蹒跚的步履——从“扶贫”到“自主”

在贵州贫困山区几乎所有的村寨,都留着一个人的脚印,那是在整整30年里散布下的脚印。那些脚印记录的是贵州乡村旅游艰难曲折发展的步履,而留下这脚印的人就是贵州省原旅游局长、世界旅游组织专家委员会专家杨胜明。与她面对面地交谈,你丝毫不会感到在其它场合里司空见惯的官气,而是在不知不觉中被一种难以名状的力量所感染,这兴许就是能把在一般人看来尚属奢华的旅游与穷困山区百姓命运联系起来的一种气质和使命感。杨胜明在2007年出过一本书:《蹒跚的步履》,近百万字真实地记录了她作为一位政府官员对贫困山区发展旅游的认识过程和步步深入的施政轨迹,从以经济目标出发的旅游扶贫,到村寨全面发展和文化遗产保护的乡村旅游,再到倡导村民自主发展的核心理念……每一步转变和前进都折射出她所著书名中的"蹒跚"二字。如今,乡村旅游的蹒跚之旅尚处在进行时态,或许进入了更加艰深的阶段。世界旅游组织将贵州的乡村旅游作为长期观察点,并于2006年在贵州召开了"乡村旅游国际论坛",会上发表了一份具有里程碑意义的《贵阳宣言》,而这一切皆出于一个原因:这是一个世界性的难题,尚无成功案例。杨胜明抱定决心去破解这道难题,她说:"乡村旅游肯定是我终生的事业"。     

“Three Kingdoms”to Romance

For some historic reasons, our new journal is named "Genomics, Proteomics & Bioinformatics", or as we have nicknamed it in short the Journal of GPB. A growing number of "-ome" and "-omics" have appeared in many diverse fields of biology, especially in the recent years under profound influences of the Human Genome Project and many other genome projects completed or in progress. We had almost attempted to re-name this journal "Ever-more-omics" to in-     

与昆虫学相关的“973”计划项目简介

1997年6月4日,原国家科技领导小组第三次会议决定要制定和实施《国家重点基础研究发展规划》,随后科技部组织实施了国家重点基础研究发展计划,亦称"973"计划。制定和实施"973"计划是党中央、国务院为实施"科教兴国"和"可持续发展战略",加强基础研究和科技工作做出的重要决策,是提高科技持续创新能力的重要举措。文章简要介绍与昆虫学相关的8个"973"计划项目的研究概况,这8个项目分别是:农作物重大病虫害成灾机理及调控基础的研究、农业重要转基因生物安全研究、农林危险生物入侵机理与控制基础研究、农业微生物杀虫防病功能基因的发掘和分子机理研究、绿色化学农药先导结构及作用靶标的发现与研究、家蚕主要经济性状功能基因组与分子改良研究、农业生物多样性控制病虫害和保护种质资源的原理与方法、重大农业害虫猖獗危害的机制及可持续控制的研究。     

"The Key to Human Psychology"

This article investigates the notebook kept by Lev Vygotsky during the first half of 1926. In addition to discussing the notebook's structure, content, and time frame, the article analyzes its significance within the context of the development of Vygotsky's ideas. Among the notebook's content discussed here are: supplementary material to The Psychology of Art; a preliminary outline for "The Historical Meaning of the Crisis in Psychology"; the first propositions of cultural-historical theory associated with the idea of sign mediation; an outline for the unwritten monograph "Zoon politikon"; as well as thoughts on a general psychological theory of consciousness that assigns a key role to speech and communication in the genesis of consciousness. Particular attention is paid to Vygotsky's remarks on the ontological status of mental reality and the problem of the psychophysical.     

Response to "The anglerfish deception"

The correspondents argue that “The anglerfish deception” contains omissions, errors, misunderstandings and misinterpretations.EMBO reports (2012) advanced online publication; doi: 10.1038/embor.2012.71EMBO reports (2012) 13 2, 100–105; doi: 10.1038/embor.2011.254The commentary [1] on aspects of genetically modified organism (GMO) regulation, risk assessment and risk management in the EU contains omissions, errors, misunderstandings and misinterpretations. As background, environmental risk assessment (ERA) of genetically modified (GM) plants for cultivation in the EU is conducted by applicants following principles and data requirements described in the Guidance Document (ERA GD) established by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) [2], which follows the tenets of Directive 2001/18/EC. The ERA GD was not referenced in [1], which wrongly referred only to EFSA guidance that does not cover ERA. Applications for cultivation of a GM plant containing the ERA, submitted to the European Commission (EC), are checked by the EFSA to ensure they address all the requirements specified in its ERA GD [2]. A lead Member State (MS) is then appointed to conduct the initial evaluation of the application, requesting further information from the applicant if required. The MS evaluation is forwarded to the EC, EFSA and all other MSs. Meanwhile, all other MSs can comment on the application and raise concerns. The EFSA GMO Panel carefully considers the content of the application, the lead MS Opinion, other MSs'' concerns, all relevant data published in the scientific literature, and the applicant''s responses to its own requests for further information. The Panel then delivers its Opinion on the application, which covers all the potential environmental areas of risk listed in 2001/18/EC. This Opinion is sent to the EC, all MSs and the applicant and published in the EFSA journal (efsa.europa.eu). Panel Opinions on GM plants for cultivation consider whether environmental harm might be caused, and, if so, suggest possible management to mitigate these risks, and make recommendations for post-market environmental monitoring (PMEM). The final decision on whether to allow the cultivation of GM plants, and any specific conditions for management and monitoring, rests with the EC and MSs and is not within the remit of the EFSA.Against this background we respond to several comments in [1]. Regarding the Comparative Safety Assessment of GM plants and whether or not further questions are asked following this assessment, the Comparative Safety Assessment, described fully in [2], is not a ‘first step''. It is a general principle that forms a central part of the ERA process, as introduced in section 2.1 of [2]. Each ERA starts with problem formulation and identification, facilitating a structured approach to identifying potential risks and scientific uncertainties; following this critical first step many further questions must be asked and addressed. In [2] it is clearly stated that all nine specific areas of risk listed in 2001/18/EC must be addressed—persistence and invasiveness; vertical gene flow; horizontal gene flow; interactions with target organisms; interactions with non-target organisms; human health; animal health; biogeochemical processes; cultivation, management and harvesting techniques. Under the Comparative Safety Assessment, following problem formulation, each of these areas of risk must be assessed by using a six-step approach, involving hazard identification, hazard characterization, exposure assessment, risk characterization, risk management strategies and an overall risk evaluation and conclusion. Indeed, far from asking “no further questions” [1], the EFSA GMO Panel always sends a sequence of written questions to the applicant as part of the ERA process to achieve a complete set of data to support the ERA evaluation (on average about ten per application).The principle of comparative analysis in ERA—sometimes referred to as substantial equivalence in the risk assessment of food and feed—is not discredited. The comparative approach is supported by all of the world''s leading national science academies [for example, 3]; none has recommended an alternative. The principle is enshrined in risk assessment guidelines issued by all relevant major international bodies, including the World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Critics of this approach have failed to propose any credible alternative baseline to risk assess GMOs. The comparative analysis as described in [2] is not a substitute for a safety assessment, but is a tool within the ERA [4] through which comparisons are made with non-GM counterparts in order to identify hazards associated with the GM trait, the transformation process and the associated management systems, which are additional to those impacts associated with the non-GM plant itself. The severity and frequency of these hazards are then quantified in order to assess the levels of risks associated with the novel features of the GM plant and its cultivation.European Parliament (EP) communications include that “the characteristics of the receiving environments and the geographical areas in which GM plants may be cultivated should be duly taken into account”. We agree, and the ERA GD [2] recognizes explicitly that receiving environments differ across the EU, and that environmental impacts might differ regionally. Therefore, the ERA GD [2] demands that such differences be fully accounted for in cultivation applications and that receiving environments be assessed separately in each of the nine specific areas of risk (see section 2.3.2). Furthermore, [2] states in section 3.5 that the ERA should consider scenarios representative of the diversity of situations that might occur and assess their potential implications. The EP communications state that “the long-term environmental effects of GM crops, as well as their potential effects on non-target organisms, should be rigorously assessed”. This is covered explicitly in section 2.3.4 of [2], and developed in the recent guidance on PMEM [5].The EFSA is committed to openness, transparency and dialogue and meets regularly with a wide variety of stakeholders including non-governmental organizations (NGOs) [6] to discuss GMO topics. That the EFSA is neither a centralized nor a singular voice of science in the EU is clear, because the initial report on the ERA is delivered by a MS, not the EFSA; all MSs can comment on the ERA; and EFSA GMO Panel Opinions respond transparently to every concern raised by each MS. Following publication, the EFSA regularly attends the SCFCAH Committee (comprising MS representatives) to account for its Opinions. The involvement of all MSs in the evaluation process ensures that concerns relating to their environments are addressed in the ERA. Subsequently, MSs can contribute to decisions on the management and monitoring of GM plants in their territories if cultivation is approved.In recent years, several MSs have used the ‘safeguard clause'', Article 23 of 2001/18/EC, to attempt to ban the cultivation of specific GM plants in their territories, despite earlier EFSA Panel Opinions on those plants. But the claim that “the risk science of the EFSA''s GM Panel has been publicly disputed in Member State''s justifications of their Article 23 prohibitions” needs to be placed into context [1]. When a safeguard clause (SC) is issued by a MS, the EFSA GMO Panel is often asked by the EC to deliver an Opinion on the scientific basis of the SC. The criteria on which to judge the documentation accompanying a SC are whether: (i) it represents new scientific evidence—and is not just repetition of information previously assessed—that demonstrates a risk to human and animal health and the environment; and (from the guidance notes to Annex II of 2001/18/EC) (ii) it is proportionate to the level of risk and to the level of uncertainty. It is pertinent that on 8 September 2011, the EU Court of Justice ruled that ‘with a view to the adoption of emergency measures, Article 34 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 requires Member States to establish, in addition to urgency, the existence of a situation which is likely to constitute a clear and serious risk to human health, animal health or the environment''. Scientific literature is monitored continually by the Panel and relevant new work is examined to determine whether it raises any new safety concern. In all cases where the EFSA was consulted by the EC, there has been no new scientific information presented that would invalidate the Panel''s previous assessment.Throughout [1] the text demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the distinction between ERA and risk management. ERA is the responsibility of the EFSA, although it is asked for its opinion on risk management methodology by the EC. Risk management implementation is the responsibility of the EC and MSs. Hence, the setting of protection goals is an issue for risk managers and might vary between MSs. However, the ERA GD [2], through its six-step approach, makes it mandatory for applications to relate the results of any studies directly to limits of environmental concern that reflect protection goals and the level of change deemed acceptable. Indeed, the recent EFSA GMO Panel Opinions on Bt-maize events [for example, 7] have been written specifically to provide MSs and risk managers with the tools to adapt the results of the quantified ERA to their own local protection goals. This enables MSs to implement risk management and PMEM proportional to the risks identified in their territories.The EFSA GMO Panel comprises independent researchers, appointed for their expertise following an open call to the scientific community. The Panel receives able support from staff of the EFSA GMO Unit and numerous ad hoc members of its working groups. It has no agenda and is neither pro- or anti-GMOs; its paramount concern is the quality of the science underpinning its Guidance Documents and Opinions.     

Introduction to "Landscapes over Time"

There is a growing recognition that modern environmental problems bear striking resemblance to those faced by past societies and that to understand the environmental present we must consider the total sweep of anthropogenic environmental change on specific landscapes. This "In Focus" assembles five articles encompassing diverse time periods and different global regions to make the case that long-term perspectives on the relationship between people and their environmental contexts are critical for understanding and evaluating contemporary environmental debates, interpretations, and even policies.