Genetically modified crops 转基因作物
Genetically modified crops 转基因作物
Field research 实地调查研究
The biggest study so far finds that GM crops have large, widespread benefits
至今为止最系统的转基因作物研究认为，转基因作物有巨大的，广泛的好处。
http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21630961-biggest-study-so-far-finds-gm-crops-have-large-widespread-benefits-field
ON NOVEMBER 4th voters in Colorado rejected a ballot initiative that would have required special labels for foods made with genetically modified (GM) ingredients. As The Economist went to press, voters in Oregon seemed likely to say no to a similar proposal there, though the count was not complete. Regardless of the outcome, however, the referendums indicate the strength of feeling generated by GM crops: the Oregon vote was the costliest ballot in the state’s history. By chance, the day before the poll saw the publication in PLOS ONE of the largest review yet conducted of the crops’ effects on farming. It concludes that these have been overwhelmingly positive.
11月4日，科罗拉多州的选民们否决了在要求转基因作物制成的食品需要贴上特别的标签这个公民表决提案。根据经济学家将要出版的杂志，俄勒冈州选民们看起来也会否决相似的提案，不过票数还没公布。然而，不管结果如何，投票还是反映了转基因作物所引起的强烈情绪：俄勒冈州的投票是这个州历史上代价最高的投票。很偶然，在投票的前一天，人们看见了发表在公共科学图书馆期刊上的一篇文章，最广泛地评论了转基因作物对农业影响的统计。文章最后得出结论，影响绝对是积极的。
The review in question is a meta-analysis. This is a statistically rigorous study of studies, rather than a mere summary of the literature. Its authors, Matin Qaim and Wilhelm Klümper, both of Göttingen University, in Germany, went through all examinations of the agronomic and economic impacts of GM crops published in English between 1995 and March 2014. This provides a near-complete survey. Most studies of the subject have been published in English, and the widespread adoption of such crops began only in the mid-1990s.
对问卷的评论是一种荟萃分析。这是一种严格的统计研究的研究方法，而不仅仅是对现有文献的汇总。它的作者是马丁.加伊姆和威廉.科鲁姆帕，他们两个都是德国哥廷根大学的教授。他们俩查阅了1995年到2014年3月出版的所有有关转基因作物对农业和经济的影响的英文研究。这接近全面完整调查，因为绝大多数这个课题的研究是用英文出版的，而大规模采用转基因作物是在20世纪90年代中期开始。
Commercial genetic modification for crops comes in two forms. One makes them resistant to insect pests. The other confers tolerance to glyphosate, enabling farmers to spray their fields with this herbicide and kill off all the other plants (ie, the weeds) in them. As a consequence, the study found, herbicide-tolerant crops have lower production costs—though this was not true for insect-resistant crops, where the need for less pesticide was offset by higher seed prices, and overall production costs were thus about the same as for unmodified crops. With both forms of modification, however, the yield rise was so great (9% above non-GM crops for herbicide tolerance and 25% above for insect resistance) that farmers who adopted GM crops made 69% higher profits than those who did not.
商业上对作物的转基因主要有两种形式。一是令作物可以抵御害虫。另一个对草甘膦有抗药性，这样农民可以在地里施这种除草剂以除去生长在转基因作物间的其它植物（如野草）。研究发现的一个结果，是耐除草剂作物生产成本更低 ---- 虽然这对于抗虫作物不是这样的，因为需要少些杀虫剂的成本优势被更高的种子价格抵消了，整体的生产成本因此跟非转基因作物是大致一样的。然而，对于拥有两种的方式的转基因作物，产量提升却是大幅上升（耐除草剂作物比非转基因作物提升9%以上而抗虫作物则可以提升25%以上），因此选择转基因作物的农民的利润可以比那些不选择的高出69%。
Many poor countries eschew GM crops, fearing they will not able to export them to areas which ban them, notably the European Union. This has a big opportunity cost. Dr Qaim and Dr Klümper found that GM crops do even better in poor countries than in rich ones. Farmers in developing nations who use the technology achieve yields 14 percentage points above those of GM farmers in the rich world. Pests and weeds are a bigger problem in poor countries, so GM confers bigger benefits.
很多贫穷国家却远离转基因作物，因为他们害怕不能出口这些粮食到禁止转基因作物的国家，尤其是欧盟。这有很高的机会成本。加伊姆博士和科鲁姆帕博士发现其实转基因作物在贫穷国家可以取得比富裕国家更好的效果。发展中国家采用转基因作物的农民比发达国家采用转基因作物的农民的投资效益高14%。害虫和杂草在贫穷国家是个更大的问题，因此转基因作物可以给他们带来更大的好处。
In debates about GM the methodology of studies has often generated as much controversy as the crops themselves. Drs Klümper and Qaim have done something to moderate these controversies, too. Though some studies they include were not peer-reviewed, and a few of the early ones did not report sample sizes, limiting their value, the data they used for the meta-analysis—which include conference papers, working papers and book chapters as well as work published in academic journals—may correct for perceived publication bias, the tendency of journals to publish only the most dramatic findings. This large body of evidence enabled the authors to control for possible differences in matters other than whether a crop was modified or not, such as fertiliser use. They also found that who pays for a study does not seem to influence its results.
在关于转基因作物的争论中，研究的方法论经常会引发如对转基因作物本身那么多的争论。德尔斯.科鲁帕和加伊姆也做了些事情让这些争论缓和一点。虽然他们包含的一些研究不是同行评议，还有一些早期的研究甚至没有写明样本大小，限制了他们的价值，他们用来做荟萃分析的数据 ---- 包含研讨会论文，工作论文，书本的章节，还有发表在学术期刊 ----- 可以纠正某些感知上的发表偏倚，期刊是倾向于只发表最引人注目的成果。这么多证据，可以让两位作者控制研究的可能存在的差异，而不仅仅是看作物是不是转基因，例如是否用了化肥。他们还发现那些作者是否对研究支付了金钱看起来对结果没有影响。
Dr Klümper and Dr Qaim conclude by expressing a hope that their work “may help to gradually increase public trust in this promising technology”. To judge by the heat generated in Oregon and Colorado, that may take time.
科鲁帕博士和加伊姆博士在结论时，表达了希望他们的工作“可以帮助逐步提高公众对这一有前途技术的信任度”。但由俄勒冈州和科罗拉多州现在的反抗情绪来看，这还需要点时间。
Field research 实地调查研究
The biggest study so far finds that GM crops have large, widespread benefits
至今为止最系统的转基因作物研究认为，转基因作物有巨大的，广泛的好处。
http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21630961-biggest-study-so-far-finds-gm-crops-have-large-widespread-benefits-field
ON NOVEMBER 4th voters in Colorado rejected a ballot initiative that would have required special labels for foods made with genetically modified (GM) ingredients. As The Economist went to press, voters in Oregon seemed likely to say no to a similar proposal there, though the count was not complete. Regardless of the outcome, however, the referendums indicate the strength of feeling generated by GM crops: the Oregon vote was the costliest ballot in the state’s history. By chance, the day before the poll saw the publication in PLOS ONE of the largest review yet conducted of the crops’ effects on farming. It concludes that these have been overwhelmingly positive.
11月4日，科罗拉多州的选民们否决了在要求转基因作物制成的食品需要贴上特别的标签这个公民表决提案。根据经济学家将要出版的杂志，俄勒冈州选民们看起来也会否决相似的提案，不过票数还没公布。然而，不管结果如何，投票还是反映了转基因作物所引起的强烈情绪：俄勒冈州的投票是这个州历史上代价最高的投票。很偶然，在投票的前一天，人们看见了发表在公共科学图书馆期刊上的一篇文章，最广泛地评论了转基因作物对农业影响的统计。文章最后得出结论，影响绝对是积极的。
The review in question is a meta-analysis. This is a statistically rigorous study of studies, rather than a mere summary of the literature. Its authors, Matin Qaim and Wilhelm Klümper, both of Göttingen University, in Germany, went through all examinations of the agronomic and economic impacts of GM crops published in English between 1995 and March 2014. This provides a near-complete survey. Most studies of the subject have been published in English, and the widespread adoption of such crops began only in the mid-1990s.
对问卷的评论是一种荟萃分析。这是一种严格的统计研究的研究方法，而不仅仅是对现有文献的汇总。它的作者是马丁.加伊姆和威廉.科鲁姆帕，他们两个都是德国哥廷根大学的教授。他们俩查阅了1995年到2014年3月出版的所有有关转基因作物对农业和经济的影响的英文研究。这接近全面完整调查，因为绝大多数这个课题的研究是用英文出版的，而大规模采用转基因作物是在20世纪90年代中期开始。
Commercial genetic modification for crops comes in two forms. One makes them resistant to insect pests. The other confers tolerance to glyphosate, enabling farmers to spray their fields with this herbicide and kill off all the other plants (ie, the weeds) in them. As a consequence, the study found, herbicide-tolerant crops have lower production costs—though this was not true for insect-resistant crops, where the need for less pesticide was offset by higher seed prices, and overall production costs were thus about the same as for unmodified crops. With both forms of modification, however, the yield rise was so great (9% above non-GM crops for herbicide tolerance and 25% above for insect resistance) that farmers who adopted GM crops made 69% higher profits than those who did not.
商业上对作物的转基因主要有两种形式。一是令作物可以抵御害虫。另一个对草甘膦有抗药性，这样农民可以在地里施这种除草剂以除去生长在转基因作物间的其它植物（如野草）。研究发现的一个结果，是耐除草剂作物生产成本更低 ---- 虽然这对于抗虫作物不是这样的，因为需要少些杀虫剂的成本优势被更高的种子价格抵消了，整体的生产成本因此跟非转基因作物是大致一样的。然而，对于拥有两种的方式的转基因作物，产量提升却是大幅上升（耐除草剂作物比非转基因作物提升9%以上而抗虫作物则可以提升25%以上），因此选择转基因作物的农民的利润可以比那些不选择的高出69%。
Many poor countries eschew GM crops, fearing they will not able to export them to areas which ban them, notably the European Union. This has a big opportunity cost. Dr Qaim and Dr Klümper found that GM crops do even better in poor countries than in rich ones. Farmers in developing nations who use the technology achieve yields 14 percentage points above those of GM farmers in the rich world. Pests and weeds are a bigger problem in poor countries, so GM confers bigger benefits.
很多贫穷国家却远离转基因作物，因为他们害怕不能出口这些粮食到禁止转基因作物的国家，尤其是欧盟。这有很高的机会成本。加伊姆博士和科鲁姆帕博士发现其实转基因作物在贫穷国家可以取得比富裕国家更好的效果。发展中国家采用转基因作物的农民比发达国家采用转基因作物的农民的投资效益高14%。害虫和杂草在贫穷国家是个更大的问题，因此转基因作物可以给他们带来更大的好处。
In debates about GM the methodology of studies has often generated as much controversy as the crops themselves. Drs Klümper and Qaim have done something to moderate these controversies, too. Though some studies they include were not peer-reviewed, and a few of the early ones did not report sample sizes, limiting their value, the data they used for the meta-analysis—which include conference papers, working papers and book chapters as well as work published in academic journals—may correct for perceived publication bias, the tendency of journals to publish only the most dramatic findings. This large body of evidence enabled the authors to control for possible differences in matters other than whether a crop was modified or not, such as fertiliser use. They also found that who pays for a study does not seem to influence its results.
在关于转基因作物的争论中，研究的方法论经常会引发如对转基因作物本身那么多的争论。德尔斯.科鲁帕和加伊姆也做了些事情让这些争论缓和一点。虽然他们包含的一些研究不是同行评议，还有一些早期的研究甚至没有写明样本大小，限制了他们的价值，他们用来做荟萃分析的数据 ---- 包含研讨会论文，工作论文，书本的章节，还有发表在学术期刊 ----- 可以纠正某些感知上的发表偏倚，期刊是倾向于只发表最引人注目的成果。这么多证据，可以让两位作者控制研究的可能存在的差异，而不仅仅是看作物是不是转基因，例如是否用了化肥。他们还发现那些作者是否对研究支付了金钱看起来对结果没有影响。
Dr Klümper and Dr Qaim conclude by expressing a hope that their work “may help to gradually increase public trust in this promising technology”. To judge by the heat generated in Oregon and Colorado, that may take time.
科鲁帕博士和加伊姆博士在结论时，表达了希望他们的工作“可以帮助逐步提高公众对这一有前途技术的信任度”。但由俄勒冈州和科罗拉多州现在的反抗情绪来看，这还需要点时间。