Letters to the Editor |
Home
| Archives | About | Media Links |
Today's university students Being someone who is unfortunate enough to undergo his university education in the apathetic, egocentric 1990s, I could clearly identify with Louisa Yan’s leading article in October’s issue of Varsity. Indeed, the stifling nature of society surely has its hand in shaping students into pragmatic, Thatcherite creatures who could not see beyond examinations, karaoke binges or amorous affairs. However, it would be equally unfair to entirely take the social forces to task for the domineering apathy prevalent in this - or should I say, our - generation. As someone who is works in a capacity that allows for constant observation of the exertions undertaken by current student activists, I am sorry to say that it is disappointment that overwhelms me whenever I cast a glance back to my old stomping grounds. The main problem lies in the fact that most students lack a coherent set of political or sociological discourse. Adding to that, a lack of conviction towards what they are actually calling for - a colleague of mine recalled how she saw some of the demonstrators who recented barricaded Secretary for Justice Elsie Leung Oi-sie were seen to be joking among themselves in between their sloganeering. This is not to say that students should all imitate their Parisian predecessors in 1968. What we need, however, is for the students to arm themselves with a more intellectual mindset that is based on multiplicity: where one could be able to make critical judgements on both the listenability of the latest Leon Lai CD and the feasibility of corporatising the civil service. Clarence Tsui Education reform I read your editorial (Varsity, November 1999, P. 4) entitled “Putting the cart before the horse” with great interest. Let me assure you and readers of Varsity that I agree entirely with your statement that “education reform should be based on how to upgrade the standard of the students, not just the cancellation of examinations.” I also think that the Education Commission would agree with you on the importance of changing the curriculum. At a time when a lot of people are complaining about the decline in the standard of English of our University students, I am heartened by the standard of English from the letters and articles I read in Varsity. I applaud the good work of the Varsity staff-students in promoting not just journalism and communication, but also the use of good English which is vital in an international city like Hong Kong. Joseph W.P. Wong Wrong information I am writing to complain about the article “Genetically modified food: Food safety a concern” (Varsity, December 1999, P. 39). In this article, the writer made a very serious and yet unsustainable accusation. In Column 2, the writer stated, “For example, a gene of the Brazil nut was once transferred to soya beans. . . . (W)hen the gene of the Brazil nut in the soya beans was passed up the food chain, 37 people died of allergies and 1,500 people fell ill.” Firstly, the writer did not cite any references, as if it was a fact found by the writer herself. Even worse, the fact itself is incorrect. The aforementioned product has never been sold on the market. Where do those life casualties come from? If the author just took a small step forward, she could have easily verified the fact with the scientist involved, who is the chair of Department of Biology at CUHK. If other media cite Varsity’s article and spread the rumors, it will cause severe and unjust damages to both the researcher and the company involved. Furthermore, in the caption of the photograph, it stated “Some people worry that genetically modified food like super hybrid rice is unsafe to eat”. If the writer had consulted the article “Super hybrid rice: An end to famine” immediately before her own article, she would have known that super hybrid rice itself is not a GM food. Genetic modification, however, can be used to improve the quality of super hybrid rice. Besides these two major mistakes, some statements were also exaggerated. For example, in Column 2, the author stated that antibiotic resistance added to crops might lead to a shortage of effective antibiotics. The author may want to know that very few antibiotics that humans use are used for making GM plants. The only one that we might frequently encounter in commercially available GM foods is the kanamymin resistance gene nptII. Clinically, kanamycin is limited for external use. News should be based on objective facts, not on pure speculation. The duty of a reporter is to find out and analyze the truth, but not to spread rumors. As a colleague in CUHK, it is my wish that the reporters produced by our campus will be professional and outstanding. I sincerely hope that the writer will make official corrections and an apology to the researcher (Brazil nut studies) involved. Dr. Hon Ming Lam I write to point out some misinformation that appeared in the article “Genetically modified food: Food safety a concern” (Varsity, December 1999, P. 39). Specifically, it concerns the genetically engineered soybean containing a Brazil nut gene. The article stated, “. . .(W)hen the gene of the Brazil nut in the soya beans was passed up the food chain, 37 people died of allergies and 1,500 people fell ill.” This is totally untrue. I know this because I was the one who conducted the Brazil nut experiment. The fact is that the engineered soya beans never got out of the laboratory and not a single person tasted it! At a later stage of the study, as some people were allergic to Brazil nuts, the blood sera of a few such people were tested with the genetically engineered soya bean proteins. Skin pick tests were also conducted. Indeed, a positive reaction was observed. Although the engineered soya beans were meant for animal feeds and not for human consumption, nevertheless, the study was stopped – no one ever applied to a government regulatory agency for approval and it never was released on the market. It remains so till this day. Samuel S.M. Sun After talking to the reporter involved, we
have concluded that Profs. Lam and Sun are entirely correct, and we have erred. As far as
we can tell, the deaths and injuries mentioned in the story have been attributed to a
genetically altered food supplement, not the genetically modified soya. We sincerely
regret the error and would like to apologize to Prof. Sun for the mistakes. |
|
Home | Archives | About | Media Links |
