But last week the New Zealand Life Sciences Network accused Ingham of “presenting inaccurate, careless and exaggerated information” and “generating speculative doomsday scenarios (世界末日的局面) that are not scientifically supportable”. They say that her study doesn’t even show that the bacteria would survive in the wild, much less kill massive numbers of plants. What’s more, the network says that contrary to Ingham’s 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 EPA’s bio-pesticides (生物殺蟲劑) division, says “there is no record of a review and/or clearance to field test” the organism.

　　Ingham says EPA officials had told her that the organism was approved for field tests, but says she has few details. It’s 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 shouldn’t be harassed in this way,” says Ann Clarke, a plant biologist at the University of Guelph in Canada who also testified before the commission. “It’s an attempt to silence the opposition.”

　　57. The passage centers on the controversy ________.

　　A) between American and New Zealand biologists over genetic modification

　　B) as to whether the study of genetic modification should be continued

　　C) over the possible adverse effect of a GM bacterium on plants

　　D) about whether Elaine Ingham should be fired by her university

　　58. Ingham insists that her testimony is based on ________.

　　A) evidence provided by the EPA of the United States

　　B) the results of an experiment she conducted herself

　　C) evidence from her collaborative research with German biologists

　　D) the results of extensive field tests in Corvallis, Oregon