a Carugo , Como , Italy.
GM Crops Food. 2017 Oct 2;8(4):209-215. doi: 10.1080/21645698.2017.1405899.
The expression "Genetically Modified Organisms" was coined to indicate a group of agricultural products (mostly crops and vegetables), modified through direct DNA recombination in order to obtain useful phenotypic traits or to inhibit undesirable characteristics. But the border between rDNA ("GMO") and other biotech methods is blurred. Moreover, the ill-assorted group is frequently charged with having peculiar, negative characteristics: many activists, part of the public and a few social science scholars think that "GMOs" are all dubious, even inherently dangerous. However, theoretical justifications of this alleged problematic nature which is supposed to be necessarily linked to the "splicing" of DNA, only when applied to agricultural products, are missing: the only text which tries to go in depth on the subject, an article by biologist Barry Commoner, takes aim at the wrong target, misunderstanding the Central Dogma. "GMO" is a term that has no clear reference, let alone in a detrimental sense. The only attempt to give it epistemological dignity fails.
“转基因生物”这一表述是为了指代一组经过直接 DNA 重组而改良的农业产品(主要是农作物和蔬菜),以获得有用的表型特征或抑制不良特性。但 rDNA(“转基因生物”)和其他生物技术方法之间的界限是模糊的。此外,这个混杂的群体经常被指责具有特殊的、负面的特征:许多活动家、一部分公众和一些社会科学学者认为“转基因生物”都是可疑的,甚至本质上是危险的。然而,当这种所谓的问题特性被假定与 DNA“拼接”必然相关时,却缺乏对其进行理论论证的依据:唯一试图深入探讨这一主题的文本,即生物学家巴里·康芒纳的一篇文章,却瞄准了错误的目标,误解了中心法则。“转基因生物”这个术语没有明确的参考意义,更不用说在有害的意义上了。唯一试图赋予其认识论尊严的尝试也失败了。