危险系数高的转基因技术是否应该继续

　　Supporters of the biotech industry have accused an American scientist of misconduct after she testified to the New Zealand government that a genetically modified 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. Theyre 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 Zealands 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 terrestrialplants... 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 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 that are not scientifically supportable . They say that her study doesnt even show that the bacteria would survive in the wild, much less kill massive numbers of plants. Whats more, the network says that contrary to Inghams 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 EPAs bio pesticides 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. Its 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 shouldnt be harassed in this way, says Ann Clarke, a plant biologist at the University of Guelph in Canada who also testified before the commission. Its 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) hasnt reviewed the timings of Inghams research

　　C) has approved field tests using the GM organism D) hasnt 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 Inghams claims B) should require that the research by their biologists be regulated

　　C) shouldnt demand that Ingham be disciplined for voicing her views D) shouldnt appease the opposition in such a quiet way

　　61. Which of the following statements about Ingham is TRUE?

　　A) Her testimony hasnt been supported by the EPA. B) Her credibility as a scientist hasnt been undermined.

　　C) She is firmly supported by her university. D) She has made great contributions to the study of GM bacteria.

　　答案：CBDCA