援助,只因為衣食無虞者不確定的擔憂與偏見。我們面臨巨大的挑戰,善用科學的創新與實踐,盡一切可能幫助減輕人們的痛苦及維護環境是我們的責任,謝謝。(掌聲)
展開英文
收合英文
-
Raoul and I believe that, instead of worrying about the genes in our food, we must focus on how we can help children grow up healthy. We must ask if farmers in rural communities can thrive, and if everyone can afford the food. We must try to minimize environmental degradation.What scares me most about the loud arguments and misinformation about plant genetics is that the poorest people who most need the technology may be denied access because of the vague fears and prejudices of those who have enough to eat. We have a huge challenge in front of us. Let's celebrate scientific innovation and use it. It's our responsibility to do everything we can to help alleviate human suffering and safeguard the environment. Thank you.
-
Chris Anderson:相當有力的觀點。就我所知,反對基因改造生物的人主要理由來自兩方面,一是複雜性和無法預期的結果。自然是相當複雜的機器,如果我們取出這些人類創造的新基因,它們不曾經歷長時間演化的挑戰,讓它們與其他現有基因混合不會引發某種激變或問題嗎?尤其是你考慮到某些公司參與的商業動機。我們的憂慮是,這些動機意味著做出的決定並非僅基於純粹的科學依據。即使如此,依然會出現無法預期的結果,我們怎麼知道無法預期的結果是否存在高風險?我們對大自然的些微更動通常確實會導致無法預期的結果及連鎖反應。
展開英文
收合英文
-
Chris Anderson: Powerfully argued. The people who argue against GMOs, as I understand it, the core piece comes from two things. One, complexity and unintended consequence. Nature is this incredibly complex machine. If we put out these brand new genes that we've created, that haven't been challenged by years of evolution, and they started mixing up with the rest of what's going on, couldn't that trigger some kind of cataclysm or problem, especially when you add in the commercial incentive that some companies have to put them out there?The fear is that those incentives mean that the decision is not made on purely scientific grounds, and even if it was, that there would be unintended consequences. How do we know that there isn't a big risk of some unintended consequence? Often our tinkerings with nature do lead to big, unintended consequences and chain reactions.
-
Pamela Ronald:好,以商業方面來說,需要瞭解的一個重點是,在已開發國家,例如美國的農民,幾乎所有農民,無論是有機農民或傳統農民都購買種子公司生產的種子。因此銷售大量種子確實存在商業利益,只要他們販售的是農民所需的種子。開發程度較低的國家情況有所不同,農民買不起種子,這些種子並非銷售而來,而是藉由經認證的傳統單位免費分發。因此很重要的一點是,在開發程度較低的國家種子以免費方式取得。
CA:是否會有一些反對分子說,這其實是陰謀的一部份?這是海洛因策略,你分發這些種子,人們沒有選擇,只能永遠種植這些種子?
展開英文
收合英文
-
Pamela Ronald: Okay, so on the commercial aspects, one thing that's really important to understand is that, in the developed world, farmers in the United States, almost all farmers, whether they're organic or conventional, they buy seed produced by seed companies. So there's definitely a commercial interest to sell a lot of seed, but hopefully they're selling seed that the farmers want to buy. It's different in the less developed world. Farmers there cannot afford the seed. These seeds are not being sold. These seeds are being distributed freely through traditional kinds of certification groups, so it is very important in less developed countries that the seed be freely available.
CA: Wouldn't some activists say that this is actually part of the conspiracy? This is the heroin strategy. You seed the stuff, and people have no choice but to be hooked on these seeds forever?
-
PR:確實存在許多陰謀論,但事實並非如此。例如免費分發的種子,耐水性水稻是經由印度和孟加拉國經認證的機構免費分發,因此不存在任何商業利益。黃金水稻是在洛克菲勒基金會的支持下開發,同樣是免費分發,這種情況下也不存在商業利益。現在說明另一個問題:基因混合,其中是否存在無法預期的結果?當然,每當我們嘗試不同的事物都可能出現無法預期的結果,但我想說的一點是,我們已對植物做了不少瘋狂的事,利用輻射或化學藥物誘發基因突變,這導致數千種不確定的突變,這比許多現代方法產生無法預期結果的風險更高。因此很重要的一點是,別使用GMO(基因改造生物)這個詞彙,因為這在科學上毫無意義。我認為討論特定作物、特定產品、思考消費者需求是非常重要的。
展開英文
收合英文
-
PR: There are a lot of conspiracy theories for sure, but it doesn't work that way. For example, the seed that's being distributed, the flood-tolerant rice, this is distributed freely through Indian and Bangladeshi seed certification agencies, so there's no commercial interest at all. The golden rice was developed through support of the Rockefeller Foundation. Again, it's being freely distributed. There are no commercial profitsin this situation. And now to address your other question about, well, mixing genes, aren't there some unintended consequences? Absolutely -- every time we do something different, there's an unintended consequence, but one of the points I was trying to make is that we've been doing kind of crazy things to our plants, mutagenesis using radiation or chemical mutagenesis. This induces thousands of uncharacterized mutations, and this is even a higher risk of unintended consequence than many of the modern methods. And so it's really important not to use the term GMO because it's scientifically meaningless. I feel it's very important to talk about a specific crop and a specific product, and think about the needs of the consumer.
-
CA:因此現在許多人有一種思維模式,認為自然的東西就是天然的,純粹而原始﹔改造過的東西就是怪物。以某種程度來說這種想法相當危險,我認為這種思維模式完全誤解了自然的意義,自然界當中隨時發生著更複雜的基因轉換。
PR:確實如此。沒有所謂的純粹食物,我是指,如果不能對茄子噴灑殺蟲劑或對它進行基因改造,這樣就只能吃蟲糞了,因此沒有所謂的純粹食物。
CA:謝謝Pam Ronald,相當精彩的演講。
PR:十分感謝,謝謝。(掌聲)
展開英文
收合英文
-
CA: So part of what's happening here is that there's a mental model in a lot of people that nature is nature, and it's pure and pristine, and to tinker with it is Frankensteinian. It's making something that's pure dangerous in some way, and I think you're saying that that whole modeljust misunderstands how nature is. Nature is a much more chaotic interplay of genetic changes that have been happening all the time anyway.
PR: That's absolutely true, and there's no such thing as pure food. I mean, you could not spray eggplant with insecticides or not genetically engineer it, but then you'd be stuck eating frass. So there's no purity there.
CA: Pam Ronald, thank you. That was powerfully argued.
PR: Thank you very much. I appreciate it. (Applause)