美国佐治亚理工学院和中国科学院北京纳米能源与系统研究所王中林院士领导的研究小组最近与美国哥伦比亚大学的James Hone研究组合作,首次在二维单原子层材料二硫化钼中实验观测到压电效应(piezoelectric effect)和压电电子学效应(piezotronic effect),并首次成功实现利用单原子层压电半导体材料受应力/应变作用而产生的压电极化电荷对制得的压电电子学晶体管中的载流子输运进行有效调控。在这项研究中,科学家们还首次实现了在单原子层尺度从机械能到电能的转化过程。他们的论文于2014年10月15日在线发表于英国《自然》杂志。审稿人评价该工作为“具有高度原创性和极其重要的意义”(This work is highly original and significant),“在柔性电子学中具有重要应用”。 图为王国燕梁琰、孙大平等共同为该项成果设计的多个封面创意: 中国科大科技传播系王国燕博士的设计团队一直专注于前沿科学可视化的研究与设计,先后协助几十个科学家团队的Nature,Science ,Cell,PNAS等论文设计过大量期刊封面,合作请联系: gywang(at)ustc.edu.cn 王国燕的学术主页: http://stpc.kankexue.com/teachingStaff/201.html 王国燕的百度百科介绍: https://baike.baidu.com/item/%E7%8E%8B%E5%9B%BD%E7%87%95/20394991?fr=aladdin
包括神经病理性疼痛在内的慢性疼痛是近年来的研究热点之一,临床治疗不甚理想。 2016年2月 CNS Neuroscience Therapeutics 杂志出版了一期主题为“ 慢性疼痛研发新途径 ”的特刊,向读者介绍了在疼痛治疗领域新近取得的一些重要进展。科研人员和制药企业共同努力促进新药的研发,这将为患者提供更好的治疗选择。 本期文章: Editoral: Novel Translational Approaches for Improving Drug Discovery Efforts in Chronic Pain (pages 85–87) Reviews: Preclinical Assessment of Inflammatory Pain (pages 88–101) Stress and the Microbiota–Gut–Brain Axis in Visceral Pain: Relevance to Irritable Bowel Syndrome (pages 102–117) Ultraviolet Radiation on the Skin: A Painful Experience? (pages 118–126) Spinal Reflexes and Windup In Vitro : Effects of Analgesics and Anesthetics (pages 127–134) ORIGINAL ARTICLES NS383 SelectivelyInhibits Acid-Sensing Ion Channels Containing 1a and 3 Subunits to ReverseInflammatory and Neuropathic Hyperalgesia in Rats (pages 135–145) Characterization of theAffective Component of Acute Postoperative Pain Associated with a Novel RatModel of Inguinal Hernia Repair Pain (pages 146–153) 期刊主页: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1755-5949 本特刊主页: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cns.2016.22.issue-2/issuetoc
【微评论】前段时间,媒体曝某贪官贿选院士差一票成功,今天诺贝尔奖获得者Randy Schekman披露中国学者发表CNS后一步登天,有些结果竟然无法重复,号召抵制Cell, Nature,和Science这三家被中国学者奉为神坛的刊物。这是历史的巧合,还是问题严重到了一定程度集中爆发?中国科技界当清醒了。科学探索的目的不是为了发表,成果也不取决于发表在什么刊物上,只要有货真价实的发明或创造,没有发表也能够被全人类所接收,并获得尊重。中国古代的许多发明就是这样,有时为了保密竟然是父子或母女之间代代相传的。我们用评价刊物的做法,评价科学家,这个思路是有问题的,是不利于科技进步的。中国近20年高分的SCI文章不少,但其干货恐怕连文革期间的十年不如,谁该脸红呢?院士?千人?万人?百人?当贞洁的科学被肮脏的资本强暴后,生下来的是什么怪胎?只有鬼知道。 以下信息来自刘实先生的博客:http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_502041670102f5f6.html 附: 诺贝尔奖获得者号召抵制Nature, Cell and Science期刊 精选 已有 1893 次阅读 2013-12-11 01:33 |个人分类:学术与学养|系统分类:海外观察|关键词:诺贝尔奖获得者号召抵制Nature, Cell and Science 诺贝尔奖获得者号召抵制Nature, Cell and Science期刊 今天海外许多媒体报道了下列新闻:今年诺贝尔医学奖获得者Randy Schekman 教授号召抵制Nature, Cell and Science这样的“奢侈”期刊,表示他的实验室将不再投稿这些被有些人认为是“顶尖”的学术期刊。他认为, 这些期刊误导学术界一味地追求发表所谓的抓眼球的“时髦”的科学成果,从而导致科学家放弃对重大科学问题的持久的思考与执着的研究, 这是对科研内界过程与基本目的的“颠倒”与“歪曲”,“科学发表的暴政(Tyranny)”必须打破, 使其不再阻碍科学的发展。近30年来,科学界流行起非常不良的“时尚”之风, 只要在Science、Nature之类高引期刊发表文章就能获得更大的利益:获得基金、晋升职务等,尽管如此,在欧美国家至少没有出现就此给作者发奖金的情况。因为有利可图,所以发表在Science、Nature之类期刊上论文造假的比例也随之加大,撤稿不少,还有许多造假尚未人发现呢。 其实,科学界不能被出版商牵着鼻子走,谋取经济利益永远是出版商唯一的目的。 Randy Schekman (中)出席今年诺贝尔发奖仪式 Randy Schekman 教授还特别提到中国有些研究机构与高校对Nature和Science杂志上发表文章的作者个人奖励30万人民币的政策,有些人每年发表论文所得的奖金甚至达到其工资的一半。他说,这样的“奖励制度”简直就是一种 “贿赂”(Bribes) 。个别人在Nature上发表一篇无人能重复其“结果”的短文而成为中国院士, 从此不仅享受副部级待遇,而且戴着“学术权威”的帽子横行学术界,成为什么都懂的万能牛人,看谁不顺眼,你从此就拿不到项目。Randy Schekman 教授说,打击学术造假的唯一办法就是重复其试验。没有重复性的结果就是假的。靠数据作假成为院士,这样的人应该清除出院士队伍。这位诺贝尔奖今年的“新科状元”对中国科技政策流行弊病可谓即时地当头棒喝,希望相关人士清醒脑袋。不得不承认,中国科技政策的某些弊病看样子已经开始扰乱国际学术准则,变得越来越令人反感了。 Randy Schekman 教授还批评了科教界常用的SCI影响因子,认为这样的指标“毒害”学术。他强调,科技论文的质量仅取决其内容,而不取决于发表在哪个期刊上。 Randy Schekman 教授的呼声能否唤醒两眼惺忪的科技界特别是中国的科技界? 不久前《Science》撤除一篇乱扔垃圾与暴力之间关系的研究论文。 How journals like Nature,Cell and Science are damaging science Randy Schekman Randy Schekman Monday 9 December 2013 19.30 GMT I am a scientist. Mine is aprofessional world that achieves great things for humanity. But it isdisfigured by inappropriate incentives. The prevailing structures of personalreputation and career advancement mean the biggest rewards often follow theflashiest work, not the best. Those of us who follow these incentives are beingentirely rational – I have followed them myself – but we do not always bestserve our profession's interests, let alone those of humanity and society. We all know what distortingincentives have done to finance and banking. The incentives my colleagues faceare not huge bonuses, but the professional rewards that accompany publicationin prestigious journals – chiefly Nature, Cell and Science. These luxury journals aresupposed to be the epitome of quality, publishing only the best research.Because funding and appointment panels often use place of publication as aproxy for quality of science, appearing in these titles often leads to grantsand professorships. But the big journals' reputations are only partlywarranted. While they publish many outstanding papers, they do not publish onlyoutstanding papers. Neither are they the only publishers of outstandingresearch. These journals aggressivelycurate their brands, in ways more conducive to selling subscriptions than tostimulating the most important research. Like fashion designers who createlimited-edition handbags or suits, they know scarcity stokes demand, so theyartificially restrict the number of papers they accept. The exclusive brandsare then marketed with a gimmick called impact factor – a score foreach journal, measuring the number of times its papers are cited by subsequentresearch. Better papers, the theory goes, are cited more often, so betterjournals boast higher scores. Yet it is a deeply flawed measure, pursuing whichhas become an end in itself – and is as damaging to science as the bonusculture is to banking. Replication is the only solution to scientific fraud It is common, andencouraged by many journals, for research to be judged by the impact factor ofthe journal that publishes it. But as a journal's score is an average, it sayslittle about the quality of any individual piece of research. What is more, citationis sometimes, but not always, linked to quality. A paper can become highlycited because it is good science – or because it is eye-catching, provocativeor wrong. Luxury-journal editors know this, so they accept papers that willmake waves because they explore sexy subjects or make challenging claims. Thisinfluences the science that scientists do. It builds bubbles in fashionablefields where researchers can make the bold claims these journals want, whilediscouraging other important work, such as replication studies. In extreme cases, the lureof the luxury journal can encourage the cutting of corners, and contribute tothe escalating number of papers that are retracted as flawed or fraudulent.Science alone has recently retracted high-profile papers reporting clonedhuman embryos, links between littering and violence, and the geneticprofiles of centenarians. Perhaps worse, it has not retracted claims that amicrobe is able to use arsenic in its DNA instead of phosphorus, despiteoverwhelming scientific criticism. There is a better way,through the new breed of open-access journals that are free for anybody toread, and have no expensive subscriptions to promote. Born on the web, they canaccept all papers that meet quality standards, with no artificial caps. Manyare edited by working scientists, who can assess the worth of papers withoutregard for citations. As I know from my editorship of eLife,an open access journal funded by the Wellcome Trust, the Howard Hughes MedicalInstitute and the Max Planck Society, they are publishing world-class scienceevery week. Funders and universities,too, have a role to play. They must tell the committees that decide on grantsand positions not to judge papers by where they are published. It is thequality of the science, not the journal's brand, that matters. Most importantlyof all, we scientists need to take action. Like many successful researchers, Ihave published in the big brands, including the papers that won me the Nobelprize for medicine, which I will be honoured to collect tomorrow. But nolonger. I have now committed my lab to avoiding luxury journals, and Iencourage others to do likewise. Just as Wall Street needsto break the hold of the bonus culture, which drives risk-taking that isrational for individuals but damaging to the financial system, so science mustbreak the tyranny of the luxury journals. The result will be better researchthat better serves science and society. Nobel winner declares boycott of top science journals Randy Schekmansays his lab will no longer send papers to Nature, Cell and Science as theydistort scientific process Randy Schekman,centre, at a Nobel prize ceremony in Stockholm. Photograph: Rob Schoenbaum/ZumaPress/Corbis Leadingacademic journals are distorting the scientific process and represent atyranny that must be broken, according to a Nobel prize winner whohas declared a boycott on the publications. Randy Schekman,a US biologist who won the Nobel prize in physiology or medicinethis year and receives his prize in Stockholm on Tuesday, said his lab would nolonger send research papers to the top-tier journals, Nature, Cell and Science. Schekman saidpressure to publish in luxury journals encouraged researchers tocut corners and pursue trendy fields of science instead of doing more importantwork. The problem was exacerbated, he said, by editors who were not activescientists but professionals who favoured studies that were likely to make asplash. The prestige ofappearing in the major journals has led the Chinese Academy of Sciences to paysuccessful authors the equivalent of $30,000 (£18,000). Some researchers madehalf of their income through such bribes, Schekman said in aninterview. Writing in the Guardian, Schekmanraises serious concerns over the journals' practices and calls on others in thescientific community to take action. I havepublished in the big brands, including papers that won me a Nobel prize. But nolonger, he writes. Just as Wall Street needs to break the hold ofbonus culture, so science must break the tyranny of the luxury journals. Schekman is theeditor of eLife, an online journal set up by the WellcomeTrust. Articles submitted to the journal – a competitor to Nature, Cell andScience – are discussed by reviewers who are working scientists and accepted ifall agree. The papers are free for anyone to read. Schekmancriticises Nature, Cell and Science for artificially restricting the number ofpapers they accept, a policy he says stokes demand like fashion designerswho create limited-edition handbags. He also attacks a widespread metriccalled an impact factor, used by many top-tier journals in theirmarketing. A journal'simpact factor is a measure of how often its papers are cited, and is used as aproxy for quality. But Schekman said it was toxic influence onscience that introduced a distortion. He writes: A paper canbecome highly cited because it is good science - or because it is eye-catching,provocative, or wrong. Daniel Sirkis, a postdoc in Schekman's lab, saidmany scientists wasted a lot of time trying to get their work into Cell,Science and Nature. It's true I could have a harder time getting my footin the door of certain elite institutions without papers in these journalsduring my postdoc, but I don't think I'd want to do science at a place that hadthis as one of their most important criteria for hiring anyway, he toldthe Guardian. Sebastian Springer, a biochemist at JacobsUniversity in Bremen, who worked with Schekman at the University of California,Berkeley, said he agreed there were major problems in scientific publishing,but no better model yet existed. The system is not meritocratic. Youdon't necessarily see the best papers published in those journals. The editorsare not professional scientists, they are journalists which isn't necessarilythe greatest problem, but they emphasise novelty over solid work, hesaid. Springer saidit was not enough for individual scientists to take a stand. Scientists arehired and awarded grants and fellowships on the basis of which journals theypublish in. The hiring committees all around the world need toacknowledge this issue, he said. Philip Campbell, editor-in-chief at Nature, saidthe journal had worked with the scientific community for more than 140 yearsand the support it had from authors and reviewers was validation that it servedtheir needs. We selectresearch for publication in Nature on the basis of scientific significance.That in turn may lead to citation impact and media coverage, but Nature editorsaren't driven by those considerations, and couldn't predict them even if theywished to do so, he said. Theresearch community tends towards an over-reliance in assessing research by thejournal in which it appears, or the impact factor of that journal. In a surveyNature Publishing Group conducted this year of over 20,000 scientists, thethree most important factors in choosing a journal to submit to were: thereputation of the journal; the relevance of the journal content to theirdiscipline; and the journal's impact factor. My colleagues and I have expressedconcerns about over-reliance on impact factors many times over the years, bothin the pages of Nature and elsewhere. Monica Bradford, executive editorat Science, said: We have a large circulation and printing additionalpapers has a real economic cost … Our editorial staff is dedicated to ensuringa thorough and professional peer review upon which they determine which papersto select for inclusion in our journal. There is nothing artificial about theacceptance rate. It reflects the scope and mission of our journal. Emilie Marcus,editor of Cell, said: Since its launch nearly 40 years ago, Cell hasfocused on providing strong editorial vision, best-in-class author service withinformed and responsive professional editors, rapid and rigorous peer-reviewfrom leading academic researchers, and sophisticated production quality. Cell'sraison d'etre is to serve science and scientists and if we fail to offer valuefor both our authors and readers, the journal will not flourish; for us doingso is a founding principle, not a luxury. • This articlewas amended on 10 December 2013 to include a response from Cell editor EmilieMarcus, which arrived after the initial publication deadline.
国内科学界对CNS有无上的崇拜,甚至膜拜。在很多人那里,这种膜拜不亚于虔诚的基督徒对耶稣的膜拜,伊斯兰教徒对穆罕穆德的顶礼。 做为生物科学研究者,本人对CELL杂志的论文水平还是比较欣赏的。但对Nature和Science却感觉大为不同。CELL毕竟还是专业期刊,尤其是在分子生物学领域,论文的评审更讲求学术价值。而多数国人不知的是,Nature和Science从根本上是大众科普类期刊,讲求的是新闻价值。在自己学术生涯的初始阶段,和本系同研究领域的老师及研究生同学们更多关注的是本领域的专业性学术期刊,到后期才和他们一起更多地讨论本领域发表在Nature和Science杂志上的文章。讨论下来发现,这些文章多有名无实,结论宏大或观点貌似新颖,但论据和逻辑极不可靠。我现在依然记得大家对Science和Nature发表这类文章的强烈反感甚至恼火,我有一段时间对这两家杂志基本上不予任何关注。 NS论文的选择标准其实是由这两家杂志的历史出身和定位所决定的,因为他们都不是专业杂志,而是科普杂志。 在Nature出现之前,在英国已有各种各样的专业杂志,其中代表英国最高水平的是英国皇家学会会刊(Proceedings of the Royal Society),那是牛顿、法拉第等发表文章的地方。在国际上,生物分类领域有林奈学会的几个期刊,欧洲大陆也有一些重要的学术刊物。 在1860年左右,英国开始出现一些科普型杂志,如Recreative Science,Popular Science Review,The Reader等。Nature创刊于1869年,从内容、风格、和读者对象上都非常接近这些杂志,把科学、文学、和艺术结合起来销售给科学界以外的读者群。 Science创刊于1880年的美国纽约,最初由爱迪生出资支持。但运营不佳、几经易手,最后成为美国科学促进会(American Asociaiton for the Advancement of Science, AAAS)的会刊。AAAS是一个以加强科学家协作、对社会大力宣传科学为宗旨的协会。它不同于美国国家科学院(National Academy of Science, NAS)和美国文理学院(American Academy of Arts and Sciences),后两者皆为学术荣誉机构,NAS并且发行自己的杂志,即大家熟知的PNAS(Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA),与英国皇家学会的会刊类似。 这两家杂志的读者对象、科普类性质、以及它们最初的撰稿审稿人(Nature最初不是同行评审的杂志)决定了它们文章的风格、学术深度、以及技术可靠性。做为科普杂志,吸引非专业读者的眼球是最重要的事情,数据的可靠性、逻辑的严密性、真正学术价值相对来讲就成了次要的,甚至是不必要的-因为很多貌似新颖的文章是经不起推敲的。为了新闻效果,SCIENCE曾在2010和2011年为一个人所谓的“重大”人类考古发现连发五篇文章,如此集中“造神”运动在科学界闻所未闻,而文章学术价值大受怀疑。NS两份杂志,每周各一期,每期各有十多篇论文,重大科学发现真的能如此频繁的产生么?其中的很多文章不华而不实、不缺乏重要的学术价值才怪呢?也难怪很多文章发表后饱受争议(不过发表争议性文章可以使那些杂志更吸引人眼球,提高影响因子)?那些文章的学术价值还不如影响因子更低的专业性期刊论文,较好的专业性期刊上的论文一般都经过了同行的严格评议。所以我研究生期间的那些美国教授们说,想接受真正的专业训练,去看专业杂志;想出名或看热闹,去看NATURE和SCIENCE。 虽然这两家杂志现在的读者多为科学家,但它们在本质上依然是大众科普杂志,因为对于它们大多数的论文来讲,大部分科学家都是外行,根本无法评定非自己专业领域的文章-其实大部分人对那些文章看都不看。真正有机会以同行评议本专业领域论文的可靠性和学术价值的时候,那已经是在Nature和Science的文章发表之后了。有时间、动作快的话也可以在NS上发一个Technical correspondence等表示反对,对自己也是一篇NS文章。争议只会惹起更多的争议(最近科学网上关于tenure制度的争论就是一个鲜活的例子),一下子NATURE或SCIENCE上同题就有两篇文章会被以后的争论者不停引用了,这是提高杂志或文章影响因子的另一妙招。 NS好像有自己的一个学术、关系圈子。NS的审稿人一般是以前在这些杂志上发表过文章的人,另外有一些固定reviewing editors。所以以前文章作者和这些固定审稿人的学术观点和学术能力就直接影响什么样的稿件得以发表,什么样的被拒。看一看Nature杂志(包括子刊)的责任编辑的履历就知道,他们一般是在某一非常狭窄的研究方向受过一定学术训练,但在学术上还没有多大建树,常常是在博士后之后转行做编辑的年轻人。他们对自己的研究领域可能没有高屋建瓴的把握,对自己原研究方向以外的东西所知甚少,对很多文章的创新性和学术价值并不一定有很强的鉴别能力,并在学术讨论上常常坚持自己的一知半解。他们中的很多人其学术能力和他们的重要编辑位置可能并不相称。 所以,这些编辑和杂志便锁定一些热门领域(这些领域也常常是由于他们的哄抬而变得热门或更热门)和一些大腕人物做为杂志的主要文章渠道。近期最热门的生物领域是基因组学(特别是人、古人类、或与人相关的灵长类动物)、结构生物学、GWAS (Genome-Wide Association Study),用metagenomics方法调查动物或人体内的微生物群系(micobiome),以及表观遗传学(epigenetics)。Science杂志为了和Nature竞争,也选定了这些领域,不过感觉老是比Nature晚了半步,变成了铁定地跟风。这一系统使得象microbiome之类的研究以同样的方法换个研究群体在NS上照发不误。其学术贡献是什么?人体消化系统内的微生物生态平衡对人健康很重要,不同的人体内微生物群体可能有所不同。NS编辑大概不知道基于微生物生态平衡和强化有益微生物概念的“三株口服液”在中国已经卖了一二十年了-虽然后来名誉受到了影响。即使有些人还不知道,发几篇文章已经不少了,不明白为什么NS要连篇累牍?我并不反对基因组学研究,那也是我的研究方向之一,但我认为基因组学研究可以做得更深入一些,能为解决重要的生物、医学、农业、环保等问题做出更大贡献才可不负NS盛名。 这些杂志往往在热门或其它一些领域认定了哪些PIs和研究组是大腕或明星,因而他们的投稿就会得到额外的照顾,而不太知名的、或尚未进入他们的明星圈的PIs和研究组即使文章更好也常常会遭到排挤。对一些他们认为有重大新闻价值的研究项目,这两家杂志会去抢,会去预定,好像研究还没开始他们就已经知道将会有重大发现产生。等到抢到了这些研究项目且研究有基本结果之后(数据有漏洞没关系,分析粗糙一些没关系),下一步就是“策划”如何让这些文稿走走同行评议的过场,什么时候发表这些论文,如何召开新闻发布会等。人类基因组在两家杂志上几乎同时各有一文发表就是这样争抢、策划的结果,ENCODE项目在2012年大批NS文章的发表也属于这种情况。 最近读了曾在NATURE任基因组版块责任编辑的一个人的博文(见下)证实了这些想法,也更清楚地意识到:原来NATURE的编稿和商家推出新产品的策划和公关宣传竟是如此地相似!这位编辑在博文里谈到自己策划黑猩猩(chimpanzee)基因组在NATURE发布的经过。并特别描述了自己做编辑最窘的一件事:在辉煌的新闻发布会后,一位科学家走过去悄悄对她说:你们本期杂志上为黑猩猩基因组放了一张猩猩(orangutan,黄毛)的照片(见NATURE杂志2005年9月1日一期)!这就是非专业编辑、急功近利于新闻效果的结果! 另外,NS对来自不同国家和地区的稿件有不同的态度。中国除了少数几个研究组和研究方向(如大规模基因组学、结构生物学、古脊椎动物研究)已经挤入了它们的celebrity阵营之外,来自其他研究组或研究方向的论文投稿结局多不乐观。SCIENCE编辑竟然直言,第一作者为中国单位的投稿98%被拒!不知这是由于他们怀疑中国研究做假太甚,还是认为中国总体学术水平不够,但这种“株连式”的打击使得一些优秀的中国论文也难以在这些杂志上发表。 两个非专业期刊超过一切专业期刊、两个更注重新闻价值的期刊超过更重视学术价值的专业期刊成为现代科学界-尤其是中国的学术界和世界范围内年轻一代科学家崇拜的对象,这是否是科学的悲剧?学术研究的空虚和学术界的浮躁是否也与这两个期刊所代表的“影响因子”攀比有直接的关系? 当然,我并不是说NS上所有的文章都是华而不实的垃圾-我在上面也见到一些不错的文章,只不过是NS杂志的真正学术价值与它们所得到的盛誉不符,更不值得崇拜,而这些杂志对科学和科学界造成的负面影响不可低估-尤其是对中国的学术界。 参考“文献”: 1. Wikepedia关于NATURE和SCIENCE杂志的条目: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_(journal) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_(journal) 2. NATURE原编辑的博文:http://magazine.storycollider.org/2012/features/the-nature-of-the-knight-bus/(强烈推荐!)
专家不是院士 尽管我还不算是标题党,但《专家不是院士》是个很怪的题目,她把我们近段时间的热门话题网进去了,更网进了很多科教界或政界大牛们的毕生追逐之目标。 之所以说这个话题,是因为我还不是很清楚我们的专家、教授及院士到底是什么。而我们社会,特别是科技界教育界的人士为何开口就不会离开这几个字,更为这几个字劳心费力,或春风得意,左右逢源,或瘦比黄花,终日戚戚焉。若仔细思考当今我国科教界之乱象,也多与对此问题不清楚有关。故以为明晰专家、教授及院士为何物,许有助于江湖中人。 专家( a specialist; an expert )是指 在学术、技艺等方面有专门技能或专业知识的人。 专家就是专家,不能因为你专了,有技术或技艺了而不讲学术;也不能因为你学术专了,就给你院士。比如说袁隆平同志是杂交水稻育种专家,不是水稻栽培专家、也不是水稻营养方面的专家,更不是果树育种专家,蔬菜育种专家,航空航天航海飞机大炮之类的专家。其所专唯杂交水稻或者更细地说水稻三系杂交育种专家。因为是个专家,尽管在杂交育种上有一技之长,并为我国乃至全世界吃饭问题做出了无人能及的贡献,并获得无数奖励,中国科学院并未因此而给其一个院士头衔,哪怕是荣誉的也没有计划。所以,专家就是专家,专家不能等同院士,专家再有成就离院士还是有距离。 与专家袁隆平相比较,施教授也好饶教授也好,是属于更小量级的专家。他们所专只不过利用别人的仪器,按照别人的思路玩玩测测基因之类事务。虽然饶教授回国后这些年建立了自己的实验室,组建了自己的研究队伍,但所研究的内容或许还是以前实验室的老东西,顶多也就在原来的基础上推陈出新(武断推测而已)。饶教授的实验室虽然在做其它实验室没有涉及的社会生物学方面的研究,但要把社会生物学做成象袁隆平老先生一样自成一家,且在国内外有些影响,我看还得假以时日吧。更不用说象袁隆平老先生那样登高一呼就能领导全国一帮人来研究杂交水稻;若饶教授登高一呼,全国一帮基因爱好者可齐聚之,也是盛事。所以,在那些老院士眼里饶教授作为专家也是嫩嫩的啦。是故有老院士说,评院士是要讲贡献的。对国家的贡献我们就不说了,至少要对得起科学。有饶粉施粉会说,饶啊施啊有的是 CNS 之类,比某些某些某些院士多多了,不是一个量级的多。若讲数量,从事古生物研究的中国科学院某研究员一人的 CNS 数量比施、饶二位加在一起还要多,好像没见该研究员申报什么院士之类。就算是 CNS 之类有用,但饶教授等的研究活动,在我看来就像一个有大把钱的渔民,买了上号渔船,上好的渔网或钓线钓钩,上好的鱼群定位设备等不惜血本地去远洋渔猎,终于打到了一条与众不同的鱼,就利用自己的优势马上送给大英博物馆之类的地方过目,换回 N 或 S 等牌牌。(我们这些人只能用破船破网打鱼,好不容易打一条不错的鱼,既不知道往哪儿送,也不知道怎么送)。 所以,饶教授有很多 CNS 只能证明会打鱼,送对了地方,是一个专家级的打鱼人而矣。但这种打鱼专家是成不了院士的,哪怕是有很多 CNS 。这样的 CNS 就我看来吹牛皮是都够不上,顶多能算吹牛屎( c hui n iu s hi )。而在那些院士老爷那里,就更不知道是什么东西了。所以,现在起你们就不要再讲什么 CNS 了,讲点别的。 写到这里,我还想起上世纪九十年代中国科学院某老师准备申报院士,当年科学院院士局是用沈蕴芬院士申报院士的材料作为样板,看了沈院士的材料,这位老师在与我聊天时感叹说:虽然我的文章比沈院士多,获奖项目数和级别也远超过沈院士,但我与她无法比。为什么,因为沈院士在自己的领域自成一家,而这位老师涉猎多个领域而不专。这位老师当年硬着头皮报了一次之后,再不提院士这档事。以此可见,老一代人自有其行事的风骨。即专家就是专家,教授就是教授,够不着院士不怪别人,不管自己文章和奖励是不是比别人多 N 多。 有一些人对某些人进入院士行列不以为然,但我认为院士都不是泛泛之辈。虽然我没去看院士的条件,但院士标准不是比 CNS 的多少。虽然有些人的确凭自己、或合作伙伴、或学生写的几篇 CNS 上了院士,就我看来,这些人在 CNS 之外的贡献或影响或能力比其所拥有的 CNS 所能带来的影响要大得多,CNS只不过锦上添花而已。以此而论,饶、施二位先生在中国排名第一第二的大学做个好教授也不算亏。