今天一早，收到一封邮件，是 New York Times 发来的。邮件正文第一句话是：Today marks a significant transition for The New York Times as we introduce digital subscriptions。标志着《纽约时报》电子版正式开始收费，也意味着纸质报纸将退出历史舞台。 以下是邮件全文： An important announcement from the publisher of The New York Times Dear New York Times Reader, Today marks a significant transition for The New York Times as we introduce digital subscriptions. It’s an important step that we hope you will see as an investment in The Times, one that will strengthen our ability to provide high-quality journalism to readers around the world and on any platform. The change will primarily affect those who are heavy consumers of the content on our Web site and on mobile applications. This change comes in two stages. Today, we are rolling out digital subscriptions to our readers in Canada, which will enable us to fine-tune the customer experience before our global launch. On March 28, we will begin offering digital subscriptions in the U.S. and the rest of the world. If you are a home delivery subscriber of The New York Times, you will continue to have full and free access to our news, information, opinion and the rest of our rich offerings on your computer, smartphone and tablet. International Herald Tribune subscribers will also receive free access to NYTimes.com. If you are not a home delivery subscriber, you will have free access up to a defined reading limit. If you exceed that limit, you will be asked to become a digital subscriber. This is how it will work, and what it means for you: On NYTimes.com, you can view 20 articles each month at no charge (including slide shows, videos and other features). After 20 articles, we will ask you to become a digital subscriber, with full access to our site. On our smartphone and tablet apps, the Top News section will remain free of charge. For access to all other sections within the apps, we will ask you to become a digital subscriber. The Times is offering three digital subscription packages that allow you to choose from a variety of devices (computer, smartphone, tablet). More information about these plans is available at nytimes.com/access . Again, all New York Times home delivery subscribers will receive free access to NYTimes.com and to all content on our apps. If you are a home delivery subscriber, go to homedelivery.nytimes.com to sign up for free access. Readers who come to Times articles through links from search, blogs and social media like Facebook and Twitter will be able to read those articles, even if they have reached their monthly reading limit. For some search engines, users will have a daily limit of free links to Times articles. The home page at NYTimes.com and all section fronts will remain free to browse for all users at all times. For more information, go to nytimes.com/digitalfaq . Thank you for reading The New York Times, in all its forms. Sincerely, Arthur Sulzberger Jr. Publisher, The New York Times Chairman, The New York Times Company
George Tenet是 1997至2004任美国中央情报局（CIA）主任。他领导了CIA在大幅度裁减后的复苏，也经历了2001恐怖主义袭击前后的风暴。2004年，因为他在关于伊拉克大规模杀伤武器情报错误中所起作用的争议(“slam dunk”这句“名言”)而辞职。他的自传《在风暴中心》（ “At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA” by George Tenet, 2007）就是记叙他任期中的历史。由于作者在这个特殊时期的特殊地位，他的书出版后广受注目。其主要内容在CBS“60分钟”的访谈（http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/25/60minutes/main2728375.shtml）和纽约时报的书评（http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/28/books/28kaku.html）中已经被归纳，这里就不重复了。 由于Tenet是在争议的情况下离职的，他的书很自然地包括了许多为自己评功摆好和辩护的内容。其中有些功绩是媒体没有充分报道的，如9-11以前对宾。拉登集团的追踪调查和对恐怖袭击之可能的警告（反驳9-11事件调查委员会的结论），和抓获巴基斯坦核武器扩散主凶阿卜杜。汗(Abdul Qadeer Khan)的工作。对于与伊拉克战争的决定和执行中的一系列事件和问题，本书也一一作了说明。 我认为本书还有一个有趣之处，就是反映CIA在美国政府决策流程中的作用。而这一点是相当含混的。Tenet本人看来是希望更多介入美国的对外政策决定和实行过程。他对参与巴勒斯坦和以色列谈判的经历津津乐道，差不多是书中唯一的美好回忆。而在谈到伊拉克战争现状时，他对美国军，政的一系列决策激烈批评，似乎是站在国会或内阁成员的立场上，而不是一个参谋或执行者的身份。在“后记”中，他更是对美国的对外政策和反恐努力作了系统的评价。而另一方面，他在决策层中的影响力似乎相当有限。作为国家情报机构的最高首领（不仅是CIA，还包括NSA，军方情报部门等），Tenet在法律上是国家安全的最高决策部门—国家安全委员会（National Security Council）的情报顾问。但是他对于向伊拉克开战的决策过程几乎一无所知。只是为了开战的理由和战争的进行而搜集情报。他也多次谈到CIA与其他情报机构（特别是国防部情报署，DIA）和国家安全委员会之间的矛盾和冲突。这也许是他推卸责任的说法。而如果事实真是如此的话，政府的决策过程可说是相当混乱糟糕了。 另外，Tenet在本书中对于布什当局有很多批评，但对布什本人却几乎没有微词。在他口中，所有坏事都是副总统钱尼和国防部诸公干的。这在谈到伊拉克战后安排的问题时尤其突出。他激烈批评几乎所有的决策，但似乎布什都没有参与一样。这当然是不可能的，否则布什该以渎职罪下台了。但是Tenet这样的做法，也是值得深思。 CIA主任理应和将军一样，属于政府执行层次的人物。但是Tenet的自传和几位将军完全不同，而更象一个政客的作品。所以如果有一天他踏入政界的话，我是不会奇怪的。希望到那时，他的这本自传所起的是正面作用。
发生在埃及的民主运动终于迎来了胜利的喜悦, 埃及处在狂欢之中。此时此刻，一切言词都是多余的。请看一些媒体的报道吧。 纽约时报的报道： Egypt Erupts in Jubilation as Mubarak Steps Down 德国时代周刊的报道： Der Pharao ist verjagt 德国世界报的报道： Das Militr entscheidet über die Zukunft gyptens 德国明镜周刊的报道： Die Stunden des Sieges： "Das ist der glücklichste Tag in meinem Leben!" 德国法兰克福总汇报的报道： Mubarak tritt zurück - Militr übernimmt: Jubel in ganz gypten 法国世界报的报道: Hosni Moubarak quitte le pouvoir, l'Egypte exulte 法国费加罗报的报道： Moubarak démissionne, la rue célèbre sa victoire
Drugmakers’ Fever for the Power of RNA Interference Has Cooled 主要原因是目前的 给药方式或手段 不给力： "But the biggest challenge has been delivery. RNA is quickly broken down in the bloodstream. And even if it gets to the cells in the body where it is needed, it has trouble entering the cells. "
【这一篇应该算转载。】 一位在美国的朋友发来邮件，转的是《 New York Times 》的 The Opinion Pages 上的一篇文章： 《 From WikiChina 》， by THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN 故事是这样开头的： While secrets from WikiLeaks were splashed all over the American newspapers, I couldnt help but wonder: What if China had a WikiLeaker and we could see what its embassy in Washington was reporting about America? I suspect the cable would read like this: 到底 like what ？大家可以 自己看 。这里摘几段有意思的： 。。。。。。 But were particularly optimistic because the Americans are polarized over all the wrong things. The ambassador recently took what the Americans call a fast train the Acela from Washington to New York City. Our bullet train from Beijing to Tianjin would have made the trip in 90 minutes. His took three hours 。。。。。。 We have a joke in the embassy: When someone calls you from China today it sounds like they are next door. And when someone calls you from next door in America, it sounds like they are calling from China! Enjoy your reading!
As Bullies Go Digital, Parents Play Catch-Up By JAN HOFFMAN Published: December 4, 2010 Recommend Twitter comments (15) E-Mail Send To Phone Print Single Page Reprints Share CloseLinkedinDiggMixxMySpaceYahoo! BuzzPermalink Ninth grade was supposed to be a fresh start for Maries son: new school, new children. Yet by last October, he had become withdrawn. Marie prodded. And prodded again. Finally, he told her. Enlarge This Image Peter DaSilva for The New York Times A HAUNTING TEXT MESSAGE Maj. Glenn Woodson with his daughter, Sierra, 12, who wears a leg brace and was a victim of online bullying. Poisoned Web Trying to Provide a Safety Net This is the second in a series of articles on Internet bullying. Go to Previous Article in Series Online Safety Resources for Families Family Online Safety Institute Connect Safely Connect Safely: Parents Guide to Facebook Commonsense Media: Cyberbullying Tips Stop Cyberbullying: Guide to Reporting Abuses iKeepSafe.org WebWiseKids Related A Range of Options for a Victims Parents (December 5, 2010) Times Topic: Cyberbullying Enlarge This Image In sixth grade, Sierra received a text message identifying her as the slashed figure in the drawing above. Readers' Comments Share your family's experiences with cyberbullying. Post a Comment Read All Comments (15) The kids say Im saying all these nasty things about them on Facebook, he said. They dont believe me when I tell them Im not on Facebook. But apparently, he was. Marie, a medical technologist and single mother who lives in Newburyport, Mass., searched Facebook. There she found what seemed to be her sons page: his name, a photo of him grinning while running and, on his public wall, sneering comments about teenagers he scarcely knew. Someone had forged his identity online and was bullying others in his name. Students began to shun him. Furious and frightened, Marie contacted school officials. After expressing their concern, they told her they could do nothing. It was an off-campus matter. But Marie was determined to find out who was making her son miserable and to get them to stop. In choosing that course, she would become a target herself. When she and her son learned who was behind the scheme, they would both feel the sharp sting of betrayal. Undeterred, she would insist that the culprits be punished. It is difficult enough to support ones child through a siege of schoolyard bullying. But the lawlessness of the Internet, its potential for casual, breathtaking cruelty, and its capacity to cloak a bullys identity all present slippery new challenges to this transitional generation of analog parents. Desperate to protect their children, parents are floundering even as they scramble to catch up with the technological sophistication of the next generation. Like Marie, many parents turn to schools, only to be rebuffed because officials think they do not have the authority to intercede. Others may call the police, who set high bars to investigate. Contacting Web site administrators or Internet service providers can be a daunting, protracted process. When parents know the aggressor, some may contact that childs parent, stumbling through an evolving etiquette in the landscape of social awkwardness. Going forward, they struggle with when and how to supervise their adolescents forays on the Internet. Marie, who asked that her middle name and her own nickname for her son, D.C., be used to protect his identity, finally went to the police. The forces cybercrimes specialist, Inspector Brian Brunault, asked if she really wanted to pursue the matter. He said that once it was in the court system, Marie said, they would have to prosecute. It could probably be someone we knew, like a friend of D.C.s or a neighbor. Was I prepared for that? Maries son urged her not to go ahead. But Marie was adamant. I said yes. Parental Fears One afternoon last spring, Parry Aftab, a lawyer and expert on cyberbullying, addressed seventh graders at George Washington Middle School in Ridgewood, N.J. How many of you have ever been cyberbullied? she asked. The hands crept up, first a scattering, then a thicket. Of 150 students, 68 raised their hands. They came forward to offer rough tales from social networking sites, instant messaging and texting. Ms. Aftab stopped them at the 20th example. Then she asked: How many of your parents know how to help you? A scant three or four hands went up. Cyberbullying is often legally defined as repeated harassment online, although in popular use, it can describe even a sharp-elbowed, gratuitous swipe. Cyberbullies themselves resist easy categorization: the anonymity of the Internet gives cover not only to schoolyard-bully types but to victims themselves, who feel they can retaliate without getting caught. But online bullying can be more psychologically savage than schoolyard bullying. The Internet erases inhibitions, with adolescents often going further with slights online than in person. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page A version of this article appeared in print on December 5, 2010, on page A1 of the New York edition. comments E-Mail Print Single Page Reprints Experience the new Times app
2001年8月30日，《南方周末》发表了一篇署名方舟子的文章，题目是《布什失策干细胞？》，全文不足3000 字。（见： ）。第二天，方舟子在新语丝上发表《干细胞研究的是是非非》一文，注明它是前者的原稿，作于2001年8月19 日。（见： ）。这篇 原稿大约3800字。2005年8月，方舟子的《基因时代的恐慌与真相》一书由广西师范大学出版社出版，《干细胞研究的是是非非》是其中的一篇。（见方舟子：《徜徉在学术界与公众之间〈基因时代的恐慌与真相〉后记》， - Zhouzi/science/houji.txt）。 按道理说，方舟子是中国科技大学细胞生物学系的高材生，并且是自命的生物医学出身，以这样的资格，搞一篇关于干细胞的科普文章，岂不应该是绰绰有余？可惜的是，他一张嘴，就把自己的根柢露了出来。且看他的这段话： 人类对其他动物的干细胞的研究已有不短的时间，早在1981年小鼠的胚胎干细胞就已被分离出来研究，但迟至1998年，美国威斯康辛大学的生物学家汤姆逊（James Thomson）才首次分离、建成了第一个人类胚胎干细胞系（同一个细胞的后代被称为一个细胞系），是从一个被从事体外受精（即所谓试管婴儿）的诊所抛弃的、受精仅五天的胚胎（这个阶段的胚胎称为囊胚）分离出来加以培养的。 查James Thomson的那篇文章，Embryonic Stem Cell Lines Derived from Human Blastocysts（Science 282:1145-1147， ），其中明明是这么说的： Fresh or frozen cleavage stage human embryos, produced by in vitro fertilization (IVF) for clinical purposes, were donated by individuals after informed consent and after institutional review board approval. Embryos were cultured to the blastocyst stage, 14 inner cell masses were isolated, and five ES cell lines originating from five separate embryos were derived, essentially as described for nonhuman primate ES cells (5, 6).（本实验所用的处于卵裂期的人胚胎，来自体外受精，精卵供体知情并且同意捐献，机构审核委员会审核批准。这些胚胎在体外培养到囊胚阶段，14个内部细胞团被分离出来，从5个不同的胚胎中获得5个干细胞系，方法与文献5、6相同。） 也就是说，美国威斯康辛大学的生物学家汤姆逊根本就没有说自己所用的胚胎是从一个被从事体外受精的诊所抛弃的，更没有说它们是受精仅五天的胚胎。显然，方舟子根本就没有阅读原始论文，根据第一手的材料写作（见方舟子《虚妄的人体革命》），他的这段话，又是抄袭自二、三手的材料。 那么，凭什么说这段话暴露出了方生物医学出身的老底呢？原来，人类胚胎的卵裂期为受精卵从第一次分裂到形成囊胚这段时间，在人体内，大约是受精之后第二天到第七天。而囊胚阶段大约在受精后第四到第六天。相对来说，胚胎在人体内的发育过程比较稳定，但在体外培养时，因为受环境（主要是营养因素）影响较大，所以，确定胚胎发育的阶段，尤其是持续时间较长的囊胚阶段，一般是按照形态学观察来确定，而不是根据发育的天数。而方生物医学出身对此显然一无所知，以为囊胚就是受精仅五天的胚胎。 方舟子细胞生物学的无知，还可以从他把adult stem cells翻译为成年干细胞得见一斑。原来，adult stem cell是相对与embryonic stem cells而言，并不一定是来自成年人的体内。即使来自幼儿的体内的干细胞也属于adult stem cells。而方舟子却望文生义，把它生译为成年干细胞。 【Adult stem cells应译为成熟干细胞，也有译为成体干细胞的，最常见的误译为成人干细胞或者成年干细胞，理由如亦明所述，引起不必要的误解。寻正注】 所以说，以方舟子对细胞学的无知，来讨论干细胞研究的是是非非，除了抄袭之外，他再就没有其他的选择。那么，方舟子的这篇近四千字的长文，到底是抄自哪篇文章呢？ 2001年8月15日，也就是在方舟子写作《干细胞研究的是是非非》之前四天（我们姑且相信方舟子的尾注），《纽约时报》发表了署名 NICHOLAS WADE的文章，Age-Old Question Is New Again。（见： - again.html）。经核对，方文的下面这些文字，占全文的五分之一，就是抄自这篇文章： 方舟子1：辩论的中心是：胚胎是否算人？从什么时候开始算人？天主教以及基督新教的某些派别认为在受精的一刹那，人的灵魂就已产生，因此一个受精卵也是人，由于从胚胎中分离干细胞，要杀死胚胎，在这些教徒看来，也就是谋杀，应该禁止。 《纽约时报》1：When does a human life begin? The Catholic Church says that life begins at fertilization, when egg and sperm unite and that the embryo created from this union has the same rights due any person. Because embryos must be destroyed to generate embryonic stem cells, opponents of the research say it is morally unacceptable. 方舟子2：犹太教的看法则与此不同。他们认为胚胎算不算人，要看是不是在母亲体内。体外受精产生的胚胎在植入母体之后才算人，在此以前是不算的。由于胚胎干细胞是从那些废弃不用的体外受精产生的胚胎分离出来的，因此犹太教不认为这种做法是不人道的。 《纽约时报》2：In the Jewish tradition, the embryo has no status outside the mother's body, a view that also finds no fault with in vitro fertilization treatments. 方舟子3：从生物学的角度看，早期的胚胎不管在体内还是体外，都很难算得上是人。做为一个人必须具有个体性，或者说个性。 《纽约时报》3：Another possible answer to the question of when life begins, and one that does not imply criticism of the clinics' practices, is based on determining when the embryo can be viewed as having an identity. 方舟子4：但是一个受精卵还不具有个性，它有时会分离成两个胚胎，发育成双胞胎，有时甚至会再分离一次，发育成四胞胎。这个分离过程，可发生于大约受精14天之前。也就是说，在受精14天之前，胚胎并不具有个性。早期的胚胎只是一团没有结构的细胞，也是在受精14天左右，开始出现了一定的结构（即原条）。因此，我们可以把受精14天，视为胚胎开始成为一个人的下限。 《纽约时报》4：In the womb, the egg occasionally splits into two separate embryos that develop as identical twins. Very rarely, a second round of splitting occurs, leading to identical quadruplets. If individual identity does not begin until after the last moment when twinning can occur, then the starting point for life can be set at around 14 days after conception, or a week after implantation.The early embryo is a flat little sheet that gets folded, she said. A pivotal event is when a spearhead of cells, called the node, loses contact with its neighbors and moves into the fold, sending out signals that give the embryo a polarity and structure. The visible structure was called the primitive streak by early embryologists. 方舟子5：在进行体外受精时，医生一般会同时对8、9个卵子进行受精，从中挑选看上去最好的受精卵移植入母体，其他的受精卵则暂时冻起来，但也不可能无限储存下去，过一段时间（英国的规定是5年）后都会被扔掉。 《纽约时报》5：Fertility clinics typically generate eight or nine embryos per pregnancy, of which only the healthiest looking are implanted. The rest are stored, and ultimately, most are destroyed. 方舟子6：在英国，自从1991年以来，约诞生了50000个试管婴儿，为此有294584个多余的胚胎被摧毁。在美国，究竟有多少多余的胚胎被摧毁，没有统计，但据统计美国试管婴儿的数目是英国的两倍，那么被摧毁的多余胚胎大约也有60万个。 《纽约时报》6：The number of embryos disposed of by clinics is not known because there is no national authority that gathers the statistics. In Britain, however, the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority has reported that some 50,000 babies have been born through in vitro fertilization since 1991, and 294,584 surplus human embryos have been destroyed. According to the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, about 100,000 children have been born in the United States by in vitro fertilization, or twice the number in Britain, implying that some 600,000 embryos would have been destroyed if American clinics followed the same five-year storage limit used in Britain. Only a small fraction of the discarded embryos would provide as many stem cells as researchers could use. 方舟子7：奇怪的是，美国的保守派并不反对不孕夫妇用体外受精的方式怀孕，对如此多的胚胎因此被摧毁也置若罔闻，但是当有科学家在这些胚胎被扔掉之前，在其主人的同意下，把其中极少的一部分废物利用，他们却要指责那是不道德、不人道的。 《纽约时报》7：But opponents of stem cell research, who condemn scientists for destroying embryos, seem less eager to criticize the clinics and the infertile couples who seek their help. 简言之，《纽约时报》的这篇1300个单词的文章，总共引用了11条资料或消息来源。而方舟子在编译这些文字时，一个来源也没有提到，好像他真的是一个无师自通的全才一样。 也许有人会不解地问道：假如方舟子在文章中简单地说一句本文的撰写参考了以下文献，岂不一劳永逸？他何必要留下这样的把柄给人抓？这个问题，可以这样来解释。方舟子的科普写作，与他的明史写作一样，都是在充当文抄公，都是在干东抄西凑的活计。可是，方舟子不仅懒惰，而且无知。所以他在叙述科学问题时，根本就不可能博采众长，然后用自己的文字将之复述一遍：如果那样的话，他注定要搞出笑话来。也就是因为如此，他的科普必须直接是英语文章翻过来的。而按照方舟子自己的定义，这样做却公认是抄袭，这样的人是该被分到最卑劣的一群里头去的。所以，你就是打死他，他也不会把参考文献列出来、让人们去顺藤摸瓜的。 那么，方舟子这篇文章的其他部分都是怎么来的呢？原来，《纽约时报》在2001年8月12日还曾搞了一个关于干细胞问题的辩论专题（见：The New York Times Stem Cell Debate ， #），讨论的范围恰恰涵盖干细胞研究的是是非非。方舟子文章的其他部分，主要采摘自这个专题。只不过是，那部分文字真的是东抄西凑而来，捉拿现行不是那么容易罢了。 在抄袭了《纽约时报》一个月之后，2001年9月20日，方舟子的偷窃之手伸向了《科学》杂志，写成《科学地解决道德难题？》一文。10月4日，这篇文章被《南方周末》发表。不到一周，《科学》抄袭案爆发，方舟子与肖传国也由此结成生死冤家，发展到2010年，已经到了枪毙都不能解恨！的地步了。 需要指出的是，《干细胞研究的是是非非》和《科学地解决道德难题？》很可能是方舟子在《南方周末》上发表的最早两篇文章。在那之前，方舟子一直对《南方周末》骂骂咧咧。同样的，方舟子与《中国青年报》和《北京科技报》的关系，也始于骂骂咧咧。由此可见，方舟子真的是看穿了中国媒体的下贱本性：你越是拿他们不当玩艺儿，他们越是拿你当个玩艺儿。难怪方舟子愿意在中国当打手。 附：方舟子或者其信徒拙劣的辩解 【寻正简评：避重就轻，对主要指控避而不答，纠缠于一个枝节，用别人的错误证明自己的正确，用语言译法的差异来模糊视听。复述是要给出处的，非学术写作一样地可以给出处，给法不同而已，好象论证了自己是复述就可以逃避抄袭的事实一样，无知，无耻，下作。】 题目： 亦明的无知和无理取闹 作者：james_hussein_bond 亦明在一篇新的长文里，又声称方舟子抄袭了《纽约时报》。这篇长文里，亦明暴露了罕见的无知和无理取闹。他说方舟子不懂生物学，证据是： 引用： 方舟子细胞生物学的无知，还可以从他把adult stem cells翻译为成年干细胞得见一斑。原来，adult stem cell是相对与embryonic stem cells而言，并不一定是来自成年人的体内。即使来自幼儿的体内的干细胞也属于adult stem cells。而方舟子却望文生义，把它生译为成年干细胞。 可是随便搜搜中国科学院的网站，就会看到这样的大标题： 引用： 瑞典科学家表示对成年干细胞再造器官能力存疑 引用： 美掀起成人干细胞研发热目前实验取得进展 引用： 有潜力的成人干细胞市场 难道中国科学院里没有一个人懂细胞生物学？抑或亦明学的是外星细胞生物学？ 至于抄袭的指控，这也太可笑了吧： 引用： 方舟子1：辩论的中心是：胚胎是否算人？从什么时候开始算人？天主教以及基督新教的某些派别认为在受精的一刹那，人的灵魂就已产生，因此一个受精卵也是人，由于从胚胎中分离干细胞，要杀死胚胎，在这些教徒看来，也就是谋杀，应该禁止。 《纽约时报》1：When does a human life begin? The Catholic Church says that life begins at fertilization, when egg and sperm unite and that the embryo created from this union has the same rights due any person. Because embryos must be destroyed to generate embryonic stem cells, opponents of the research say it is morally unacceptable. 亦明是看不懂中文呢？还是看不懂英文？两段文字讲的确实是同一件事，但是叙述完全不同。如果亦明真的英文太差，我可以替他把纽约时报的这段翻译出来： 引用： 人的生命是何时开始的？。。。。。。天主教会认为生命始于受精，即卵子和精子结合的时候，而且其结合产生的胚胎应有所有赋予人的人权。因为产生胚胎干细胞的过程需要毁坏胚胎，这类研究的反对者说这是道德上不可接受的。 其它几段也是如此。 假设亦明能读中文，也知道什么叫抄袭，那结论只能是： 1. 亦明不懂生物学。 2. 亦明不懂英文。 【仿上述结论：看了这种不入流的辩解，结论只能是： 1. 作者懂生物学 2. 作者懂英文 3. 作者人品太差，为错狡辩，缺乏基本学术与一般道德修养。】
【寻正按：一个人的小动作往往揭示其品性，我在新语丝的第一次诧异是方舟子针对我在别人博客上的留言不告而取，以我的名义发表在新语丝上。为什么诧异呢？因为此前我发文批判一位律师针对李丽云事件的评论，我当时上网一搜，发现该文早就在网络上流传，因此，我在我的评论中点出这一事实，说方舟子转载了该文。方舟子回信不客气地教训我说，他不转载，原文是作者向他投的稿，然后方舟子把我的文章修改后直接发出来了，我当时好佩服，现在回想起来却是觉得靠不住的。亦明就有过方舟子在发誓不再登载他的文章之后对他的文章再次不告而取的经历，不但不告而取，方舟子还篡改了原文（加了料）。我也转载方舟子的文章，但我从不篡改他的内容，但方舟子做这样的事情几乎是家常便饭，方舟子跟我交恶的所有打击行动都是在篡改了我的原文后进行的他从不展示我原文的全部内容，只提出部分内容就任意发挥，任何人都能理解，失掉了原文的背景，这样的行为就是故意的曲解与操纵。篡改分三种形式，加料、减料、或者修改，把自己的意愿加于作者头上，是典型的欺诈，因为诱导了读者针对原文进行了错误的判断。】 方舟子博士篡改纽约时报文章 http://www.starlakeporch.net/bbs/read.php?1,70379 方舟子博士在其美国中文博客： 中转载和翻译了纽约时报文章：欺诈泛滥威胁着中国崛起。 但是，在描述肖医生事件的一段中，方博士在其英文转载和中文翻译中都做了以下篡改： New York Times： In a series of investigative articles and blog postings, the two men uncovered discrepancies in Dr. Xiaos Web site, including claims that he had published 26 articles in English-language journals (they could only find four) and that he had won an achievement award from the American Urological Association (the award was for an essay he wrote). But even more troubling, they said, were assertions that his surgery had an 85 percent success rate. Of more than 100 patients interviewed, they said none reported having been cured of incontinence, with nearly 40 percent saying their health had worsened after the procedure, which involved rerouting a leg nerve to the bladder. (In early trials, doctors in the United States who have done the surgery have found the results to be far more promising.) Wherever the truth may have been, Dr. Xiao was incensed. He filed a string of libel suits against Fang Shimin and told anyone who would listen that revenge would be his. 方文： In a series of investigative articles and blog postings, the two men uncovered discrepancies in Dr. Xiaos Web site, including claims that he had published 26 articles in English-language journals (they could only find four) and that he had won an achievement award from the American Urological Association (the award was for an essay he wrote). But even more troubling, they said, were assertions that his surgery had an 85 percent success rate. Of more than 100 patients interviewed, they said none reported having been cured of incontinence, with nearly 40 percent saying their health had worsened after the procedure, which involved rerouting a leg nerve to the bladder. Wherever the truth may have been, Dr. Xiao was incensed. He filed a string of libel suits against Fang Shimin and told anyone who would listen that revenge would be his. 方舟子博士故意把 (In early trials, doctors in the United States who have done the surgery have found the results to be far more promising.) 删掉。 纽约时报这段文章透露：在美国的早期临床试验中，做过手术的医生们发现其结果是很有前途的。 方舟子博士篡改纽约时报文章时间表 1。2010年10月6日：纽约时报发表文章Rampant Fraud Threat to Chinas Brisk Ascent。 2。2010年10月6日：新语丝网友eddie在第一时间把它转载在Chinas Scientific Academic Integrity Watch博客 （没有关于肖氏手术的正面信息）。 3a＊。2010年10月6－7日：新语丝网友Ziren从纽约时报网站拷贝了文章准备翻译（有关于肖氏手术的正面信息）。 3b＊。2010年10月6－7日：纽约时报修改此篇文章，修改内容注录里没有关于加入肖氏手术正面信息的内容。 （＊3a和3b的确切时间和顺序不能确定） 4。2010年10月7日22：02：15（新语丝时间）：新语丝管家Yush(羽矢，语丝)上贴安民告示NYTimes新加了句关于美国肖壶试验的注解. 5。2010年10月7日22：21：12（新语丝时间）：Ziren提出疑问这句好象不是新加的，我先前copy下来的就有。 6。2010年10月7日22：25：49（新语丝时间）：Yush 証明我读的时候没有这句。Eddie的Copy/Paste也没有。 7。2010年10月7日22：52：30（新语丝时间）：新语丝网友Blackbox提出疑问有意思, 假如是新加的, 为什么不在更改里说明? 不过他认为可以找报纸出来比较。 8。2010年10月7日22：52：32（新语丝时间）： Yush指示Ziren在翻译时可加译注如下。 9。2010年10月15日：方舟子博士在他的新浪，网易，腾讯，美国中文等博客以及新语丝网站发表Ziren的中文翻译及英文原稿。除了新语丝网站的中文翻译里有关于肖氏手术的句子及Yush的注解，其他中文翻译和所有英文原稿都删掉了有关肖氏手术的正面信息。 10。2010年10月24日：Wowuyu发现了方博士的欺骗行径并在星湖轩首先发表方舟子博士篡改纽约时报文章的帖子。 11。2010年10月25－27日：有人发现方博士的新浪，网易，腾讯的博客的纽约时报的博文有时不能访问，并提示博文被deleted。
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/07/world/asia/07scholar.html?pagewanted=1ref=world Uneasy Engagement Fighting Trend, China Is Luring Scientists Home Shiho Fukada for The New York Times Shi Yigong resigned from the faculty of Princeton University and became the dean of life sciences at Tsinghua University in Beijing. Sign in to Recommend Twitter E-MailSend To Phone Print Single Page Reprints Share Close LinkedinDiggFacebookMixxMySpaceYahoo! BuzzPermalink By SHARON LaFRANIERE Published: January 6, 2010 BEIJING Scientists in the United States were not overly surprised in 2008 when the prestigious Howard Hughes Medical Institute in Maryland awarded a $10 million research grant to a Princeton University molecular biologist, Shi Yigong. Skip to next paragraph Uneasy Engagement This is the 10th in a series of articles examining stresses and strains of Chinas emergence as a global power.Previous Articles in the Series Enlarge This Image Shiho Fukada for The New York Times Shi Yigong, a Princeton University molecular biologist, rejected a prestigious $10 million grant to return to China in 2008. Dr. Shis cell studies had already opened a new line of research into cancer treatment. At Princeton, his laboratory occupied an entire floor and had a $2 million annual budget. The surprise shock, actually came a few months later, when Dr. Shi, a naturalized American citizen and 18-year resident of the United States, announced that he was leaving for good to pursue science in China. He declined the grant, resigned from Princetons faculty and became the dean of life sciences at Tsinghua University in Beijing. To this day, many people dont understand why I came back to China, he said recently between a crush of visitors to his Tsinghua office. Especially in my position, giving up all I had. He was one of our stars, Robert H. Austin, a Princeton physics professor, said by telephone. I thought it was completely crazy. Chinas leaders do not. Determined to reverse the drain of top talent that accompanied its opening to the outside world over the past three decades, they are using their now ample financial resources and a dollop of national pride to entice scientists and scholars home. The West, and the United States in particular, remain more attractive places for many Chinese scholars to study and do research. But the return of Dr. Shi and some other high-profile scientists is a sign that China is succeeding more quickly than many experts expected at narrowing the gap that separates it from technologically advanced nations. Chinas spending on research and development has steadily increased for a decade and now amounts to 1.5 percent of gross domestic product. The United States devotes 2.7 percent of its G.D.P. to research and development, but Chinas share is far higher than that of most other developing countries. Chinese scientists are also under more pressure to compete with those abroad, and in the past decade they quadrupled the number of scientific papers they published a year. Their 2007 total was second only to that of the United States. About 5,000 Chinese scientists are engaged in the emerging field of nanotechnology alone, according to a recent book, Chinas Emerging Technological Edge, by Denis Fred Simon and Cong Cao, two United States-based experts on China. A 2008 study by the Georgia Institute of Technology concluded that within the next decade or two, China would pass the United States in its ability to transform its research and development into products and services that can be marketed to the world. As China becomes more proficient at innovation processes linking its burgeoning R.D. to commercial enterprises, watch out, the study concluded. Quantity is not quality, and despite its huge investment, China still struggles in many areas of science and technology. No Chinese-born scientist has ever been awarded a Nobel Prize for research conducted in mainland China, although several have received one for work done in the West. While climbing, China ranked only 10th in the number of patents granted in the United States in 2008. Chinese students continue to leave in droves. Nearly 180,000 left in 2008, almost 25 percent more than in 2007, as more families were able to pay overseas tuition. For every four students who left in the past decade, only one returned, Chinese government statistics show. Those who obtained science or engineering doctorates from American universities were among the least likely to return. Recently, though, China has begun to exert a reverse pull. In the past three years, renowned scientists like Dr. Shi have begun to trickle back. And they are returning with a mission: to shake up Chinas scientific culture of cronyism and mediocrity, often cited as its biggest impediment to scientific achievement. They are lured by their patriotism, their desire to serve as catalysts for change and their belief that the Chinese government will back them. I felt I owed China something, said Dr. Shi, 42, who is described by Tsinghua students as caring and intensely driven. In the United States, everything is more or less set up. Whatever I do here, the impact is probably tenfold, or a hundredfold. He and others like him left the United States with fewer regrets than some Americans might assume. While he was courted by a clutch of top American universities and rose swiftly through Princetons academic ranks, Dr. Shi said he believed many Asians confronted a glass ceiling in the United States. Rao Yi, a 47-year-old biologist who left Northwestern University in 2007 to become dean of the School of Life Sciences at Peking University in Beijing, contrasts Chinas soul-searching with Americas self-satisfaction. When the United States Embassy in Beijing asked him to explain why he wanted to renounce his American citizenship, he wrote that the United States had lost its moral leadership after the 9/11 attacks. But the American people are still reveling in the greatness of the country and themselves, he said in a draft letter. Fighting Trend, China Is Luring Scientists Home Sign in to Recommend Twitter E-MailSend To Phone Print Single Page Reprints Share Close LinkedinDiggFacebookMixxMySpaceYahoo! BuzzPermalink Published: January 6, 2010 (Page 2 of 2) These scientists were not uniformly won over by the virtues of democracy, either. While Dr. Rao said he hoped and believed that China would become a multiparty democracy in his lifetime, Dr. Shi said he doubted that that political system will ever be appropriate for China. Skip to next paragraph Uneasy Engagement This is the 10th in a series of articles examining stresses and strains of Chinas emergence as a global power.Previous Articles in the Series As a Tsinghua student, Dr. Shi joined the 1989 pro-democracy protests in Tiananmen Square. As a registered Democrat in the United States, he participated eagerly in elections. Multiparty democracy is perfect for the United States, he said. But believing that multiparty democracy is right for the United States does not mean it is right for China. Yet the re-entry to the politicized world of science in China can be challenging. Some scientists with weaker rsums have shunned returnees. In its biennial election of academicians last month, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Chinas highest advisory body on science and technology, passed over Dr. Shi and Dr. Rao. It also did not recognize Wang Xiaodong, a well-known Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator who recently left the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas for Beijings National Institute of Biological Sciences. The tension has spilled over into the Chinese blogosphere, where Dr. Shi has been attacked as insincere and untrustworthy. In a posting in 2008, Liu Zhongwu, a professor of science and engineering at South China University of Technology, said that Dr. Shi should be excluded from any projects that touch on Chinas national interests. Bear in mind, he is a foreigner, he wrote. The last year and a half have been like 10 years to me, said Dr. Shi, who says the criticism is redolent of the Cultural Revolution. I am rejoicing that I am still standing. But the returnees also have powerful friends, including their universities presidents and some officials within the Communist Partys Central Committee. Dr. Shi and Dr. Rao helped draft the partys new program to hire top-flight overseas scientists, entrepreneurs and other experts the latest incarnation of the governments campaign to lure its scholars home. In May 2008, Dr. Shi was invited to speak about the future of Chinese science and technology to Vice President Xi Jinping and other high-ranking officials at Zhongnanhai, the leadership compound in Beijing. Dr. Rao says the government is generous maybe overly so in financing science. The challenge, he said, is making sure that the funds are spent wisely, not simply handed over to those in bureaucratic favor. Five years ago, as head of a scientific institute at Northwestern University, he made the same argument in the British journal Nature. Dr. Rao wrote that connections too often trumped merit when grants were handed out in China. He recommended abolishing the Ministry of Science and Technology and reassigning its budget to a more reputable agency. His critique was banned in China. But last October, China Daily, the state-run English-language newspaper, summarized it in a profile of Dr. Rao headlined A Man With a Mission. It is going to be an uphill battle, said Mr. Cao, an author of the book on China. They are excellent scientists. But they must form a critical mass to reform the system. If they dont reform it, they will leave. At Tsinghua, Dr. Shi says he is optimistic. In less than two years, he has recruited about 18 postdoctoral fellows, almost all from the United States. Each has opened an independent laboratory. Within a decade, he said, Tsinghuas life sciences department will expand fourfold. Dr. Shi does not pretend that science there is now on a par with Princeton. Rather, he likens Tsinghua to a respected American state university. But in a matter of years, he said, we will get there. Previous Page1 2 Zhang Jing, Sun Huan and Zhao Nan contributed research.
标签: 纽约时报
![[转载]与中国何干？纽约时报竟这样描写埃及骚乱](http://image.sciencenet.cn/album/201102/10/1331205q527y9980g2o68v.jpg.thumb.jpg)
