have identified the following article(s) as being of interest: Article Title Discipline Rele- vance News- worthiness Three postpartum antiretroviral regimens to prevent intrapartum HIV infection. N Engl J Med Pediatric Neonatology 6 5 GLUTAMICS-a randomized clinical trial on glutamate infusion in 861 patients undergoing surgery for acute coronary syndrome. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Surgery - Cardiac 5 4 Performance of HbA1c as an Early Diagnostic Indicator of Type 1 Diabetes in Children and Youth. Diabetes Care Pediatrics (General) 6 5 Effect of a Pharmacist Intervention on Clinically Important Medication Errors After Hospital Discharge: A Randomized Trial. Ann Intern Med Hospital Doctor/Hospitalists 5 6 Internal Medicine 5 6 Cardiology 5 3 Safety and long-term humoral immune response in adults after vaccination with an H1N1 2009 pandemic influenza vaccine with or without AS03 adjuvant. J Infect Dis Public Health 6 5 Effect of mindfulness training on asthma quality of life and lung function: a randomised controlled trial. Thorax General Practice(GP)/Family Practice(FP) 5 4 General Internal Medicine-Primary Care(US) 5 4 Interventions for treating isolated diaphyseal fractures of the ulna in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev Emergency Medicine 6 4 Surgery - Orthopaedics 5 5 Intravenous midazolam infusion for sedation of infants in the neonatal intensive care unit. Cochrane Database Syst Rev Pediatric Neonatology 6 5 Induction of labour for improving birth outcomes for women at or beyond term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev GP/FP/Obstetrics 6 5 Laparoscopic drilling by diathermy or laser for ovulation induction in anovulatory polycystic ovary syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev Gynecology 5 4 A pooled analysis of vitamin D dose requirements for fracture prevention. N Engl J Med General Practice(GP)/Family Practice(FP) 7 5 General Internal Medicine-Primary Care(US) 7 5 Comparing midwife-led and doctor-led maternity care: a systematic review of reviews. J Adv Nurs GP/FP/Obstetrics 6 6
Novel Strategies Halt Cardiovascular-Diabetes-Cancer Strips Chun-Song Hu, M.D., Qing-Hua Wu, M.D., Jun-Yan Hong, Ph.D., Douglas W. Losordo, M.D., Sheng-Shou Hu, M.D. and Dayi Hu, M.D. Summary We found that there were cardiovascular-diabetes-cancers(CDC) strips and w e’ve already developed new strategies for the prevention of coronary heart disease, cardiovascular events and healthcare. These novel strategies, which including SEED interference(SEEDi), E(e)SEED interference(E(e)SEEDi) and even Hu’s healthy lifestyles interference(HHLi), also called “Chinese vaccine”, as the core elements of “Grade 210 prevention”, play an important role in the prevention and management of human chronic diseases when combined with RT-ABCDEF strategy, for example, OOH syndrome, especially in halting CDC strips we discovered. Evidences of cardiovascular-diabetes-cancers (CDC) strips From SEED and E(e)SEED strategies to Hu’s healthy lifestyles Novel strategies for the early evaluation of risk factors RT-ABCDEF strategy and Grade 210 prevention for chronic diseases SEEDi, E(e)SEEDi and HHLi for CDC strips. Our practice in OOH syndrome ---- Hi, Dear Professors and Editors, Our new manuscript(summary) for NEJM( www.nejm.org )? Happy Birthday to Prof. Dayi Hu. Best regards! Sincerely yours, Chun-Song ---- HU Chun-Song, M.D. （胡春松 在职博士） Associate Professor of Medicine Associate Physician-in-chief Department of Cardiovascular Medicine Nanchang University Hospital Out-patient Department Medical College of Nanchang University No. 461 Bayi Rd , Nanchang 330006 P.R. China Tel: (0)18970816800 (mobile) Email: chunsong_hu@yahoo.com.cn 科学网博客： http://www.sciencenet.cn/blog/hucs.htm
Title: Design, Growth, and Characterization of Morphology-Tunable CdxZn1-xS Nanostructures Generated by a One-step Thermal Evaporation Process 还没有正式的期刊号，不过已经有幸被选为 Hot Article! 论文主要讲述的是利用热蒸发法一步合成形貌可控的 Cd x Zn 1-x S 合金纳米材料，并且从其光致发光以及电致发光性质可以看出， Cd x Zn 1-x S 合金纳米材料的带隙连续可调。 如果感兴趣，可以下载阅读。下附编辑发过来的一封信。 Paper Ref.: C2CE25181G Title: Design, Growth, and Characterization of Morphology-Tunable CdxZn1-xS Nanostructures Generated by a One-step Thermal Evaporation Process Congratulations, your above paper has been selected as a CrystEngComm Hot Article! It is currently featured on our CrystEngComm Blog at http://blogs.rsc.org/ce/2012/04/26/nanoswords-nanobelts-and-nanocombs-an-expanding-wardrobe-for-the-nanopeople/ and will be free to access for the next 4 weeks. This is a great opportunity for your work to reach a wider audience, as our blog will be publicised on the journal homepage, in the CrystEngComm table-of-contents e-alerts , and on Twitter . I invite you (or your co-workers) to tell our readers more about your Hot Article by posting a comment on the CrystEngComm Blog story. In addition to this I would like to offer you the opportunity to circulate your paper to a number of colleagues and researchers in your field. If you haven’t already done so, please may you provide me with up to 10 names and e-mail addresses of people who you would like to read your article. I will arrange for them to be sent a link to your manuscript, highlighting its publication in CrystEngComm . Please also consider linking to our article on your own website, and mention this to your department or university media team. CrystEngComm is published by RSC Publishing, a not-for-profit publisher wholly owned by the Royal Society of Chemistry, UK. One way we support and promote chemistry is via RSC funded journal grants for international authors, visit the website to find out more. Thank you for choosing to publish this work in CrystEngComm . I would like to take this opportunity to invite you to submit your next research article for publication in CrystEngComm. Please may you let me know if you are interested in this? We look forward to receiving your next paper soon. High-quality morphology-tunable CdxZn1-xS nanostructures were synthesized through a one-step thermal evaporation process. They are in the forms of (a) nanoswords, (b) super-long nanowires, (c) cubic n ...
Why Is Science Conservative? - 科学为何是保守的（一）（原文及译文） 精选 已有 6658 次阅读 2008-6-14 01:07 |个人分类:学术教育|系统分类:科研笔记 (NOTES added 6/18/08) I thank all the readers for their comments and remarks. I am traveling and have no access to Chinese writing hardware. Consequently, I cannot answer in Chinese or correct some minor inaccuracies in the Chinese translation of my article below for now. I intend to supplement this note upon my return. Conventional wisdom portrays science as innovative (創新) and liberal in thinking in the sense that it is willing to consider all kinds of ideas. But in another sense, science is very conservative. Truly new ideas comes only once in a long while and often after a great deal of struggle for acceptance. This is actually not bad and the way it should be. The world is full of people with or without scientific training who believe they have discovered the truth or invented something remarkable, such as the perpetual motion machine. As a professor at Harvard, I have often received or have letters referred to me written by a person who either 1. Feels that s/he discovered some new truth but received no support. S/he wants Harvard to look into this injustice, or 2. S/he has invented a new device that will change the world in revolutionary ways. Would Harvard endorse this device? Let me say that in my 46 years I have encountered many letters of the above type that are not worth the paper on which they were written. Even well educated people can sometimes delude themselves. As a result science often looks upon any claim of new discovery or breakthrough with a jaundiced eye particularly if such claims come from people one does not know. Consequently really NEW results often have to face a considerable struggle for acceptance. The history of science has many of such incidents both positive and negative (e.g. the discovery of the pseudo planet PLUTO, and cold fusion results in the 1990s). And if science is under the supervision of politics and too closely tied to economics, then even more abuses can result. I don’t need to repeat well known historical examples. But even if science is free from politics and commerce, new ideas still must struggle to get accepted. I shall relate a personal experience a generation ago that may be of some value to scholars who are facing similar situations. First a bit of background. The successes of aerospace control including the moon landing in the 60s are based on modeling dynamic system by nonlinear differential equations and developing a class of control strategies using linearized (perturbed) equations of motion. During the 70s myself and others began to study non differential equation based dynamic systems, e.g. discrete manufacturing processes, communication networks, airport operations, et al. These systems, denoted as discrete event dynamic systems (DEDS), are governed by man-made rules of operation and traditionally belong in the domain of Industrial Engineering and Operations Research (IEOR). But for me coming from control theory, the natural impulse is to see if we can duplicated our successes in differential equation based dynamic systems for these new DEDS. I also viewed this as an opportunity since researchers in IEOR up to that time have not emphasized the dynamic aspects of these systems. Lastly, demand for my consulting expertise from industry also were coming from these areas. Anyhow, my first thought was to see if it was possible to develop some sort of perturbation analysis for the motion of these discrete, nonlinear, discontinuous dynamic systems. The rationale behind this is to develop answer to the question “what will happen to the behavior and hence performance of these DEDS if I make a small perturbation in some design or control parameter of the system.” The significances of such question/answers are obvious. However, strangely enough traditional OR never bothered to ask such a question perhaps thinking that the obvious discontinuous nature of the system behavior renders such question meaningless at the time. The accepted practice is to make two separate experiments or simulations where everything is kept the same except for a small perturbation in the control or design parameter. The difference in observed performances in these two experiments when divided by the small parameter change gives the sensitivity (gradient) of the system performance with respect to the parameter perturbed. If sensitivity for n parameters are desired then n+1 experiments must be performed. The gradient thus calculated is also prone to numerical error and instability due to the fact that you are dividing a generally small and noisy difference by another small number. This is the state of the art when I first announced in 1981 that we have an entirely new way of computing this sensitivity using only ONE simulation experiment regardless how many sensitivities are required. Furthermore, the calculated sensitivity are numerically stable and much more accurate then those computed by differencing method traditionally. The basis of such a claim came from 1. A real life consulting job starting in 1976 in connection with the manufacturing operations of a well known automobile company 2. Through extensive simulations, experimental verifications, and intuitive commonsense ideas we found we could actually accomplish the above claim for this particular manufacturing problem. 3. I gradually realized that the idea embodied in the solution #2 above can be in fact be generalized to other simulation experiments. During travel in China in the summer of 1981, one afternoon in Wuhan I had an epiphany and came up with a “proof” (rather an intuitive but at the same time analytical understanding) as to why this scheme works in general. Of course by strict mathematical standards, my “proof” was far from rigorous. But it was back up by extensive amount of experimental evidence and is conceptually correct. Of course to arrive at this point, we already had solved a real problem, accumulated a large amount of experimental evidence, and published a couple of engineering papers in our own field. Given #3 above, I felt I was ready to announce the “breakthrough” to the IEOR world. The immediate reactions of the IEOR field was 1. Who is this person we have not heard of before ? (although I was established in my own field, I have not published in the IEOR field nor have I attended their conferences) 2. This new result cannot possibly be true. Otherwise we would have discovered it long ago. My paper submitted for publication in OR journals was summarily rejected 3. When I appealed about the rejection, one editor in OR in fact took the trouble of writing to the editor of the control journal where I first published my early results telling the control journal editor that my results were wrong. 4. Another person in OR took the trouble writing to the National Science Foundation complaining that the government was wasting taxpayers’ money in supporting my research. If I was not already established and have credibility in my own field, imagine what #3 and #4 above would have done to me even in an environment where no politics nor commerce were involved. Actually, these struggles were a blessing in disguise. Myself and others who believed in this were forced to come up with a more rigorous proof of the result and actually sharpened the conditions under which the result is mathematically correct and true. Eventually three books and over 1000 published paper came out of this struggle and the sub-discipline of Perturbation Analysis (PA) became established. Professor Xiren Cao of the Science and Technology University of HongKong is the leading expert on PA and his new book on the subject just came out 2007. I bear no ill feelings towards the field of IEOR and in fact became an accepted member of the field if only grudgingly. I mention this in detail only to illustrate that the conservative nature of science is necessary and not a bad thing in general. At the same time, my own opinions is to recommend researchers in general look far and wide in neighboring fields and not spend ones whole career in one sub-discipline. There is much to be said for learning about a new field. 传统的认识将科学描绘为思想上的创新和自由，这主要是因为科学乐于考虑所有的想法和观点。但在另一种意义上，科学是非常保守的。真正新颖的认识只会偶尔出现，而要被人们接受往往还要经过大量的努力和斗争。事实上，这并不是坏事，而是科学应有的方式。 世界上到处都有这样的人，不论是否受过科学训练，他们都认为自己发现了真理或者做出了非凡的发明，比如永动机。作为哈佛大学的教授，我经常能收到或者得到别人转来的这种信，写这些信的人： 1. 感到他/她们发现的新的真理不被支持，希望哈佛大学能够关注这种不公正。 2. 表示他/她发明了一种新的、能以革命性方式改变世界的设备，希望得到哈佛大学的认可。 我要说的是，在我46年的学术生涯中，我收到许多这样的信，来信的内容还没有写这些内容的信纸有价值。即使是受到良好教育的人，有时也会自我蒙蔽、自我迷惑。结果就是，科学往往以带有偏见、敌视的眼光看待任何所谓的新发现、新进展，尤其是当它们来自于默默无名的小人物的时候。相应地，真正的新结果往往必须经过相当大的努力和斗争，才能为人接受。科学史上不乏这样的例子，正面和负面的都有，（比如发现冥王星是伪行星以及20世纪90年代的冷聚变理论等。）同时，如果科学被置于政治的监管之下，并与经济的关系过于紧密，那么就会产生更多的问题。我无需重提那些历史上著名的例子了，但需要强调的是，即使科学免于政治和商业的影响，新的认识要想被人接受必须经过不懈的努力。 接下来，我将讲述几十年前的一段个人经历，这或许对处在类似情形的学者们有些价值。我先介绍一下当时的背景。航天控制的成功包括7060年代的月球着陆等，都是基于利用非线性微分方程建模动态系统，并利用运动的线性化（扰动）方程发展出一类控制策略。在20世纪80年代，我和其他一些人开始研究基于非微分方程的动态系统，比如离散制造过程、通讯网络、机场操作等。这些被称为“离散事件动态系统”（DEDS）的系统由人为的操作规则控制，传统上属于工业工程和作业运筹学研究（IEOR）领域。但由于我的出身是控制论，自然就是想看看我们在基于微分方程的动态系统上的成功能否应用于这些新的DEDS。我也将这看作一次机遇，因为IEOR方面的研究人员那时仍未重点开展这些系统的动态方面的研究。此外，工业界也开始要求我提供这些领域的咨询意见。 总之，我最初的想法就是要看看有没有可能就离散、非线性、不连续的动态系统，发展出某种扰动（摄动）分析。其中的基本原理就是要找到下述问题的答案，即如果我在DEDS的参量设计或控制做一个小的干扰，那么这些系统的行为和表现将会发生什么变化？这个问题的重要性是不言而喻的。然而，奇怪的是传统的作业运筹学研究（OR）从未提出这样问题，或许是考虑到当时系统明显的不连续性会让这种问题毫无意义。通行的做法是进行两次单独的试验或者模拟，其他一切条件都是相同的，只有控制或设计参量上的微扰不同。用两次试验观察到的系统表现差异除以微小的参量变化，就得出了系统表现对于干扰参量的敏感度（斜率）。如果要得到系统对于n个参量的敏感度，就需要进行n+1次试验。而且由于用一个很小的数字去除另一个通常较小且伴有噪声的数字，计算出的斜率容易产生数值误差，而且不太稳定。这就是我在1981年首次宣称发现了一种全新方法时的情况。使用我的新方法，不管干扰参量有多少，需要计算多少个敏感度，敏感度的计算均可在一次模拟试验中完成。此外，新方法计算出的敏感度在数值上是稳定的，而且比传统的差分方法精确得多。我的这种理论基础是： 1． 我从1976年开始就给一家著名汽车公司提供有关制造方面的咨询工作。 2． 通过广泛模拟、试验证实，再加上直觉和常识，我们发现我们其实可以满足上述特殊制造问题的需求。 3． 我逐渐认识到包含在第2点中的想法可以推而广之到其它模拟试验中去。1981年夏天我在中国旅行的时候，有一天下午在武汉我突然恍然大悟，想明白了怎么能证明这种想法具有普遍性（这其实更像是一种既像直觉又很理性的理解）。当然，如果按照严格的数学标准，我的“证据”远称不上严格。但广泛的试验证据支持了我的想法，它在概念上是正确的。 当然在到达这一步之前，我们已经解决了一个现实中的问题，积累了大量的试验证据，并且发表了数篇这个领域的工程学论文。有了上述第3点作为前提，我觉得我准备好向IEOR界宣布这一“突破”了。 IEOR领域马上就做出了反应： 1． 这个人是谁？我们从没听说过他。（尽管我在自身领域立足已久，但并未在IEOR领域发表过论文，也没有参加过他们的会议。） 2． 这一新结果不可能正确，否则应该早就被发现了。我投到作业研究领域期刊上的论文被草草拒绝了。 3． 当我对论文被拒提出上诉时，作业研究领域的一位期刊编辑还费尽心机地给那份最终早发表我论文的控制论杂志的编辑写了封信，告诉他我的结论是错的。 4． 另一位作业运筹学研究领域的者(可能是审稿人之一)编辑也煞费苦心地写信给NSF，抱怨政府支持我的研究根本就是浪费纳税人的钱。 要不是我在自己的领域里已经有了一定的名气和公信力，想象一下上述第3点和第4点会对我造成什么影响，即使是在没有政治或者商业介入的环境中。 事实上，这些困难和斗争是因祸得福，因为我自己和其他坚信这一结果的人都不得不寻求更加严格的证明，并且不断提炼在什么样的条件下该结论在数学上既合理又正确。最终，在这番斗争中诞生了3本书和1000多篇论文，扰动分析（PA）的一个学科分支诞生了。香港科技大学的曹希仁教授是PA领域的顶尖专家，他在这一学科上的新书于2007年面世。而我再也不讨厌IEOR领域了，事实上我终于被该领域接纳，成为了其中一员，尽管他们对我还有些不太情愿。 我说了这么多细节，只是为了举例说明科学上的保守是必需的，这通常并不是一件坏事。同时，我个人的意见是希望研究人员能够把眼光放得远一点，广一点，不妨把目光投向相关的研究领域，而不要把整个研究生涯都花费在某一个学科分支上。关于如何学习和认识一个新领域的问题，我以后要说的还很多。（科学网 任霄鹏译 何姣校 minor revision by YCHo in RED 6.24/08） 何老师：您好！ 我能理解您的善意，但却不能同意您的观点。 科学的确是保守的，这是一个不容争辩的事实，它代表了思想与传统的惯性！ 现在的“相对论”是路人皆知，可当年却由于受到一些人的打压，总不能授予诺贝尔奖。后来由于爱因斯坦支持者的成功公关，策略地借助于光电效应才授予爱因斯坦诺贝尔奖。“宇称守恒定律”的突破也是一样，因为人们相信：宇称守恒是天经地义的事情。当杨振宁、李政道提出“宇称可能不守恒”时，有多位诺贝尔物理学奖得主表示反对：1945年获奖者泡利表示“我不相信上帝是个弱的左撇子”，并准备投入很多赌注；1965年的得奖人费曼提出了五十对一的赔率，赌宇称必定守恒；1951年得奖人布洛赫则说，如果真的宇称不守恒，他会把自己的帽子吃掉。就是在这种情况下，吴健雄以她的远见卓识，历经艰辛，终于证实了弱相互作用中的宇称不守恒！ 澳大利亚科学家巴里?马歇尔和罗宾?沃伦的成果由于受保守势力的打压而让数以千万计的胃病患者得不到及时治疗、忍受病痛的折磨能让我们更真切地理解“我们为科学的保守所付出的代价(其中很可能包括你我的亲戚和朋友)”。虽然沃伦早在1979年就获得了对幽门螺杆菌的初步发现，但因为有悖于当时的医学认识(当时的医学界认为，健康的胃是无菌的，因为胃酸会将人吞入的细菌迅速杀灭）而在相当长的时间里不为人所承认，但同行的质疑并没有动摇沃伦的决心。为了证明致病机理，沃伦年轻的合作者马歇尔甚至喝下了含有病菌的溶液，结果是大病一场。这种不向保守势力低头的“固执己见”的创新精神和为科学献身的精神，为他们赢得了世人的尊重并最终荣获2005年诺贝尔生理学或医学奖。 这些科学的保守片段与近代科学萌芽前后相比还是一个不小的进步。想当年，伽利略就是因为追求科学真理、挑战传统而被判处终身监禁，布鲁诺更是被活活烧死在罗马的百花广场。从历史的长远角度来看，随着人类的文明和进步，科学与思想的保守固然存在，但其程度却会愈来愈小，这是历史发展的必然，是大势所趋，谁也无法扭转。 保守让科学的发展付出了更大的代价，必须加以改善！ 博主回复：Your remarks are completely consistent with what I said and in my added note in particular. I cannot see any disagreement. "Principle" and "practice" are two diferent things. 本文引用地址：http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-1565-29014.html Why is Science Conservative (II) - 科学为何是保守的（二）（原文及译文） 精选 已有 4646 次阅读 2008-7-12 22:26 |个人分类:学术教育|系统分类:科研笔记|关键词:科学原则 同行评议 什么是科学 科学管理 My earlier article on “why is science conservative?” http://www.sciencenet.cn/blog/user_content.aspx?id=29014 produced a large number of well meaning and legitimate comments and responses. So I decided to write a follow-on piece to further clarify what I had in mind. In the abstract, I believe there is general agreement on the following scientific principles 1. For an established scientific fact to be overturned or revised, there must first be a large body of contradicting evidence (see for example, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) T. Kuhn, University of Chicago Press, 1962) 2. For a new theory and procedure to be accepted as better or to replace the old, it must scale a higher standard (for example not only it must fit previously known results but also explain away all the contradicting evidence or difficulties in #1 above. If it is a new methodology, the new method must overcome some difficulties of the old.). These are principles of scientific exploration and discovery accepted universally. My use of the word “conservative” is primarily in this sense. We do not usually overturn an established theory on a single piece of evidence nor do we accept any new idea just on the say so of one authoritative figure. Problem comes in because science is practice by human beings who often let other matters, politics, commerce, human weakness, and even philosophy intrude in the “ADMINISTRATION PRACTICE” of science. This is distinct from the principles of scientific discovery as listed in #1 and #2 above. When politic and science administration mix, the former often dominates the latter. The unfortunate examples of Lysenko in USSR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko ) or Elena Ceausescu of Romania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Ceau%C5%9Fescu ) are well known. But the influence of commerce on science can be equally corrosive. Consider the cases of tobacco industry on the health effect of smoking and the oil companies’ opposition to global warming. Both industries stubbornly resisted the obvious long past the scientific conclusions were established. Finally, even without such interference, human errors of judgment, bias, prejudice , and philosophy (门户之見) can distort the development of scientific truth. Thus, abuses in the administration due to these considerations should also be considered separately from the “principles”. I mentioned earlier. The saying “peer review is the worst form of scientific judgment except for all others”. Yes, many unfair and bad things happen with peer review. But we do not abandon it because it is still sound in principle and even workable in practice if administered correctly. The point is that we do not condemn the “principles” just because of bad “practice”. Similarly, if something “bad” happens to have some unintended “good” results, it is not a license for “bad” practice. (one reader disagree with me by using precisely such a false analogy). I am sorry I did not make this distinction and separation carefully in a blog article. With this clarification, I trust the meaning of my article is clear. 我之前的一篇博文《科学为何是保守的？》（http://www.sciencenet.cn/blog/user_content.aspx?id=29014）得到了许多有意义的、值得思考的评论和回应。因此我决定再写一篇博文，进一步澄清我的观点。 抽象地说，我相信大家普遍认同下面几条科学原则： 1． 要推翻或修改已经确立的科学事实，首先必须要有大量相反的证据。（大家可以参考这本书，The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) T. Kuhn, University of Chicago Press, 1962） 2． 一项新的理论或程序要想被公认为比旧的更好或者要取代旧的，就必须带来更高的标准。（比如，它不仅必须要符合此前已知的结论，而且要能解释上述#1中那些相反的证据或难点。如果是一种新的方法论，那么这种新方法一定要能解决老方法难以克服的问题。） 这些都是公认的科学探索与发现的原则。我所谓的“保守”也主要是在这种意义上来说的。我们通常不会根据一个单独的证据就颠覆一项确立已久的理论，我们也不会仅仅因为一位权威如此如此说就接受任何新的观点。 之所以会出现问题，主要是因为科学研究到底是由人来践行的，而人往往会让其他因素如政治、商业利益、人性弱点乃至门户之见“闯入”科学的“管理和实践”中来。这与上述的科学发现原则#1和#2是不同的。一旦政治和科学管理搅在一起，前者往往会主宰后者。例如前苏联的Lysenko（http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko）和罗马尼亚的Elena Ceausescu（http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Ceau%C5%9Fescu）等，都是众所周知的例子是非常令人遗憾的。但是，商业利益对科学具有同样的腐蚀性。想想烟草业是怎么干扰有关吸烟与健康关系的研究的吧，还有石油公司一直反对全球变暖的说法。科学界已经就这两个问题达成一致意见以后很久了，这两大产业还在顽固地抵抗。最后，即使排除这两种因素的干扰，人类的判断、偏见和门户之见等错误也会扭曲科学真相的发展。因此，由这些原因导致的管理中的问题也应该和我说的那些科学原则分开考虑。我以前曾经说过。有种说法说“除了所有其他（形式）外，同行评议是最糟糕的科学评价形式。”的确，同行评议总是伴随着许多不公正和糟糕的事情。但是我们并没有抛弃它，因为它在原则上仍然很合理，而且如果运用得当，在实践中也是行得通的。关键是我们不会仅仅因为“实践”中出现了问题就批判“原则”。同样，我们也不能因为一些原则上的“坏事”无意中地起到一些“好”的作用，就说这种“坏事”是可以做的。（有位读者就运用了这种错误的类比来和我争论。）很抱歉我以前没有在博文中仔细地区分和划分这二者。通过此次的澄清，我相信我文章的意思应该很清楚了。 （科学网 任霄鹏译 何姣校） 本文引用地址：http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-1565-32022.html
Abstract: hort-term earthquake prediction has always been a very difficult problem in geology, 15 this article pre-displacement, pre-established short-term break for the earthquake prediction based on the theory becomes completely abandoned to form the basis of earthquake prediction method, short-term earthquake prediction is a theoretical breakthrough. Key words: Mechanics; earthquake,;short-term forecasting,;pre-displacement; pre-fracture 摘要： 地震短期预报历来是一个十分困难的地质学问题，本文以预位移预断裂为依据对于短期地震预报进行了理论思考，一旦该理论被实践所证明，将会是地震短期预报的一次理论突破。 关键词 ：固体力学；地震；短期预报；预位移；预断裂 预位移预断裂短期地震预报数学方法探析.pdf
我成功的第一个latex，激动!激动!激动！ \documentclass{article} \usepackage{amsmath} \begin{document} \title{my paper} \maketitle \tableofcontents \section{WinEdt} Game Theoretic Analysis of Voting in Committees, Cambridge University Press \end{document}
Networking--Smoothly Does It Svante Janson DOI: 10.1126/science.1208712 Science 333, 298 (2011); If you wish to distribute this article to others, you can order high-quality copies for your following the guidelines here. Permission to republish or repurpose articles or portions of articles can be obtained by www.sciencemag.org (this infomation is current as of July 17, 2011 ): The following resources related to this article are available online at http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6040/298.full.html version of this article at: Updated information and services, including high-resolution figures, can be found in the online http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6040/298.full.html#related found at: A list of selected additional articles on the Science Web sites related to this article can be http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6040/298.full.html#ref-list-1 This article cites 8 articles, 4 of which can be accessed free: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/collection/comp_math Computers,
之所以写这个题目的帖子，是由于近日偶然看到任胜利的博文，标题为 “ 同行评议的是是非非：简议 The Scientist 的相关文章 ” （网址： http://www.sciencenet.cn/m/user_content.aspx?id=395016 ），其中有一句是这样写的： “ 阐述给生物信息学带来变革的 BLAST 软件的文章 1990 年发表在影响因子为 3.9 的 J Mol Biol (1990, 215: 403-410) 上，该文的引用次数近 30000 次，远大于 Nature (34.5) 和 Science (29.7) 中文章的最高引用次数。 ” 我看到这句话，就有点怀疑，难道真的 Nature 和 Science 上的文章被引次数一篇都没有超过 30000 次的？ 我们知道 Nature 和 Science 都是创刊上百年的牛刊 ( 分别创刊于 1869 和 1880 年） ，做科研的几乎是无人不知，无人不晓，我想当然的认为两刊都会至少有一篇引次数超过 30000 次的论文，然而，让我们用事实说话，对于上文提到的有关 BLAST 的文章， Web of Science 上基本信息如下： Title: BASIC LOCAL ALIGNMENT SEARCH TOOL Author(s): ALTSCHUL, SF; GISH, W; MILLER, W, et al. Source: JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR BIOLOGY Volume: 215 Issue: 3 Pages: 403-410 Published: OCT 5 1990 Times Cited: 29,271 也就是说这篇经典牛文，迄今（ 2011 年 2 月 10 日）被引次数尚未超过 30000 次，然而该记录，尚未被 Science 上的文章打破，下面是 Science 上的被引次数冠军文章： Title: PRIMER-DIRECTED ENZYMATIC AMPLIFICATION OF DNA WITH A THERMOSTABLE DNA-POLYMERASE Author(s): SAIKI, RK; GELFAND, DH; STOFFEL, S, et al. Source: SCIENCE Volume: 239 Issue: 4839 Pages: 487-491 Published: JAN 29 1988 Times Cited: 14,650 也就是说该 Science 文章迄今被引次数为 14650 次，仅是那篇 BLAST 文章的 29,271 次的一半。 下面再来看 Nature , 该刊创刊上百年来发表的被引次数最高的文章如下： Title: CLEAVAGE OF STRUCTURAL PROTEINS DURING ASSEMBLY OF HEAD OF BACTERIOPHAGE-T4 Author(s): LAEMMLI, UK Source: NATURE Volume: 227 Issue: 5259 Pages: 680- Published: 1970 Times Cited: 65,535 大概是由于发表的年代过于久远了一些，或者引用次数太高， Web of Science 上居然都没有精确的被引次数，用 google/scholar 查了一下，被引次数是非常惊人的 170788 次，此前我曾经分析过所谓的 “ 史上引用次数最多的论文 ！！ （ 参见博文： http://www.dxyer.cn/loveinmichigan/article/i74638.htm ）， 这篇 1951 年发表在 JBC 上的论文，已被引用 275,669 次（截至到 2004 年一月）， google/scholar 上显示迄今已被引用 193888 次，所以 Nature 上这篇论文尽管远远超过 JMB 上的那篇 BLAST 的近 30000 次，但是和这篇 JBC 相比仍然稍逊一筹， JBC 的这篇文章仍然堪称 史上 引用次数最多的科学论文。 上面的两篇发表在 Science 和 Nature 上两篇文章，都是生物医学领域内的，所以适合园子里的战友讨论，可以说都是突破性、革 / 命性的文章，不夸张的说，尤其是 Science 上那篇文章几乎影响了全世界，甚至是普通老百姓的生活，这不是忽悠，且听分解，权当抛个烂砖以期引来大玉，期待高手讨论 Nature 上那篇文章。 Science 上 文章的摘要内容如下： Primer-directed enzymatic amplification of DNA with a thermostable DNA polymerase. Science. 1988 Jan 29;239(4839):487-91 ， Saiki RK , Gelfand DH , Stoffel S , Scharf SJ , Higuchi R , Horn GT , Mullis KB , Erlich HA . Cetus Corporation, Department of Human Genetics, Emeryville, CA 94608. Abstract A thermostable DNA polymerase was used in an in vitro DNA amplification procedure, the polymerase chain reaction. The enzyme, isolated from Thermus aquaticus, greatly simplifies the procedure and, by enabling the amplification reaction to be performed at higher temperatures, significantly improves the specificity, yield, sensitivity, and length of products that can be amplified. Single-copy genomic sequences were amplified by a factor of more than 10 million with very high specificity, and DNA segments up to 2000 base pairs were readily amplified. In addition, the method was used to amplify and detect a target DNA molecule present only once in a sample of 10(5) cells. 这篇发表于 1988 年的文章的主要贡献是发现了热稳定性高的 DNA 聚合酶， PCR 技术发明于上世纪８０年代初，当时的一个最大的技术瓶颈是当时使用的 DNA 聚合酶热稳定性差， PCR 几个循环下来， DNA 聚合酶就死翘翘啦，不得不人工不断添加 DNA 聚合酶，这增加了成本不说，还使 PCR 无法完全自动化，这严重阻碍了 PCR 技术的推广使用， 1988 年 Science 的这个重大发现，无疑扫清了 PCR 技术的最后一个障碍，使得该技术迅速在全球得以广泛使用，也极大的促进了生物技术在上世纪 90 年代的飞速发展，现在 PCR 技术已经非常广泛运用与许多领域，普通医院都用来做基因疾病的诊断。 另外值得一提的是：文章的作者是 Cetus Corporation ，该公司 1971 年成立于加州伯克利，是全世界最早成立的生物公司之一，更重要的是，该公司的 Kary Mullis 是ＰＣＲ技术的发明人，曾与 1993 年由于此发明而与 Michael Smith 分享了诺贝尔化学奖，是迄今唯一源于生物公司研究的诺贝尔奖（ the only one awarded for research performed at a biotechnology company ，参见： http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cetus_Corporation ） 我觉得这篇文章或者说这个故事至少有几点启示： 这一典型事例有力的打破了 “ 基础研究无用论 ” ，美国对于生物医学研究这一最 “ 烧钱 ” 的领域已经连续多年每年有几百亿美元的投资（仅 NIH 一家），很多钱无疑打了水漂，但是仅仅 PCR 技术这一个专利就不知为美国带来了多少亿的收入，另外，美国在生物医学领域的长期的巨额投资不仅成就了像 Genentech 、 Amgen 这样世界顶尖的生物公司，也使得美国在生物的技术几乎各个领域都处于在全球绝对垄断的地位，亚洲的中、印、韩三国近年来在生物医学领域投资每年超过 20% 的高速增长（参见我的博文： 2011 年全球各国资助生物医学经费展望：西方不亮东方亮 ） ，事实上某种程度上是在为美国打工，大量投资在拉动美国经济的发展，因为发展中国家在生物医学领域的研发，所需的从高端耗材到先进仪器几乎都要从美国进口，尤其是我们国家这方面的依赖程度更高。可以说，现在美国在生物医学领域的长期投资，现在到了收获期。 （ 作者王守业，引文地址： http://blog.sciencenet.cn/home.php?mod=spaceuid=563591do=blogid=431805 ）
标签: Article
