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
【危险系数高的转基因技术是否应该继续】相关文章:
最新
2016-10-18
2016-10-11
2016-10-11
2016-10-08
2016-09-30
2016-09-30