本人给被称为“世界顶尖”的学术杂志《自然》发信，指明他们的系列文章所使用的ISAAA组织关于全球转基因作物种植面积的数据是伪造的。详见：
西方顶尖杂志也作弊。2013-5-7 7:34。
http://zhiyanle.blog.hexun.com/85063309_d.html 。
今天，该杂志回复了，其狡辩也够“顶尖”的。譬如，该杂志回复说：他们和ISAAA的数据使用，总数计算没包括“小于10万HA”的国家。可是，其总数计算所包括的西班牙的数据，就是用10万HA做了总数计算、而美国农业部的统计是93,700HA。同样，总数所包括的加拿大和南非的数据，也是夸张伪造（且远大于“10万HA”）。显然，ISAAA的统计属于伪造数据、而《自然》杂志使用了虚假数据，都是涉嫌有学术不端行为。
针对该杂志的狡辩，我再发函问他们：若您的收入是300美元，而山姆大叔按照“小于百万美元”的收入来向您征税，您乐意那样交税吗？明明只有300公顷、报告却说“小于0.1百万”公顷，那给读者的印象是完全不同的。既然你们（该杂志）那样使用统计数据了，那么，以后发给你们的学术报告或学术论文、其统计数据是否也可以把300作为“小于0.1百万”并用10万来做计算呢？
在答复中，《自然》杂志的计算单位用的是“ACRE”（英亩），而原本单位是“HA”（公顷）。一个“世界顶尖”的学术杂志居然不知道小学生功课的面积计算吗？恐怕是因心虚而导致狼狈失态了吧。
本人信件要求《自然》杂志按照他们自己的规定、说明其系列文章发表和ISAAA组织数据发表是否涉及利益冲突问题；该杂志回复回避了那个问题（不敢回答）。事实是：ISAAA组织的资助者包括孟山都等转基因化工公司，即涉及严重的利益冲突问题。
此外，该杂志回复说：你（本人）可在本杂志网站发表你的看法，但我们（该杂志）将删除你对ISAAA组织的指控（譬如说他们的统计数据是伪造的、因而是不端行为）。针对他们的封口威胁，我再发函回答说：事前，我已经想到你们（该杂志）将拒绝我的读者反馈，所以，我已经在别处发表了。我还可能把我的反馈发送给其他报刊媒体。我看到你们（该杂志）对一些人做了无端指控，但我尊重你们的言论自由而并没要求你们删除你们的指控。
所谓“世界顶尖”的学术杂志也搞数据作弊，为其不端行为搞狡辩也会继续使用伪造数据，甚至还用封口手段对读者反馈搞威胁，嘿嘿，真是“有钱能使鬼推磨”呢。还是那句话：转基因食品作物推销充满了假话和欺诈；古今中外的市场事实：假货推销才需要不择手段地骗人，转基因食品作物就是那类假货。
下面是“世界顶尖”杂志的回复和本人的再函的原文（本人敢发表与本人见解极为对立的意见，而“世界顶尖”的学术杂志却不敢发表，嘿嘿，可见转基因推销是多么心虚了）：
RE: Inaccurate ISAAA statistics..
Sent: Wed 5/08/13 11:06 PM
To: Nature@nature.com (nature@nature.com)
Dear Editor,
Thank you for your response.
[1] Please re-calculate: The unit of planted a is [hect], not [acre] as mentioned in your email.
Your email said: The countries with less than 0.1million acres of GM crops not included in this total.
Fact:
The ISAAA number: 0.1 mil.ha for Spain.
The USDA number: 93,700 ha for Spain.
[2] If your income was $300, and Uncle Sam taxes you in the same way as someone with less than $1 million is taxed, how would you feel about that? Regarding science data/statistics, [300 Ha] and [<0.1 mil.Ha] would give a very different impression to readers. If you accept ISAAA statistics, then all future research reports/papers could use the same methodology to publish in your journal, correct?
[3] Regarding conflict of interest, I have not found any statement by your journal or ISAAA.
[4] It is no surprise that you would reject my comments. Therefore, I have already posted my comments online elsewhere.
I may also send my comment to other journals or newspaper/magazines. Freedom of Speech is protected by law. Your journal has made untrue and incorrect statements about certain individuals. I respect your freedom of speech and have not asked you to remove your accusations.
Again, thanks for your response.
Sincerely,
(signed).
#
From: Nature@nature.com
Subject: RE: Inaccurate ISAAA statistics.
Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 13:35:17 +0000
Thank you for your email. After looking into the matter it seems there may be an error in your calculations. We have included a screenshot of the ISAAA statistics cited in your email for your ease;
If the totals for the first 17 countries added the figure obtained is 170.3, which is the total reported by the ISAAA and Nature. The countries with less than 0.1million acres of GM crops not included in this total.
If you believe the statistics quoted flawed you can comment online directly underneath the article in question on our website .nature.com. Please note however that accusing the ISAAA or anyone else of fraud, misconduct or unethical behaviour will result in your comment being removed by our moderators as per our community guidelines (for our full guidelines please see http://.nature.com/info/community-guidelines.html)
We hope this information was of use to you.
Yours sincerely
Nature Administration
Nature
#
Sent: 06 May 2013 00:15
To: Nature@nature.com
Subject: Inaccurate ISAAA statistics.
To: Nature Magazine
Date: May 5, 2013.
Subject: Inaccurate ISAAA statistics.
Dear Editor:
Re: Nature: GMO 30 Years Later
URL: http://.nature.com/news/specials/gmcrops/index.html
GM crops: A story in numbers, 01 May 2013
URL: http://.nature.com/news/gm-crops-a-story-in-numbers-1.12893
The numbers, which your journal quoted from ISAAA, inaccurrate and simply wrong.
For example, about the planted a of GE crops,
[1] Romania has 300 He, but ISAAA shows <0.1 mil.he and calculated as 100000 He for the total;
[2] Poland has 4000 He, but ISAAA shows <0.1 mil.he and calculated as 100000 He for the total,
etc.
Clearly, the ISAAA statistical data wrong.
As a science journal, you should know better that such errors unethical, and a serious misconduct.
I have noticed that
[1] your journal and ISAAA have had no statement regarding a conflict of interest;
[2] the ISAAA sponsors/donors include companies such as Monsanto, which commercially benefit from GMO sales.
Thus, a prompt statement or correction from your journal is in order and a must.
Sincerely,
(signed).
att.: the ISAAA fraud statistics.
http://photo21.hexun.com/p/2013/0506/501550/b_vip_C7318B7B4018C379EC5E60C1FDE92789.jpg .
###
| 
