中国拿走了美国的镇国之宝 2014-06-10 19:56:34 纽约时报 作为一个生活在北京的美国富布赖特奖学金(Fulbright)学者，我常常陷入无法翻译的伦理对话。不久前，我们与美国驻华大使馆的官员及中国知识分子共进午餐，结果，我们在红包问题上展现了彻底的文化分歧。 中国人常常送出装有现金的红包，作为祝贺婚礼、小孩出生和春节等场合的礼物。红色被认为代表着好运。中国家庭向即将给他们的家人做手术的医生送红包，是一种非常普遍的现象。每个人都知道要照此办理，也都按照自己的能力给出红包。我们这群美国人则认为，此举是不道德的贿赂，因为这是在寻求医生偏袒自己。桌上的中国人回答，“当然会让医生偏袒。这就是目的啊。”他们不仅对我们的谴责感到困惑，还迅速反问，我们这些美国人有没有小孩——因为，但凡家长必然会采取一切必要手段来保护挚爱的家人。 当一名（尽全力施展“人心外交”的）使馆工作人员建议中国人可以等手术成功后再送红包，而不是事先送，他们惊呆了。当然了，必须得事前送，因为红包会激发医生的积极性。礼金给医生传达的讯息是：一、对我们的孩子特别照顾；二、我们尊重你的医术和受到的教育，并且相应地给了你“面子”；三、我们对孩子很重视，会要求你负责，而且有能力让你负责。并非所有人都有能力通过送红包来影响他们的医生，但这个事实不是拒送红包的理由，因为我们此刻正在努力保护我的孩子。在中国人看来，像抽象的原则这种说不清道不明的东西，永远不能跟孩子的幸福相提并论。 这种简单的困惑暴露出了两种文化之间显著的伦理差异。许多美国人认为，像红包这样的赞助在本质上是腐败。他们指出，这种现象一开始当然都很简单，但它会扩大至收受贿赂并携巨额财产潜逃的腐败政党成员。另一方面，中国人认为交换红包是有礼貌的行为，是增进社会关系的重要方式，与贿赂无关。他们也谴责贿赂太自私。大部分西方人无法理解中国人的实用主义道德标准，认为任何优待制度都是不道德的，因为它未能平等地尊重每一个公民。 由于美国出产的唯一一门正式的哲学有着同样的名字——实用主义(pragmatism)，这就让这种分歧愈发显得突出。实用主义的核心是19世纪末、20世纪初一小群思想家的理念，这些思想家包括约翰·杜威(John Dewey)、威廉·詹姆斯(William James)和查尔斯·桑德斯·皮尔斯(Charles Sanders Pierce)（詹姆斯认为，皮尔斯是实用主义哲学的奠基人）。美式实用主义对学术界和思想界的影响都很重大，但却都不长远。随着分析哲学在美国大学体系中站稳了脚跟，实用主义的影响就褪去了。但在后冷战时代，以理查德·罗蒂(Richard Rorty)为首的哲学家重拾实用主义后，使它又得到了振兴和修正。 在1906年的一次题为“实用主义意味着什么”的演讲中，詹姆斯说，实用主义方法寻求“通过追踪各自的实际后果来解读每一个观念”。我想说，现在那种方法看上去更具有中国特色，而非美国特色。 大部分美国人都熟悉中国在涉及外交政策时的实用主义。中国对与其他国家进行道德辩论不感兴趣，它采取的立场是，自己的政策“只是公事公办”，以同样的方式与圣人和暴君进行贸易。至少在公开场合，美国看不起这种看上去缺乏原则的做法，但在我看来，我们未能了解中国文化中更深层次的实用主义道德观。 如今，中国知识分子对实用主义的欢迎似乎胜过美国人。在中国，对杜威哲学思想的热情尤其在迅速高涨起来，相比之下美国对它的热情已经枯萎了。在北京外国语大学，我所在学院的院长孙有中教授解释说，上海华东师范大学正在广泛地重新翻译杜威的大量著作，这些作品包括杜威1919年到1921年在中国居住期间的许多演讲。最近，在北京和上海还召开了一些以杜威的哲学思想为主题的会议，我所有的本科学生都知道他的名字，但在国内，我在芝加哥的大部分本科学生却不知道。如果这样的证据最多是道听途说，那么一些统计数据表明，对美式实用主义的兴趣正在自己的土壤上消失：让学生有机会专门研究本土哲学的研究生项目，在授予学位的哲学院系中仅占10%左右。 杜威的哲学思想，以及在他之前的威廉·詹姆斯的哲学思想，首要主题是试验性的生活方式——这是一种在行为领域测试各种见解的做法——应该在涵盖了宗教、政治、道德、艺术，当然还有科学的所有领域，成为指引我们行动的原则 。杜威反对僵化的意识形态，反对绝对主义和本质论。我们当中有太多人对自己的意见过于自信了，而且倾向于把它们视为确信无疑的精辟之见，认为自己的见解比别人的见解、比别的文化和别的时代的见解要更出色。实用主义者指出，即便我们自信确认无疑，真理依然会出偏差，我们不能完全肯定，何时获知了真理。在《信仰的意志》(Will to Believe)一文中，威廉·詹姆斯说，“相信真理存在，且相信我们的理智能够找到它，这种信念存在两种方式。绝对论者在这个问题上宣称，我们不仅能够认识真理，而且能够 ‘知道何时’ 认识了真理；而经验论者则认为，尽管我们可以获得真理，但我们不能准确无误地知道何时认识了真理。‘认识’ 是一回事，肯定地知道 ‘我们认识’ 则是另一回事。一个人可以坚持第一种认识，而不相信第二种。” 和其他事情一样，我们必须把我们的伦理主张当做假设来对待，在社会领域对其进行检验。道德不会像永恒的真理一样从天而降。我们在社交互动领域检验那些好的观念，证实那些对我们有利的（比如分享），去除那些不利于我们的（比如奴役）。杜威在《达尔文对哲学的影响》(The Influence of Darwin on Philosophy)一文中表示，道德关乎如何“提升我们的教育、改善我们的举止、推进我们的政治”这样的必要问题，而非乌托邦式的理想主义。深受达尔文影响的实用主义认为，即便是道德准则，也是针对现代人社会生活的一种不断进化的适应性反应。 时下，杜威和实用主义在中国的复兴，强调了世俗伦理的维度，是在提醒日渐壮大的富有阶层不要忘记共同利益。几千年来，中国人一直都是无神论者，并且实用主义与非常世俗化的儒家伦理极其契合。前不久，我让北京的学生向我解释中国的实用主义，我以为他们会引用邓小平那句不屑拘泥于经济意识形态的名言：“不管白猫黑猫，会捉老鼠就是好猫。”但他们一直追溯到孔子，并提醒我当孔子被问及我们应该怎样侍奉鬼神时，孔子答道，我们首先应该弄明白怎么和人打交道。只有解决了现时的问题后，我们才该去担忧超自然领域的事情。 现在，我们有机会从实用主义角度考虑中美伦理差异，并且看到为什么说我们能够很好地重振自己的民族哲学。之前有关孝心和红包的例子揭示了中国伦理的实用主义本质，但它并非只是出于权宜或方便（尽孝这种事可没什么方便可言）。增进社会关系不是自私，而是互惠。美国人认为它是“贿赂”而对其不予理会，但它却让人们形成有益于其所在群体及其成员的互惠关系。只有当这种增进社会关系的行为未得到回报或过度了时，它才会成为一个问题。它的对错取决于程度，并非本质上就是错误的，或绝对是错误的。 相比之下，美国伦理（以及外交政策）在权衡轻重时依然太过认真，甚至在对民主传统的坚持上，也带有一种教条主义的热情。正如已多次被指出的那样，认为上帝站在自己这一边的人几乎无所不能。当然，不久前我们看到，无神论者也会同样教条，毛泽东时代的中国自己也证明了这一点。但现在的中国已大不一样，它更支持一种实用主义的认知，即教条主义（不管是有宗教信仰的人还是无神论者）才是更大的问题。 基于这一见解，我们自己的实用主义传统应该带给我们亟需的谦逊。 作者史蒂芬·T·阿斯马(Stephen T. Asma)是芝加哥哥伦比亚学院(Columbia College Chicago)的哲学教授，最近著有《反对公平》一书。 翻译：陈亦亭 画梦 评论日期：2014-06-11 06:43:11 美国的镇国之宝是宪法和维护宪法的三权鼎立的立法执法裁决和监督系统。虽然不完美却是世界上极少数几个好的制度之一。专制国家不可能也不愿意拿走。拿走了就宣布自己专制的灭亡。句号！ 五步蛇 评论日期：2014-06-10 22:35:12 作者回避了两点:1. 中国把实用主义划归为实事求是的一个子集!!!显然, 道德对于实用主义而言, 暗藏的是虚伪. 实是求是却不然, 实事求是包含了道德. 2。 至于, “红包”只能比做生物界（当然包括人类) 的排泄部位以及排泄物.只要是生物都有. 唯一不同的是有的拉猪屎， 有的拉人屎， 有的拉牛屎， 有的拉狗屎。。。。。。。。。。 .“红包”也一样， 红包仅仅属于所谓“文明世界”背后的肮脏勾当的最小单位或一个小得可怜的子集而已！！红包可以体现在定单上, 在基金上（千万别以为所谓基金都是用来做善事的），股市内部信息， 等等， 甚至武器弹药, 军事装备等等都可以归类为“红包的最高体现形式!！能力超强的, 在国际上送红包， 能力较弱的在人与人之间送红包。。。。。。。。。只要弱肉强食存在于人类一天, 各种形形色色的红包就必然渗透与人类世界的各个角落。 km 评论日期：2014-06-10 20:13:46 完全是特洛伊木马 THE STONE JUN 8 5:00 PM 135 From China, With Pragmatism By STEPHEN T. ASMA As an American Fulbright lecturer living in Beijing, I am regularly confronted with “lost in translation” ethical conversations. At a recent lunch with United States Embassy officers and local Chinese intellectuals, we had a complete cultural breakdown over red envelopes. My students in Beijing and Shanghai all know John Dewey’s name, but most of my Chicago undergrads back home do not. Chinese people regularly give red envelopes, or hongbao, filled with money as gifts for weddings, births, New Year celebrations and so on. The red color is thought to be good luck. It is very common for a Chinese family to give hongbao to a surgeon who is about to perform a procedure on a family member. Everyone knows to do this, and everyone does it to the extent that they are able. The Americans in our group thought this practice was unethical bribery, because it sought to bias the doctor in one’s favor. The Chinese people at the table replied, “Of course it biases the doctor. That’s why we do it.” Not only were they mystified by the censure, but the Chinese were prompted to ask if the Americans had any children — for every parent surely uses any means necessary to protect loved ones. When one embassy officer (working his best “hearts-and-minds diplomacy”) suggested that the Chinese switch the giving of hongbao to after the successful operation, rather than before, the Chinese were struck dumb with astonishment. Of course, you have to give the hongbao beforehand because it motivates the doctor. The gift tells the doctor: (a) to take special care with our child (b) we respect your surgical skills/education and “give face” accordingly (c) we are devoted to our child, will hold you responsible and have the means to do so. The fact that not everyone can afford to influence their doctor with hongbao is not grounds for withholding it, since we’re trying to protect my child here and now. The parent, according to the Chinese, should never weigh the child’s well-being against something so arcane as an abstract principle. This simple confusion exposes tectonic ethical differences between the two cultures. Many Americans see patronage like hongbao as intrinsic corruption. Sure, it starts simple, they suggest, but it scales up to corrupt party members taking bribes and absconding with great wealth. The Chinese on the other hand recognize that hongbao exchange is good manners and important social grooming (guanxi), and has nothing to do with graft, which they also condemn as selfish. Most Westerners cannot understand the pragmatic ethics of the Chinese, dismissing any preferential system as unethical because it fails to respect every citizen equally. This chasm is especially notable since the only official philosophy America ever produced goes by that very name — pragmatism. It is centered in the ideas of a small group of late 19 th- and early 20 th- century thinkers that includes John Dewey, William James and Charles Sanders Peirce (whom James acknowledged as pragmatism’s philosophical founder). American pragmatism’s influence in both academic and intellectual life was significant but not long-lived. As analytic philosophy gained footholds in the American university system, the influence of pragmatism faded, though it was revived and revised when it was taken up again by philosophers, Richard Rorty foremost among them, in the post-Cold War era. In a 1906 lecture, “What Pragmatism Means,” James said that the pragmatic method sought to “interpret each notion by tracing its respective practical consequences.” I would argue that at this moment, that method seems more Chinese than American. Most Americans are familiar with Beijing’s pragmatism when it comes to foreign policy. Uninterested in moral debates with other nations, China takes the position that its policies are “just business,” and trades with saints and tyrants alike. The United States, at least publicly, looks down its nose at this seeming lack of principle, but it is my view that we fail to understand the deeper pragmatic ethic in Chinese culture. These days, it seems that pragmatism is more commonly embraced by Chinese intellectuals than by Americans. In China, enthusiasm for Dewey’s philosophy in particular is growing rapidly, while back home interest in it languishes. The dean of my school in Beijing Foreign Studies University, Professor Sun Youzhong, explained that an extensive new translation of Dewey’s voluminous works is underway at East China Normal University in Shanghai, and these will include many lectures that Dewey gave when he lived in China from 1919 to 1921. There have also been recent conferences on Dewey’s philosophy in Beijing and Shanghai, and my own undergraduate students all know his name, while most of my Chicago undergrads back home do not. If such evidence is anecdotal at best, there is some statistical indication that interest in American pragmatism is withering in its own soil: American graduate programs that offer the opportunity to specialize in our homegrown philosophy make up only around 10 percent of degree-granting philosophy departments. RELATED More From The Stone Read previous contributions to this series. The overarching theme of Dewey’s philosophy, and that of William James before him, is that an experimental approach to life — one that tests ideas in the realm of action — should guide us in all domains, including religion, politics, ethics, art and, of course, science. Dewey argued against sclerotic ideology, absolutism and essentialism. Too many of us are overconfident about our opinions and tend to view them as gems of certainty, outshining those of other people, cultures and eras. To all this confident certainty, pragmatists pointed out that truth is fallible and we can’t be entirely sure when we’ve arrived at it. William James, in his “Will to Believe,” says, “the faith that truth exists, and that our minds can find it, may be held in two ways. The absolutists in this matter say that we not only can attain to knowing truth, but we can know when we have attained to knowing it; while the empiricists think that although we may attain it, we cannot infallibly know when. To know is one thing, and to know for certain that we know is another. One may hold to the first being possible without the second.” Our ethical claims, like everything else, need to be treated as hypotheses that we test in the social realm. Morality does not fall from the sky as eternal truth. We try out notions of the good in the realm of social interaction, and we validate ones that work for us (like sharing) and eliminate ones that don’t (slavery). Dewey, in his essay “The Influence of Darwin on Philosophy,” says ethics is not about utopian idealism, but needful matters like how to “improve our education, ameliorate our manners, advance our politics.” Pragmatism, heavily influenced by Darwin, holds that even ethics is an evolving adaptive response of Homo sapiens’ social life. The current renaissance of Dewey and pragmatism in China stresses the secular ethics dimension as a way to remind a growing wealthy class of the common good. Chinese people have been atheists for thousands of years, and pragmatism is very congenial with the deeply secular Confucian ethic. When I asked my Beijing students recently to explain Chinese pragmatism to me, I expected them to cite Deng Xiaoping’s famous dismissal of economic ideology: “It doesn’t matter whether a cat is white or black, as long as it catches mice.” But they went all the way back to Confucius and reminded me that when he was asked how we should best serve the ghosts and spirits, Confucius replied that we should first figure out how to serve human beings. Only after we solve the problems of the here and now should we worry about the supernatural realm. Now, we’re in a position to consider Chinese and American ethical differences from a pragmatist perspective, and also see why we’d do well to revitalize our own national philosophy. The earlier example of filial piety and hongbao reveal the pragmatic nature of Chinese ethics, but it is not merely expedient or convenient (there is nothing convenient about filial piety). The social grooming of guanxi is not selfishness, but reciprocity. Americans dismiss it as “bribery” but it places reciprocal bonds on people that benefit the group and its members. It becomes a problem only when the grooming is unreciprocated or excessive. It is wrong by degrees, not intrinsically or absolutely wrong. By contrast American ethics (and foreign policy) is still too religious in its perspective, and even our democratic traditions are asserted with dogmatic gusto. As it’s been pointed out many times, someone who thinks he has God on his side is capable of almost anything. Of course, we’ve seen lately that atheists can be just as dogmatic, and China herself proved this in the Mao era. But China is very different now, and aligns more with the pragmatic insight that dogmatism (whether religious or atheist) is the bigger problem. Given that insight, our own pragmatist tradition should give us a well-needed dose of humility. Stephen T. Asma is professor of philosophy and fellow of the Research Group in Mind, Science and Culture at Columbia College Chicago. His most recent book is “Against Fairness.” This post has been revised to reflect the following correction: Correction: June 9, 2014 An earlier version of this post misspelled the surname of Charles Sanders Peirce. It is not Pierce.
和大多数外交政策专家一样，我对俄罗斯吞并克里米亚、不断对乌克兰东部实行“软侵略”的行为感到大为震惊。这种赤裸裸的侵占领土行径竟然发生在21世纪？ 但让人意外的不只是俄罗斯。如果你关注过德国国内关于乌克兰危机的讨论，你会看到另一种奇怪景象：大批退休政客和公众人物在电视上为俄罗斯辩护。 根据这些大人物——包括前总理格哈德•施罗德、赫尔穆特•施密特——的说法，北约和欧盟才是真正的侵略者，因为他们胆敢东扩着莫斯科的合法利益区域。德国部分民众也认同这一看法。 你以为德国人是国际法和世界文明秩序的拥护者？且慢。 他们是公然的伪善者。这批人曾运用国际法来指责美国侵略伊拉克，现在摇身一变，成为现实主义者，为俄罗斯侵略他国找借口。 实际上，布什政府虽然捏造了伊拉克的罪名，但至少手握16次联合国安理会决议撑腰。弗拉基米尔•V.普京，这位俄罗斯总统，却连一个都没有。前后两次迥然不同的立场，唯一的共同点是反美。 有些亲俄情绪是俄罗斯宣传工作的成果：《世界报》周日版的调查报道发现，俄罗斯支持者的隐秘网络勾勒了德国公共话语的格局。连德国政府赞助的德俄对话论坛也充斥着普京的朋友们——甚至来自德国这一边。 但德国普通民众中间还隐藏着一股潜流，试图复兴令人难堪的德国传统。我们总以为德国是西欧国家，但这很大程度上是冷战盟友的产物。在这之前，东、西德之间存在很大一条裂痕。 冷战结束距今已有25年，德国社会大可以再度脱离西方。Infratest/dimap（德国最大的民调机构——观察者网注）上月调查显示，49%的德国人表示希望本国在乌克兰问题上持中间立场，既不站在西方一边，也不站在俄罗斯一边，仅45%的德国人坚定支持西方阵营。 政治光谱的两极都有反西方情绪。左翼本能地反美，只要谁挑战世界格局和西方领先地位，就站在谁一边。 欧洲的民粹主义右翼则认同俄罗斯的宣传，认为欧洲太“娘炮”、太宽容、道德沦丧、不够“基督教”，欢迎独裁领袖撼动欧洲软趴趴的多边主义。 你可以发现，反对欧元的“再造德国”党最能体现德国的这种思想趋势。他们把德国思想拉回19世纪，憎恶西方文明，将未受西方价值观和自由资本主义污染的俄罗斯文明加以浪漫化。 这两种反西方情绪都已持续数十年，但一直处于政治末流。如今，他们的思想被部分社会精英和政客所接受。再加上德国企业对俄罗斯的大笔投资，导致原本强烈亲西方的默克尔政府束手束脚。 左右两边的政客都忽略了夹在德国与俄罗斯之间的居民的命运，以及德国过往的历史。 有些人会说，他们对俄罗斯的同情来源于二战时纳粹暴行的负罪感。但我们不能忘了，是德国首先从西面侵略了波兰，几天后，苏联才从东面进攻，双方秘密商定分裂东欧。 德国名流向俄罗斯意识形态鹦鹉学舌，斥责乌克兰“不再是像样的国家”，或者把夹在西方与俄罗斯之间的国家都当作二等民族、主权不完整。这让人想起东欧的悲惨历史，纳粹和苏联独裁者将这篇土地变成“血泊”。 数十年来，德国试图理解纳粹历史，并从中吸取教训。现在另一个国家迎来独裁领袖，试图用民族主义情绪煽动的侵略行为来维护政权稳定。 任何一个知道纳粹历史的人都能够明辨是非，而不是为俄罗斯人找借口。我的许多同胞没能通过这一关。 话说回来，最近一项调查显示60%的德国人称，希望本国支持西方在乌克兰危机期间的立场。俄罗斯尚未停息的侵略行为总算对民意产生了一点影响。不过，这表明仍有近半数德国人对西方国家和西方价值观没有多少情结——这正中普京下怀。 （本文2014年5月6日原刊《纽约时报》国际版，原标题Why Germans Love Russia.） Why Germans Love Russia MAY 5, 2014 Clemens Wergin BERLIN — Like most foreign-policy experts, I was shocked by Russia’s annexation of Crimea and its continuing “soft invasion” of eastern Ukraine. Can such a naked land grab really be happening now, in 21st-century Europe? But Russia’s actions were not the only surprise. If you have followed the German debate about the Ukraine crisis, you have witnessed another strange phenomenon: a parade of former politicians and public figures going on TV to make the case for Russia. According to these august figures — including former Chancellors Gerhard Schrder and Helmut Schmidt — NATO and the European Union were the real aggressors, because they dared to expand into territory that belonged to Moscow’s legitimate sphere of interest. And it seems part of the German public agrees. You thought that Germans were the champions of international law and a rules-based world order? Think again. There is a blatant hypocrisy here. At times the same people who had relied on international law to attack the American invasion of Iraq are now, as newborn realists, excusing Russia’s need to infringe on the sovereignty of other nations. In point of fact, despite its trumped-up charges against Iraq, the Bush administration had at least 16 United Nations Security Council resolutions to support its case. Vladimir V. Putin, Russia’s president, had zero. The only common denominator of both positions seems to be an underlying anti-Americanism. Some of this pro-Moscow sentiment is the work of Russia-sponsored propaganda: A recent investigative report by the newspaper Welt am Sonntag revealed how a shady network of Russia supporters has shaped public discourse in Germany. Even dialogue forums with Russia, co-sponsored by the German government, are full of friends of Mr. Putin, even on the German side. But there is also a disturbing undercurrent among ordinary Germans that harks back to old and unfortunate German traditions. We have come to think of Germany as a Western European country, but that is largely a product of Cold War alliances. Before then it occupied a precarious middle between east and west. Twenty-five years after the end of the Cold War, German society may well be drifting away from the West again. In a poll last month by Infratest/dimap, 49 percent of Germans said they wanted their country to take a middle position between the West and Russia in the Ukraine crisis, and only 45 percent wanted to be firmly in the Western camp. This anti-Westernism is coming from both sides of the political spectrum. There is the part of the left that is instinctively anti-American and takes the side of whatever international actor happens to challenge the status quo and the leading Western power. Then there is Europe’s populist right, which agrees with Russia’s propaganda that Europe has become too gay, too tolerant, too permissive in its morals and too un-Christian, and which welcomes an authoritarian leader challenging Europe’s fuzzy multilateralism. In Germany, you can find this current best represented by the new anti-euro Alternative für Deutschland Party. They take up a conservative strain of German thinking dating back to the 19th century, which harbors a resentment toward Western civilization and romanticizes a Russia seemingly uncorrupted by Western values and free-market capitalism. Both versions of anti-Westernism have been around for decades; until now, though, they have been confined to the political fringes. These days they are accepted by parts of the elite and sections of the political center. That, combined with the enormous investment by German companies in Russia, is placing constraints on how aggressively the government of Angela Merkel, Germany’s strongly pro-Western chancellor, can act against Russia. Continue reading the main story RECENT COMMENTS Michael MittermuellerYesterday The author Clemens Wergin suggested 28. Februar 2014 Ukraine should have kept their nuclear weapons. Sure ? Corruption destroyed the future... JJYesterday This is a great article, although it may slightly over-dramatize things. Since the end of the Cold War and Glasnost, Germany has lost its... pieceofcakeYesterday Or let me suspect - if there might be something German conservatives share with American conservatives - its a more simplistic view of the... SEE ALL COMMENTS What unites the apologists on the left and right is a striking disregard for the fate of the people who inhabit the lands between Germany and Russia, and a truncated notion of German history. Some apologists will explain their sympathy as a matter of debt to Russia for German atrocities during World War II. But it is important to remember that the war started with Germany invading Poland from the West — and a few days later the Soviet Union invading Poland from the East, after both sides had secretly agreed to split Eastern Europe between them. And so when German public figures, parroting Russian propaganda, dismiss Ukraine as “not a real country anyway,” or treat countries at the fault line between the West and Russia as second-class nations with somewhat lesser sovereignty, they are evoking memories in Eastern Europe of the bad old days, when the Nazis and Soviets turned the region into the “Bloodlands” of their respective dictatorships. For decades Germany has tried to come to terms with its fascist past and to learn important lessons from it. And now, in another country, there comes an authoritarian leader who is trying to stabilize his regime by pursuing aggression abroad on the grounds of ethnic nationalism. For anyone who has grappled with Germany’s Nazi past, it should have been easy to call right from wrong in this case, instead of finding excuses for Russia’s actions. It’s a test that too many of my compatriots have failed. To be fair, in a recent poll 60 percent of Germans said that their country should stand with the West in the Ukraine crisis. So Russia’s ongoing aggression is having some effect on public opinion. But that still means that nearly half of all Germans do not feel a deep connection with the West and its values — which is precisely what Mr. Putin wants. Clemens Wergin is the foreign editor of the German newspaper group Die Welt and the author of the blog Flatworld.
2012 年 10 月 25 日纽约时报（ http://www.nytimes.com/pages/world/index.html ）发表了“ Billions in Hidden Riches for Family of Chinese Leader ”的署名文章后，此前多年来可以上网阅读的纽约时报在互联网上是可以自由阅读的。可是，该文刊发后，我国大陆读者就再也无法从互联网上读不到纽约时报了。在一个号称改革开放的信息时代，国家有关部门竟然做出如此不明智的决定——剥夺中国公民阅读纽约时报的自由，这是对中华人民共和国宪法中规定的公民自由的公然侵犯，是违宪的。 想不到这种违宪行为正在有扩大的趋势。最近，英国的《卫报》（ http://www.guardian.co.uk/education ）网站也莫名其妙地上不去了。英国首相卡梅伦前不久来中国访问，国家领导人可以自由地与其交流互动，为何却剥夺了国民通过网络阅读英国《卫报》的自由呢？ “十八”大三中全会以后，据说国家加大了改革开放的力度，可是，从封闭网络阻止国民阅读英美两国的《纽约时报》和《卫报》的行为看，现在的相关政策不是进步了，而是倒退了。 本人是从事比较教育研究的，多年来养成了从网络上阅读《纽约时报》和《卫报》教育版的习惯，这对于研究美、英两国的教育问题，获得两国乃至世界其他国家最新的教育改革信息是非常必要的。我想，这也是我国其他人文社会科学研究者了解美、英两国乃至世界其他国家各领域发展动态所必需的。可是，现在政府有关部分对人文社科研究者阅读这两份大报加以限制，这难道不是自己闭关自守的愚蠢政策吗？ 希望有关政府部门纠正错误的政策，还国民国家宪法赋予的自由和权利，禁止不法行为。
纽约时报启示 “ 钱学森之问 ” 答案之钥匙 ?! ““ 为什么我们的学校总是培养不出杰出人才？ ” 这就是著名的 “ 钱学森之问 ” 。 “ 钱学森之问 ” 是关于中国教育事业发展的一道艰深命题，需要整个教育界乃至社会各界共同破解。 “2005 年 温家宝 总理在看望著名物理学家 钱学森 时。钱学森认为： “ 现在 中国 没有完全发展起来，一个重要原因是没有一所大学能够按照培养 科学技术 发明创造人才的模式去办学，没有自己独特的创新的东西，老是 ‘ 冒 ’ 不出杰出人才。 ” 钱学森之问，包括两个层面：一是学校培养创造发明型人才的 模式 ，二是创新创业型人才在社会上发挥作用脱颖而出的 机制 。 举例说 国家最高科学技术奖 自 2000 年设立以来，共有 20 位科学家获奖，其中就有 15 个是 1951 年前大学毕业的 。 ” “ 专家回 答 据说温总理 2006 年拿这个问题请教国内最有名的六所大学校长和教育专家，他们的回答是：要培养杰出人才，关键是教师；要将基础教育和高等教育贯通起来；高校大改革大发展起来之后，应该是大提高；做大高等教育，还要做强高等教育 。 这种回答其实是不能让钱老和总理满意的 。 钱学森的为什么中国培养不出杰出人才的答案是很简单的。学校里，关心科技发展的人已成少数 ---- 没氛围；提得出又打创新性研究成果的人已成少数 ---- 没数量；关心的往往是创业问题并非科学研究 ---- 没火候；社会现状，人人祈求安贫乐道，不搞也不敢搞科技创新 ---- 没手段 .............. 总之，一般的，传统的，不打破常规的思维是绝不可能造就出像 达芬奇 ，牛顿，冯 卡门 ，特斯拉，诺贝尔， 爱因斯坦 这种伟人的 ！ ” ( http://baike.baidu.com/view/2978502.htm ) 我们如何能打破一般的，传统的，常规的思维 ? 读 “ 纽约时报 ” 的一篇文章（参考文献 1 ， “ 音乐是成功的关键？ ” ），我意识到， “ 钱学森之问 ” 答案之钥匙或许在他的太太蒋英 . 这是为什么 ? “Almost all made a connection between their music training and theirprofessional achievements. ( 几乎所有 成功杰出人才 , 他们的音乐训练和他们的专业成就之间有连接。 ) The phenomenon extends beyond the math-musicassociation. Strikingly, many high achievers told me music opened up the pathways to creative thinking. And their experiences suggest that music training sharpens other qualities: Collaboration. Theability to listen. A way of thinking that weaves together disparate ideas. Thepower to focus on the present and the future simultaneously. Visualize all of the notes andtheir interrelationships . It helps train you to think differently, to process different points ofview — and most important, to take pleasure in listening. Music providesbalance. ( 音乐训练锐化协作 , 倾听的能力 , 不同的想法交织在一起的一种思维方式 , 同时专注于现在和未来的能力 , 可视化所有的音符和它们之间的相互关系 , 处理整合不同的观点 , 听的乐趣 , 提供平衡等素质 ) Paul Allen, the billionaire co-founder of Microsoft (guitar) ( 亿万富翁保罗 · 艾伦共同创办微软（演奏吉他） ) the NBC chief White House correspondent Chuck Todd (French horn) ( NBC 的首席白宫记者查克 · 托德（圆号） ) CONDOLEEZZA RICE trained to be a concert pianist. ( 美国国务卿赖斯是一个音乐会钢琴家。 ) Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve, was a professional clarinet and saxophone player. ( 前美联储主席艾伦 · 格林斯潘，是一家专业单簧管和萨克斯管演奏家。 ) The hedge fund billionaire Bruce Kovner is a pianist who took classes at Juilliard ( 对冲基金亿万富翁布鲁斯 Kovner 在茱莉亚音乐学院是一个钢琴家 ) Larry Page, a co-founder of Google, played saxophone ( 谷歌的联合创始人拉里 · 佩奇（ Larry Page ），演奏萨克斯管 ) The former World Bank president James D. Wolfensohn has played cello ( 前世界银行总裁詹姆斯 · 沃尔芬森演奏大提琴 ) US President William Clinton plays saxophone (美国总统威廉·克林顿演奏萨克斯 管 )。 钱学森先生 谈治学和科研 : 首先介绍了他的治学经历。他说，他一辈子改了六次行，大学里是学火车头的（机车车辆专业），到了美国，转行搞航空航天，研究空气动力学和火箭发动机原理；在被美国佬限制人身自由后，只能做基础研究，搞过工程控制论、星际航行；回国前后又研究了物理力学；再后来由于工作需要，又在做系统科学和系统工程研究。 他在改行中的体会是：一要有扎实的数理力学基础，二要理论联系实际，对面临的社会需要有敏锐的观察力，对研究的问题有深入的洞察力，这样才能有所作为。 ” ( 戴世强 , Ref.#6, #7) 什么能够能使 钱学森先生 “ 对面临的社会有敏锐的观察力，对研究的问题有深入的洞察力，有所作为 ”? 钱学森先生酷爱音乐，上大学时就是校乐队的小号手，对声乐家妻子的才华和成就有透彻的认同。 1991 年，在国务院、中央军委给钱学森先生授奖的大会上，他深情地说： “ 蒋英是干什么的？她是女高音歌唱家，而且是专门唱最深刻的德国古典艺术歌曲。正是她给我介绍了这些音乐艺术，这些艺术里所包含的诗情画意和对于人生的理解，使得我丰富了对世界的认识，学会了艺术的广阔思维方法。 或者说，正因为我受到这些艺术方面的熏陶，所以我才能避免死心眼，避免机械唯物论，想问题能够更宽一点，活一点，在这一点上我也要感谢我的爱人蒋英同志。 ” 这就是一位大科学家对一位大艺术家的深刻评价和理解，从中足见蒋英的艺术的魅力。科学中的艺术，艺术中的科学，可谓珠联璧合。 (Ref. #6). (All the following photos are from Ref. #5: 钱永刚：父母留给我的 “ 财富 ” 一生受用) “ 结婚使得向以严肃严厉著称的 Caltech 教授钱学森发生了细微变化，连他的导师冯 • 卡门也高兴地说： “ 钱现在变了一个人，英真是个可爱的姑娘，钱完全被她迷住了。 ” 有一位专栏作家这样写道： “ 英的笑意始终浮现在面庞上，她说话注意语感，和风细雨般亲切温柔，每句话都像长了脚似的向你走来。她时常为钱幽默而滑稽的语言发笑，笑得很开心，很可爱。那甜甜的笑声，不时透出女高音歌唱家特有的那种灵气来。钱欣赏着她的笑声，像是很得意，钱捕捉到了她那漂亮脱俗的气质。 ” ” (Ref. #5, #6). 我不知道如果中国有没有 酷爱音乐和 成功杰出人才 相关的资料介绍。但是，我知道一些老一辈的有成就的科学家也是有成就的音乐家，例如，蒲蛰龙院士 ( 获 美国 明尼苏达大学博士学位 ) 有专门从事 音乐 学习研究的经历，却有很扎实 音乐 的基础 。蒲蛰龙酷爱拉小提琴。蒲蛰龙，一个少有人涉足的昆虫学领域孜孜不倦的研究者，有外国友人称其 “ 不仅是一位杰出的科学家和教育家，更像一位风度翩翩的外交家 ”. 蒲蛰龙院士 一生在科教界获奖无数，然而说起最喜欢的奖项，却是一张音乐家协会颁发的纪念奖 “ 您从事音乐逾四十年，为祖国音乐事业做出贡献，特发荣誉证书，以资纪念。 ” 蒲蛰龙院士 作为小提琴演奏家 , 喜爱萨拉萨蒂 ( 西班牙作曲家写于 1878 年萨拉萨蒂的小提琴和乐队的音乐作品 )“ 吉普赛 ”(Zigeunerweisen, Gypsy Airs) ，一直以来演奏记录 他 即兴的旋律 , 困难的奔跑 , 飞弹奏弓法 , 静音独奏忧郁的旋律，所谓的反向应用附点音符 , 具有挑战性的独奏部分主要包括长弹奏运行，双弦谐波和左手拨弦。 他 作为小提琴家的气势，名家的雄伟 , 大气滂薄，神采飞扬！ (Ref. #9) ( 本文引用地址： http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-847277-665781.html ) “ 中学生的目标一切以高考为主，选拔人才以考试为主要指标，在大学的教育也受到影响，高考状元或奥数金牌得主，自以为学业有成， 不读考试以外的有意义的文献，很难成长 。 ” (Ref. #8). 也许，中国需要音乐作为一项强制性的培训教育课程。 爱因斯坦真正的激情：我知道，在我生命中最快乐--我的小提琴演奏“ References (just for my own record ofreading library as I don’t believe in URL as it doesn’t work later on whenneeded.). 因为我不相信网址URL，因为以后需要网址的时候不连接到文档。） *****************************8888888877777777777777777777777777 博主回复：难的是什么样的难题到了他的手里都能较快地得到解决，而且手法巧妙。除了经验之外， 更重要的恐怕还是处理问题的直观见识和科学方法。 ” 钱先生告诉大家，解决工程实际问题就是要学会机敏地抓住问题的要害，要做到这样，就要有知识的积累和开阔的思路。 ”( 戴世强 , Ref. #6) 如果说，钱学森是一座丰碑，是一座大山的话，那么， 蒋英 就是丰碑旁的一片绿阴，大山上一片植被 。 ( https://www.google.com/#q=%E2%80%9D%E9%92%B1%E5%AD%A6%E6%B7%B1%E5%A4%AA%E5%A4%AA%E8%92%8B%E8%8B%B1start=20 ) 我国著名声乐教育家和女高音歌唱家、科学家钱学森的夫人 蒋 英 : 而作为一位科学家的妻子，蒋英 60多年来一直默默站在钱先生背后，支持钱先生的科研工作，是我国航天科学事业发展的 “幕后功臣”。 蒋英是我国著名军事理论家蒋百里之女，著名科学家钱学森的夫人， 她也是武侠小说大师金庸的表姐。 *********************************777777777777777777777 Ref. #1. Is Music the Key to Success? By JOANNE LIPMAN Published: October 12,2013 · CONDOLEEZZA RICE trained tobe a concert pianist. Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve,was a professionalclarinet and saxophone player. The hedge fund billionaire Bruce Kovneris a pianist who took classes at Juilliard. Enlarge This Image Anna Parin Multiple studies link musicstudy to academic achievement. But what is it about serious music training thatseems to correlate with outsize success in other fields? The connection isn’t acoincidence. I know because I asked. I put the question to top-flightprofessionals in industries from tech to finance to media, all of whom hadserious (if often little-known) past lives as musicians. Almost all made a connection between their musictraining and their professional achievements. The phenomenon extendsbeyond the math-music association. Strikingly, many high achievers told me music opened up the pathways tocreative thinking. And their experiences suggest that music training sharpens otherqualities: Collaboration. The ability to listen. A way of thinking that weavestogether disparate ideas. The power to focus on the present and the futuresimultaneously. Will your school music program turn your kid into a PaulAllen, the billionaire co-founder of Microsoft (guitar)? Or a Woody Allen(clarinet)? Probably not. These are singular achievers. But the way these andother visionaries I spoke to process music is intriguing. As is the way many ofthem apply music’s lessonsof focus and discipline into new ways of thinking and communicating — evenproblem solving . Look carefully and you’llfind musicians at the top of almost any industry. Woody Allen performs weekly with a jazz band. Thetelevision broadcaster Paula Zahn (cello) and the NBC chief White House correspondent Chuck Todd (Frenchhorn) attended college on music scholarships; NBC’s Andrea Mitchelltrained to become a professional violinist. Both Microsoft’s Mr. Allen and theventure capitalist Roger McNamee have rock bands. Larry Page, a co-founder of Google, played saxophone inhigh school. StevenSpielberg is a clarinetist and son of a pianist. The former World Bankpresident James D. Wolfensohn has played cello at Carnegie Hall. “It’s not a coincidence,”says Mr. Greenspan, who gave up jazz clarinet but still dabbles at the babygrand in his living room. “I can tell you as a statistician, the probabilitythat that is mere chance is extremely small.” The cautious former Fed chiefadds, “That’s all that you can judge about the facts. The crucial question is: why does that connectionexist?” Paul Allen offers ananswer. He says music“reinforces your confidence in the ability to create.” Mr. Allen began playing theviolin at age 7 and switched to the guitar as a teenager . Even in theearly days of Microsoft, he would pick up his guitar at the end of marathondays of programming. Themusic was the emotional analog to his day job, with each channeling a differenttype of creative impulse . In both, he says, “ something is pushing you to look beyond whatcurrently exists and express yourself in a new way.” Mr. Todd says there is a connection between years ofpractice and competition and what he calls the “drive for perfection.” The veteranadvertising executive Steve Hayden credits his background as a cellist for hismost famous work, the Apple “1984” commercial depicting rebellion against adictator. “I was thinkingof Stravinsky when I came up with that idea,” he says. He adds that his cello performance backgroundhelps him work collaboratively: “Ensemble playing trains you, quite literally,to play well with others, to know when to solo and when to follow.” For many of the high achieversI spoke with , musicfunctions as a “hidden language,” as Mr. Wolfensohn calls it, one thatenhances the ability to connect disparate or even contradictory ideas. When heran the World Bank, Mr.Wolfensohn traveled to more than 100 countries, often taking in localperformances (and occasionally joining in on a borrowed cello ), whichhelped him understand “the culture of people, as distinct from their balancesheet.” It’s in that context thatthe much-discussed connection between math and music resonates most. Both areat heart modes of expression. Bruce Kovner , the founder of the hedge fund Caxton Associatesand chairman of the board of Juilliard, says he sees similarities between hispiano playing and investing strategy; as he says, both “relate to patternrecognition, and some people extend these paradigms across different senses.” Mr. Kovner and the concertpianist Robert Taub both describe a sort of synesthesia — they perceivepatterns in a three-dimensional way. Mr. Taub, who gained fame for his Beethovenrecordings and has since founded a music software company, MuseAmi, says thatwhen he performs, he can“visualize all of the notes and their interrelationships,” a skill thattranslates intellectually into making “multiple connections in multiplespheres.” For others I spoke to, their passion for music is morenotable than their talent. Woody Allen told me bluntly, “I’m not anaccomplished musician. I get total traction from the fact that I’m in movies.” Mr. Allen sees music as adiversion, unconnected to his day job. He likens himself to “ a weekend tennis player whocomes in once a week to play. I don’t have a particularly good ear at all or aparticularly good sense of timing. In comedy, I’ve got a good instinct forrhythm. In music, I don’t, really.” Still, he practices the clarinet at leasthalf an hour every day, because wind players will lose their embouchure (mouthposition) if they don’t: “If you want to play at all you have to practice. Ihave to practice every single day to be as bad as I am.” He performsregularly, even touring internationally with his New Orleans jazz band. “Inever thought I would be playing in concert halls of the world to 5,000, 6,000people,” he says. “I will say, quite unexpectedly , it enriched my life tremendously.” Music provides balance,explains Mr. Wolfensohn, who began cello lessons as an adult. “You aren’ttrying to win any races or be the leader of this or the leader of that. You’reenjoying it because of the satisfaction and joy you get out of music, which istotally unrelated to your professional status.” For Roger McNamee, whoseElevation Partners is perhaps best known for its early investment in Facebook, “music and technology haveconverged,” he says. He became expert on Facebook by using it to promotehis band, Moonalice, and now is focusing on video by live-streaming itsconcerts. He says musicians and top professionals share “the almost desperate need to dive deep.” Thiscapacity to obsess seems to unite top performers in music and other fields. Ms. Zahn remembers spending up to four hours a day“holed up in cramped practice rooms trying to master a phrase” on her cello.Mr. Todd, now 41, recounted in detail the solo audition at age 17 when he gotthe second-highest mark rather than the highest mark — though he stillwas principal horn in Florida’s All-State Orchestra. “I’ve always believed the reason I’ve gotten ahead is byoutworking other people,” he says. It’s a skill learned by “playing that soloone more time, working on that one little section one more time,” and ittranslates into “working on something over and over again, or double-checkingor triple-checking.” He adds, “ There’s nothing like music to teach you that eventuallyif you work hard enough, it does get better. You see the results.” That’s an observation worthremembering at a time when music as a serious pursuit — and music education — is in decline in thiscountry . Consider the qualitiesthese high achievers say musichas sharpened: collaboration, creativity, discipline and the capacity toreconcile conflicting ideas. All are qualities notably absent frompublic life. Music may not make you a genius, or rich, or even a better person.But it helps train you tothink differently, to process different points of view — and most important, totake pleasure in listening. Joanne Lipman is a co-author , with Melanie Kupchynsky,of the book “Strings Attached: One Tough Teacher and the Gift of GreatExpectations.” 777777777777777777777777777777************* Ref. #2 两人在遥远的天堂再次上演着令人传颂的爱情 风姿卓越的一对夫妇，祝福他们在天堂里也能继续属于他们的爱情传奇。 钱学森夫人蒋英简介资料 蒋英教授，蒋英是大军事家蒋方震 (蒋百里)的三女儿。是中国著名的军事战略家、教育家、清末著名刊物《浙江潮》的创刊人之一。中国最杰出的女声乐教育家和享誉世界的女高音歌唱家，建国后长年任教于中央音乐学院... 钱学森之父钱均夫与蒋方震早年在杭州求是书院 (浙江大学前身)是同窗好友，两家过从甚密。蒋百里有“五朵金花”，钱均夫膝下只有独子钱学森。钱均夫与妻子章兰娟希望有个女儿，见蒋百里的三女儿蒋英活泼可爱，恳求蒋百里夫妇把蒋英过继给他们。蒋百里夫妇慨然答应，于是钱家办了酒席，过继蒋英，从此蒋英改名“钱学英”，并与奶妈一起住进了钱家。钱学森与蒋英从就小青梅竹马。 钱学森和“钱学英”以兄妹相称，两小无猜，青梅竹马。他俩还曾一起合唱《燕双飞》，博得两家的喝彩。未几，蒋百里夫妇思念三女儿，还是把蒋英接回去了。蒋英后来毕业于柏林国立音乐学院，成为优秀的歌手、钢琴家。没想到，这个原本是钱家的过继女儿的“钱学英”，最后还是嫁到钱家，变成钱家的儿媳。 他们在上海举行了婚礼。 1947年蒋英于上海与钱学森结婚。同年9月26日， 二人在美国波士顿安置新家，钱学森送给新婚妻子一台钢琴 。育有一子钱永刚、一女钱永真。1950年以后美国发生麦卡锡主义风潮，钱学森长期受到美军方监禁、迫害，1955年10月，随钱学森返回中国。 http://news.xinhuanet.com/politics/2012-02/07/c_122665079.htm *******************777777777777777777 Ref. #3: 钱学森夫人蒋英逝世 被誉为航天科学“幕后功臣” 记者 李佳杰报道 我国杰出的女声乐教育家、女高音歌唱家蒋英，于昨日 11点40分在北京301医院逝世，享年93岁。蒋英是我国著名军事理论家蒋百里之女，著名科学家钱学森的夫人，她也是武侠小说大师金庸的表姐。 作为一名声乐教育家，蒋英 50多年辛勤耕耘，曾辅导过傅海静、祝爱兰等多位活跃在国际歌剧舞台上的歌唱艺术家，翻译和撰写过众多声乐发展的著作和文章，在我国声乐界被誉为欧洲古典艺术歌曲权威；而作为一位科学家的妻子，蒋英60多年来一直默默站在钱先生背后，支持钱先生的科研工作，是我国航天科学事业发展的 “幕后功臣”。 蒋英自幼爱好音乐， 1936年赴欧洲游学， 1941年毕业于德国柏林音乐大学声乐系，随后赴瑞士继续深造。 1943年瑞士 “鲁辰”万国音乐年会上，蒋英在女高音比赛中夺得第一，开始引起欧洲声乐界的关注， 1944年蒋英毕业于瑞士路山音乐学院。 1947年5月31日，蒋英在上海兰心大戏院举行了归国后首场演唱会，由钢琴名家马果斯基教授伴奏，让当时的国内古典乐迷感受到了纯正的欧洲之声。同年，蒋英与钱学深在上海喜结良缘。 1955年起，蒋英任教于中央音乐学院，历任声乐系教研室主任、歌剧系副主任、教授。著有 《西欧声乐艺术发展史》，合译有 《肖邦传》、《舒曼传》等。 无论是作为女高音歌唱家，还是钱学森的夫人，蒋英为人极为谦逊、随和。 当年组织上为改善两人的居住条件，多次为他们分配 “部长楼”、“将军楼”，可每次都会被他们谢绝。 2009年正值蒋英90寿辰，钱学森98寿辰，由蒋英一手培养出的章亚伦、祝爱兰、姜咏等名徒，在北京音乐厅举办了一场答谢师恩的音乐会。当时面对媒体对其桃李满天下的盛赞，蒋英却非常认真地纠正到：“说实话，我并没有教出太多的学生。有些报纸上说某老师教出上百个学生很有成绩，这么吹捧一个教师，是不对的，不真实的。因为我们的教学方式是单个教学，我在音乐学院教学这么多年，顶多教过二三十个学生。” 蒋英先生逝世的消息，很快引来了关注。中央音乐学院的老师和学生纷纷在微博上表示哀悼，沪上青年歌唱家沈洋也寄托了自己的哀思， “她到了另一个世界再次和钱先生相会，彼此继续着艺术与科学的传奇……”在即将于下月上映的电影 《钱学森》中扮演钱学森的陈坤也以微博进行了哀悼。 据悉，蒋英先生的遗体告别仪式将于 2月10日在北京301医院举行。 http://www.chinanews.com/cul/2012/02-06/3647513.shtml ***************************77777777777777 Ref. 4: 真的，他家连台空调都没有，我们 3个工作人员有台彩电，可他连台彩电都没有 上海交通大学成立第一届“钱学森班”，对钱学森之问做出行动 :“13年9月6日，上海交通大学的著名专家、学者通过两轮六场面试，在高手云集的13届新生中精选出万人瞩目的“钱学森班”33名精英学员，采用本-硕-博连读，完全实行导师制（两位老师带一位学生），其目的是培养钱学森式的国家科技领域的领军人物和拔尖人才。钱学森班的班主任是国际著名的科学家、上海交通大学第三批“长江学者奖励计划”特聘教授王如竹先生。这是上海交通大学对钱学森之问做出的具体行动和回应。同时也是上海交通大学承载着培养钱学森式国家拔尖人才之重任。” ********777777888 *****************************887777777777777777 Ref. 5: 钱永刚：父母留给我的 “ 财富 ” 一生受用 时间 :2013-6-19 点击率 :692 钱永刚：父母留给我的 “ 财富 ” 一生受用 不久前，中国科协原副主席、著名科学家刘恕同志，给我们打来电话，说我国 “ 两弹一星之父 ” 钱学森的儿子钱永刚，在他母亲蒋英的追思会上的发言非常感人，希望《中国妇女》报道蒋英这位杰出女性。几经周折，记者找到钱永刚先生，听他追忆在父母身边的点点滴滴。 图 1 钱永刚、钱永真一双儿女，给钱学森与蒋英夫妇的生活带来无限快乐和情趣。 （摄于上世纪 50 年代初，美国） 他们过自己选择的人生 我 38 岁那年，到美国加州理工学院计算机科学系读研究生。在学院的图书馆前， 我看到奠基石碑上刻着图书馆建立的时间： 1966 年。 注视着这个年份，我心里顿生感慨：我来晚了 ! 如果爸爸不回国，我可能 18 岁就进入这个图书馆的大门了，早 20 年入学，我是不是会比现在优秀一点呢？ 只是人生没有如果。 30 岁上大学的时候，老师看着我考试时感慨，如果再有半小时时间，钱永刚就是 100 分。我紧赶慢赶，还是有一道题来不及做，而做出来的，几乎全对。我只能苦笑，脑子没年轻时那么快了，大好年华都给了那个 “ 内乱 ” 的年代。 从那时起，我就一直在紧赶慢赶。一直很努力。 我从未对父母说起过自己那一闪而过的感慨，因为我知道，爸爸妈妈对于回国的决定从未有过一丝一毫的后悔。而且，之后爸爸再也没有踏过那片土地，因为当年回国前，美国当局曾以钱学森行李中携有同美国国防有关的 “ 绝密 ” 文件为由，将他拘留，并软禁了整整五年。 我爸爸说，美国人不跟我道歉，再也不登上美国的国土。 1955 年 9 月 17 日，我爸爸带着全家登上了 “ 克利夫兰总统号 ” 邮轮回国 。那一年，我 6 岁，妹妹 5 岁。对孩子来说，爸爸妈妈走哪儿我们就跟到哪儿，后面的意义和曲折都是长大懂事了才知道的。 其实对我妈妈来说，也是丈夫走到哪儿，她跟到哪儿。 我外公蒋百里三十多岁就是少将，和我祖父钱均夫是知交。早年两家关系就很好，爸爸妈妈小时候一起玩耍时，曾共唱过一曲《燕双飞》，两人的缘分早已注定。 他们俩走到一起的时候，一个已经是世界知名的科学家， 一个是世界女高音比赛的第一名。我妈妈当时在欧洲求学 10 年刚回国 ，我爸爸一句话，跟我去美国吧，她就把命运交给了他。 他们的结合被称为 “ 科学和艺术的完美联姻 ” 。 多年后， 我妈妈回忆起在美国的往事曾说： “ 那个时候，我们都喜欢哲理性强的音乐作品。学森还喜欢美术，水彩画也画得相当出色。因此，我们常常一起去听音乐，看美展。我们的业余生活始终充满着艺术气息。不知为什么，我喜欢的他也喜欢 ……” 而我爸爸则一直感谢妈妈带他认识了 “ 最深刻的德国古典艺术歌曲 ” ，其中所包含的诗情画意和对人生的深刻理解 ，丰富了他对世界的认识，学会了艺术的思维方法， “ 才能够避免死心眼，避免机械唯物论，想问题能更宽一点、活一点 ” 。 有人说我妈妈为我爸爸做出了牺牲，我知道她不是的，她做的就是一件他喜欢，她也喜欢的事。 她当妻子，丈夫爱她；她当母亲，孩子们热爱她；她的事业也做得很漂亮。懂行的都知道，一个声乐教育家，培养一个声部的学生获奖已经不易，但她从男高音、男中音到女高音、女中音，四个声部都有学生在国际上获奖。 2009 年 10 月 31 日，爸爸走了，享年 98 岁。妈妈是一个节制的人，从不会大哭，但吊唁那段时间，她的耳朵听不见了，腿摇摇晃晃站不住 —— 他们共度了 62 年，他们的生命早已水乳交融。 2012 年 2 月 5 日，不到三年的时间，妈妈也随爸爸而去。他们的离去都在社会上引起很大震动，我觉得他们这辈子挺值的，他们过自己选择的人生，他们的快乐是那样真实。 图 2 上世纪 40 年代的蒋英 图 3 上世纪 50 年代初，钱学森、蒋英夫妇与一双儿女在美国家中花园 两人有一种不被金钱约束的默契 人们评价我妈妈，最常用的词是：才华横溢，美貌绝伦。她的学生形容她说：大街上行走着一万个人，一眼就能认出哪个是蒋英。 美籍华人作家张纯如在钱学森传记中则这样描述： “ 她见多识广、美丽大方，加上一副好歌喉，加州理工学院优秀的男性全对她着迷不已，他们甚至说，我们全都爱上了钱太太 !” 作为孩子，我对妈妈的漂亮并没什么概念， 但我知道妈妈对着装非常注意，穿衣服很注意搭配，普通衣服经她一配，穿出来就是比别人好看。我成年后，她还总数落我，你这衬衫颜色不对，瞧你这身，都不配。我赶紧说，那指教。于是她会告诉我，什么上衣配什么裤子，什么衬衣搭什么外套。 她和爸爸都出身名门，两人有一种不被金钱约束的默契。 即使在最困难的时候，我妈妈要么不花钱，只要花钱，还是带着大户人家的做派 —— 买东西从来不会讨价还价，人家要多少她给多少；所有东西一定要买最好的，无论是给我们买糖果还是买衣服。 她教学生一辈子没收过钱，对此 ， 爸爸的说法是：学生哪有钱啊，向学生要钱的老师，我看不是好老师 ! 有了爸爸的支持，妈妈给学生 “ 倒贴钱 ” 更没有顾虑。 1979 年，妈妈的学生傅海静到英国参加一个声乐比赛，我妈妈给了他 300 元，说，你拿着，去置一身西服，买双鞋。歌要唱得好，形象也要注意嘛 ! 上个世纪 80 年代，内蒙古自治区一个无伴奏合唱团到北京演出，因为演出效果不理想，住宿费都付不起，最后连返程的路费都成了问题。我妈妈不知道怎么听说了，把我叫去，说， 你今天给我办个事，去银行取 1200 元钱送到学校。那个年代， 1200 元是多大一笔数目啊 ! 当时还没有 100 元的钞票，最大面额就是 10 元。我从来没有在身上揣过这么多钱，骑车在路上那个提心吊胆啊，生怕碰见歹徒把钱给抢了。记得走到一个路口，我停下来等红灯，突然有人从背后拍了我肩膀一下，我吓得魂飞魄散，回头一看，还好，是我初中一个同学。总算把钱送到音乐学院交给我妈妈，我心里才踏实下来。 这样的事太多太多了。 每次妈妈跟爸爸说起，这个月的钱都花给哪个学生哪个学生了，我爸爸就说，好 ! 你做得对 ! 后来， 我去美国读书，她拼尽全力也只给我攒了 200 美元，去机场送走我，她赶紧给她美国的学生打电话：永刚去了，帮一帮他。 他们不在乎金钱不在乎名利，对组织上给的任何好处，他们的反应都是 “ 拿走拿走 ” 。我妈妈在音乐学院退休的时候，还只是四级教授。之前学校要给她升级，她都是说，别给我，给别人吧。 他们俩还有一个共同点，就是都很有分寸，喜怒不形于色。再高兴妈妈都不会哈哈大笑，再大的事情也只是淡淡一说，从不会絮絮叨叨。 那时候，毛泽东、周恩来经常把我爸爸叫去，对他的工作表示肯定。这在很多人看来是多大的事啊，我爸爸却几乎不提，他从心底里觉得这没什么可骄傲的。 我一再说， 我很佩服他们，我经常反思，自己能不能做到宠辱不惊？ 我后来去外地当兵，因为知识分子的家庭背景，入党一拖再拖，当时非常郁闷，但回家见到妈妈，立刻被她的淡定感染，也就简单说了两句。 我从美国加州理工学院毕业后，几年后回国，看到爹妈老了，家中墙皮掉落，已显破败。而从事音乐教育的妹妹已经定居美国，我知道我必须回来照顾父母，因为他们有任何困难都不会向组织提要求。 很多了解他们的人说，你的父母简直是圣人。 我说不只是他们，他们那一代人都这样 , 都很爱国，淡泊名利，一旦国家有需要 ，自己的一切全能放下。 图 4 1987 年 4 月，钱学森、蒋英夫妇访问德意志联邦共和国期间留影 读书是我们家的家风 在今年 4 月中央音乐学院组织的我妈妈的追思会上，我曾说，爸爸妈妈走到一起后，发现彼此认同的地方就更多了：都有对文化的爱；都有对科学技术对今天社会发展重要性的认识；而且，对于教育、教育子女都有非常一致的做法。 他们自己非常优秀，但对孩子的分数从不苛求。我小时候的成绩单并不漂亮，总有几个 4 分，他们看了，只是笑笑，从来不说，你再努把力，考个满分。他们知道丢个一分半分很正常，硬让孩子吭哧出个满分来，太累。他们也没有教育过我要多读书，但我爸爸有空就念书，夏天没空调，他一边打着扇子一边看。这一切我从小看在眼里，小学二年级就认识几百个汉字，天天抱着大部头小说看，看不懂也硬看。妈妈去开家长会，老师说，如果家庭经济条件允许，可以多买一些孩子愿意看的书。 妈妈回来高兴地说，老师夸你爱读书。后来我每次问她要零花钱，她都给得很痛快，有时候甚至还多给一些。她知道我不会乱花，所有的钱都拿来买书了。 我记得上初一那年，班主任老师把我叫到办公室问，看看你的成绩单，有什么问题？我看了半天没看出来。老师说，这就是你的问题，对自己要求不高，像你这个条件，应该消灭 4 分，全拿 5 分。 吃晚饭的时候，我跟爸爸说起这个事，他一句话没说，呵呵一乐，走了。 尽管那年期末考试我真的全拿了 5 分，但觉得自己亏大发了，少读多少课外书啊。 《十万个为什么》刚出版的时候，有一年暑假， 爸爸说话了：一天看 70 页，有不明白的就攒着，我有空你问我。 平时他们工作忙，没有太多精力管孩子，难得这么明确地提出要求，我像得了令一样天天埋头苦读。头一天看 70 页还挺紧张，因为毕竟不是小说，一天要读十几、二十几个问题，看懂还真不容易。 但我硬着头皮往下看。爸爸也不检查，到周末难得有点时间，他会问，有什么问题吗？我赶紧把做了标记的问题提出来。 那时候读书，不像今天这么功利，既不是为了达到什么目的，也不是为学习写作方法， 一切凭兴趣，读就读了，天晓得有什么用。爸爸妈妈都认为学问是一种积累，要持之以恒，不能功利不能着急，积累到一定份儿上，你不想让它起作用都不成。我爸爸自己就是这么学成的，他不是天才，从没有跳过级。一年一年的书读下来，直到念博士，所有的积累终于将他的创造性彻底打开。 最近 10 年，我一直参与建设 “ 钱学森图书馆 ” 。我从小喜欢理工科，大学学的是工科。但是图书馆建设会用到很多文科方面的知识，包括外形设计，陈列大纲的拟定，解说员的解说词，各种活动的发言稿 …… 大家认为我还能胜任， 而且很多跟我聊天的人也觉得我知道的比较多，这都是缘于当年读课外书潜移默化的积累。 所以我对书始终有着很特别的感情。 “ 文革 ” 中停课闹革命，很多同学一听不念书了，烧的烧、撕的撕，把课本全毁了。我却找了个旅行袋，把所有的书、作业、笔记装了一大包，骑着自行车驮回了家 。后来我还为此受到了同学们的批判，说我对书的感情这么深，是受修正主义的毒害。 尽管我没有当成大科学家，没有当成像我妈妈那样有名的教授，但父母给我的影响让我一生受用。 ( 来源：《中国妇女》 作者：苏容 2012-12-11) http://lxyd.imech.ac.cn/info/detail.asp?infono=17332 ********************************888888888777777777777777777777 Ref. 6, 戴世强 老科学家的婚姻爱情 (3) 钱学森的故事 已有 3403 次阅读 2010-9-1505:34 | 个人分类 : 名人纪实 | 系统分类 : 人物纪事 | 关键词 : 钱学森 蒋英 科学家 艺术家 科学与艺术 著名科学家钱学森（ 1911 － 2009 ）与著名声乐家蒋英（ 1919 －）相伴着度过了 62 个春秋，他们的结合，是科学与艺术的珠联璧合；他们的伉俪曲，人生难得几回闻！ 珠联璧合琴瑟和谐的钱学森 -蒋英伉俪 大家对中国导弹之父钱学森的科技贡献已经比较熟悉，可能对他的家庭生活知之甚少，这里仅就见闻所及稍作描述。 • 名门之后 • 钱学森是吴越王钱镠的后裔，父亲钱均夫是民初有名的教育家，曾在临时政府的教育部任职，家里只有钱学森这个独子。蒋英也出身于名门望族，她的曾祖父是浙江海宁的一位大藏书家，父亲蒋百里是著名的军事理论家，曾任保定军官学校校长，一生精研兵法，兼通哲学、历史、经济、文化艺术，乃至佛经、书法，著述颇丰。家有“五朵金花”，老三蒋英有音乐天赋，是蒋家的“小天使”。钱、蒋两家是世交。 • 青梅竹马 • 钱学森的母亲章兰娟特别喜欢蒋家三千金，劝说钱均夫去求告蒋百里，让蒋英做钱家的闺女。有军人豪爽气概的蒋百里经不住钱氏夫妇三磨两磨，应允忍痛割爱。于是，蒋英更名“钱学英”，成了钱学森的妹妹，两人业余爱好相同，都喜欢音乐、运动，因此，总是粘在一起，同唱《燕双飞》，同作郊区游，同放大风筝，同堆小雪人，两小无猜，建立了真挚的感情。 • 劳燕分飞 • 随着年齿渐长，钱学森走上了探索科学技术的道路，而蒋英则钟情于声乐。到了上个世纪三四十年代，钱学森赴美留学，而蒋英则到欧洲专攻声乐。两人虽远隔重洋，却始终心心相印。战争风云阻隔了他们的鸿雁传情，这一分手竟是漫长的 12 年！ • 故国重逢 • 转眼到了 1947 年，钱学森已经成为颇有名气的空气动力学家、火箭专家，而蒋英经过在德国、瑞士、英国的著名音乐学府深造，在声乐界已崭露头角。是年，钱学森回到上海探亲，蒋英在一年前学成回国，也定居申城。钱学森在回国次日就去见英子妹妹。两个年青人久别重逢，百感交集，相互畅叙别后衷肠。情到深处，蒋英主动提出：“为学森哥唱一曲《友谊地久天长》！”她坐在钢琴前边弹边唱，优美动听的歌声萦绕梁间，也萦绕在钱学森心间，姑娘的深情，深深打动了这位大龄小伙。幼时若明若暗的情愫明朗化了！ • 曲折求婚 • 钱学森回家后，急于向亲人倾诉，因为那时母亲已辞世，只得向父亲吐露心事：想要捅破窗户纸，向蒋英求婚。钱均夫正好有同样心思，满心欢喜，取出了亡妻留下的当年用作陪嫁的一副珍珠耳环，交给爱子，让他做求婚时的定情信物。过了几天，恰逢七月初七乞巧节，钱学森上门求婚，言辞热忱恳切。而矜持的姑娘的回答却是：“这样的大事，我需要一些时间考虑，今天，我不能回答，请你原谅！”但是，钱学森分明看到了她眼睛里流露出来的挚爱与温柔，并未气馁。三天之后再次造访蒋府，这回他用科学家的直率与明确的表述方式问道：“英子，怎么样，想好了吗？咱们结婚吧！”蒋英忍俊不禁，爽朗大笑。姑娘终于接受了求婚。钱学森把外婆、妈妈传下来的珍珠耳环给了蒋英。 • 喜结连理 • 五天之后（ 1947 年 8 月 31 日，阴历七月十五），两位青年在上海国际饭店二楼大厅举办了隆重简洁的婚礼（注：婚礼地点有新说，待改）。婚礼上，新娘舒展歌喉，为宾客演唱了当时风靡一时的电影《马路天使》的插曲，立即赢得了“赛周璇”的美名。在甜蜜的新婚之夜，新娘透露了她差一点被“横刀夺爱”的秘密：她手里有一封意大利歌剧院发来的邀请信，请她前去担任主演，待遇优厚，美好的前程在向她招手。但是，蒋英为她心仪已久的心上人，暂时放弃了自己的事业，随钱学森赴美，过了八年相夫教子的生活。 • 琴瑟和谐 • 钱学森一回到美国，西尔斯、马勃（“大理石”）等一群好友纷纷涌到他家，参加他们的家庭 party 。他们知道了蒋英是女高音歌唱家后，就请她唱歌，蒋英连唱五曲，在和唱声中的最后一曲《耶利亚》使听者如痴如醉。 结婚使得向以严肃严厉著称的 Caltech 教授钱学森发生了细微变化，连他的导师冯 • 卡门也高兴地说：“钱现在变了一个人，英真是个可爱的姑娘，钱完全被她迷住了。” 有一位专栏作家这样写道：“ 英的笑意始终浮现在面庞上，她说话注意语感，和风细雨般亲切温柔，每句话都像长了脚似的向你走来。她时常为钱幽默而滑稽的语言发笑，笑得很开心，很可爱。那甜甜的笑声，不时透出女高音歌唱家特有的那种灵气来。钱欣赏着她的笑声，像是很得意，钱捕捉到了她那漂亮脱俗的气质。” 不久之后，他们的儿女永刚、永真相继降世，这个小世界里充满着笑声和歌声。 • 共度患难 • 然而，天有不测风云，人有旦夕祸福，这个幸福小家庭突遭厄运。在他们婚后第三年，美国当局大肆推行麦卡锡主义，掀起一股反共浪潮，使得钱学森陷入长达五年之久的冤案。他被怀疑为共产党员、危险分子， 1950 年 9 月 7 日，钱学森锒铛入狱，遭单独监禁。面对这飞来横祸，产后不久的蒋英震惊之余依然镇定自若，立即告知 Caltech 校方和钱的朋友们，大力展开营救活动。大学的校长亲自到华盛顿为钱学森说理；钱的导师冯 • 卡门不断为他的爱徒大声疾呼，伸张正义；蒋英请来“大理石”先生的太太代她照料孩子，她与“大理石”先生等人四处奔波，为钱学森辩诬，一起去延请辩护律师；几经努力，她被允许前往探监，看到憔悴的丈夫体重骤降（减轻了 30 磅），且已失去语言能力，蒋英不禁悲愤交加。她坚定地对钱学森说：“你放心，该办的事情我都在办。”钱学森会意地点点头。经过加州理工学院的朋友们的抗议和多方努力，钱学森获准被保释，但保释金是一万五千元（在当时是个不小的数字），多亏朋友们的自发募捐，才凑够此数。 出狱之后，钱学森仍处于受软禁状态，每月必须向移民局汇报， FBI 的密探像苍蝇一样盯着他。其间，曾多次遭到无理审讯或询问，钱学森总是大义凛然，严加驳斥，使得那些小丑理屈词穷，手足无措。他被迫远离原先的科研方向，做了数学教授，转而研究工程控制论和物理力学。钱学森那时的愤慨和压抑的心情可以想见。蒋英就成了他最可靠的后盾，把家庭经营得更加温馨。为了避免连累别人，他们善意地婉拒了朋友的来访（除了经常不期而至的可敬可爱的老头冯 • 卡门，他始终坚定地站在钱学森一边）；为了免于节外生枝，蒋英辞退了保姆，谢绝了一切社会活动，承担起全部家务；为了躲开 FBI 密探注意，她把沙发搬进了卫生间，为钱学森布置了“绝密”的优裕的科研环境；他们摸清了密探的窥伺规律，每天清晨在屋后草地悠闲地散步，以便尽可能缓解钱学森心头的愤懑和重压。蒋英给了钱学森先生和风细雨般的关怀和温暖。正如 40 多年后钱先生所说：“美国政府对我进行迫害的这五年间 …… 蒋英同志是做了巨大牺牲的，这一点，我绝不能忘！” 就在遭受软禁期间，钱学森完成了《星际航行概论》和《物理力学讲义》这两本名著的初稿，写出了《 Poincare-Lighthill-Kuo 方法》这样的名篇。他们在等待着突出重围，拨开云雾见天日！ • 跳出樊笼 • 钱学森夫妇在艰难的处境下携手度过了五年。 1955 年 5 月，他们从当地的一张华人报纸上读到了国内欢庆五一节的新闻，惊喜地发现钱学森的世伯陈叔通先生与国家领导人一起在天安门检阅游行队伍。两人怀着激动的心情，商议了通过陈叔通先生营救他们回国的妙计，连夜写了给陈先生的信，情真意切地表示：“ 无一日、一时、一刻不思归祖国，参加伟大的建设高潮 ”，“ 心急如火，唯恐错过机会 ”。信写成后，由于有密探监控，一时无法投递。到了 6 月，钱学森夫妇决定破釜沉舟，采取行动，他们带着书信，到了附近的一家小咖啡馆，钱学森在门口与特务周旋，蒋英溜进咖啡馆，把给陈叔通先生的信夹在给她在比利时的妹妹蒋华的家信中，投进了邮筒。没有多久，此信辗转到了周恩来总理手中。 1955 年 8 月 1 日，中美大使级会谈在日内瓦开始。周总理指示我方谈判代表王炳南大使以钱学森的信为依据，与美方交涉。一开始，美方大使约翰逊还矢口否认美国扣留中国公民的事实，王大使当场宣读此信，约翰逊立即哑口无言了。会后，约翰逊请示美国国务院和当时的总统艾森豪维尔，后者的一句：“让他回去吧！”使得钱学森夫妇终于跳出樊笼，回到了他们日思夜想的祖国。 • 比翼双飞 • 跳出樊笼的双飞鸟在祖国的天空里自由翱翔了。钱学森先生一头扎进了力学的研究和开拓工作，与周培源、钱伟长和郭永怀一起成了我国近代力学事业的四位奠基人之一；不久之后，他成了我国“两弹一星”国防尖端事业的学术带头人。关于他这方面的事迹多有报道，这里略过不提。蒋英立即到中央实验歌剧院担任独唱演员和声乐教员，在我国城乡的舞台上不时响起了她的天籁之音。 1959 年，中央音乐学院从天津迁京，蒋英受聘任教，迄今恰好 50 载。从此，她潜心声乐教育，培养出一批蜚声海内外的歌唱家，例如，吴雁泽、张汝钧、傅海静、祝爱兰、姜泳 …… 。她德艺双馨，在行内威望极高。有意思的是：在我们科技界，一般都说蒋英是钱学森的夫人（尽管蒋英不喜欢“钱学森夫人”这一称谓）；而在音乐界，人们则说，钱学森是蒋英的先生；蒋英教授则强调：“我自己就是艺术家、声乐教授。” 这位声乐教授治家有方。她在饮食起居方面把钱先生照顾得无微不至，井井有条，家庭生活简朴、安宁、温馨。他们不愿搬到什么“部长楼”、“将军楼”，几十年来一直住在一幢红砖旧楼里。她把一双儿女教育得很好。钱学森先生九十寿诞的学术报告会上，我见到了他们的儿子钱永刚，活脱脱是我当年见到钱先生时候的那般模样，而且一看就觉得他品行方正。 晚年的钱学森先生须臾离不开蒋英。有一次蒋英的心脏出了问题，会诊时国防科工委来了两位少将，部队这样重视的理由是：“老太太如果不行了，老头儿也就完了 …… 。”苍天有眼，蒋英教授度过了难关，这对耄耋之年的伉俪继续谱写动人的双飞曲，直至 2009 年 10 月 31 日。 • 珠联璧合 • 他们都是祖国的骄傲：一位是科技界的巨子，另一位是声乐界的名人。一对佳侣一世情缘，心心相印水乳交融，这来自他们彼此的深刻理解。钱学森先生酷爱音乐，上大学时就是校乐队的小号手，对声乐家妻子的才华和成就有透彻的认同。 1991 年，在国务院、中央军委给钱学森先生授奖的大会上，他深情地说：“ 蒋英是干什么的？她是女高音歌唱家，而且是专门唱最深刻的德国古典艺术歌曲。正是她给我介绍了这些音乐艺术，这些艺术里所包含的诗情画意和对于人生的理解，使得我丰富了对世界的认识，学会了艺术的广阔思维方法。或者说，正因为我受到这些艺术方面的熏陶，所以我才能避免死心眼，避免机械唯物论，想问题能够更宽一点，活一点，在这一点上我也要感谢我的爱人蒋英同志。” 这就是一位大科学家对一位大艺术家的深刻评价和理解，从中足见蒋英的艺术的魅力。科学中的艺术，艺术中的科学，可谓珠联璧合。 还是那句话：钱学森 - 蒋英所谱写的绝妙的伉俪曲，人生难得几回闻！ 本文主要参考资料： 涂元季：人民科学家钱学森，上海交通大学出版社， 2002 附记：写出此文初稿时，钱学森先生还健在；此次重发时，钱先生已驾鹤西去，不胜感慨。谨以此文纪念钱学森先生。 写于 2009 年 7 月 27 日 修改于 2010 年 9 月 15 日 http://blog.lehu.shu.edu.cn/sqdai/A99530.html 本文引用地址： http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-330732-363167.html ***************************8888888888888888888888777777777777777777777 Ref. #7: 戴世强 科学家风采（ 5）智者杯茶解难题——二记钱学森 精选 已有 3689 次阅读 2010-9-1505:55 | 个人分类 : 名人纪实 | 系统分类 : 人物纪事 | 关键词 : 钱学森 锅炉 流固耦合 共振 科学方法论 幼时我读《三国》，看到 “ 关云长杯酒斩华雄 ” 那段，对关公不禁佩服之至。这里讲一个 “ 钱学森杯茶解难题 ” 的故事，是我亲耳听到钱先生讲述的。 1963 年春天，中科院力学所开全所大会，听钱学森所长讲话，主要谈治学和科研。可惜当时的笔记找不到了，只记住其中的点滴。 钱学森先生首先介绍了他的治学经历。他说，他一辈子改了六次行，大学里是学火车头的（机车车辆专业），到了美国，转行搞航空航天，研究空气动力学和火箭发动机原理；在被美国佬限制人身自由后，只能做基础研究，搞过工程控制论、星际航行；回国前后又研究了物理力学；再后来由于工作需要，又在做系统科学和系统工程研究。他在改行中的体会是：一要有扎实的数理力学基础，二要理论联系实际，对面临的社会需要有敏锐的观察力，对研究的问题有深入的洞察力，这样才能有所作为。 说起用力学解决实际问题时，他给大家讲了一件发生在讲话前不久的事情。那时，我国帮助越南建造一个发电厂，制造了一个大锅炉，谁知在试运行时碰到了障碍。锅炉里的水沸腾的时候，炉体发生了激烈的振动，声音很响。援越工程师们尽管想了种种措施进行改进，但锅炉一运行，依然振动、噪声强烈。他们听说北京中科院力学所有振动专家，就专门跑来求教，希望尽早帮他们解决难题。正好那时所里有一位刚从海外归来的年青学者，专学振动分析，所领导就让他解决这个问题。这位学者拿着锅炉图纸，反复审视它的结构，关起门来进行结构振动分析，琢磨了十天仍然束手无策，把回京汇报的工程师急得像热锅上的蚂蚁。万般无奈之下，只好向钱学森所长求援。 钱学森先生把工程师们请到他的办公室，听他们讲述锅炉振动时的详细情况，钱先生不时发问，仔细了解炉内的水沸腾的状况和振动的周期和频率。也就那么喝一杯茶的功夫，问题就有了答案。钱先生说，这是流 - 固耦合运动激发的共振！沸腾的水产生的振动，其频率正好与炉体结构的固有频率相同，必定诱发共振！他还马上开出 “ 药方 ”—— 对锅炉的上部结构稍加改变，同时适当加厚锅炉的衬壁，问题就会迎刃而解。工程师们赶紧回去试验，锅炉改装后，振动销声敛迹！ 讲完这个实例，钱先生告诉大家，解决工程实际问题就是要学会机敏地抓住问题的要害，要做到这样，就要有知识的积累和开阔的思路。最近我在读冯 · 卡门自传时，看到了类似的故事：钱学森 1940 年代在 Caltech 的火箭小组里为了解决液态燃料火箭稳定性问题时，不就采用了改进燃烧室衬壁的办法吗？（见 2009-2-19 的乐乎博文 ——“ 自杀俱乐部 ” 的故事）。原来，不同的问题是有共性的！ 事情过去了近 46 年，钱学森先生讲的这一事例我始终未曾忘怀。这个 “ 钱学森杯茶解难题 ” 的小故事可以给我们不少启迪。 写于 2009 年 3 月 10 日晨 http://blog.lehu.shu.edu.cn/sqdai/A60710.html 本文引用地址： http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-330732-363170.html **************8777777777777777777 Ref. #8: 作者：丘成桐 来源：光明日报 发布时间： 2013-10-14 13:03:20 选择字号： 小 中 大 丘成桐：对引进科学人才的几点想法 中国要在 2020年成为人才大国必须要走两条道路，一是培养人才，二是引进人才。这里我说的培养人才乃是培养一流人才，就是所谓领军的人才，毕竟有军而无将，不能成为科技大国。但是直至目前，中国在培养人才方面采取的态度，一般来说重点在于讲求公平，因此极难冒出极为杰出的人才。中学生的目标一切以高考为主，选拔人才以考试为主要指标，在大学的教育也受到影响，高考状元或奥数金牌得主，自以为学业有成，不读考试以外的有意义的文献，很难成长。因此要培养一些出乎其类，拔乎其萃的学生实在难乎其难。即使杰出青年的奖状和院士的选举都由自己填申请表，没有尊重学术的意思。而且过多的奖项，包括院士的评选造成了许多不良风气。 其实培养人才和引进人才息息相关，不可分开而论，“得天下之英才而教育之，不亦乐乎”。即使第一流的教授，没有第一流的学生，一般来说这个学者的研究成果亦会逐渐落伍。这就是世界上的名校都激烈地争取一流好学生的重要原因。这里谈谈我个人的一个经验。我从前在普林斯顿的高等研究所做教授，那是公认的一流科研中心，也是爱因斯坦晚年长驻的地方。但是我始终觉得没有办法跟大量出色的年轻人一起工作是一件遗憾的事，所以最后我还是离开了高等研究所。 现在我在哈佛大学数学系做系主任，不断有其他大学的数学系想聘请我们的教授，但结果这些教授都留在我们系里。 其原因不在于我们能够提供更丰厚的薪酬，而在于我们有最好的学生和年轻的学者一起工作。教授们留在本系教书，一方面他们的研究做得更为起劲，因为年轻有为的学生往往比教授们更有想法，更有冲劲；一方面他们可以影响下一代的杰出学者，使他们的学问和精神流传下去。 所以中国要引进人才，要成为人才大国，首要的事情乃是培养拔尖的学生，从中学起。 中国和美国在研究和培养人才方面的主要分歧在于：一些国内政府和学术界的官员注意力集中在少数年长的领袖身上，他们可能是院士，可能是政府官员，至于他们是否在学术的最前沿则不见得重要。美国学术界则唯才是用，几乎所有精力集中在提拔和尊崇年轻学者身上。 1、中国从古到今都注重引进人才或者发掘人才的问题，君主的贤明大致上与人才的有效起用有直接关系。 从前尧舜禅让，西周用姜尚，秦用百里奚、商鞅、李斯，西汉用萧何、张良，唐用魏征、姚崇、宋璟等都与重视人才、起用人才有关。 历代政府有不同起用人才的办法，隋唐科举取士的方法影响至今，以考试为主的方法有其公平性，但也磨灭了最有创意的人才。 我们来看在科举取士以前几次求贤令。 高祖求贤诏： ……今天下贤者智能，岂特古之人乎？患在人主不交故也，士奚由进……贤士大夫有肯从我游者，吾能尊显之。布告天下，使明知朕意。 御史大夫昌下相国，相国酂侯下诸侯王，御史中执法下郡守，其有意称明德者，必身劝，为之驾，遣诣相国府，署行义年，有而弗言，觉，免。年老癃病，勿遣。 武帝求茂材异等诏： 葢有非常之功，必待非常之人；故马或奔踶而致千里，士或有负俗之累而立功名。夫泛驾之马，跅弛之士，亦在御之而已。 曹操则有求贤令： *建安十五年下求贤令 自古受命及中兴之君，曷尝不得贤人君子与之共治天下者乎，及其得贤也，曾不出闾巷，岂幸相遇哉，上之人不求之耳。今天下尚未定，此特求贤之急时也。“孟公绰为赵魏老则优，不可以为滕薛大夫。”若必廉士而后可用，则齐桓其何以霸世？今天下得无有被褐怀玉而钓于渭滨者乎？又得无盗嫂受金而未遇无知者乎？二三子其佐我明扬仄陋，唯才是举，吾得而用之！ *建安十九年下求贤令 夫有行之士，未必能进取；进取之士，未必能有行也。陈平岂笃行，苏秦岂守信邪？而陈平定汉业，苏秦济弱燕。由此言之，士有偏短，庸可废乎！ *建安二十二年下求贤令 昔伊挚、傅说出于贱人，管仲，桓公贼也，皆用之以兴。萧何、曹参，县吏也，韩信、陈平负污辱之名，有见笑之耻，卒能成就王业，声著千载。吴起贪将，杀妻自信，散金求官，母死不归，然在魏，秦人不敢东向，在楚则三晋不敢南谋。今天下得无有至德之人放在民间，及果勇不顾，临敌力战；若文俗之吏，高才异质，或堪为将守；负辱之名，见笑之行，或不仁不孝而有治国用兵之术：其备举所知，勿有所遗！ 汉高祖求士，讲求有道德和有能力。从自己到地方官吏都极为尊重这些贤士，但他也不勉强年纪过高的人出仕。汉武帝比较注重能力，但却认为需要规范这些人才。诸葛亮前出师表说：“亲贤臣，远小人，此先汉所以兴隆也。”先汉取士以道德为准，得以长治久安。而先汉文化科技发达，集两周先秦之大成，蔚为大观。两汉四百多年可说是世界史上值得称道的一段历史。到曹魏则急功近利，只求有能力而不讲究品行，导致司马氏篡魏，魏晋南北朝士风不振，国力不强。 大抵上，国家兴起，需有能人，至于长治久安，非讲求道德文章不可。科技以基本科学为基础，而基本科学的发展乃是百年大计，不可不计较做学问和做人的态度。 2、中国引进人才，取士的方法不宜急功近利，不择手段。 当今不少学校官员，为了讲求政绩，以非常手段聘请学者。这些学者，早年或许稍有名气，但往往学业每况愈下，而又处处兼职，求田问舍，无论对研究对教育都是一个负累。反过来说，年轻有为，尚未成名的学者往往不受重视，与这些引进的学者薪酬相差十倍以上，使人灰心。 其实不少学校领导很了解这些兼职的院士和海外引进的学者在学校只参加极为短暂的研究，但学校聘请这些学者后，往往可以从中获利，一起获得国家大的研究项目，所以很难不采取高薪聘请这些学者的手段。这种利益关系与中国评审制度的不健全有密切关系，因为教育部或媒体评判大学的好坏往往以聘请多少名学者为重要标准，并不太讲究他们对学校，对培养学生，对研究的贡献。况且学校官员需要良好的政绩，短期内引进名学者对他们的前途大有好处，至于长远的影响，则非他们所重视了。 孔子说：“名不正，则言不顺，言不顺，则事不成。”十多年来中国数学界未能成功地大量引进有用的人才，与学校在聘请学者时没有正名有绝大关系。 我个人认为，引进人才不宜只限于华裔学者，其实不少外国学者对中国兴趣极大，虽然仍有不少问题存在，但国外一流学者愿意来华两三个月教导杰出学生的意向逐渐增加，而他们要求不多，人事关系也比较简单。海外教授往往认为培育英才是学者的责任。他们也着实培养了不少杰出的年轻学者。举例来说，清华大学聘请了一批法国学者，每年教学两个月到三个月，效果极佳，已经培养出了一批杰出的年轻数论学家。 假使名校将用于兼职院士和海外学者的薪酬用在年轻有为的中国学者身上，并鼓励国内年轻学者和学生成长，在 2020年前成为数学的人才大国是可以成功的。 3、如何鼓励年轻学者有志气，做一些有益人类的工作，是一个很重要的事情。 我们必须鼓励学者培养高尚的情操，才可以移风易俗，单用诺贝尔奖或菲尔茨奖来鼓励学者是不够的。 据说杰出的中国建筑学家梁思成问他的父亲梁启超：姚崇、宋璟与杜甫、李白，孰为重要。他父亲说，前者领导并影响了唐代数十年的政治文化，后者则代表了整个中国文化的重要部分，历久不衰，这是值得我们学者深思的。 现在我谈谈多年来我在中国培养人才的经验。这些经验有好的，也有不好的，希望为大家提供一些借鉴，把人才培养和引进工作做得更好。 在 1979年时，华罗庚教授邀请我到科学院数学所访问，1980年我参加我的导师陈省身教授在北京主持的国际几何大会。“文革”刚过，一群中年的数学家兴致勃勃地预备重振“文革”前中国数学的雄风，当时出名的工作有陈景润，杨乐和张广厚的名著。我也花了不少工夫，将我当时正在考虑的几何上一些重要问题率先引进国内，希望国内数学家一同来研究这些问题。当时确也引起了国内同行的关注，数学所的王光寅教授和他的一位女学生在我提出的某个问题上作出了重要的贡献，但没有料到的是，王教授的另一位学生对此不满，并挑起了北京大学极少数人和科学院的不和，可以说是中国科学界的不幸。这种因为嫉妒而引起的争执，在资源缺乏时，来得特别严重。举例来说，王光寅教授这样一位优秀的学者，竟因上述的争执而退出学术界。 中国各个高等研究机构的互相争执造成中国科研的重大损失，大家都不愿意承认的一点就是：这种争执的起源大部分可以追溯到既得利益和未得利益的学者之争，庸才和有才干的学者之争，或者为维护某些团体利益之争，这种争执罔顾国家利益，罔顾年轻学子的前途，使人痛心。 在这些不良争执的背景下，年轻有为的学者不愿全职回国服务，即使回国，也不可能找到一个清静的场所全心去做研究，去培养年轻学生，结果是他们宁愿留在美国。为了保留他们的退路，大部分的学者不愿放弃在美国艰苦得来的终身职位。 我在 1995年时得到我的朋友陈启宗和陈乐宗先生的支持，在路甬祥院长的带领下，和杨乐教授一同创办晨兴数学所，就是为了打破这种局面。我们首先举办了一个完全开放式的研究所，邀请全国高校有能力的学者和有才华的年轻博士后一同在中心做研究。每年有多个方向的研究团队带领，聘请海外专家来讲学，很多年轻学者得益不少，回到自己的单位继续他们的研究，这种方法没有抵触高校的利益，大家都乐意参加。但是国内某些院士的无知和独断专行还是阻碍了尖端学问的发展，年轻学者不能发挥他们的优势。在1997年时，我的朋友汉密尔顿先生在Ricci流研究中已经开始有大成，我知道这个工作影响会很大，将会解决数学难题庞卡莱猜想。所以在所里建议大家集中精力研究Ricci流，年轻人都兴致勃勃，当时王光寅教授的那位学生已经做了院士，却极力阻止让年轻人去做这方面的工作，理由是他自己看不懂这些文章，要出论文会有困难。最后只有朱熹平回到中山大学继续努力。而俄国人佩雷尔曼在5年后在庞卡莱猜想这个问题上得到重要的成果。亦可见院士在年轻人面前的威力。这种事情在美国难以发生，却在中国某些院士的霸道之下不断地出现。 10年前，我希望能够把大量地训练本科生作为人才梯队的基础。因此在浙江大学成立了数学中心，我将我的一位杰出的学生刘克峰引荐到浙江大学数学系来帮忙。8年来辛苦经营，不但举办了一连串的重要学术活动，最重要的是我们培养了一大批年轻学者。博士毕业生中有被哈佛大学聘为助理教授的。其他中国名校中还没有出现过这种杰出博士生。在我们培养的本科生里，杰出的也实在不少，他们到世界各地名校深造，有数十位之多。除中国的名校外，包括哈佛、普林斯顿、斯坦福、耶鲁、柏克莱、加大洛杉矶分校、哥伦比亚、芝加哥、杜克、威斯康辛、密歇根、牛津等等。 清华大学的领导非常开明，我与他们的合作非常愉快。在短期内，不但学生程度大幅提升，由于经费比较自主，我们也已经成功地引进了几位全职的年轻有为的学者。我们希望他们能够专心致志，集中精力做大学问。引进人才，应该以学术的成就为主要吸引力，在住房薪酬的基本条件解决后，一切都以学问为主，则不愁不能短期内涌现出第一流的学者。（ 丘成桐，国际著名数学大师；现任哈佛大学讲座教授，《微分几何》杂志主编。） 更多阅读 专访丘成桐：内地高材生带动香港研究气氛 丘成桐香港中文大学演讲：如何成就科学大师 丘成桐：中国科技一流成果太少 特别声明：本文转载仅仅是出于传播信息的需要，并不意味着代表本网站观点或证实其内容的真实性；如其他媒体、网站或个人从本网站转载使用，须保留本网站注明的“来源”，并自负版权等法律责任；作者如果不希望被转载或者联系转载稿费等事宜，请与我们接洽。 http://news.sciencenet.cn/htmlnews/2013/10/283744.shtm **********************88888888888888888877777777777777777777777777 Ref. #9 蒲蛰龙：南方一条龙一生以虫治虫 (组图) · 正文 · 我来说两句 ( 0 人参与 ) 2011年10月13日10:55 来源：人民网 · 复制链接 · 打印 · 蒲蛰龙教授（中）在顺德沙深蔗地调查。 1947年11月7日在美国明尼苏达大学。 蒲蛰龙酷爱拉小提琴。 蒲蛰龙，一个少有人涉足的昆虫学领域孜孜不倦的研究者，有外国友人称其“不仅是一位杰出的科学家和教育家，更像一位风度翩翩的外交家”。 一生在科教界获奖无数，然而说起最喜欢的奖项，却是一张音乐家协会颁发的纪念奖“您从事音乐逾四十年，为祖国音乐事业做出贡献，特发荣誉证书，以资纪念。” 临去世都没有留下任何遗嘱，可几十年撰写的100多篇学术论文自己却一篇不落地完好保存着。 作为一名昆虫学家，他没有埋首故纸堆、关起门来搞昆虫分类研究，却耗费了近一生的时间和精力到农村下稻田、果园搞起实地昆虫研究。作为一名教育工作者，他为国内早期的昆虫生态领域培养了一大批人才，这句话他常挂嘴边：当教师的，一定要设法让学生超越自己，否则，国家的科学技术就不可能向前发展。 本期“世纪广东学人”，我们走近著名昆虫学家、中山大学昆虫学研究所前所长蒲蛰龙，跟随他的足迹，了解新中国成立后我国生物防治的新成绩、农业的新发展。 明远志 练“昆虫分类”之功 壮“科学救国”之志 1912年8月1日，蒲蛰龙出生于云南，这片彩云之南的土地，钟灵毓秀，人杰地灵，见证了蒲蛰龙的幼年岁月。 因父亲频繁调动工作，童年时没有固定的小学入读，饱学经史子集兼精通医术的父亲，成了蒲蛰龙最好的启蒙老师。父亲蒲春榆是清朝秀才，时任地方文职官员，后又考取了中医行医资格证。一心望子成龙的父亲希望蒲蛰龙继承医学衣钵，终未能如愿。然而正如蒲蛰龙养女钟凤仪所说，蒲蛰龙一生专注于生物防治方面的研究，而其父又是传统中医出身，“这一点，很难说与其父学医的基础毫无关联。生物防治讲究一种农业生态、农田害虫益虫的平衡，中医是以阴阳五行作为理论基础，也要讲究阴阳二气的平衡。” 蒲蛰龙上大学时选择了昆虫学科作为主攻方向，他深为当时中国农村的贫穷、农业生产的落后而痛心疾首，便萌发了要为中国农业改造和发展，为农民的幸福做点实际贡献的信念。 大学四年，蒲蛰龙开始运用所学的昆虫学理论知识，参与到野外观察和实验活动中去。针对广东各地不少松林由于松毛虫为害致枯死的情况，他亲自到林区找来松毛虫在学校喂养，在当时实验设备简陋的艰难条件下，锲而不舍地观察松毛虫的形态结构、生活规律和生命过程，摸索防治松毛虫的有效方法。大学毕业时，他经过实地研究后写下的论文《松毛虫形态、解剖、组织及生活史的研究》被称为“广东乃至全国首篇较全面论述和防治松毛虫的理论依据的重要文献。”为此，大学毕业时，蒲蛰龙获得了中山大学农学院颁发的“毕业论文奖”和“优秀成绩奖”，这在当年的农学院是绝无仅有的。 蒲蛰龙后又师从燕京大学著名昆虫学家胡经甫教授，研习了不少生物学基础理论。1937年夏，蒲蛰龙完成硕士毕业论文，但尚未答辩，就发生了震惊中外的“七七事变”，日寇的铁蹄踏进了北平，学校解散了。蒲蛰龙怀着惆怅的心情告别京城，回到中山大学农学院任教。 之后广州沦陷，中山大学紧急疏散。祖国山河破碎，民族苦难深重，颠沛流离的生活更加坚定了他“科学救国”的志向。1939年秋，中山大学在大后方云南澂江复学，已是农学院副教授的蒲蛰龙很快投入教学科研生活中。在这里开始了他有生以来的第一次用微生物细菌防治蔬菜害虫菜青虫的试验，实验取得令人满意的结果。 在旧中国，昆虫研究的家底相当薄弱，国内估计有昆虫15万种，但已鉴定的只有2万种，而且93%以上还是外国人作鉴定分类的，我国搞昆虫分类的不足10人。作为一名昆虫学领域的研究者，蒲蛰龙深感责任重大，可囿于当时动荡的时局以及艰难的学术研究环境，蒲蛰龙感觉到心有余而力不足。为此，他决计赴海外继续深造。 在美国明尼苏达大学求学期间，蒲蛰龙师从著名昆虫分类学家米卡尔教授，从事昆虫分类研究，1949年秋获明尼苏达大学哲学博士学位，其妻利翠英同获硕士学位。听闻新中国成立的消息，蒲蛰龙谢绝亲朋好友的挽留，放弃国外优越条件，携妻子踏上归程。 言传莫过身教。在这一点上，养女钟凤仪深受影响，“爱国方面，他把自己的国家，自己热爱的这片土地、家园看得比在国外的任何优越条件都更重要。他希望用自己所学到的昆虫学知识来改变中国农业落后的状况，这是他最大的心愿。” 可旧中国遗留下来的经济千疮百孔、一穷二白，农业基础十分薄弱，长期以来缺乏科学理论的指导，虫灾严重时，农民们除了用原始的方法捉虫外只能听天由命，时任中山大学昆虫学教授的蒲蛰龙忧心如焚。 随其做了几十年教研工作的古德祥教授回忆说，当时蒲蛰龙已是国内声誉鹊起的昆虫分类学权威，他只要专心坐在实验室里驾轻就熟地做他的昆虫分类研究就可以，“然而，面对农民期待的目光，想到自己科学报国的宏愿，他还是把昆虫分类学知识运用到以虫治虫的生物防治实际上来，帮助解决实际问题。” “科学实验一定要和生产实际紧密联系，如果在实验室里搞科研，得出成果不投入实际生产应用，那只是纸上谈兵。这不是我们科学工作者要走的路。”这是蒲蛰龙常挂嘴边的一句话。 敬事业 新中国推广生物防治第一人 上世纪50年代，虫害是影响我国农林业生产的主要问题之一。广东作为甘蔗种植大省，种植的大量甘蔗深受甘蔗螟虫（俗称钻心虫）危害。甘蔗螟虫的“天敌”之一是赤眼蜂，自然界的赤眼蜂不多，而且不听从人们的指挥，于是，人工繁殖赤眼蜂，“教”赤眼蜂像孙悟空那样钻进害虫肚子里歼灭害虫，是摆在蒲蛰龙等当时的昆虫学研究者面前的大问题。1950年，蒲蛰龙开始组织工作人员进行利用赤眼蜂防治甘蔗螟虫的实验。 据古德祥回忆，当时在顺德县做实地研究时，开始仍沿用美苏等国以往的试验模式，即用小卵麦蛾繁殖赤眼蜂，但是效果很不理想，繁殖出来的赤眼蜂体弱、雄性多，寿命短，而且一个卵只能繁殖一头蜂，经过反复试验发现，用蓖麻蚕卵，一只卵可繁殖30多头蜂，开创了大卵繁蜂之路。于是，大量繁殖赤眼蜂在各地蔗田释放，治虫效果不错。 回想起当时的情形，有个故事至今令古德祥难以忘怀：当时人们听说“蜂”，想像中的都是如蜜蜂或比蜜蜂更大的胡蜂、熊蜂，而赤眼蜂只比人的头发丝大一点，许多人都不相信这么小的蜂能治虫。“但一次强台风过后，普通的蔗地，甘蔗茎和节间受蔗螟的危害，台风一吹都断了，倒了，连蔗种都没有了。然而，放赤眼蜂的蔗田，甘蔗完好，这是由于赤眼蜂寄生了蔗螟卵，吃掉了卵中的营养，繁殖了蜂的后代，而蔗螟的幼虫出不来，甘蔗免遭虫害的缘故。这回蔗农相信小小的赤眼蜂治虫的威力了，愿意用赤眼蜂来防治螟虫。” 1958年广东省顺德县建立了全国第一个赤眼蜂站以防治蔗螟。此后，广东的中山、阳江、遂溪等县也陆续办起了20多个赤眼蜂站，并在广西、福建、湖南、四川等地得到推广。 用大寄生卵繁殖赤眼蜂在国内国外都是首创。值得一提的是，曾对我国实行经济封锁的某些西方大国，此刻由于利用赤眼蜂防治虫害的试验屡遭挫折而陷入低谷，而我国则从南到北迅速发展，赤眼蜂被广泛应用于防治农林果蔬等多种作物害虫，成为众多害虫的克星。 首开我国生物环保之先河，蒲蛰龙成为新中国推广生物防治的第一人。直到今天，在我国利用赤眼蜂防治农业、森林害虫，仍是一种重要的方法。这项研究成果在1979年获全国科学大会奖。 “文革”时期，学校停课，蒲蛰龙夫妇下到“五七干校”，继续深入田间地头搞研究。庆幸的是，蒲蛰龙个人并未受到过多的责难，这在当年的弟子、现中大生科院教授庞义看来，“他是一名很纯粹的科学家，一直都在切切实实地为人民办事，解决实际问题。” 到1976年全国科学和教育工作者会议召开后，逐渐恢复教学、科研各项工作。“当时开完这个会议以后，父亲回家后很兴奋，拿了一卷长长的照片，是全国科学大会的照片，说这回邓小平说做我们的后勤部长，这才是科学家的春天。钟凤仪回忆说。看到了祖国繁荣希望的蒲蛰龙当即写下摘自郭沫若的一句诗：“春桃一片花如海，千树万树迎风开，人从花底双双来。” 1972年冬，蒲蛰龙家里来了两位不速之客，他们来自广东重要产粮区之一的四会县大沙公社，那里由于水稻虫害严重，请求蒲蛰龙为其出谋献策。 据当时陪同工作的弟子回忆，这个产粮区过去对水稻虫害的防治主要靠化学农药，那时每一造水稻均增加了农药的投放量，但是害虫却越来越猖獗，“当时在国内外，尚没有成功解决这一难题的先例，同行们为蒲先生担心，怕搞不好会影响蒲老的一世英名，然而，蒲老却毫不犹豫地作出决定，一定要攻下这一难题。” 他们选取了安二大队24亩虫害严重的稻田，开始“以菌治虫”、“以虫（赤眼蜂）治虫”和保护田间自然天敌的试验。期间为防治三化螟，蒲蛰龙根据三化螟的发生规律，从降低越冬虫源入手，提出每年惊蛰，最迟在3月15日前，提早灌水，犁耙沤田，消灭在禾头越冬尚未羽化的三化螟，在大沙6万亩水田，沤田70%～80%，天旱年也能沤田50%，果然，第一代三化螟发生量明显减少，不用防治，第二代三化螟可不治，或局部挑治，第三代发生于晚稻秧地，秧地面积小，用些农药防治，发生在晚稻大田的第四代，就不需要防治了，这样就解决了三化螟的危害。 经过几年的研究、试验，蒲蛰龙及同事们总结了一套以发挥害虫天敌作用为主，包括以虫治虫、以菌治虫、养鸭除虫、农业技术防治、合理施用化学农药的水稻害虫综合防治的有效方法。之后，尽管邻近的农田虫害较为严重，而大沙公社内的6万亩稻田的虫害却较轻微。 原四会市副市长、当时的大沙镇领导麦宝祥当年的日记里有这么一段记载：1975年8月27日，美国代表团来到大沙，一下车，代表即散开跑进田间，有的取昆虫标本，有的用录音机收录小鸭在田间的声音，有的用照相机拍小鸭除虫和田间试验牌。临走前，团长戈登·盖耶在田头满脸笑容地对蒲教授说：“你们在治虫上做了大量工作，给我们很大启蒙。” 在其它害虫生物防治，如用平腹小蜂防治荔枝椿象、引进澳洲瓢虫防治吹绵蚧、引进孟氏隐唇瓢虫防治粉蚧、总结和继承中国古代的生物防治黄猄蚁防治柑橘害虫、发现和利用松毛虫质型多角体病毒防治松毛虫、斜纹夜蛾核型多角体病毒杀虫剂试生产等方面，蒲蛰龙都做了大量的研究，为农业、林业生产解决了诸多实际问题。美国同仁誉称其为“南中国的生物防治之父”。 “生物防治造福人类”是蒲蛰龙为第六届全国杀虫微生物学术讨论会写的题词，也是其毕生的心血事业所在。如今，在蒲蛰龙教授创建的生物防治国家重点实验室里，他的弟子们，继续开展生物防治和综合防治研究，并通过建立绿色有机茶园，生产有机大米，继续促进中国农业的发展。 育英才 为人师表海内外万古流芳 蒲蛰龙是我国恢复招收研究生后的第一批博士生导师，庞义是其首个博士，跟随蒲蛰龙搞科研长达数十载。他告诉记者，蒲老从来不会摆架子，上至领导下至田间农民，都能相处得很好；而对学生提出的问题不论多么细小，蒲老也都耐心给予指导。 “为人师表，言传身教，莫过于此。”有感于此，1987年庞义出国留学，五年后毅然选择了回国工作，按他自己的话说，“是受了蒲老的感召”。 教学上，记者翻阅其部分弟子的相关文章发现，蒲蛰龙有一套与众不同的教学思路，坚持启发式教学，反对满堂灌，讲起课来深入浅出，使学生易于接受。有研究生弟子回忆，平时蒲蛰龙上实验课，不会在一堂课上自己“唱独角戏”，而是将擅长不同实验手段的教师组织起来，一起指导学生。他倡导重视“三基”教学，强调学生要掌握好基础知识、基础理论和基本操作方法，特别注意培养学生的动手能力。 他说，当教师的，一定要设法让学生超越自己，否则，国家的科学技术就不可能向前发展。教学中这种信念渗入到积极扶掖年轻人的过程中，帮助其提高业务水平。 弟子王珣章有这样一段经历：1984年11月，中国昆虫学会在北京召开成立40周年纪念大会和学术报告会。这时王珣章刚从英国回来，若论资排辈的话，是轮不到他出席这次会议的。但蒲蛰龙为让其了解国内外昆虫学科近年来发展情况，多接触熟悉一些专家学者，极力主张让王珣章参加这次会议，并在会上利用各种机会把他介绍给国内外著名的昆虫学家。他这种扶掖后辈的做法，受到人们的称赞。 当时，为促使中青年教师和研究生多读书，拓宽知识面，蒲蛰龙和学生定了一个口头约定：规定自己和青年教师、研究生每学期阅读若干篇文献，每周举行文献报告会。他自己带头上台作学术报告，其他人也轮流在会上作报告，弟子古德祥后来回忆道：“这对促进人才的成长起了良好的作用。” 除了弟子庞义和养女钟凤仪，在昆虫研究所里，还有一批学有所成的青年科学家为蒲蛰龙的爱国主义情怀和人格魅力所感召，甘愿放弃国外优越的生活和工作环境，回到蒲蛰龙的麾下工作。 半个多世纪以来，蒲蛰龙为我国培养了大批专门人才，有的已成为中国科学院院士、大学校长，不少是学科带头人，可谓桃李满天下。在他带领下，中山大学的昆虫学、害虫生物防治、昆虫病理学、昆虫病原微生物、分子生物学研究都有很大发展。1978年，教育部直属的中山大学昆虫学研究所成立，之后在“昆虫学”重点学科、第一批博士点，以及博士后流动站的基础上，又创建了“生物防治国家重点实验室”。值得一提的是，中山大学生科院于2002年成立了蒲蛰龙学者科学基金，旨在推动和促进我国食品安全、昆虫学和生物防治科技研究工作的发展。 同事苏世炘在一篇纪念文章中写道：“他是一位基础厚实、学识渊博、造诣精深的昆虫学家和教育家。”1989年，国家教育委员会授予蒲蛰龙“老当益壮，老有所为”精英奖。 “敬事业德高望重科教界一代楷模；育英才为人师表海内外万古流芳。”这是在蒲蛰龙遗体告别会上几位学子撰写的一副对联。蒲蛰龙夫妇为了祖国的科教事业一生不育，他们的学生尊称蒲蛰龙为“师父”，亦师亦父，正是人们对浩浩师恩从心底里流露出来的亲切呼唤。 学人名片 蒲蛰龙（1912-1997），广西钦州县（原属广东）人，出生于云南。中国科学院院士、国际杰出的昆虫学家、我国害虫生物防治奠基人。长期致力于以虫治虫、以微生物治虫和害虫综合防治的研究。1950年开始，利用赤眼蜂防治甘蔗螟虫的研究取得成功，并推广到桂、闽、湘、川等省区。曾获得其母校美国明尼苏达大学颁发的“优秀成就奖”，国际同行称他为“南中国生物防治之父”。 总策划：杨兴锋 张东明 总监制：陈广腾 采访统筹：陈志 戴学东 梅志清 编辑统筹：郎国华 李贺 本版撰文：南方日报记者 胡念飞 实习生 周蔚华来源南方日报) http://roll.sohu.com/20111013/n322051968.shtml
纽约时报杨振宁催生 2013年物理学诺贝尔奖上帝粒子 我很惊讶，阅读自由派报纸纽约时报这篇文章 (参考＃1)！“感谢上帝，上帝粒子。” 鉴于科学网的多篇文章（参考＃ 2，＃3, #4），在这里我想补充一些琐事的话题： 纽约时报 的 青睐 --称杨振宁催生上帝粒子, 也许是因为杨振宁是一个纽约客！: 古老的世界对称的概念隐藏的物理学基础 . 在艺术与自然，对称美 ; 在科学和数学，系统的对称性。 1954年，理论物理学家杨振宁和罗伯特·L·米尔斯(在布鲁克海文国家实验室)得出结论，所有的基本力量是自然试图保持对称性的结果- 例如，电荷守恒在电磁的情况下，或保护动量和能量的情况下，爱因斯坦的引力。(Refer to 评论 below: 岳东晓 2）规范不变原理) ) (also refer to: 听 诺贝尔 物理学奖 杨 振宁讲演: 【规范与对称之美】 -- （ 杨 ― 米尔斯规范场理论 ）本文引用地址： http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-847277-655944.html ) 1957年众所周知，杨振宁李政道诺贝尔物理学奖获的工作对宇称不守恒。 1964年，希格斯写了两篇论文，每篇都只有两页长，内容就是现在被称为希格斯场的东西。《物理快报》接收了第一篇论文，但拒掉了第二篇论文。著名物理学家南部阳一郎在评审第二篇论文的时候，建议希格斯加上一部分内容来解释这一理论的物理学意义。希格斯加了一段话，预言这个场中会产生一种新的粒子，即上帝粒子。然后，他把改过的论文投给了那家杂志的对手——《物理评论快报》，结果发表了。(Refer to: 评论 方锦清的博客, also below) （参考＃ 2，＃3, #4） 你怎么能找到失踪的 “ 上帝粒子？ 希格斯粒子物理学理论基础机制标准模型 -像寻宝地图-如此完美的模型- 为您提供沿途的线索。根据这些指导，一步一步的你发现了他预言希格斯粒子--上帝粒子。它看似简单,像个拼图游戏(Jigsaw puzzle)。 “ 想象一下，您正在 像个拼图游戏 (Jigsaw puzzle) 图片拼图。你知道失踪一块图片的形状，其基本的颜色和图案，但你没有任何地方看到它。所以，你得到一些像那些在欧洲核子研究中心有实力的人，环顾四周，他们在你的沙发上桌子上找，找到失踪的一块图片，它非常适合拼图。恭喜希格斯，恩格勒特， Bose 博士在欧洲核子研究中心你怎么能找到失踪的 “ 上帝粒子 ”- 失踪的一块图片。(Refer to 方锦清的博客, 评论 , below) 希望中国本土的科学家更加注重科学理论和假说。“诺贝尔奖排除只提供证据的纯实验者。” 1957年， 杨振宁李政道 获得诺贝尔物理学奖 ,吴健雄的实验验证他们的工作却被排除获得诺贝尔奖。 You may ask: What the heck is Yang or Nobel related to me or concern me? Here are something you can take home with you to boost your own study: 你可能会问：杨振宁诺贝尔都跟我 到底是什么 关吗？这里有东西，你可以带回家跟你提高自己的研究： 听诺贝尔物理学奖杨振宁谈顿悟与创新 ( 本文引用地址： http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-847277-655944.html ) 我知道的诺贝尔物理学奖获得者李政道的智慧 ( 本文引用地址： http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-847277-654564.html ) 你可能会问： 什么东西创建一个诺贝尔奖得主？ 许多，但最重要的是一种罕见的对工作的热情。(Ref. #5). 乔治·比德尔（Nobel laureate，1958）回应：“勤奋学习，尊重DNA，不要吸烟，不要喝酒，避免妇女与政治，这是我的公式”。 在许多诺贝尔奖获得者的自传中，优秀的导师。恩里科·费米（Enrico Fermi）（物理，1938）的五博士赢得诺贝尔奖，欧内斯特·卢瑟福（化学，1908）12博士赢得诺贝尔奖。奥托华宝（医药，1931）建议美国的博士生，“如果你想成为一名科学家，你必须问一个成功的科学家的实验室接受你，即使一开始你只会清理他的试管。” 仍然存在一个质量是至关重要的。这是利昂·莱德曼（物理，1988）称为“强迫性的奉献。” (Ref. #5). ********************77777777777777777777777777777 I’m surprised to read this article from known liberalnewspaper (Ref. #1)! Thank God and the God Particle for The New York Times. Areader can count on The Times to provide a story about the Nobel Prize inphysics that is clear, simple and satisfying. In view of multiple articles (Ref. #2, #3) on Science Net,here I wanted to add some trivia on the topic: “ At the heart of this quest was an ancient idea, theconcept of symmetry, and how it was present in the foundations of physics buthidden in the world as we experience it. In art and nature,something is symmetrical if it looks the same when you move it one way oranother, like a snowflake rotated 60 degrees; in science and math, a symmetryis something that does not change when you transform the system, like thelength of an arrow when you turn it around or shoot it. They credited Chen Ning Yang’s work to set up the foundation for2013 Nobel Prize work! Perhaps, Yang is a New Yorker? In 1954, the theorists ChenNing Yang and Robert L. Mills at the Brookhaven National Laboratory concludedthat all fundamental forces were the result of nature’s trying to maintainsymmetries — for example, the conservation of electric charge in the case ofelectromagnetism, or the conservation of momentum and energy in the case ofEinstein’s gravity .” “ His paper was rejected by thejournal Physics Letters, which was published at CERN, as having no relevance tophysics. So he rewrote it and sent it to a rival journal, Physical ReviewLetters. Along the way he added a paragraph at the end, noting that the theorypredicted a new particle, a spinless creature of indeterminate mass, whichwould become famous as the Higgs boson. ” ”How could you find the missing “God particle?”His model predictshow you can locate the particle. It appears simple like puzzle games. It seemsa treasure hunt: You got the map (he predicted) and you followed and found it. “ Imagine you are working on a picture puzzle andit is mostly finished. You have a piece that you know the shape of and itsbasic color and pattern, but you don't see it anywhere on your table. So youget some strong people, like those at CERN to look around, and they move yourcouch, and there is the piece, and it fits perfectly. That is what justhappened. Congratulations to Drs. Higgs, Englert, and Dr. Bose and the amazingteam at CERN.” “For the experimentalists,”she added, “we are kind of used to being excluded from the Nobel.” Hopenative Chinese scientists pay more attention on theoretic science, coming upwith hypotheses and theory. Again,I don’t trust URL links, so I copied and pasted for my future reference asfollows. *********** Acknowledgment - Sources of Inspiration: Reference ********************7777777777777777 Reference #1 October 8, 2013 For Nobel, They Can Thank the ‘GodParticle’ By DENNIS OVERBYE The “God particle” became the prize particle on Tuesday. Two theoretical physicists who suggested that an invisible oceanof energy suffusing space is responsible for the mass and diversity of theparticles in the universe won the Nobel Prize in Physics on Tuesday morning.They are Peter W. Higgs, 84, of the University of Edinburgh in Scotland, andFranois Englert, 80, of the Université Libre de Bruxelles in Belgium. The theory, elucidated in 1964, sent physicists on ageneration-long search for a telltale particle known as the Higgs boson, popularlyknown (though not among physicists) as the God particle. The chase culminatedlast year with the discovery of this particle , which confers mass on other particles, at the Large HadronCollider at CERN, in Switzerland. Dr. Higgs and Dr. Englert will split a prizeof $1.2 million, to be awarded in Stockholm on Dec. 10. “You may imagine that this is not unpleasant,” Dr. Englert said inan early morning news conference. The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences had not been able to contactDr. Higgs, who had vowed he would not be available Tuesday. A friend and fellowphysicist, Alan Walker, said in a phone interview on Tuesday morning that Dr. Higgs, who does not use acellphone or a computer, had gone off by himself for a few days without sayingwhere, and that he would return Friday. Dr. Higgs, he said, is a modest man who likes his own company andthe ability to come and go without a fuss. Even before the announcement, hesaid, one journalist had invaded Dr. Higgs’s building looking for an interview.“He was sent away with a flea in his ear,” Dr. Walker said. In a statement released later bythe University of Edinburgh, Dr. Higgs pronounced himself “overwhelmed,”saying, “I hope thisrecognition of fundamental science will help raise awareness of the value ofblue-sky research .” The prize had been expected ever since physicists working at theLarge Hadron Collider announced on July 4, 2012, that they had discovered aparticle matching the description of the Higgs. Thousands of particle physicists worked on the project ,and for many of them the Nobel is a crowning validation. Fabiola Gianotti, who led one of the teams at CERN, the EuropeanOrganization for Nuclear Research, called the prize “a great emotion and agreat satisfaction,” adding that it was nice that the experiments were cited inthe award. “The young physicists are superexcited.” The Higgs was the last missing ingredient of the Standard Model, asuite of equations that has ruled particle physics for the last half-century,explaining everything from the smell of a rose to the ping when your computerboots up. According to this model, the universe brims with energy that actslike a cosmic molasses, imbuing the particles that move through it with mass,the way a bill moving through Congress attracts riders and amendments, becomingmore and more ponderous and controversial. Without the Higgs field, many elementary particles, likeelectrons, would be massless and would zip around at the speed of light. Therewould be no atoms and no us. For scientists, the discovery of the Higgs (as physicists call it)affirmed the view of a cosmos ruled by laws of almost diamond-like elegance andsimplicity, but in which everything interesting — like us — is a result oflapses or flaws in that elegance. That is the view that emerged in a period offeverish and tangled progress after World War II, in which the world’sphysicists turned their energies from war to looking under the hood of nature,using the tools of quantum field theory. At the heart of this questwas an ancient idea, the concept of symmetry, and how it was present in thefoundations of physics but hidden in the world as we experience it. In art and nature, something is symmetrical if it looks the samewhen you move it one way or another, like a snowflake rotated 60 degrees; inscience and math, a symmetry is something that does not change when youtransform the system, like the length of an arrow when you turn it around orshoot it. In 1954, the theorists ChenNing Yang and Robert L. Mills at the Brookhaven National Laboratory concludedthat all fundamental forces were the result of nature’s trying to maintainsymmetries — for example, the conservation of electric charge in the case ofelectromagnetism, or the conservation of momentum and energy in the case ofEinstein’s gravity. By then, however, two more forces of nature had been added to theroster: the so-called weak nuclear force, responsible for some types ofradioactive decay, and the strong force, which holds atomic nuclei together. Inquantum field theory, forces are transmitted by bundles of energy calledbosons. By quantum rules, the mass of a boson is related to the range of theforce: the more massive the boson, the shorter its reach. When the physicist Sheldon Glashow, now of Boston University,wrote down a theory in 1961 that explained the weak force and electromagnetismas manifestations of a single “electroweak” force, the math indicated that theparticles that transmitted the nuclear part of that force should be massless,like the photons that transmit light and can spread across the universe. Butthe nuclear forces barely reach across an atomic nucleus, suggesting that theircarriers should be among the most massive of elementary particles. How did thecarriers of the weak force become so massive while their brothers the photonsremained free and easy? It was Yoichiro Nambu of the University of Chicago, who would wina Nobel in 2008, who suggested that the fault might lie not in the laws ofphysics but in how those laws play out in the real world. By a process calledsymmetry breaking, a situation that started out balanced can wind upunbalanced. Imagine, for example, a pencil standing on its tip; it willeventually fall over and point only one way out of many possibilities. The massof the boson can be thought of as the energy released when the pencil falls. In 1964, three papers by the different physicists showed how thiscould work by envisioning a kind of cosmic molasses filling space. Particlestrying to go through it would acquire mass. The first to publish this idea were Dr. Englert and hiscolleague Robert Brout , who died in 2011. Dr.Englert was born in Etterbeek, Belgium, in 1932, and he studied engineering andphysics at the Université Libre de Bruxelles, emerging with a Ph.D. in 1959.While a research associate at Cornell, he bonded with Dr. Brout, a professorthere. When Dr. Englert returned to Belgium, Dr. Brout went with him. While they were working on their paper, Dr. Higgs, a youngtheorist born in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, England, was working on his own versionof the theory. His paper was rejected by the journal Physics Letters, whichwas published at CERN, as having no relevance to physics. So he rewrote it andsent it to a rival journal, Physical Review Letters. Along the way he added aparagraph at the end, noting that the theory predicted a new particle, aspinless creature of indeterminate mass, which would become famous as the Higgsboson. That paper was accepted with the proviso that he mention Dr.Englert and Dr. Brout’s paper, which had beaten him into print by seven weeks. Meanwhile, three other physicists — Tom Kibble of ImperialCollege, London; Carl Hagen of the University of Rochester; and Gerald Guralnikof Brown University — were writing their own paper . Just as they were about to send it in, mail that had beendelayed by a postal strike came in, containing journals with the other twopapers, the one by Dr. Higgs and the one by Dr. Englert and Dr. Brout. The groups and their friends have been arguing ever since overexactly who did and said what. In 2004, Dr. Higgs, Dr. Brout and Dr. Englertwon the Wolf Prize, considered an important forerunner of the Nobel. In 2010,all six physicists shared the Sakurai Prize of the American Physical Society,another big award. Dr. Brout might logically have shared the Nobel if he werealive today; the prize is not awarded posthumously. The Higgs boson became a big deal after Steven Weinberg made itthe linchpin in a 1967 paper that unified the electromagnetic and weak forcesalong the lines proposed by Dr. Glashow earlier, earning himself a share of the1979 Nobel Prize. Along the way, the Higgs boson achieved a presence in pop culturerare in abstract physics. To the eternal dismay of his colleagues, LeonLederman, the former director of Fermilab, called it the “God particle” in hisbook of the same name, written with Dick Teresi. (He later said that he hadwanted to call it the “goddamn particle.”) Journalists and the news media couldnot resist the nickname, however, and many particle physicists grudginglyadmitted that the name had brought a dose of drama and public excitement to afield almost breathtakingly austere and abstract. The July 4 announcement last year ended that tension. That day wasalso the first time that Dr. Higgs and Dr. Englert had ever met. Indeed, thenewly discovered boson so far fits the theoretical predictions so well thatphysicists are a little dismayed. They were hoping for a surprise or two thatwould tell them how to improve on the Standard Model. The award on Tuesday sets the stage for the Swedish academy tofigure out someday how to recognize the 10,000 scientists who built the LargeHadron Collider and sifted 2,000 trillion subatomic fireballs for a few dozentraces of the precious godlike particle. “We are of course thrilled — the first big discovery of theL.H.C., for which we built the giant machine and detectors,” said MariaSpiropulu, a professor at the California Institute of Technology and a memberof one of the CERN teams that tracked the Higgs particle down. “For theexperimentalists,” she added, “we are kind of used to being excluded from theNobel.” *******************************777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777 Reference #2 希格斯和恩格勒同获 2013 年物理学诺贝尔奖 精选 已有 7402 次阅读 2013-10-802:36 | 个人分类 : 生活点滴 | 系统分类 : 海外观察 | 关键词 : 诺贝尔奖 物理学 2013 Nobel Prize in Physics The Nobel Prize inPhysics 2013 was awarded jointly to Franois Englert and Peter W. Higgs forthe theoretical discovery of a mechanism that contributes to our understandingof the origin of mass of subatomic particles, and which recently was confirmedthrough the discovery of the predicted fundamental particle, by the ATLAS andCMS experiments at CERN's Large Hadron Collider 2012 年 7 月 4 日两个科学家第一次见面的情况 Franois Englert andPeter Higgs meet for the first time, at CERN when the discovery of a Higgsparticle was announced to the world on 4 July 2012. 下面三个重要文件非常值得阅读：科普版和学术版的都有，图片也非常精彩，今天比预计公布时间迟了 1 个小时，也许是有一些文件没弄好。 popular-physicsprize2013.pdf press.pdf advanced-physicsprize2013.pdf 弗朗索瓦·恩格勒 (Franois Englert) 和彼得·希格斯 (Peter W. Higgs) 因预测希格斯玻色子存在而获 2013年诺贝尔物理学奖。 彼得·威尔·希格斯可以说是众望所归，早就有人预测今年的诺贝尔奖金非 希格斯玻色子的研究 莫属。 1964 年，恩格勒和罗伯特·布绕特 (Robert Brout ，已故 ) 共同提出希格斯机制与希格斯玻色子理论。同年，彼得·希格斯也在《物理快报》发表文章，提出希格斯机制理论。另一组研究者，汤姆·基博尔、卡尔·哈庚杰和拉德·古拉尼也在同一年独立提出类似的结果。 彼得·威尔·希格斯 Peter Ware Higgs ，生于 1929 年 5 月 29 日。英国理论物理学家，爱丁堡大学荣誉退休教授，他以希格斯机制与希格斯粒子而闻名于世。彼得·希格斯出生在英格兰泰恩河畔纽塞，他在 1960 年毕业于伦敦国王学院， 1980 年到 1996 年期间曾在爱丁堡大学任教。 2012 年 7 月 4 日， CERN 宣布 LHC 的紧凑μ子线圈探测到质为 125.3 ± 0.6GeV 的新粒子（超过背景期望值 4.9 个标准差），超环面仪器测量到质量为 126.5GeV 的新粒子。而在 2013 年 3 月 14 日，欧洲核子研究组织发布新闻稿表示，先前探测到的新粒子是希格斯玻色子。希格斯机制广泛被视为粒子物理学标准模型的重要理论基础，彼得·希格斯获得过许多奖项，包括 1997 年获得狄拉克奖章及英国物理学会理论物理杰出贡献奖、 2004 年获得沃尔夫物理学奖和 2010 年荣获樱井奖。 2012 年，史蒂芬·霍金在被访问时表示，彼得·希格斯应该获得诺贝尔物理学奖。 彼得·希格斯出生在英格兰泰恩河畔纽塞，父亲曾在 BBC 担任声音工程师。希格斯童年时患有气喘，后来因为父亲工作的缘故，全家在第二次世界大战期间搬离泰恩河畔纽塞，他也因此没有继续在学校接受教育。希格斯的父亲后来居住在贝德福德，希格斯与母亲则留在布里斯托。他后来进入可安文法学校就读，并受到校友保罗·狄拉克在物理方面的影响。 希格斯 17 岁时进入伦敦市立中学就读，专研数学。彼得·希格斯后来获得伦敦国王学院物理学位，并成为爱丁堡大学研究员，也曾在伦敦帝国学院及伦敦大学学院任职。希格斯在 1960 年返回爱丁堡大学担任讲师，然后在 1980 年成为爱丁堡大学教授。他在 1983 年成为英国皇家学会会员，并在 1984 年获得卢瑟福奖。希格斯在 1991 年成为英国物理学会会员，然后在 1996 年退休成为爱丁堡大学荣誉教授。他在 2008 年成为斯旺西大学荣誉教授。 希格斯在爱丁堡大学期间首先对质量研究感兴趣，并逐渐发展出希格斯场理论。因为希格斯场遍布于宇宙中，某些带质量的基本粒子与希格斯场相互作用而获得其质量，而相互作用的副产品为希格斯玻色子。 希格斯机制的起始原先来自于芝加哥大学日本物理系教授南部阳一郎，他发现亚原子物理学的自发对称性破缺机制，提出南部 - 戈德斯通定理，认为连续对称性被自发破缺后必存在额外的零质量玻色子，称为戈德斯通玻色子。 1963 年，菲利普·安德森发表论文指出，类似戈德斯通玻色子的准粒子也可以在其它物理学领域找到，他猜测，对于相对论性模型，假若正确应用规范不变性理论，戈德斯通玻色子问题应该可以迎刃而解。 希格斯在 1964 年于苏格兰高地健行时突然获得灵感，随后在美国物理学会《物理快报》发表论文解决南部 - 戈德斯通定理留下的难题。希格斯在论文里提出希格斯机制理论，但是遭到《物理快报》退回。 于是他将论文转投到《物理评论快报》，同时有另外五位科学家也获得相同的结论，包括弗朗索瓦·恩格勒、罗伯特·布绕特、杰拉德·古拉尼、卡尔·哈庚和汤姆·基博尔。这六位物理学者分别发表的三篇论文在《物理评论快报》 50 周年庆祝文献里被公认为里程碑论文。 2011 年底，大型强子对撞机的两个实验分别独立在质量为 125GeV 附近，侦测到希格斯玻色子可能出现过的迹象 。 2012 年 7 月， CERN 宣布发现新玻色子，符合希格斯玻色子的质量与性质。 2013 年 3 月 14 日，欧洲核子研究组织发布新闻稿表示，先前探测到的新粒子是希格斯玻色子。 弗朗索瓦·恩格勒 （ Franois Englert, 1932 年 11 月 06 日－）是比利时理论物理学者，在粒子物理学做出重要贡献。 1964 年，恩格勒和罗伯特·布绕特共同提出希格斯机制与希格斯玻色子理论。另外还有两个研究小组也在同年独立地提出类似结果，一组为杰拉德·古拉尼、卡尔·哈庚、汤姆·基博尔，另一组为彼得·希格斯。六位物理学者分别发表的三篇论文，在《物理评论快报》 50 周年庆祝文献里被公认为里程碑论文。恩格勒的主要研究领域为统计力学、粒子物理学、宇宙学。 1955 年，恩格勒从法语布鲁塞尔自由大学毕业，获得学士学位。毕业后，他选择留在学校继续攻读博士。 1959 年，得到博士学位。同年他成为康乃尔大学的副研究员，上司是助教授罗伯特·布绕特。他们成为好朋友与密切工作伙伴。 1960 年，恩格勒升任为助教授。 1961 年，恩格勒返还比利时，布绕特全家也跟着一起去法语布鲁塞尔自由大学，布绕特在那里担任正教授。 1964 年，恩格勒擢升为正教授。 1980 年，布绕特与恩格勒共同领导理论物理组。 1998 年，恩格勒成为荣誉退休教授。 1964 年 6 月，布绕特团队发表了三页论文，他们指出，假定在量子真空（ quantum vacuum ）里标量场的振幅不等于零，则会引起自发对称性破缺，从而促使某些规范玻色子获得质量。由于电磁相互作用的光子与传递弱相互作用的 W 及 Z 玻色子都是规范玻色子，这结果是统一弱相互作用与电磁相互作用的关键。稍后，希格斯独立发表论文概述怎样能够应用局域规范不变性来回避戈德斯通定理。不久之后，希格斯发表第二篇论文，他将上述回避方法加以延伸应用于一种非常简单模型，借以描述规范矢量场怎样获得质量。在这篇论文里，希格斯给出后来知名为“希格斯玻色子”的假定量子的方程。希格斯的 1966 年论文又推导出希格斯玻色子的衰变机制；只有带质量玻色子衰变，假若找到衰变的迹象，就可以证实希格斯玻色子存在。 古拉尼团队论文提到了布绕特团队与希格斯分别独立于 1964 年发表的论文。这论文也推导出希格斯玻色子的存在，但是希格斯的希格斯玻色子具有质量，而古拉尼团队的希格斯玻色子不具有质量，这结果令人疑问两种希格斯玻色子是否相同。在 2009 年与 2011 年发表的两篇论文中，古拉尼解释，在古拉尼团队给出的模型里，取至最低阶近似，玻色子的质量为零，但是这质量的数值没有被任何理论限制；取至较高阶，玻色子可以获得质量；另外，只有古拉尼团队论文明白写出模型里没有零质量戈德斯通玻色子，这论文是唯一对于整个希格斯机制给出完整分析的论文。 1971 年，正在乌特勒支大学攻读博士的杰拉德·特·胡夫特与他的论文指导教授马丁纽斯· 韦尔特曼共同将杨 - 米尔斯理论加以重整化。他们表示，假若按照希格斯机制来实现杨 - 米尔斯理论的对称性破缺，则杨 - 米尔斯理论可以重整化。这是二十世纪理论物理学的重要成就之一 。由于这贡献，希格斯机制开始得到理所当然的重视。 1999 年，胡夫特与韦尔特曼共同因此获得诺贝尔物理学奖。 本文引用地址： http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-41174-731142.html *******************************77777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777 Reference #3 随便说说 2013 的诺贝尔（ 2 ） —— 物理 精选 已有 2212 次阅读 2013-10-823:34 | 个人分类 : 渭城朝雨浥轻尘 - 原创 | 系统分类 : 人物纪事 | 关键词 : 诺贝尔 物理 希格斯 恩格勒 玻色子 实话说本人虽然高中时候的班主任就是物理老师，但是大物还是差一点挂掉。。。。在此对我的老师和各位科学先贤三鞠躬，没学好真是愧对啊。 今晚物理诺奖开奖的时候，据说是延迟了好几次？不知道是给场内外的观众吃饭的时间呢还是在等老爷子们的飞机还是在研究到底奖给谁…… 不过呢，量子物理或者粒子物理学本来就有点晦涩难懂（大物里好像都没有，比高数难多了！），连薛定谔的猫那个问题能搞明白就不容易了，别说什么玻色子了。可是“希格斯玻色子”这个专有名词在 2012-2013 年之间几乎达到了妇孺皆知的地步，这可全赖欧洲强子对撞机的同僚和新闻界同事的努力啊（又脸皮厚了，谁跟你是同事）。 实话说我看了半天的整套理论，还是中文的，还是用科普语言写的，可是还似懂非懂（再次三鞠躬）。可见几位老爷子当年真是天纵英才啊 ~~~ 其实说白了，微观物理就是在研究什么最小这个问题。分子可以分成原子和电子，原子可以分成质子中子，质子中子可以分成夸克，这似乎就到头了。然后希格斯玻色子就是能给这些小东西以质量的一个东西。一般人可能觉得，重量是源于地心引力，质量是自己的啊，和神马子有啥关系。这样理解已经是高中物理水平了（其实到这个水平就不容易了，非物理专业人士到这也就够了），但是任何物品都可以往小了分，分到头就是各种子各种夸，这些东西的质量并不是自己本来就有的，而是有一个场（场这个概念其实高中就有，那时说就是物质），但是场看不见摸不着，那到底是不是物质？是，希格斯玻色子就是组成希格斯场的物质，只不过太小了你看不见，你的触觉也感觉不到而已。这么说明白一点了吧，东西必须在场里才有质量，而希格斯场到处都有。所以希格斯玻色子也可以说是最基本的子之一了。 弗朗索瓦椠格勒 Fran 漀椀猀 Englert ，比利时公民。 1932 年出生于比利时埃特尔贝克（ Etterbeek ）， 1959 年从布鲁塞尔自由大学获得博士学位，目前为该校荣誉退休教授。 彼得希格斯 Peter W. Higgs ，英国公民。 1929 年出生于英国纽卡斯尔。 1954 年从伦敦大学国王学院获得博士学位。目前为爱丁堡大学荣誉退休教授。 其实得奖者本来还应该有一位老爷子，他就是 罗伯特 · 布绕特 （ Robert Brout ），他是恩格勒老爷子的导师，是美国人， 1928 年 6 月 14 日出生在纽约。其实布爷爷和恩爷爷才是第一个提出希格斯场和希格斯机制这些理论的人，他俩比希爷爷的论文不论投稿时间还是发稿时间都早了半个月到一个月。可惜，这里有一个不太美丽的失误。（具体看这里 http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-3779-731147.html ） 不管怎样，这玩意就冠名以希爷爷的名字了。我想这就是无数人梦寐以求的“名垂青史”吧。不过这里还有三个科学家有点冤枉：他们是 杰拉德 · 古拉尼 、 卡尔 · 哈庚 、 汤姆 · 基博尔 。他们也在同一年做了类似甚至更深刻完整的工作，可是他们就因为晚了一点点（两个来月）就没有机会得诺贝尔了。毕竟诺贝尔的习惯是不会给超过三个人……据说这也是当年中国的胰岛素没能得奖的原因？（不过至少这六个人还一起得了另外一个奖） 这次布爷爷虽然早已仙逝，但是他的爱徒得奖，对他来说也是一样的。布爷爷和恩爷爷本来就是第一个提出整套机制的人，希爷爷只是多说了个粒子（据说还有位南部爷爷的点拨 http://news.sciencenet.cn/htmlnews/2013/10/283531.shtm ） 比较头疼的是没什么能挖出来的八卦……唯一的就是两位得奖者都是欧洲的，大型强子对撞机也是在欧洲，看生活大爆炸几位主演在剧中都把大型强子对撞机当成圣地一样，欧洲作为现代科学发源地真是老而弥坚啊。不过要找出一个和以往诺贝尔获奖者毫无关系的获奖者，也挺不容易的……（文学奖和和平奖不在此列） 还要再八卦一点点，昨天说要拼这个拼那个，其实也不要灰心，每个人的一生都会遇到一些人会帮助你，就像从前说的贵人。只不过在这之前，一定要保持谦恭的态度，如果“贵人”们的指点有情有理，那可一定不要放过…… 本文内容和图片基本上源于网络信息整理（包括科学网，果壳等网站）和本人理解，理论理解如果有错误欢迎指点一二。 本文引用地址： http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-976008-731404.html *****************************877777777777777777777777777777 Reference #4: 11 October 2013 Last updated at 07:53 ET Share this page Email Print Share Facebook Twitter Prof Peter Higgs did not know he had won Nobel Prize Professor Peter Higgs: She congratulated me on the news and I said 'oh, what news?' Continue reading the main story Related Stories Peter Higgs: 'Shy but brilliant' Watch A post-Higgs Cern has its eye on 'dark Universe' mysteries Higgs boson wins Nobel physics prize Nobel Prize-winning scientist Prof Peter Higgs has revealed he did not know he had won the award until a woman congratulated him in the street. Prof Higgs, who does not own a mobile phone, said a former neighbour had pulled up in her car as he was returning from lunch in Edinburgh. He added: She congratulated me on the news and I said 'oh, what news?' The woman had been alerted by her daughter in London that Prof Higgs had won the award, he revealed. He added: I heard more about it obviously when I got home and started reading the messages. The 84-year-old emeritus professor at the University of Edinburgh was recognised by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences for his work on the theory of the particle which shares his name, the Higgs boson. He shares this year's physics prize with Francois Englert of Belgium, and joins the ranks of past Nobel winners including Marie Curie and Albert Einstein. Watch: David Shukman profiles the shy but brilliant Peter Higgs 'God particle' The existence of the so-called God particle, said to give matter its substance, or mass, was proved almost 50 years later by a team from the European nuclear research facility (Cern) and its Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in Geneva, Switzerland. Speaking for the first time about the award at a media conference at the University of Edinburgh, he said: How do I feel? Well, obviously I'm delighted and rather relieved in a sense that it's all over. It has been a long time coming. An old friend told him he had been nominated as far back as 1980, he said. Prof Higgs added: In terms of later events, it seemed to me for many years that the experimental verification might not come in my lifetime. But since the start up of the LHC it has been pretty clear that they would get there, and despite some mishaps they did get there. Stressing the involvement of other theorists and Cern, he added: I think clearly they should, but it is going to be even more difficult for the Nobel Committee to allocate the credit when it comes to an organisation like Cern. I should remind you that although only two of us have shared this prize, Francois Englert of Brussels and myself, that the work in 1964 involved three groups of people, (including) two in Brussels. Unfortunately Robert Brout died a few years ago so is no longer able to be awarded the prize, but he would certainly have been one of the winners if he had still been alive. But there were three others who also contributed and it is already difficult to allocate the credit amongst the theorists. Although a lot of people seem to think I did all this single-handed, it was actually part of a theoretical programme which had been started in 1960. Landmark research Prof Higgs was born in Newcastle, but developed his theory while working at the University of Edinburgh. The landmark research that defined what was to become known as the Higgs boson was published in 1964. Discovering the particle became one of the most sought-after goals in science, and the team of scientists behind the $10bn LHC at Cern made proving its existence a key priority. In July of last year, physicists at Cern confirmed the discovery of a particle consistent with the Higgs boson. Prof Higgs, who had often been uncomfortable with the attention his theory brought, was in Geneva to hear the news, and wiped a tear from his eye as the announcement was made. Reacting to the discovery at the time, he told reporters: It's very nice to be right sometimes. More on This Story Related Stories Peter Higgs: 'Shy but brilliant' Watch 09 OCTOBER 2013 , SCIENCE ENVIRONMENT A post-Higgs Cern has its eye on 'dark Universe' mysteries 09 OCTOBER 2013 , SCIENCE ENVIRONMENT Higgs boson wins Nobel physics prize 08 OCTOBER 2013 , SCIENCE ENVIRONMENT Profile: Peter Higgs 08 OCTOBER 2013 , SCIENCE ENVIRONMENT ********************777777777777777777777777777 Ref. #5: What makes a Nobel laureate?Many things, but the most important is an uncommon passion for their work. Comments 1 Email Share 35 Pioneers of science Madame Marie Curie and her husband Pierre are shown in their lab in this undated photo. ( Associated Press / October 4 , 2006 ) Related photos Photos: Nobel Prize in Literature winners Who will win the 2013 Nobel Literature prize? Western praise could very well get Malala Yousafzai killed Higgs boson theorists win Nobel Prize in physics By David Pratt October 9, 2013 This year's Nobel Prizes are being unveiled this week. Are there any predictors that point to who will be selected? Here's George Beadle's (medicine, 1958) response: Study diligently. Respect DNA. Don't smoke. Don't drink. Avoid women and politics. That's my formula. Is precocity in childhood a predictor? When the 2001 economics laureate, George Akerlof, was in second grade, he was asked what he wanted for Christmas, and he said, A steel mill. Asked the same question by his scientist father, Roger Kornberg (chemistry, 2006) said, A week in the lab. But early privilege is not essential. Mario Capecchi (medicine, 2007) was an abandoned child on the streets of wartime Italy. Albert Camus (literature, 1957) grew up fatherless, in poverty in Algiers. In addition to childhood hardship, many Nobel laureates, men and women, at some point in their lives suffered imprisonment. Nelson Mandela (peace, 1993) set a record with his 27 years in prison in South Africa. Autobiographies show that prison strengthened the convictions of future laureates and toughened their resolution. Childhood deprivation and adult imprisonment are, however, atypical. The typical Nobel laureate in science is a male, born in a Western country into a middle-class family. His father is a professional, manager or professor. His family is Protestant, agnostic or Jewish. His parents seek out good K-12 schools for him, and he proceeds to a good university. He receives his doctoral degree before he is 25 and undertakes post-doctoral work under a Nobel-level supervisor. He does his groundbreaking research in his late 30s or early 40s, for which he is awarded the Nobel Prize 15 years later. Rosalind Yalow (medicine, 1977) told women, You can have it all! But only 43 of 862 laureates have been women. The prizes got their start in 1901, before women won universal suffrage in most nations, let alone an equal share of education. In the sciences, even in contemporary times, the difficulty of combining motherhood with experiments that have to be checked at 3 a.m. has channeled many women into teaching universities rather than research institutes. In their autobiographies, many Nobel laureates pay tribute to an outstanding mentor. Five of Enrico Fermi's (physics, 1938) post-docs went on to win the Nobel Prize, and 12 of Ernest Rutherford's (chemistry, 1908). Otto Warburg (medicine, 1931) advised an American doctoral student, If you wish to become a scientist, you must ask a successful scientist to accept you in his laboratory, even if at the beginning you would only clean his test tubes. Is eccentricity a concomitant of Nobel-level genius? In fact, laureates are mostly down-to-earth and unpretentious. In the United States, 44% of marriages end in divorce. Among Nobel laureates in the 20th century, the rate was 11%. Much time and energy are saved by a stable family life. Naturally there are exceptions. Erwin Schrdinger (physics, 1933) lived for some years in a middle-class Dublin suburb with his wife and his mistress, while simultaneously carrying on affairs with his students and fathering children with two other Irish women. There remains one quality that is essential. It is what Leon Lederman (physics, 1988) called compulsive dedication. What distinguishes Nobel laureates is passion for their work, work that engages their hearts as well as their heads. Let the example of Marie Curie (physics, 1903; chemistry, 1911) and her husband Pierre (physics, 1903) stand for the experience of many others. The Curies became convinced that radium could be isolated from the mineral pitchblende. The Sorbonne assigned them a shed with a leaking roof and a dirt floor, where the Curies worked for years, freezing in winter and sweltering in summer. And yet, Marie Curie wrote in her biography of her husband, it was in this miserable old shed that the best and happiest years of our life were spent, entirely consecrated to work. I sometimes passed the whole day stirring a mass in ebullition, with an iron rod nearly as big as myself. In the evening I was broken with fatigue…. We worked in the unique preoccupation of a dream. This experience — being utterly immersed in and dedicated to a task of great significance — is common to all Nobel laureates, and it is cherished by them as much as the prize itself. David Pratt compiled The Impossible Takes Longer: The 1,000 Wisest Things Ever Said by Nobel Prize Laureates. Copyright 2013, Los Angeles Times PS: Postscript *** Add-on note for my posts: 各位有缘人【总之就是正在看着屏幕的您！】， blessings! “己所不欲，勿施於人”，實質就是換位思考、尊重別人的利益 = decency。 I wrote all my posts based on what I read online, a way of taking break, a routine of daily activity. I can't write anything without this fabric of other's writing, an inspiration that triggers my own motivation to write. Copy/paste the original article provides me with a context to track down where I got the idea, a way to credit back to those writers. “ 己所不欲，勿施於人”，實質就是換位思考、尊重別人的利益 - You're free to quote my writing. If you're objected to my quotation, can you let me know so I can correct it? Thanks. Reference: I'd credit the original source of my inspiration to write this post by citing the entire article above, only for academic/teaching purpose, but not for commercial purpose - making and promoting any products. I use both URL ( URL is an acronym for Uniform Resource Locator and is a reference (an address) to a resource on the Internet. A URL has two main components: Protocol identifier: For the URL http://example.com , the protocol identifier is http . Resource name: For the URL http://example.com , the resource name is example.com .) and the entire article for my electronic library as URL is drifted with time, so it's hard to find the original citation. Let me know if you're objected to my citation of your article - I'd act accordingly. Thanks so much for your attention. ~~~~~~~~~ add-on note: I've practiced to copy/paste the entire document of my reference to the post I referred to as above to avoid the below problem. It's hectic to do, but it's good for readers. You can see why below. A common problem with many Chinese Language websites In re-reading some of my older blog articles, I have found the following problem with many Chinese language websites. When my article gave reference to material associated with my article, e.g., a website, the Chinese website do not archive old news reports. Instead one finds the website referenced has new stories featured that has nothing to do with my article. The old article referenced by me has disappeared and nowhere to be found. There is nothing I can do about this. On the other hand, international news sites such as CNN or NY Times has a distinct reference for each page of content featured. Reader can always see it even if the content is ten years old. I hope ScienceNet reader and the general public can urge these Chinese websites to change their practice. After all, these days computer memory to a first approximation cost nothing. 转载本文请联系原作者获取授权，同时请注明本文来自 何毓琦 科学网博客。 链接地址： http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-1565-1029741.html ** PPS: 本博网编者启事 - - - 本 博网 栏目所有文章为记录个人的杂感眉批启示 - 为意识流、随想录、随笔记、涂鸦纸、奔腾八方思绪,写时就是思绪的千军万马抢过独木桥 - 写下来的这点就是过了独木桥的那几个思绪军马。 本 个人 只记下几个思绪军马, 不论对错轻重缓急 。 为 本 个人 厘清思想缘起与延伸发展而附加注明转载 文章来源 (收集转载文章为自学收藏), 转载 文章 并不代表本网编者赞同其观点和对其真实性负责。凡本网编者启事注明版权所有的作品， 网文章 版权均属于 文学城/ 新浪网/科学网/人民网/TIME/NYT/CNBC/NPR/Google/HigherEducation/Science/Nature/Zihu/backChina/未名空间(mitbbs.com) 。 凡署名作者的，版权则属原作者或出版人所有 。 凡经本网编者转载, 或作者不授权 - 经反映 本 博 网 编者会采用相应措施。 本博网编者园地个人点滴时空轨迹 ：满足 本 个人 不同 时空 ( on travel, on silent, with the public, being alone, staring the sky, feel blue ) 阅读需求， 本 个人 探讨国内国际动态， 本 个人 版块解读态势，呈现 本 个人 立体 环境 。 偶而在于传递更多信息( If you swing by for drop-in visit of my blog webpage ) 。 欢迎关注评论指正转载 - 本 个人 择善固执, 因此不敬之处请原谅。 (( 择善固执-- I've read many classic books of thinkers and some of them were read many times. Still feel not much has changed in me by reading those books. In the end, we are who we are, and intentional molding and self-help are of little use. Personality determines fate, and personality is of 90% hereditary, so our fate and destiny were pretty much decided when we were born. Sorry for being little pessimistic. )) 转载本文请联系原作者获取授权，同时请注明本文来自李胜文科学网博客。 链接地址： http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-847277-1071282.html 转载本文请联系原作者获取授权，同时请注明本文来自李胜文科学网博客。 链接地址： http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-847277-1071424.html
Eric Kandel 今天在纽约时报发表的鼓吹脑科学的文章：The New Science of Mind (原文链接：http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/08/opinion/sunday/the-new-science-of-mind.html?pagewanted=2_r=0)。 文章欲扬先抑。开篇提到某些人对脑科学研究手段乃至前途的怀疑。接着举了若干个例子，具体说明脑科学的一些最新进展及其在临床上的价值。最后总结道： “This new science of mind is based on the principle that our mind and our brain are inseparable.”.“In years to come, this increased understanding of the physical workings of our brain will provide us with important insight into brain disorders, whether psychiatric or neurological.” 总体来说，行文中规中矩，缺乏有新意的观点以及振奋人心的热情。虽然他本意是为了给脑科学打气，但似乎并没有在读者心中产生这样的效果。
2, 2013 Beijing Police Seek ‘ Large and Vicious ’ Suspects (With Wet Noses) By ANDREW JACOBS BEIJING — A boisterous 6-year-old golden retriever with tousled strawberry blond hair and a weakness for boiled carrots, Dou Dou hardly looks like Public Enemy No. 1. But earlier this month, his unmistakable likeness began appearing on wanted posters across the capital; in recent days, the police have been scouring the gated apartment complex where he lives, hunting for him and other fugitive canines in a campaign that is striking fear into the hearts of otherwise law-abiding Beijingers. “ I feel like we ’ re living in one of those war movies in which the Communists are searching for the Japanese and threatening to wipe them out, ” said the woman who considers herself Dou Dou ’ s adoptive mother. “ How can the government be so cruel? ” Dou Dou ’ s is among the dozens of dog breeds, including supposed miscreants like collies, Dalmatians and Labradors, that the Beijing government has long banned from much of the city. But over the last 10 days, the prohibition against such “ large and vicious dogs, ” as they are officially branded, has been enforced with zeal, alarming pet owners who thought the size restrictions had long since lapsed. “ People are in a complete panic, ” said Mary Peng, chief executive of the International Center for Veterinary Services , a pet hospital in Beijing. “ My phone has not stopped ringing. ” The police, often tipped off by cynophobic neighbors, have been carrying out nighttime raids on homes, and scores of dogs have been wrenched from the grip of their distraught owners, even those that had been legally registered with the authorities. Although the crackdown has its supporters, it has provoked fury from pet owners, a growing legion that includes young professionals and retirees, many of whom can be seen whiling away their days in Beijing ’ s hutongs, or alleys, accompanied by their wheezing, overfed companions. The well-heeled have been bundling off their boxers and oversize poodles to kennels outside the city limits, while others who cannot afford such accommodations are keeping their pets hidden at home. “ I ’ m not about to give up one of my dogs without putting up a fight, ” said Huang Feng, 30, a pet-store owner who has a fondness for big, lumbering breeds. “ What ’ s happening is criminal. ” Dog owners have been posting stories of heartbreaking encounters with the police, and a video that went viral last week shows an officer confiscating a small white dog whose owner claimed he left his dog license at home. A cartoon making the rounds on Sina Weibo, China ’ s version of Twitter, portrays a terrified dog chased by three policemen, one of whom is firing what appears to be a cannon. “ How about catching thieves instead of little dogs? ” reads the caption. The Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau did not respond to an interview request, but in public statements, the police have said they are simply enforcing the longstanding ban on dogs taller than 13.7 inches in the districts that make up the heart of the capital. Officials note that rabies last year killed 13 people in Beijing, more than double the number in 2011. Big dogs, the police contend, are incompatible with city living. “ All resistance as well as violence against enforcement will be investigated and dealt with by the police, ” they said in a statement. The authorities appear to be so worried about a backlash that they have been deleting online criticism of the stepped-up enforcement. Last week they detained a woman who described how the police had kicked to death a golden retriever in front of its owner. The police later issued a statement saying the woman admitted to fabricating the account , a claim that has been met with widespread skepticism. In addition to risking the seizure of offending dogs on the spot, owners can be fined $800, an amount that doubles if the owner is a business. Once confiscated, large dogs cannot be retrieved. With the exception of high-end pedigrees, animal rights advocates say, many of the seized animals are likely to end up in the hands of dog meat traders. “ We wish the police could find a more humane way to deal with this issue, ” said Feng Dongmei, who runs the dog and cat welfare program at Animals Asia , a Hong Kong-based organization that wrote the government to plead for a change in the city ’ s dog regulations. Other groups are asking the police to clarify what appear to be contradictions in the rules. Can a dog legally registered in rural areas come to Beijing for a checkup at the vet? And why, they ask, have the police in recent years been licensing large-breed dogs across the city and happily collecting the annual $160 registration fee? For years, animal advocacy groups have been trying to make a simple point to the police: big does not necessarily equal vicious. In fact, many experts note that petite breeds like Chihuahuas, dachshunds and Jack Russell terriers are often nastier than the Afghans and English sheep dogs that are officially banned. “ There is no bona fide scientific correlation between size and behavior, ” said Ms. Peng, the veterinarian. Instead of hunting down large dogs, advocates say, the government should focus on administering rabies vaccines and requiring owners to leash their pets when out for a walk. Encouraging people to spay and neuter their dogs, especially males, they say, can also have a calming effect on canines. Pet owners are scrambling for ways to keep their dogs out of harm ’ s way. Some have stashed their beloved animals at rented farms in Hebei, the province that surrounds the capital, while those of modest means have come up with creative ways to evade the dog catchers, some of whom have admitted operating under quotas that require them to bring in 10 dogs each. One woman described how she sets her alarm for 2 a.m., taking her black Labrador retriever for brief walks when she knows the police are sleeping. Another woman no longer allows her 2-year-old husky to venture outside. Instead, he relieves himself on the balcony of her apartment after dark. “ It ’ s getting disgusting out there, ” she said. Like most, a 25-year-old designer, who asked that only her surname, Gao, be printed, is hoping the take-no-prisoners campaign will blow over. Earlier this month, a squad of men swept through her neighborhood with nets and metal snares. Since then, she has been staying home from work, having been traumatized by the sight of a dozen unlicensed dogs, whimpering and bloodied, being thrown into a large metal cage on the back of a police truck. “ Every time there ’ s a knock at the door, my heart stops, ” she said. “ I just don ’ t understand why people think big dogs are a menace. My dog might be big, but he wouldn ’ t hurt a fly. ” Patrick Zuo and Sue-Lin Wong contributed research.
《纽约时报》最近发表的一位美国人对美国现行资本主义制度的批判 在这里我将《纽约时报》2013年3月30日刊登的戴维•A•斯托克曼(David A. Stockman)的一篇文章推荐给读者。 有兴趣的读者可以阅读后面的英文原文［1］或者后面由末允所翻译的中文［2］。 我不想对文章本身发表自己的看法，只是想为自己4月1日和4月6日写的两篇小文章提供一点相关的补充材料。 我们面前的一个基本问题就是： 私有化到底能不能象许成钢和刘世锦所鼓吹的那样解决社会腐败和社会不平等这样的社会实际问题？ 我们希望强调的是：摆事实，讲道理，以理服人。任何一种经济学理论，任何一个关于社会发展问题的说法，都一定要经得起长时期的由众多人口组成的社会的社会实践的检验。不同的社会时期，不同的社会制度，为我们提供了不同的用来检验一种经济学理论或一种说法的实际模型。只要我们持有明确的认真和实事求是的基本态度，只要我们不是置客观事实而不顾，就像我们从事自然科学研究那样，我们就能够展开有益的分析和讨论。 ********************************************** New York Times OPINION State-Wrecked: The Corruption of Capitalism in America Sundown in America By DAVID A. STOCKMAN Published: March 30, 2013 GREENWICH, Conn. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/31/opinion/sunday/sundown-in-america.html?pagewanted=all_r=0 The Dow Jones and Standard Poor’s 500 indexes reached record highs on Thursday, having completely erased the losses since the stock market’s last peak, in 2007. But instead of cheering, we should be very afraid. Over the last 13 years, the stock market has twice crashed and touched off a recession: American households lost $5 trillion in the 2000 dot-com bust and more than $7 trillion in the 2007 housing crash. Sooner or later — within a few years, I predict — this latest Wall Street bubble, inflated by an egregious flood of phony money from the Federal Reserve rather than real economic gains, will explode, too. Since the S.P. 500 first reached its current level, in March 2000, the mad money printers at the Federal Reserve have expanded their balance sheet sixfold (to $3.2 trillion from $500 billion). Yet during that stretch, economic output has grown by an average of 1.7 percent a year (the slowest since the Civil War); real business investment has crawled forward at only 0.8 percent per year; and the payroll job count has crept up at a negligible 0.1 percent annually. Real median family income growth has dropped 8 percent, and the number of full-time middle class jobs, 6 percent. The real net worth of the “bottom” 90 percent has dropped by one-fourth. The number of food stamp and disability aid recipients has more than doubled, to 59 million, about one in five Americans. So the Main Street economy is failing while Washington is piling a soaring debt burden on our descendants, unable to rein in either the warfare state or the welfare state or raise the taxes needed to pay the nation’s bills. By default, the Fed has resorted to a radical, uncharted spree of money printing. But the flood of liquidity, instead of spurring banks to lend and corporations to spend, has stayed trapped in the canyons of Wall Street, where it is inflating yet another unsustainable bubble. When it bursts, there will be no new round of bailouts like the ones the banks got in 2008. Instead, America will descend into an era of zero-sum austerity and virulent political conflict, extinguishing even today’s feeble remnants of economic growth. THIS dyspeptic prospect results from the fact that we are now state-wrecked. With only brief interruptions, we’ve had eight decades of increasingly frenetic fiscal and monetary policy activism intended to counter the cyclical bumps and grinds of the free market and its purported tendency to underproduce jobs and economic output. The toll has been heavy. As the federal government and its central-bank sidekick, the Fed, have groped for one goal after another — smoothing out the business cycle, minimizing inflation and unemployment at the same time, rolling out a giant social insurance blanket, promoting homeownership, subsidizing medical care, propping up old industries (agriculture, automobiles) and fostering new ones (“clean” energy, biotechnology) and, above all, bailing out Wall Street — they have now succumbed to overload, overreach and outside capture by powerful interests. The modern Keynesian state is broke, paralyzed and mired in empty ritual incantations about stimulating “demand,” even as it fosters a mutant crony capitalism that periodically lavishes the top 1 percent with speculative windfalls. The culprits are bipartisan, though you’d never guess that from the blather that passes for political discourse these days. The state-wreck originated in 1933, when Franklin D. Roosevelt opted for fiat money (currency not fundamentally backed by gold), economic nationalism and capitalist cartels in agriculture and industry. Under the exigencies of World War II (which did far more to end the Depression than the New Deal did), the state got hugely bloated, but remarkably, the bloat was put into brief remission during a midcentury golden era of sound money and fiscal rectitude with Dwight D. Eisenhower in the White House and William McChesney Martin Jr. at the Fed. Then came Lyndon B. Johnson’s “guns and butter” excesses, which were intensified over one perfidious weekend at Camp David, Md., in 1971, when Richard M. Nixon essentially defaulted on the nation’s debt obligations by finally ending the convertibility of gold to the dollar. That one act — arguably a sin graver than Watergate — meant the end of national financial discipline and the start of a four-decade spree during which we have lived high on the hog, running a cumulative $8 trillion current-account deficit. In effect, America underwent an internal leveraged buyout, raising our ratio of total debt (public and private) to economic output to about 3.6 from its historic level of about 1.6. Hence the $30 trillion in excess debt (more than half the total debt, $56 trillion) that hangs over the American economy today. This explosion of borrowing was the stepchild of the floating-money contraption deposited in the Nixon White House by Milton Friedman, the supposed hero of free-market economics who in fact sowed the seed for a never-ending expansion of the money supply. The Fed, which celebrates its centenary this year, fueled a roaring inflation in goods and commodities during the 1970s that was brought under control only by the iron resolve of Paul A. Volcker, its chairman from 1979 to 1987. Under his successor, the lapsed hero Alan Greenspan, the Fed dropped Friedman’s penurious rules for monetary expansion, keeping interest rates too low for too long and flooding Wall Street with freshly minted cash. What became known as the “Greenspan put” — the implicit assumption that the Fed would step in if asset prices dropped, as they did after the 1987 stock-market crash — was reinforced by the Fed’s unforgivable 1998 bailout of the hedge fund Long-Term Capital Management. That Mr. Greenspan’s loose monetary policies didn’t set off inflation was only because domestic prices for goods and labor were crushed by the huge flow of imports from the factories of Asia. By offshoring America’s tradable-goods sector, the Fed kept the Consumer Price Index contained, but also permitted the excess liquidity to foster a roaring inflation in financial assets. Mr. Greenspan’s pandering incited the greatest equity boom in history, with the stock market rising fivefold between the 1987 crash and the 2000 dot-com bust. Soon Americans stopped saving and consumed everything they earned and all they could borrow. The Asians, burned by their own 1997 financial crisis, were happy to oblige us. They — China and Japan above all — accumulated huge dollar reserves, transforming their central banks into a string of monetary roach motels where sovereign debt goes in but never comes out. We’ve been living on borrowed time — and spending Asians’ borrowed dimes. This dynamic reinforced the Reaganite shibboleth that “deficits don’t matter” and the fact that nearly $5 trillion of the nation’s $12 trillion in “publicly held” debt is actually sequestered in the vaults of central banks. The destruction of fiscal rectitude under Ronald Reagan — one reason I resigned as his budget chief in 1985 — was the greatest of his many dramatic acts. It created a template for the Republicans’ utter abandonment of the balanced-budget policies of Calvin Coolidge and allowed George W. Bush to dive into the deep end, bankrupting the nation through two misbegotten and unfinanced wars, a giant expansion of Medicare and a tax-cutting spree for the wealthy that turned K Street lobbyists into the de facto office of national tax policy. In effect, the G.O.P. embraced Keynesianism — for the wealthy. The explosion of the housing market, abetted by phony credit ratings, securitization shenanigans and willful malpractice by mortgage lenders, originators and brokers, has been well documented. Less known is the balance-sheet explosion among the top 10 Wall Street banks during the eight years ending in 2008. Though their tiny sliver of equity capital hardly grew, their dependence on unstable “hot money” soared as the regulatory harness the Glass-Steagall Act had wisely imposed during the Depression was totally dismantled. Within weeks of the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy in September 2008, Washington, with Wall Street’s gun to its head, propped up the remnants of this financial mess in a panic-stricken melee of bailouts and money-printing that is the single most shameful chapter in American financial history. There was never a remote threat of a Great Depression 2.0 or of a financial nuclear winter, contrary to the dire warnings of Ben S. Bernanke, the Fed chairman since 2006. The Great Fear — manifested by the stock market plunge when the House voted down the TARP bailout before caving and passing it — was purely another Wall Street concoction. Had President Bush and his Goldman Sachs adviser (a k a Treasury Secretary) Henry M. Paulson Jr. stood firm, the crisis would have burned out on its own and meted out to speculators the losses they so richly deserved. The Main Street banking system was never in serious jeopardy, ATMs were not going dark and the money market industry was not imploding. Instead, the White House, Congress and the Fed, under Mr. Bush and then President Obama, made a series of desperate, reckless maneuvers that were not only unnecessary but ruinous. The auto bailouts, for example, simply shifted jobs around — particularly to the aging, electorally vital Rust Belt — rather than saving them. The “green energy” component of Mr. Obama’s stimulus was mainly a nearly $1 billion giveaway to crony capitalists, like the venture capitalist John Doerr and the self-proclaimed outer-space visionary Elon Musk, to make new toys for the affluent. Less than 5 percent of the $800 billion Obama stimulus went to the truly needy for food stamps, earned-income tax credits and other forms of poverty relief. The preponderant share ended up in money dumps to state and local governments, pork-barrel infrastructure projects, business tax loopholes and indiscriminate middle-class tax cuts. The Democratic Keynesians, as intellectually bankrupt as their Republican counterparts (though less hypocritical), had no solution beyond handing out borrowed money to consumers, hoping they would buy a lawn mower, a flat-screen TV or, at least, dinner at Red Lobster. But even Mr. Obama’s hopelessly glib policies could not match the audacity of the Fed, which dropped interest rates to zero and then digitally printed new money at the astounding rate of $600 million per hour. Fast-money speculators have been “purchasing” giant piles of Treasury debt and mortgage-backed securities, almost entirely by using short-term overnight money borrowed at essentially zero cost, thanks to the Fed. Uncle Ben has lined their pockets. If and when the Fed — which now promises to get unemployment below 6.5 percent as long as inflation doesn’t exceed 2.5 percent — even hints at shrinking its balance sheet, it will elicit a tidal wave of sell orders, because even a modest drop in bond prices would destroy the arbitrageurs’ profits. Notwithstanding Mr. Bernanke’s assurances about eventually, gradually making a smooth exit, the Fed is domiciled in a monetary prison of its own making. While the Fed fiddles, Congress burns. Self-titled fiscal hawks like Paul D. Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, are terrified of telling the truth: that the 10-year deficit is actually $15 trillion to $20 trillion, far larger than the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of $7 trillion. Its latest forecast, which imagines 16.4 million new jobs in the next decade, compared with only 2.5 million in the last 10 years, is only one of the more extreme examples of Washington’s delusions. Even a supposedly “bold” measure — linking the cost-of-living adjustment for Social Security payments to a different kind of inflation index — would save just $200 billion over a decade, amounting to hardly 1 percent of the problem. Mr. Ryan’s latest budget shamelessly gives Social Security and Medicare a 10-year pass, notwithstanding that a fair portion of their nearly $19 trillion cost over that decade would go to the affluent elderly. At the same time, his proposal for draconian 30 percent cuts over a decade on the $7 trillion safety net — Medicaid, food stamps and the earned-income tax credit — is another front in the G.O.P.’s war against the 99 percent. Without any changes, over the next decade or so, the gross federal debt, now nearly $17 trillion, will hurtle toward $30 trillion and soar to 150 percent of gross domestic product from around 105 percent today. Since our constitutional stasis rules out any prospect of a “grand bargain,” the nation’s fiscal collapse will play out incrementally, like a Greek/Cypriot tragedy, in carefully choreographed crises over debt ceilings, continuing resolutions and temporary budgetary patches. The future is bleak. The greatest construction boom in recorded history — China’s money dump on infrastructure over the last 15 years — is slowing. Brazil, India, Russia, Turkey, South Africa and all the other growing middle-income nations cannot make up for the shortfall in demand. The American machinery of monetary and fiscal stimulus has reached its limits. Japan is sinking into old-age bankruptcy and Europe into welfare-state senescence. The new rulers enthroned in Beijing last year know that after two decades of wild lending, speculation and building, even they will face a day of reckoning, too. THE state-wreck ahead is a far cry from the “Great Moderation” proclaimed in 2004 by Mr. Bernanke, who predicted that prosperity would be everlasting because the Fed had tamed the business cycle and, as late as March 2007, testified that the impact of the subprime meltdown “seems likely to be contained.” Instead of moderation, what’s at hand is a Great Deformation, arising from a rogue central bank that has abetted the Wall Street casino, crucified savers on a cross of zero interest rates and fueled a global commodity bubble that erodes Main Street living standards through rising food and energy prices — a form of inflation that the Fed fecklessly disregards in calculating inflation. These policies have brought America to an end-stage metastasis. The way out would be so radical it can’t happen. It would necessitate a sweeping divorce of the state and the market economy. It would require a renunciation of crony capitalism and its first cousin: Keynesian economics in all its forms. The state would need to get out of the business of imperial hubris, economic uplift and social insurance and shift its focus to managing and financing an effective, affordable, means-tested safety net. All this would require drastic deflation of the realm of politics and the abolition of incumbency itself, because the machinery of the state and the machinery of re-election have become conterminous. Prying them apart would entail sweeping constitutional surgery: amendments to give the president and members of Congress a single six-year term, with no re-election; providing 100 percent public financing for candidates; strictly limiting the duration of campaigns (say, to eight weeks); and prohibiting, for life, lobbying by anyone who has been on a legislative or executive payroll. It would also require overturning Citizens United and mandating that Congress pass a balanced budget, or face an automatic sequester of spending. It would also require purging the corrosive financialization that has turned the economy into a giant casino since the 1970s. This would mean putting the great Wall Street banks out in the cold to compete as at-risk free enterprises, without access to cheap Fed loans or deposit insurance. Banks would be able to take deposits and make commercial loans, but be banned from trading, underwriting and money management in all its forms. It would require, finally, benching the Fed’s central planners, and restoring the central bank’s original mission: to provide liquidity in times of crisis but never to buy government debt or try to micromanage the economy. Getting the Fed out of the financial markets is the only way to put free markets and genuine wealth creation back into capitalism. That, of course, will never happen because there are trillions of dollars of assets, from Shanghai skyscrapers to Fortune 1000 stocks to the latest housing market “recovery,” artificially propped up by the Fed’s interest-rate repression. The United States is broke — fiscally, morally, intellectually — and the Fed has incited a global currency war (Japan just signed up, the Brazilians and Chinese are angry, and the German-dominated euro zone is crumbling) that will soon overwhelm it. When the latest bubble pops, there will be nothing to stop the collapse. If this sounds like advice to get out of the markets and hide out in cash, it is. David A. Stockman is a former Republican congressman from Michigan, President Ronald Reagan’s budget director from 1981 to 1985 and the author, most recently, of “The Great Deformation: The Corruption of Capitalism in America.”
2月16日《纽约时报》英、中版同时发表了曾任美国国家安全顾问、地位显要的地缘战略家兹比格涅夫·布热津斯基的一篇短稿，题为“中美两强不会为争霸开 战”（注）。文中，布老试图调整美国舆论界“恐中、贬美”的态度，着重强调美国具有继续承担“国际冲突调人”的计划与能力。 就“调人”所起的“排难解纷”作用而言，本人以为首先有必要对第二次世界大战结束后的国际政治状态做一简单勾画。“以夷制夷”其实并非中国所专美，西方近五百年的扩 张史也丝毫不逊色，甚至将该策略反复运用得淋漓尽致。只不过，处于20世纪，当西方丧失许多殖民地、又难以割舍部分经济利益之时，“拉一方打一方” （play off one power against another）或者“以夷制夷”（play one barbarian state against another ）都不允许挂在嘴边，因此便产生了以“低强度冲突/战争”（ low intensity conflict/war）出现的“双关语”（doublespeak），以代替难听的“以夷制夷”。 低强度冲突的手段繁多，包括培训 对手的对手，向反对派提供军事装备、情报、财力支援，进行反颠覆、情报战，挑拨民族、宗教纠纷，支恐又反恐等等不一而足。对台湾而言，五十年代由美国埋下 “台湾地位未定”的伏笔，借钓鱼岛挑拨中台日关系，甚至在有限度冲突范围内削弱三方实力、提高军售，均属同一战略部署。鉴于此，所谓“调节中日冲突”也必 须在“维持低强度”的上下文范围加以审视。布热辛斯基是“低强度冲突”的教父，80年代甚至是培训巴基斯坦、阿富汗恐怖主义组织以打击苏军的总设计师。奥 巴马上台后，立即一改小布什的单干、蛮干作风，实施“以夷制夷”的“多边主义”政策（也是双关语），便是听从了布老的建议。 如今，当美国的一系列反华部署（从南海、西太平洋到整个非洲大陆，从妖魔化有毒玩具到反倾销）引起舆论界的反华情绪高涨时，他抛出这些文字意图掩盖美国的责任，同时 又把罪责推诿到“无一盟友”的中国身上。其实，中国无盟友，也正是因为美国利用特殊地位与能量，把那些周边国家玩弄得团团转…这方面只消观察印度、越南与缅甸近年的动态便一目了然。 地缘政治领域，有个“神秘三角关系”，也可说是“三角铁规律”，即最强方永远、自然地与最弱方一道夹击次强方。美日对中，苏印对中，中巴对印……除了极少数分裂国家外，我们几乎找不到任何例外。此铁规律背后的铁规律则是，这种“合纵连横”的主动权永远掌握在最 强方手上；至于次强方与最弱方，则一向是被动地接受摆布。过去，冷战时期有两霸在幕后操纵。后冷战时期，美国则是唯一大玩家！ 布老口口声声美国“无意统治亚洲”，却隐瞒了美国趁东欧阵营瓦解的机会，执意巩固全球的领导地位（双关语）。除此之外，他还指出“中美之间不存在意识形态的冲 突”。这点，本人绝对赞同，因为地缘政治本来就是以国家、集团利益为依归，根本就不受意识形态的影响。因此，无论对手的意识形态如何改变，该围堵的对象还 是该围堵，该削弱的敌人还是该削弱，该占有的资源也必须快马加鞭；中国人的政府，不论是在北京还是台北，都不准为了钓鱼台的主权回收问题，“打乱美国的全 球战略部署”或“给美国添乱”；更是不准对美国的“扶日抑中”政策提出调整的要求。 （注）英文原标题为Giants, but Not Hegemons，译为“中美两强不会为争霸开战”显然不妥，应改译为“中国、美国，巨而不霸”。 中美两强不会为争霸开战兹比格涅夫·布热津斯基 2013年02月16日 华盛顿——如今很多人担心，中美两强局面的出现，必然会导致冲突。但我认为，在目前的后霸权时代，发生争取全球支配地位战争的可能性不大。 诚然，这方面的历史很令人沮丧。自从200年前全球政治出现以来，为占据欧洲霸主地位，进行过四次长期战争（包括冷战），每次都可能导致一个唯一的超级大国掌握全球霸权。 相关文章 不要遏制中国，要和它合作 中国如何打败美国 中美合作比互信更重要 然而，近年来的一些进展改变了世界的格局。核武器使争取霸权的战争破坏性太大，使赢得战争也变得毫无意义。在全球经济越来越相互交织的情况下，一个国家单边的经济成功，不可能不给其他国家诱发灾难性的后果。此外，世界各国的人民已经在政治上觉醒，不再那么容易被强权制服，即使是最大的强权。最后，最重要的是，无论美国还是中国，都不是由敌对的意识形态所支配。 而且，尽管我们有着极为不同的政治体系，我们这两个国家的社会都是开放的，虽然开放的形式不同。这也能消解各自社会内部的趋向仇恨和敌对的压力。超过10万中国学生在美国大学读书，成千上万年轻的美国人在中国学习和工作、或参与某种专门研究或旅游项目。与前苏联不同，数百万的中国人经常出国旅行。还有好几百万的中国年轻人通过互联网每天接触着外边的世界。 所有这些与在19世纪和20世纪争夺全球霸权的国家的社会自我封闭形成鲜明对比。自我封闭加深了仇恨，增强了敌意，彼此相互妖魔化也更容易。 尽管如此，我们不能完全忽略这样一个事实：近年来对中美之间友好关系满怀希望的期待，最近受到越来越敌对性的论战的考验，尤其是在两国的大众媒体上。对美国不可避免的衰落的推测，以及关于中国势不可挡的迅速崛起的期待，在一定程度上助长了这场论战。 对美国未来的悲观看法，往往低估了美国自我更新的能力。而对中国崛起持过分乐观态度的人，低估了中国与美国之间仍然存在的巨大差距，不论是人均GDP，还是各自的技术能力。 看似矛盾的是，中国着实令人钦佩的经济成功，正在强化一种对复杂的社会和政治调整的整体性需求，即，在崛起的中产阶级要求更多权利的情况下，一个自称共产主义的政府官僚体系，如何、并且在多大程度上能够继续驾驭一个国家资本主义的体制。 对潜在的中国对美国军事威胁的过分简单化的焦虑，忽略了美国的优势，这种优势来自美国两面濒临大洋的非常有利的地缘战略位置，在任何一边，都有隔海相望的盟友。 相比之下，中国在地理上被并不总是被友好的国家包围着，而且几乎没有盟友。有时，一些中国的邻国受这种情形诱惑，希望在他们与中国的具体领土主张之争或利益冲突中拉上美国，支持自己。幸运的是，有迹象表明，一种共识正在形成，即这类威胁不应该以单方面或军事手段解决，而应该通过谈判解决。 美国媒体用“转向(pivot)”来形容奥巴马政府把重点向亚洲做相对调整的做法，对问题没有帮助，奥巴马本人从来没用过“转向”这个有军事内涵的说法。实际上，美国既是一个大西洋大国、也是一个太平洋大国，这个事实从未改变，新政策只是建设性地重申了这一事实。 考虑到所有这些因素，对稳定的中美关系的真正威胁，不是来自两国内部任何的敌对意图，而是来自亚洲，复兴的亚洲可能会滑向一种民族主义狂热，为了争夺资源、领土和霸权，引发类似20世纪欧洲那样的冲突。这种可能性令人深感不安。 有很多潜在的爆发点：朝鲜与韩国，中国与日本，中国与印度，或者印度与巴基斯坦。一旦政府煽动或允许民族主义狂热，把它作为一个社会压力安全阀，局面就有可能失控。 在这样一种潜在爆炸性环境下，美国在亚洲政治上和经济上的参与，可能就是一个不可或缺的稳定因素。的确，美国目前在亚洲所起的作用，应该与英国在19世纪的欧洲起的作用类似，提供一种“海外”平衡影响，不卷入亚洲的区域对抗的纠缠，不试图在该地区获得统治地位。 美国参与亚洲事务，不能仅仅依靠固有的盟国日本和韩国，还应建立在中美合作制度化的基础上，这样的参与才会有效，是建设性和具有战略敏感度的。 相应地，美国和中国应该有意识地避免两国的经济竞争变成政治敌对。需要的是双边和多边的相互密切接触，而不是相互排斥。比如，美国不应该寻求不包括中国的“跨太平洋伙伴关系”，中国也不应该寻求不包括美国的区域全面经济伙伴关系。 历史可以避免重演20世纪的灾难性战争，如果美国能以稳定器的形式、而不是以地区警察的姿态出现在亚洲，如果中国能成为该地区卓越，但不专横跋扈的大国。 2011年11月，奥巴马总统和目前即将离任的中国国家主席胡锦涛会面，发布了联合声明，大胆地规划了两国联合行动，提出建立历史上从未有过的中美伙伴关系。随着奥巴马第二个任期的开始，以及习近平准备在3月接任国家主席，两国领导人应该会面，重新确认和重新振奋美中关系。两国关系是充满活力、强健稳固，还是脆弱、充满猜忌，这将影响整个世界。 兹比格涅夫·布热津斯曾任吉米·卡特总统的国家安全顾问。他最近的新书是《大棋局:美国的首要地位及其地缘战略》。 翻译：Cindy Hao Giants, but Not HegemonsBy ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI Published: February 13, 2013 Facebook Twitter Google+ Save E-mail Share Print Single Page Reprints WASHINGTON — Today, many fear that the emerging American-Chinese duopoly must inevitably lead to conflict. But I do not believe that wars for global domination are a serious prospect in what is now the Post-Hegemonic Age. Connect With Us on Twitter For Op-Ed, follow @nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow @andyrNYT . Admittedly, the historical record is dismal. Since the onset of global politics 200 years ago, four long wars (including the Cold War) were fought over the domination of Europe, each of which could have resulted in global hegemony by a sole superpower. Yet several developments over recent years have changed the equation. Nuclear weapons make hegemonic wars too destructive, and thus victory meaningless. One-sided national economic triumphs cannot be achieved in the increasingly interwoven global economy without precipitating calamitous consequences for everyone. Further, the populations of the world have awakened politically and are not so easily subdued, even by the most powerful. Last but not least, neither the United States nor China is driven by hostile ideologies. Moreover, despite our very different political systems, both our societies are, in different ways, open. That, too, offsets pressure from within each respective society toward animus and hostility. More than 100,000 Chinese are students at American universities, and thousands of young Americans study and work in China or participate in special study or travel programs. Unlike in the former Soviet Union, millions of Chinese regularly travel abroad. And millions of young Chinese are in daily touch with the world through the Internet. All this contrasts greatly with the societal self-isolation of the 19th- and 20th-century contestants for global power, which intensified grievances, escalated hostility and made it easier to demonize the one another. Nonetheless, we cannot entirely ignore the fact that the hopeful expectation in recent years of an amicable American-Chinese relationship has lately been tested by ever more antagonistic polemics, especially in the mass media of both sides. This has been fueled in part by speculation about America’s allegedly inevitable decline and about China’s relentless, rapid rise. Pessimism about America’ future tends to underestimate its capacity for self-renewal. Exuberant optimists about China’s inevitable pre-eminence underestimate the gap that still separates China from America — whether in G.D.P. per capita terms or in respective technological capabilities. Paradoxically, China’s truly admirable economic success is now intensifying the systemic need for complex social and political adjustments in how and to what extent a ruling bureaucracy that defines itself as communist can continue to direct a system of state capitalism with a rising middle class seeking more rights. Simplistic agitation regarding the potential Chinese military threat to America ignores the benefits that the U.S. also derives from its very favorable geostrategic location on the open shores of two great oceans as well as from its trans-oceanic allies on all sides. In contrast, China is geographically encircled by not always friendly states and has very few, if any, allies. On occasion, some of China’s neighbors are tempted by this circumstance to draw the U.S. into support of their specific claims or conflicts of interest against China. Fortunately, there are signs that a consensus is emerging that such threats should not be resolved unilaterally or militarily, but through negotiation. Matters have been not helped by the American media’s characterization of the Obama administration’s relative rebalancing of focus toward Asia as a “pivot” (a word never used by the president) with military connotations. In fact, the new effort was only meant to be a constructive reaffirmation of the unchanged reality that the U.S. is both a Pacific and Atlantic power. Taking all this into account, the real threat to a stable U.S.-China relationship does not arise from any hostile intentions on the part of either country, but from the disturbing possibility that a revitalized Asia may slide into the kind of nationalistic fervor that precipitated conflicts in 20th-century Europe over resources, territory or power. There are plenty of potential flash points: North Korea vs. South Korea, China vs. Japan, China vs. India, or India vs. Pakistan. The danger is that if governments incite or allow nationalistic fervor as a kind of safety valve it can spin out of control. Connect With Us on Twitter For Op-Ed, follow @nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow @andyrNYT . In such a potentially explosive context, U.S. political and economic involvement in Asia can be a crucially needed stabilizing factor. Indeed, America’s current role in Asia should be analogous to Britain’s role in 19th-century Europe as an “off-shore” balancing influence with no entanglements in the region’s rivalries and no attempt to attain domination over the region. To be effective, constructive and strategically sensitive U.S. engagement in Asia must not be based solely on existing alliances with Japan and South Korea. Engagement must also mean institutionalizing U.S.- Chinese cooperation. Accordingly, America and China should deliberatively not let their economic competition turn into political hostility. Mutual engagement bilaterally and multilaterally — and not reciprocal exclusion — is what is needed. For example, the U.S. ought not seek a “trans-Pacific partnership” without China, and China should not seek a Regional Comprehensive Economic Pact without the U.S. History can avoid repeating the calamitous conflicts of the 20th century if America is present in Asia as stabilizer — not a would-be policeman — and if China becomes the preeminent, but not domineering, power in the region. In January 2011, President Obama and now-departing Chinese President Hu Jintao met and issued a communiqué boldly detailing joint undertakings and proposing to build a historically unprecedented partnership between America and China. With Obama reelected and Xi Jinping preparing to take over China’s presidency in March, the two leaders should meet to revalidate and re-energize the U.S.-China relationship. Whether this relationship is vital and robust, or weak and full of suspicion, will affect the whole world. Zbigniew Brzezinski was national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter. His most recent book is “Strategic Vision: America and the Crisis of Global Power.”
导读： 今天从亮马桥到海淀黄庄的地铁上一位女士给同伴讲解他们公司如何讲究诚信。如果客户送礼了，必须上交。如果是小食品，可以大家一起吃掉。例如今天客户送来了一盒月饼，领导让大家立即分享了。如果是茶叶，必须上交。如果是钱，必须上交，最后返回客户。我问是哪家客户，她说，是杜邦。 之前半年，我从北京会太原，路上遇到一位旅客，讲解他们公司如何诚信，最后我问他是什么公司，他是是IBM. 其实，什么是诚信？诚信就是不违法乱纪。又，中国为什么不能很好建立诚信？因为我们误解了诚信。诚信不是道德问题，而是法律问题。诚信沦丧，只是因为法律沦丧。法律为什么沦丧，是因为权力，个人权力太大。个人权力太大，谁能不违法乱纪？ 如果你认为美国人讲道德，那真是荒唐，愚昧。整个西方文化的根基是性恶论。性恶论就是不相信道德。但是后果上，不能否认，道德水平却提高了。可见道德不是来自道德本身，而是来自道德的反面，即法制。道德，不过是，因强迫而形成的良好习惯。道德，不过是人与人之间的温顺。温顺不是慈爱，而是敬畏。离开畏惧讨论道德，只能是不道德。或者说，过程和结果是相反，过程不是道德，是法治。结果却是道德。 讲到了法，但是不要走向极端，走向严刑峻法。 如果做官的违法乱纪，谁还会讲诚信？除非欺人自欺。过去毛泽东能够打败蒋介石，就是因为蒋介石讲究道德，什么礼义廉耻。毛泽东不讲究道德，而是讲究策略和政策，什么分田分地，什么唯物主义。一定要用道德来解释毛泽东和革命，那场革命就不该发生。因为，必须个别地判断资本家和地主的个人品德问题。而革命完全和革命对象的个人品德完全无关。再，你如果认为人民真的是为了爱国主义而抗日，为了大公无私而革命，那真是糊涂。革命或抗日是有经济政策配合的。人民公社的失败，就是单纯道德的失败。除非道德渗透在经济制度中，否则人普遍地是没有道德的。而且地位越高，越没有道德。 可见，什么是诚信。绝不是人民的问题。而是政府和权力的基本义务。是制约政府和权力的制度。 对人民首先要讲政策和制度，如果讲什么道德，不是人民不讲究道德，而是对人民的欺骗。 具体要建立什么样的制度和法律呢？就是建立有效的相互制约的制度。道德只是在某种威严面前，被迫装出来的可爱的样子。实践证明，连王立军和簿谷开来都没有道德，连林彪都没有道德，连周恩来都没有诚信（说真心话。周恩来在道德上其它方面是完人，但是在讲真心话方面，是最没有道德的人。他是道德的楷模，又是不道德的楷模），世界上谁还能有道德？ 现在我上网，就是一种不道德。按照道德的要求，上网基本是一种无谓的事情。但是我无法克制。 解放前，毛泽东为什么那么道德？是因为有日寇和蒋介石的制约。如果道德上堕落，很快就会有报应。 可见诚信，绝不是什么道德，而是制度。迫使人们讲究诚信的制度。 当然，中国人根本上不懂道德的概念。但是限于篇幅，在这里就不能讨论了。 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/12/opinion/friedman-in-china-we-dont-trust.html?_r=1hpgwh=1DFAF705CD1626BFF74724F2962374FF Op-Ed编辑的观点 Columnist专栏作家 In China We (Don’t) Trust 信任还是不信任中国 By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN Published: September 11, 2012 Hangzhou, China One of the standard lines about China’s economy is that the Chinese are good at copying模仿和学习, but they could never invent a Hula-Hoop呼啦圈. It’s not in their DNA, we are told, and their rote老一套 education system reinforces加重 that tendency性格. I’m wondering about that四大发明: How is it that a people who invented papermaking造纸术, gunpowder火药, fireworks烟花 and the magnetic compass 指南针suddenly only became capable of assembling组装 iPods? I’m wondering if what’s missing in China today is not a culture of innovation but something more basic: trust. 诚信的意义 When there is trust in society, sustainable持续的 innovation创新 happens because people feel safe and enabled to take risks and make the long-term commitments责任心 needed to innovate为了发明. When there is trust, people are willing愿意 to share分享，贡献 their ideas and collaborate合作 on each other’s inventions without fear of having their creations stolen不怕自己的贡献不被承认. The biggest thing preventing modern China from becoming an innovation society, which is imperative紧迫 if it hopes to keep raising incomes收入, is that it remains a very low-trust society. I’ve been struck震惊 at how many Chinese businesspeople and investors have volunteered自愿 that point to me this week. China is caught in a gap between its old social structure of villages and families, which created its own form of trust, and a new system based on the rule of law法治 and an independent judiciary司法. The Communist Party destroyed the first but has yet to build the second because it would mean ceding放弃 the party’s arbitrary武断，独断 powers. So China has a huge trust deficit赤字. To see what happens when you introduce just a little more trust in this society, spend a day, as I just did, participating参与 in the “AliFest” — the annual gathering of thousands of Chinese entrepreneurs企业家 who are linked together in the giant巨大 Chinese e-commerce电子商务 Web site Alibaba.com.阿里巴巴 Founded建立于 in 1999, Alibaba says its sales this year could top超 eBay and Amazon.com combined总和. This happened, in part, because it has built trusted, credible可靠 markets of buyers and sellers inside China, connecting consumers消费者, inventors and manufacturers制造商 who would have found it hard（不能） to do transactions before. 这是通过技术手段，建立的诚信，及诚信的强迫性的制度。可见，诚信是可靠，而不是轻信。 Alibaba has three major businesses: Taobao.com and Tmall.com, which together constitute组成 a giant online marketplace where anyone in the world can go to buy or sell anything — from Procter Gamble宝洁 selling toothpaste牙膏 to Chinese companies offering their engineering prowess技术. The Tao companies this year are expected to move some $150 billion in merchandise商品 between buyers and sellers, mostly in China. The second is Alibaba.com, where, if you want to make rubber橡胶 sandals拖鞋 that play “The Star Spangled闪耀 Banner,” you click on Alibaba and it will link you with dozens of Chinese shoemakers that will compete for your business. And, lastly, there is Alipay, a Chinese version of PayPal支付宝 that can enable, for example, a small Chinese manufacturer in the hinterland to sell its goods to a Chinese consumer in Shanghai. The buyer puts his money in escrow委托付款 with Alibaba and it is released to the seller only when the buyer says he got the goods he ordered. Presto: trust. What has been the impact? There are more than 500 million Chinese Taobao users and 600 million Alipay accounts. 可见诚信不是道德问题，而是安全。在票据法上，最讲究的是诚信，但是具体做法恰恰相反，是安全。 While here in Hangzhou, I visited the workshop of Robert Luo, the president of Classic-Maxim, a firm he started to make kitschy wall art for hotels, using foreign designs. Luo used to drum up sales by flying to trade shows, but, in 2006, he got a huge American order订单 through the Alibaba platform平台, enabling him to greatly expand扩大 his business. He has since shifted转移 from doing outsourced artwork for others to hiring Chinese and foreign artists to produce his own original designs. “We design so much now” — outdoor art, solar art — and “we’ve applied for so many U.S. patents,” he said. There are two trends to watch from all this: One, argued Ming Zeng, Alibaba’s chief strategist, is that Alibaba — which now serves more than 100 million consumers daily, through 6.5 million retail shops connected to 20 million manufacturers — is, in effect确实, creating “a virtual combination industrial park工业园 and online marketplace,” where anyone in China or abroad can come to invent, collaborate or buy and sell goods or services. Alibaba, Zeng predicted预计, will eventually 最终connect in some way with Facebook脸谱公司, Amazon, eBay, Apple, Baidu, LinkedIn and others to create a giant trusted virtual虚拟 “global全球 commercial商业 grid网络,” where individuals and companies will offer their talents and buy and sell products, designs and inventions. Eventually, Zeng argued, “every individual个人 will have to find a way to succeed” on this global grid. “National boundaries国界 will offer you no protection.” The other trend 潮流is that the Chinese will be big players on this grid. The creation of global trusted business frameworks like Alibaba is starting to enable a new generation of Chinese innovators — who are low cost, but high skilled 技能— to extend延伸 their reach. We’ve seen cheap labor out of China; now we’re going to see more cheap genius人才. Which is why Phillip Brown and Hugh Lauder, in a recent essay on Eurozine.com, argued that a big shift of the global labor market is under way, in which “many of the things we thought could only be done in the West can now be done anywhere in the world, not only more cheaply but sometimes better.” Maureen Dowd is off today.
紐約時報：難寫的漢字 难写的汉字 DIDI KIRSTEN TATLOW 报道 2012 年 08 月 24 日 北京——当 9 月 1 日新学期开学时，大约两亿中国孩子面临的一项主要任务，或者说是最主要的任务，就是在这一学年内学会 400 到 500 个新的汉字。每年，这个过程周而复始。这对所有的孩子们来说都是一种挑战，虽然程度有所不同。 或许有些不明智，但我这周还是鼓动对这一切并不期待的儿子回到北京的公办小学，学习新的汉字。汉字的形状不能给发音提供系统性的辅助，也就是说要一个字一个字地靠不断抄写来构建运动记忆。就像社科院网站评论员、前北京哲学教授张广照在一篇文章中写到的，“耳朵不能看，眼睛不能听，我们的眼睛和耳朵在汉字上没有统一。” 我充满希望地对儿子说，“开学可能会很好玩。能和朋友们在一起什么的。” 他毫无兴趣地回答说，“妈妈，学汉语一点也不好玩。” 有些人，尤其是成年人，或许不认同这种说法。他们认为学汉语可以从中获得文字的美感，解读丰富的文化。而且，有一点需要说清楚，我学了 20 几年汉语，有时也会觉得学写汉字很有意思。但是，学习汉字却是个艰难重复的过程，学习、忘记、再学习。张广照在电话采访中说，“现在，我能写出来的汉字大概有 3000 个。” 他说，“国家规定有 2500 个字是‘常用汉字’。”他又补充称，学者需要认识更多的汉字，可能在 5000 个左右。“但是，人们能写出来的汉字比认识的要少。” 其实，我儿子的反应触及了一个严肃问题的根源：汉字是否适应一个数字化、全球化的世界？ 吴文超曾在联合国做过 25 年口译员，他的答案是否定的。在一封邮件中，他写道，汉字“没有效率而且太古老。” 吴文超写道，“与字母语言相比，汉语很难学习。” “即便中国学生用功学习，也可能需要多花两年时间才能达到和西方知识分子一样的水平，”他补充道，“学习汉语的困难类似于电脑术语中说的启动时间太长，也就是说系统延迟运行。” 在中国大陆，人们已经使用拼音在电脑和手机上输入汉字，拼音系统是政府在 1950 年代引入的拉丁字母系统。专家称，这虽然简化了汉字的输入，但却弱化了人们书写汉字的能力。 那么，中国有没有尝试增加汉字的字母性，或许把汉语变成一种既包括表意文字又包括基于发声的字母的双文制形式，让它变得更易学习呢？这是一个颇具争议的话题，有些人号召，除了对拼音的有限使用以外，应扩大汉语的字母化，但这很快就遭到普通民众、官员与很多学者的反对。 在 2009 年的法兰克福书展上，中国是主宾国，我看到中国前文化部长王蒙响亮地宣布，中国不能改汉字，“否则就要亡国了。”当时，很多在座的中国年轻人站了起来，热列鼓掌。 张广照有一种观点看似违背常理，他认为，汉字其实并不难学，只是教得不好而已。他说，几千年来，学者和官员有意使汉字变得晦涩难懂来保护自己的特权。 他在另一篇文章中写道，统治阶层“并不想让文化变得世俗化，也不想让它成为一种全民共享的公共资源。 他们有意无意地为汉语学习设置了路障。” 他认为，这个问题一直持续到今天。 语言学家和作家威廉· C ·汉纳斯 (William C. Hannas) 会读或写包括汉语在内的 10 种语言，他表示，在 1950 年代，将汉字变成字母书写系统的讨论十分盛行，但这已经结束了。 “现在，不论是在中国，还是在世界各地，都不存在改革汉字的讨论，”他在邮件中写道。“我们不喜欢被人要求放弃自己的传统，尤其不喜欢听到外人说，我们文化中一部分存在瑕疵。” 但是，他表示，在一些非正式场合却正在发生一些变化。 尤其是在网络上，中国人正在尝试着使用拉丁字母。例如，政府的拼音是“ zhengfu ”，经常被缩写成“ ZF ”；人与人之间的对抗赛被缩写成“ PK ”（借用了视频游戏用语）；使用像 Photoshop 这样的程序来用数码方式修改图像，被称为“ PS ”；做爱被称为“ ML ”。 “汉字和字母书写共存的双文制现象，正发生在中国，不是通过自上而下的政策，而是从下到上的默认，”汉纳斯写道。 博客作者江北宁认为汉字正在制约中国的发展，让中国变得“不科学”，他在一封邮件中写道，“汉字是一道无形的墙，把我们的思想和世界隔开。” 对于包括我儿子在内的两亿名学生而言，一整年刻苦识记的学习生活即将展开。这只是在中国受教育过程中的一步，但同时也是学得一门美丽语言的一步。 翻译：张亮亮 WRITING CHINESE IN A DIGITAL WORLD By DIDI KIRSTEN TATLOW 2012 年 08 月 24 日 BEIJING — When around 200 million Chinese children start school on Sept. 1, a major — perhaps the major — task facing them will be to learn 400 to 500 new Chinese characters over the year. Next year will bring the same amount. It’s a challenge all the children struggle to meet, to varying degrees. Perhaps foolishly, this week I tried to psych up my son, who isn’t looking forward to returning to his state elementary school in Beijing and those new characters. Chinese characters lack systematic visual clues for pronunciation, meaning they must be learned individually, via repeated hand-copying to build motor memory. As Zhang Guangzhao, a former philosophy professor in Beijing and a commentator on the Web site of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, wrote in an essay: “Just as people can hear a sound but cannot see it, see a picture but cannot hear it, our eyes and ears don’t meet in Chinese.” “It might be fun to start school again,” I said to my son, hopefully. “See your friends and all that?” “Mum, learning Chinese is never fun,” he replied, dispassionately. Some people, particularly adults, may disagree with that, pointing to the aesthetic pleasure of ideograms and the enjoyment of the rich culture they unlock. And, just to be clear, I would partly agree with the view that learning to write Chinese is enjoyable, having spent more than two decades doing so. However, it is also a difficult, circular process of learning, forgetting and re-learning. As Mr. Zhang said in a telephone interview: “Right now, I can write about 3,000 characters.” “The government identifies 2,500 ‘commonly used’ characters,” he said, adding that a scholar would need to recognize more, perhaps around 5,000. “People can write fewer characters than they recognize, however.” So my son’s reaction got to the root of a serious issue: Is written Chinese suited to a digitalizing, globalizing world? Wu Wenchao, who worked at the United Nations as an interpreter for 25 years, thinks it is not especially well-suited. Characters are “inefficient and archaic,” he wrote in an e-mail. “Chinese language is difficult to learn in comparison with alphabetic languages,” Mr. Wu wrote. “Chinese students work very hard and would have to spend two more years in learning in order to reach the same level of a Western intellectual,” he said, adding: “The difficulty in learning is analogous to long boot-up time in computer terminology, which means system delay in becoming operational.” Already, people on the Chinese mainland use pinyin, a romanization system introduced by the government in the 1950s, to type into computers and mobile phones. This is easier, but is weakening their ability to write characters, specialists say. So are there any attempts to make written Chinese more manageable by increasing its alphabetization, perhaps moving to a digraphic system that includes both ideograms and a sound-based alphabet? This territory, too, is controversial. Calls to extend the alphabetization of Chinese, beyond the limited use of pinyin, quickly run into opposition in China from ordinary people, officials and many scholars. At the Frankfurt Book Fair in 2009, where China was guest of honor, I witnessed a revealing moment when Wang Meng, a former Chinese minister of culture, declared in ringing tones that China must keep its characters “or its culture will be extinguished!” Many young Chinese in the audience rose to their feet, clapping wildly. In a counterintuitive argument, Mr. Zhang believes Chinese isn’t actually difficult to learn, merely badly taught. For thousands of years, he said, scholars and officials deliberately mystified it to protect their privileges. The ruling official class “do not want to make culture worldly and turn it into a kind of public resource shared by the public,” he wrote in another essay. “They consciously or unconsciously provided a roadblock to make it difficult to learn.” That legacy lingers to this day, he believes. William C. Hannas, a linguist and author who speaks or writes 10 languages including Chinese, says the debate on going to an alphabetized writing system, which flourished into the 1950s, is over. “There is no debate in China — or anywhere today — on writing reform,” he wrote in an e-mail. “We resent being asked to give up a tradition, or hearing from an outsider especially, that a piece of our identity is flawed.” Nevertheless, something along those lines is happening unofficially, he says. Especially online, Chinese are experimenting with the Roman alphabet: government, “zhengfu” in pinyin, is often shortened to “ZF.” An interpersonal competition is a “PK” (taken from video game terminology). To digitally alter images with a program like Photoshop is to “PS.” To make love is to “ML.” “Digraphia — the coexistence of character and alphabetic writing — is happening in China not by policy from the top down, but by default from the bottom up,” Mr. Hannas wrote. In an e-mail, Jiang Beining, a blogger who believes characters are holding China back, making it “unscientific,” wrote: “Characters are an invisible wall between China and the world.” For 200 million schoolchildren, including my son, a year of hard memorization lies ahead. It’s just a step on the road to becoming literate in Chinese, but to gaining a beautiful language, too.
感谢 laokanke 网友友情提供。据老看客先生说： 的确有位作者在文章中含含糊糊表述了这样一种观点： In reality, of course, there is zero chance that the U.S. will honor its treaty obligation over a few barren rocks. We’re not going to risk a nuclear confrontation with China over some islands that may well be China’s. But if we don’t help, our security relationship with Japan will be stretched to the breaking point. So which country has a better claim to the islands? My feeling is that it’s China, although the answer isn’t clearcut. Chinese navigational records show the islands as Chinese for many centuries, and a 1783 Japanese map shows them as Chinese as well. Japan purported to “discover” the islands only in 1884 and annexed them only in 1895 when it also grabbed Taiwan. (You can also make a case that they are terra nullis, belonging to no nation.) 但同时也有一些作者认为钓鱼岛是日本的，都是作者个人的观点，说明不了什么。 衷心感谢他（她）对这一问题的专业回答！ http://blog.sciencenet.cn/home.php?mod=spaceuid=567280do=blogid=608080 纽约时报对钓鱼岛的讨论文章： http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/10/look-out-for-the-diaoyu-islands/ September 10, 2010, 6:07 pm 342 Comments Look Out for the Diaoyu Islands By NICHOLAS KRISTOF Tensions have erupted over some barren rocks in the Pacific that you may never have heard of, but stay tuned – this is a boundary dispute that could get ugly and some day have far-reaching consequences for China, Japan, Taiwan and the United States. The islands in question are called the Senkaku chain by Japan, the Diaoyu islands by China, and the Diaoyutai by Taiwan. All three claim the islands, which are really just five islets and three barren rocks northeast of Taiwan, 200 miles off the Chinese coast. The latest confrontation occurred when a Chinese fishing boat collided with two Japanese naval vessels trying to intercept it near the islands. The Japanese detained the Chinese captain for questioning and the two countries have been exchanging indignant protests. The reason to worry is that nationalists in both China and Taiwan see the islands as unquestionably theirs and think that their government has been weak in asserting this authority. So far, wiser heads have generally prevailed on each side, but at some point a weakened Chinese leader might try to gain legitimacy with the public by pushing the issue and recovering the islands. It would be a dangerous game and would have a disastrous impact on China-Japan relations, but if successful it would raise the popularity of the Chinese government and would also be a way of putting pressure on Taiwan. The other problem is that, technically, the U.S. would be obliged to bail Japan out if there were a fight over the Senkakus. The U.S. doesn’t take a position on who owns the islands, but the Japan-U.S. security treaty specifies that the U.S. will help defend areas that Japan administers. And in 1972, when the U.S. handed Okinawa back to Japan, it agreed that Japan should administer the Senkakus. So we’re in the absurd position of being committed to help Japan fight a war over islands, even though we don’t agree that they are necessarily Japanese. In reality, of course, there is zero chance that the U.S. will honor its treaty obligation over a few barren rocks. We’re not going to risk a nuclear confrontation with China over some islands that may well be China’s. But if we don’t help, our security relationship with Japan will be stretched to the breaking point. So which country has a better claim to the islands? My feeling is that it’s China, although the answer isn’t clearcut. Chinese navigational records show the islands as Chinese for many centuries, and a 1783 Japanese map shows them as Chinese as well. Japan purported to “discover” the islands only in 1884 and annexed them only in 1895 when it also grabbed Taiwan. (You can also make a case that they are terra nullis, belonging to no nation.) The best approach would be for China and Japan to agree to refer the dispute to the International Court of Justice, but realistically that won’t happen. And since some believe that the area is rich with oil and gas reserves, the claims from each side have become more insistent. As Chinese nationalism grows, as China’s navy and ability to project power in the ocean gains, we could see some military jostling over the islands. You read it here first.
中国男生在学校里遭歧视 美国《纽约时报》 5月27日的报道说，万仲尼(音)是一个高高瘦瘦的中国16岁男生，他感觉在自己的成长过程中有某些东西好像缺失了。他和他的男同学们憎恨学校和学校里的女生。万仲尼说，他在学校里能感觉到老师们总是鼓励女生而不是男生，老师说女生学习更努力、写字更漂亮，而男生们总是顽皮又吵闹还总是制造麻烦，万仲尼感觉男生在学校里受到了压制。 报道说，浙江省的一项调查显示，60%的小学男生认为，女孩比他们聪明。报道说， 中国男孩在学校里成绩不佳似乎与中国偏重记忆能力的教育体系有关，在这一体系下，男孩们展示其活跃、好奇天性的机会被剥夺了。报道援引上海某重点高中一位数学老师的话说，他班里许多男生的学业要好于女生，但许多男生由于在高中入学考试时成绩不佳，他们无法进入重点高中，而这又降低了他们进入重点大学的机会。这位老师认为，这是社会的损失。他说，许多有潜力的男孩丧失了进好学校的机会，但即使他们没能从重点大学毕业，他们走入社会后仍能展示出自己的潜力，不过难度或许会大一些。 SHANGHAI — Wan Zhongni is a tall, lanky 16-year-old high school student who feels as though something is missing from his upbringing in China . He does not feel as if he has the time to do what boys like to do — playing sports or video games, running around outside — because he has to study at least 15 hours a day, almost every day of the week. He and his male friends, who have similar experiences, have grown to resent both school and their female counterparts, who Mr. Wan says are smarter and often favored by teachers. “When I go to school, I feel that teachers always encourage girls, not boys,” Mr. Wan said. “They say that girls always study harder and have good handwriting and that boys are always naughty and noisy and are troublemakers. I think that boys are suppressed.” Educators say that the academic rift between boys and girls in China is apparent, and statistics indicate that it is quickly growing wider. According to “Saving the Boys,” a 2010 book by researchers at the China Youth and Children Research Association, girls outperformed boys on college entrance exams, were more likely to go to college and won more scholarships. Of 50,000 national scholarship winners in 2006-7, 17,458 were male. Among 6,539 high school students surveyed in Chongqing, girls scored higher in Chinese literature, English, politics, math and biology. In 2008 interviews for high school admittance in Beijing, more girls received recommendations than boys; in some instances the ratio was two to one. A study in Zhejiang Province revealed that 60 percent of primary school boys thought girls were smarter than they were. “When you look at the difference between rural areas and urban areas, in all the urban areas girls are already ahead of boys in educational attainment,” said Gerard A. Postiglione , director of the University of Hong Kong’s Wah Ching Center of Research on Education in China. “Girls in rural areas are still behind, but they are catching up.” The problem with boys’ performance seems to be linked to an educational system that relies heavily on rote memorization, and deprives boys of their natural inclination to be rambunctious, active and curious. Young boys are expected to sit, concentrate and memorize for hours on end — skills that girls seem to be better at earlier in life. “In the United States, if boys go out to play, no one will stop them; but in China, parents and teachers will order you to sit down and study like girls,” Mr. Wan said. “I should have used my free time to play sports, to play basketball. I think I lack masculinity. I need to improve.” “Saving the Boys” also chronicles how an education system that focuses on memorization-based national exams — which are essentially the single largest determining factor for admittance into top middle schools, high schools and universities — is “the most ferocious killer in the growing boys crisis.” There appears to be a growing awareness that some young Chinese men have concerns about their masculinity and that this is reflected in their academic performance. Next autumn, the public Shanghai No. 8 Senior High School will begin experimental male-only classes, seemingly aimed at promoting masculinity. According to the school’s Web site, subjects include surviving in the wilderness, using tools, repairing electrical appliances and boxing. More than 200 applicants have applied for 60 available spots. Administrators declined interview requests; however, the school’s Web site says the classes are intended “to build up a training system according to boys’ characteristics in a scientific way.” “Every educator should be responsible to enhance the education standard for boys,” the Web site said. “To be blunt, and this is an observation that all of us make: The boys here don’t seem to act like men. They just don’t,” said Mark Kurban, a physics teacher at a private high school in Shanghai. “There is definitely a difference in terms of discipline and focus. Most of my top students are females.” “Maybe it has something to do with the fact that, because society values boys more, that boys maybe have more expectations on them. But they are spoiled more, so they have more of a princeling attitude, where girls are sometimes made to feel inadequate because they are not boys, so they might be forced to compensate,” he said. Tang Xianyi, a physics and math teacher at one of Shanghai’s top high schools, said that many boys performed academically better than girls. Yet many boys could not enter the better high schools because they did poorly on the entrance exam, which is taken around age 14. This affects their ability to enter top universities, which, he says, is “a loss to society.” “Many boys with potential lose their chances,” Mr. Tang said. “But even if they do not graduate from a good university, they can still show their potential later; but that is maybe harder.”
蒋高明 关于农业部有关人士宣布不打农药就会出现饥荒的言论，笔者曾撰写文章辩论： http://blog.sciencenet.cn/home.php?mod=spaceuid=475do=blogid=572851 并根据我们的前期试验证明，用物理+生物的方法只有农药控制虫害的成本的六分之一，即成本减少了5倍，文章如下： http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-475-573883.html 今天又看到直言了介绍美国和英国的情况，更坚定了我们的实验信心。我们认为，虫害是人为制造出来的，害虫越杀越多，治理成本越来越多，采取一味对抗的办法，包括转基因的办法，是控制虫害的下策。希望有关部门能够正视这些事实，不要继续在错误的路线上越走越远。中国农业如果盲目追赶美国，那注定是不可持续的，因为，我们没有那么多耕地经得起转基因折腾，转基因引起的耕地退化目前并没有引起人们重视。 标题是笔者转载时所加，原文链接见下。 纽约时报旧文折射中国农官散布虚假信息。 本文同时发至不良信息举报中心、新闻管理署、法制办、监察部、中纪委。 直言了，2012-05-27 | 2012-05-30 09:30:51。 http://zhiyanle.blog.hexun.com/76316552_h.html 。 前几天，官商学媒“四位一体”的转基因既得利益集团再次暴露为利坑民和出卖中国国家利益的真相：那些关系媒体纷纷转发农业部的撒谎公文，大力鼓吹要中国民众大吃农药，说：不用农药，中国肯定会出现饥荒，没有国家能做到农药无残留。 嘿嘿，美国纽约时报早有述评报道，狠扇了那些中国农官散布虚假信息和虚假新闻的嘴巴：1987年，即美国转基因作物开始登台之际，该报刊发表述评《没有化学农药的农业：古老的技术成为先进技术》（Farming Without Chemicals: Age-Old Technologies Becoming State of Art，August 23, 1987），明确说明，在美国，不用化学农药的古老的天然有机农业，正在成为“美国主流农业”。如下： 附：美国纽约时报：不用化工农药的农业：古老技术成为先进技术。 IMG style="BORDER-BOTTOM: 0px; BORDER-LEFT: 0px; LINE-HEIGHT: 130%; BORDER-TOP: 0px; BORDER-RIGHT: 0px" border=0 alt=查看更多精彩图片 src="http://photo21.hexun.com/p/2012/0530/476579/b_vip_4317970A8050965762D10763C646F7F9.jpg" onload="var image=new Image();image.src=this.src;if(image.width0 image.height0){if(image.width=700){this.width=700;this.height=image.height*700/image.width;}}" 后来，美国农业部等官方机构颁布公文说明，不用化工农药和不含有转基因成分的“有机农业”成为法定的美国食品供应来源，并有标签标志。文献很多，这是其中的一个通俗介绍： Organic Labeling and Marketing/Information/The Organic Foods Production 连接：http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELDEV3004446acct=nopgeninfo 还有，英国BBC报道，1998年，英国王子公开表达立场，支持把转基因食品撤掉、保障英国具有非化工农业的天然有机食品的充足供应，把转基因技术局限在科研实验和工业材料的范围之内。如下： IMG style="BORDER-BOTTOM: 0px; BORDER-LEFT: 0px; LINE-HEIGHT: 130%; BORDER-TOP: 0px; BORDER-RIGHT: 0px" border=0 alt=查看更多精彩图片 src="http://photo21.hexun.com/p/2012/0530/476579/b_vip_1C10ABBB8F2B03AFF93F38957A2E6AB5.jpg" onload="var image=new Image();image.src=this.src;if(image.width0 image.height0){if(image.width=700){this.width=700;this.height=image.height*700/image.width;}}" 2012年年初，巴斯夫和孟山都公司宣布停止在欧盟国家的转基因产品开发推销业务、标志着转基因食品作物在欧洲的终结，欧盟国家分别发布防止转基因技术泛滥的各种法规规范、进一步强化了“零转基因”的食品市场发展。 与此同时，美国和欧盟国家签定了市价大约为500亿美元的非化工农业的天然有机食品贸易协定，保障欧美的食品供应能避免转基因技术和化工农业的侵蚀泛滥。 2011年06月，联合国粮农组织等机构为全体成员国发布公告《让农业回归自然》和全球农业调研报告，明确说明：高科技、先进的和可持续发展的农业就是天然有机生态循环农业，该农业方式可在10年内使粮食产量翻番，完全可以满足人类人口增加的食品需要。 让农业回归自然 2011年06月13日，粮农组织倡导以“节约与增长”为原则的耕作模式。 http://www.fao.org/news/story/zh/item/80096/icode/ 。 欧美农业实践和联合国粮农组织的公文，都有力证明了中国农官所谓的不用农药定会出现饥荒和没有国家能做到农药无残留之说，都是撒谎欺骗，是为利坑民而散布虚假信息和虚假新闻。 就食品供应及食品安全，欧美国家和粮农组织都在本身并带领全球大力发展天然有机农业，为什么单单中国农官却要用谎言鼓吹“化工农业”呢？答曰：他们为转基因商业利益而不惜用化工农业摧残中国和“静悄悄”地杀害本国人民。 说个常识：转基因种子跟特定农药捆绑，用某公司转基因种子就得用该公司农药。因此，鼓吹转基因就必然要鼓吹化工农业，或者说，鼓吹化工农业的背后就是转基因公司的商业利益。看看吧：孟山都、杜邦、巴斯夫等等出名的转基因公司，都是化工农药和化工武器公司，他们的转基因种子捆绑的农药之前身、包括有曾用于越南战场和目前用于缉毒战场的有规模杀伤力的生化武器农药。一句话，转基因食品就是添加了化工农药的食品。 正因为如此捆绑，转基因作物商业化种植不但没减少农药用量，反而大幅度增加；而非转基因作物种植则随着天然有机生态循环农业技术的发展，农药用量在逐步减少，既保护了食品安全、又保护了国土农田生态安全。 举例：孟山都公司的转基因大豆40-3-2为抗草甘磷大豆，使用该品种就必须使用该公司的化工农药草甘磷；如此，随着该转基因品种商业化种植，草甘磷农药用量、产量和销售都获得大幅度增长，孟山都公司因此发了横财。而农药草甘磷的前身是用于越南战场的生化武器“橙剂”、具有大规模杀伤力和可静悄悄地导致癌症。抗草甘磷成分则为有严重毒害和严限甚至禁止进口的生化药品。因此，美国官方审核规定，该转基因大豆用于动物饲料而不是人类食品。可是，中国农业部却把该品种作为食品加工原料而批准进口、让中国全国民众吃那些在美国是动物饲料的东西，整个是为金钱利益而不把中国人民当人看；其主管官员口口声声说什么要中国人“活得尊严”，实际上却把中国民众放到连美国牲畜都不如的地位。 必须说明，该农业部公文还搞了严重的基本概念的篡改伪造。譬如，就食品安全，该公文拿“残留限量”大做文章，说各国农药残留限量不可比云云，所以，中国的食品可以含有农药、所以全国人民都该吃农药。 然而，对食品供应而言，联合国CODEX、粮农组织和世界卫生组织等国际官方机构明确说明，对食品而言，农药残留限量（MRL）必须有“日摄耐量”（ADI）的明确说明。农药残留是针对农业生产而言的，因而因各国农业条件不同而不同；而日摄耐量是针对人类饮食而言的，各国民众都是人，因而其数值都一样，且远远低于残留限量。 譬如，就食品中的农药成分数量标准而言，世界卫生组织、粮农组织和CODEX建立有两个检测监测尺度（或标准，附后见原文）： 残留限量（MRL）： 那主要是基于农业生产的安全风险而言的，譬如针对GAP（Good Agriculture Practice）而言的。由于各种作物及其生产条件等等不同，所以，就同一农药，其残留限量可以不同（即可有不同数值）。 日摄耐量（ADI）： 那主要是对人类饮食安全风险而言的。由于使用者都是人类，所以，就同一农药，不管在哪里和哪个民族、其日摄耐量都一样（即只有一个数值）。 附后是世界卫生组织和粮农组织的相关定义原文。举例： 联合国粮农组织颁布的食品中农药残留限量和日摄耐量之举例（摘录）： IMG style="LINE-HEIGHT: 130%; BORDER-RIGHT-WIDTH: 0px; BORDER-TOP-WIDTH: 0px; BORDER-BOTTOM-WIDTH: 0px; BORDER-LEFT-WIDTH: 0px" border=0 alt=查看更多精彩图片 src="http://photo21.hexun.com/p/2012/0503/474277/b_vip_69013FFD944BA26D90599F173F8681FD.jpg" onload="var image=new Image();image.src=this.src;if(image.width0 image.height0){if(image.width=700){this.width=700;this.height=image.height*700/image.width;}}" 在上例中，就同一农药Ethion而论，不同作物生产条件等不同而残留限量可以是0.1mg/kg或5mg/kg等等，甚至可相差悬殊；然而，人类饮食则只有一个日摄耐量0.002mg/gw-bw、远远低于残留限量。很清楚，就同一农药安全风险管理而论，日摄耐量和残留限量是彼此相关但毕竟不同的风险数值概念。详见： 官媒要您泡茶喝农药。2012-05-03 10:36:04。 http://zhiyanle.blog.hexun.com/75367858_d.html 。 可是，农业部那个公文却只字不提“日摄耐量”，把用于农业生产操作的残留限量作为人类饮食食品安全管理的唯一标准，由此，他们就可以推销化工农药成分远超过“日摄耐量”的食品了。不言而喻，那是为金钱利益而公开地搞篡改伪造和坑害民众。简单说，农业部那些官员完全砍掉日摄耐量而用基于生产的标准残留限量来说饮食如何和食品安全如何，整个是故意搞篡改伪造和故意搞忽悠蒙骗。 说来，中国农业官员能如此公开地和反复地为金钱利益而营私舞弊，不奇怪：中国农业部（还有中科院等）已经被外国公司渗透了，特别是被两家外国的化工及转基因公司（孟山都和杜邦）所渗透了。譬如，其副长李家洋就是美国杜邦公司的顾问，审核转基因食品的官员黄大昉就是美国孟山都公司资助的推销组织的中国成员和中国代理人，农科院和中科院相关机构已经被有转基因和化工农业商业利益外国公司或基金会所收买，等等。 国家机构被外国公司渗透和国家主权旁落，是最严重的腐败之一。若上述国家机构被外国渗透的事情发生在美国，官方机构为外国公司成员而被外国公司渗透，那早就对依法办事、撤除或没收那些收买资金（不管什么名义支付和收取）、对当事人官员立即实行停职检查和财产冻结调查等处理、对当事人和任命者实行国家安全的司法审查了。可在中国，发生如此严重的外国公司渗透中国官方机构的腐败之事，当事人和任命者都不但能逍遥法外，且还活得挺来劲，甚至还可公开反复地搞营私舞弊、为外国商业利益而对本国搞公开的为利坑民活动、对讲明危害风险和事实真相的记者（譬如金微）和学者（譬如顾秀林）搞打击报复和饭碗威胁，还利用靠剽窃吃饭的无业人员对本人搞政治诽谤和诬告。 当然，有如此渗透，看到人民日报媒体所披露的真相也就不奇怪了：那些中国农业官员大力推销转基因食品和化工农业、要民众大吃转基因食品和农药食品，可是，他们自己却制定机关食堂规章制度，保障他们和他们的子女能吃上天然有机食品和避免转基因等化工农业食品，哈！ 附：联合国机构关于日摄耐量和残留限量的定义（来源：联合国CODEX数据库）： 该定义明确说明，日摄耐量（ADI）是针对人类饮食而言的，而残留限量（MRL）是基于农业生产贸易而言的；在人类饮食的食品安全管理方面，应参照或对照日摄耐量（ADI）来说明残留限量（MRL）。 Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI): "ADI" of a chemical is the daily intake which, during an entire lifetime, appears to be without appreciable risk to the health of the consumer on the basis of all the known facts at the time of the evaluation of the chemical by the Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues. It is expressed in milligrams of the chemical per kilogram of body weight. (Note: For additional information on ADIs relative to pesticide residues refer to the Report of the 1975 Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues, FAO Plant Production and Protection Series No.1 or WHO Technical Report Series No. 592). Maximum Residue Limit (MRL) : "MRL" is the maximum concentration of a pesticide residue (expressed as mg/kg), recommended by the Codex Alimentarius Commission to be legally permitted in or in food commodities and animal feeds. MRLs are based on GAP data and foods derived from commodities that comply with the respective MRLs are intended to be toxicologically acceptable. Codex MRLs which are primarily intended to apply in international trade, are derived from estimations made by the JMPR following: a) toxicological assessment of the pesticide and its residue; and b) review of residue data from supervised trials and supervised uses including those reflecting national food agricultural practices. Data from supervised trials conducted at the highest nationally recommended, authorised or registered uses are included in the review. In order to accommodate variations in national pest control requirements, Codex MRLs take into account the higher levels shown to arise in such supervised trials, which are considered to represent effective pest control practices. Consideration of the various dietary residue estimates and determinations both at the national and international level in comparison with the ADI, should indicate that foods complying with Codex MRLs are safe for human consumption.
Stand Up for Fitness 发布时间：2012-05-12 文章出自：纽约时报 原文链接： 点击查看 ONE lesson I’ve learned while writing about fitness is that few things impinge on an active life as much as writing about fitness — all that time spent hunched before a computer or puzzling over scientific journals, the countless hours of feckless, seated procrastination. While writing about the benefits of exercise, my muscles slackened. Fat seeped insidiously into my blood, liver and ventricles. Stupor infiltrated my brain. We all know by now that being inactive is unhealthy. But far too many of us think that being inactive is something that happens to other people. Studies of daily movement patterns, though, show that your typical modern exerciser, even someone who runs, subsequently sits for hours afterward, often moving less over all than on days when he or she does not work out. The health consequences are swift, pervasive and punishing. In a noteworthy recent experiment conducted by scientists at the University of Massachusetts and other institutions, a group of healthy young men donned a clunky platform shoe with a 4-inch heel on their right foot, leaving the left leg to dangle above the ground. For two days, the men hopped about using crutches (and presumably gained some respect for those people who regularly toddle about in platform heels). Each man’s left leg never touched the ground. Its muscles didn’t contract. It was fully sedentary. After two days, the scientists biopsied muscles in both legs and found multiple genes now being expressed differently in each man’s two legs. Gene activity in the left leg suggested that DNA repair mechanisms had been disrupted, insulin response was dropping, oxidative stress was rising, and metabolic activity within individual muscle cells was slowing after only 48 hours of inactivity. In similar experiments with lab animals, casts have been placed on their back legs, after which the animals rapidly developed noxious cellular changes throughout their bodies, and not merely in the immobilized muscles. In particular, they produced substantially less of an enzyme that dissolves fat in the bloodstream. As a result, in animals and humans, fat can accumulate and migrate to the heart or liver, potentially leading to cardiac disease and diabetes. To see the results of such inactivity, scientists with the National Cancer Institute spent eight years following almost 250, 000 American adults. The participants answered detailed questions about how much time they spent commuting, watching TV, sitting before a computer and exercising, as well as about their general health. At the start of the study, none suffered from heart disease, cancer or diabetes. But after eight years, many were ill and quite a few had died. The sick and deceased were also in most cases sedentary. Those who watched TV for seven or more hours a day proved to have a much higher risk of premature death than those who sat in front of the television less often. (Television viewing is a widely used measure of sedentary time.) Exercise only slightly lessened the health risks of sitting. People in the study who exercised for seven hours or more a week but spent at least seven hours a day in front of the television were more likely to die prematurely than the small group who worked out seven hours a week and watched less than an hour of TV a day. If those numbers seem abstract, consider a blunt new Australian study. In it, researchers determined that watching an hour of television can snip 22 minutes from someone’s life. If an average man watched no TV in his adult life, the authors concluded, his life span might be 1.8 years longer, and a TV-less woman might live for a year and half longer than otherwise. So I canceled our cable, leaving my 14-year-old son staggered. I’d deprived him of his favorite shows on The Food Network, a channel that, combined with sitting, explains much about the American waistline. (Thankfully, my son is blessed with his father’s lanky, string-bean physique.) I also conduct more of my daily business upright. In an inspiring study being published next month in Diabetes Care, scientists at the Baker IDI Heart and Diabetes Institute in Melbourne, Australia, had 19 adults sit completely still for seven hours or, on a separate day, rise every 20 minutes and walk leisurely on a treadmill (handily situated next to their chairs) for two minutes. On another day, they had the volunteers jog gently during their two-minute breaks. When the volunteers remained stationary for the full seven hours, their blood sugar spiked and insulin levels were out of whack. But when they broke up the hours with movement, even that short two-minute stroll, their blood sugar levels remained stable. Interestingly, the jogging didn’t improve blood sugar regulation any more than standing and walking did. What was important, the scientists concluded, was simply breaking up the long, interminable hours of sitting. Equally beguiling, at least for me, since I’m shallow, were results from experiments at the University of Massachusetts showing that when volunteers stood all day — nothing else; no walking or jogging; just standing — they burned hundreds more calories than when they sat for the same period of time. So every 20 minutes or so, I now rise. I don’t have a desk treadmill; my office is too small, and my budget too slim. But I prop my papers on a music stand and read standing up. I prowl my office while I talk on the phone. (I also stand on one foot when I brush my teeth at night, which has little to do with reducing inactivity but may be one of the more transformative actions I’ve picked up from researching fitness. My balance and physical confidence have improved, and my husband is consistently amused, which is not a bad foundation for marital health.) I run for three or four miles most days, too, and grunt through 20 push-ups most mornings. There are health and fitness benefits from endurance and weight training that standing up can’t match. In particular, aerobic workouts have been shown to improve brainpower, and I shudder to imagine the state of my memory if I didn’t run. But I’m not planning any marathons (been there, done that, walked down stairs backward for days). I want foundational health. I want my insulin levels in check and my fat-fighting enzymes robust. I have plans for those extra 18 months of life span that not sitting might provide. The “Phys Ed” columnist for The New York Times and the author of a new book on science and exercise, “The First 20 Minutes.” 越站越健康 发布时间：2012-05-12 文章出自：译言 原文链接： 点击查看 在埋头写作关于健康话题的文章的同时，我明白了一个道理，正是伏案写作对我的健康造成了影响：整天弯腰驼背对着电脑；翻阅各种科学刊物苦思冥想；无数次地无精打采，做事拖沓而习以为常。我一边撰文讲述锻炼的好处，而我身体的肌肉一边在变得松弛，体内的脂肪正悄悄地渗入血液，肝和心室。头脑也渐渐感到恍惚。 现在，人们都知道缺乏活动会有害身心健康，然而很多人以为，缺乏活动这种情况只发生别人的身上。 然而，不少关于人类活动模式的研究表明，即便你是个现在常见的做运动的人，即便那些跑一会步，然后坐上几个小时的男男女女们，在他们不上班的时候，也常常不太活动。 对健康的不良后果常是来得快，范围广，来势汹汹。近期，马萨诸塞州大学的科学家们会同其他研究机构进行的一项实验，值得引起我们注意。研究人员让一群身体健康的年轻人右脚穿上四英寸高的，笨重的厚底鞋，而左脚不穿，因此站立时，左脚悬空。在接下来的两天里，这群年轻人只能借助拐棍，单腿跳着到处走动。所有人的左脚在实验期间没沾过地面。左腿肌肉也就没有收缩，完全保持它们在静坐时的那种状态。 两天后，科学家们对他们双腿的肌肉组织进行了活组织切片检查，发现多种基因已经发生了差异:左腿肌肉组织DNA的修复机制发生中断，胰岛素反应下降；氧化应激上升；在48个小时不活动后，肌肉细胞的新陈代谢活动变慢了。 在动物身上做的类似实验中，它们的后腿被套上类似的厚底鞋后，很快，它们的整个身体内就产生出有害细胞，而不仅仅在不活动的后腿肌肉内。尤其，一种能分解血液中脂肪的酶的分泌水平大幅下降。最终，人和动物体内的脂肪不断积累，并扩散到心脏或者肝脏，进而引发心脏病和糖尿病。 为了解身体缺乏活动会造成的后果，美国癌症研究所耗时八年，对25万名美国成年人进行了跟踪观察。每个参与者都需要详细回答一系列问题，如花多少时间乘坐公交车，看电视，使用电脑和锻炼，包括他们健康状况的问题。这项调查开始时，所有参与者都未患过心脏病，癌症或者糖尿病。 八年后，很多参与被调查的人患病，还有不少人离世。久坐和缺乏活动引起的疾病和死亡数量相当大。那些每天看电视7小时或者更久的被调查者，比那些每天不太看电视的人群，早逝风险要高得多。 锻炼只能轻微降低久坐带来的健康风险。在此项观察中发现，那些每周花7小时或者以上时间锻炼身体，同时每天又会看上7小时以上电视的人群，比起那一小群每周外出工作7小时，每天看电视不到一小时的人群，早逝的风险来得高。 如果这些数字太过抽象，来看看澳大利亚一项最新的研究，研究人员发现：每看一小时电视，会缩短人的寿命22分钟。一个普通成年男性，如果一生不看电视，其寿命可能会延迟1.8年。而一个妇女这么做，可能会多活上1.5年。 因此，我停掉了家里的有线电视服务，这让我14岁的儿子吃惊不小。他再也看不了最喜爱的“食物频道”的节目了。虽然节目是谈论美国肥胖问题，但你在观看时却得坐着。 同时，在平时工作时，我也尽量多站立。在下月即将出版的《糖尿病护理》杂志上，发表了一篇非常有意义的研究报告：澳洲墨尔本大学贝克心脏及糖尿病研究所的科学家们，对19名成年人进行了实验。他们先让受试者完全静坐7个小时；改天在让他们静坐20分钟就起来在跑步机上随意走上2分钟；再者，让受试者静坐20分钟后，在跑步机上慢跑2分钟。 当受试者一动不动地坐上7个小时后，他们的血糖水平飙升，胰岛素水平也发生异常。而在他们坐上20分钟就，就起身散步2分钟的情况下，血糖水平保持了稳定。有意思的是，在这2分钟里进行慢跑，比起站立或者散步2分钟，血糖水平并未差异。科学家从实验中得到一个重要结论就是，长时间地静坐不利健康。 马萨诸塞州大学的一项研究成果也令我同样欣喜，他们发现，你无需慢跑，散步或者干别的，只要站上一整天，比起坐上一整天，要多消耗上数以百计的卡路里。 现在，我每坐20分钟左右，就会起身活动一下。我办公室很小，放不下一个跑步机，我也没多少钱可以去健身房。我会把各种资料放在乐谱架上，站着阅读。我平时在打电话时，也会在办公室来回走动。 大部分时间，我每天也会跑上三、四英里，早上也会做上二十下俯卧撑。耐力和体力训练对健康的益处，是站立所无法相比的。而有氧训练对增强大脑功能特别有益。想到我如果没有进行跑步锻炼，我的记忆力会会多么糟糕，这真让我后怕。当然，我也不准备去跑马拉松，我只需要保持身体健康而已。胰岛素水平保持正常，那些消除脂肪的酶也能保持较高的水平。为了多活那18个月，我已做足功课。 本文作者是《纽约时报》健康栏目的专栏作家，刚完成了关于科学和锻炼的新著，《第一个20分钟》。
导读：《纽约时报》网站今天刊载文章称，“大数据时代”已经降临，在这一领域拥有专长的人士正面临许多机会。文章指出，“大数据”正在对每个领域都造成影响。举例来说，在商业、经济及其他领域中，决策行为将日益基于数据和分析而作出，而并非基于经验和直觉；而在公共卫生、经济发展和经济预测等领域中，“大数据”的预见能力也已经崭露头角。以下是这篇文章的全文。 你在数字方面很拿手？数据令你感到着迷？那么你听到的声音是机会正在敲门。 作为一名刚刚毕业的耶鲁大学MBA(工商管理硕士)，周默(音译)在去年夏天被IBM抢聘，加入了该公司迅速增长中的数据顾问团队。IBM数据顾问的职责是帮助企业弄明白数据爆炸背后的意义——网络流量和社交网络评论，以及监控出货量、供应商和客户的软件和传感器等——用来指导决策、削减成本和提高销售额。“我一直都热爱数字。”周默说道，她的岗位是数据分析师，与其所学的技能相符合。 为了开发数据洪流，美国将需要许多象她一样的人。据顾问公司麦肯锡旗下研究部门麦肯锡全球学会(McKinsey Global Institute)去年发布的一份报告显示，预计美国需要14万名到19万名拥有“深度分析”专长的工作者，以及150万名更加精通数据的经理人，无论是已退休人士还是已受聘人士。 数据充斥所带来的影响远远超出了企业界。举例来说，贾斯汀-格里莫(Justin Grimmer)是新生代的政治科学家，他现年28岁，在斯坦福大学任助理教授。在大学生和研究生时期的研究报告中，他将数学与政治科学联系起来，称其看到了“一个机会，原因是纪律正日益变得数据密集化”。他研究的内容涉及对博客文章、国会演讲和新闻稿进行计算机自动化分析等，希望藉此洞察政治观点是如何传播的。 在科学和体育、广告和公共卫生等其他许多领域中，也有着类似的情况——也就是朝着数据驱动型的发现和决策的方向发生转变。哈佛大学量化社会科学学院(Institute for Quantitative Social Science)院长加里-金(Gary King)称：“这是一种革命，我们确实正在进行这场革命，庞大的新数据来源所带来的量化转变将在学术界、企业界和政界中迅速蔓延开来。没有哪个领域不会受到影响。” 欢迎来到“大数据时代”(Age of Big Data)。硅谷新贵们——最初是在谷歌(微博)，现在是在Facebook——都精通于驾驭网络数据(网络搜索、帖子和信息等)与互联网广告之间的关系。在上个月于瑞士达沃斯召开的世界经济论坛上，大数据是讨论的主题之一。这个论坛上发布的一份题为《大数据，大影响》(Big Data, Big Impact)的报告宣称，数据已经成为一种新的经济资产类别，就像货币或黄金一样。 “生命中的一天”(Day in the Life)系列摄影作品的创作人里克-斯莫兰(Rick Smolan)正计划在今年晚些时候推出一个新项目，这个名为“大数据的人类脸孔”(The Human Face of Big Data)的项目将记录数据的采集和使用。斯莫兰是一名狂热分子，他认为“大数据”有成为“人性仪表盘”的潜力，也就是一种能帮助人类与贫穷、犯罪和污染等现象展开斗争的智能工具。而私人部门的倡导组织则持有悲观的观点，警告称“大数据”与“独裁者”(Big Brother)同出一辙，只是披上了企业的外衣。 什么是“大数据”？这当然是一个带有文化基因和营销理念的词汇，但同时也反映了科技领域中正在发展中的趋势，这种趋势为理解这个世界和作出决策的新方法开启了一扇大门。根据科技研究公司IDC作出的估测，数据一直都在以每年50%的速度增长，换而言之，也就是每两年就增长一倍。这不是简单的数据增多的问题，而是全新的问题。举例来说，在当今全球范围内的工业设备、汽车、电子仪表和装运箱中，都有着无数的数字传感器，这些传感器能测量和交流位置、运动、震动、温度和湿度等数据，甚至还能测量空气中的化学变化。 将这些交流传感器与计算智能连接起来，那么你就会看到所谓的“物联网”(Internet of Things)或“工业互联网”(Industrial Internet)。在信息获取的问题上取得进步也是促进“大数据”趋势发展的原因之一。举例来说，政府数据——聘用数据及其他信息——一直都在稳步地向网络转移。在2009年中，美国政府通过启动Data.gov网站的方式进一步开放了数据的大门，这个网站向公众提供各种各样的政府数据。 数据不仅仅是正在变得更加可用，同时也正在变得更加容易被计算机所理解。“大数据”发展趋势中所增加的大部分数据都是在自然环境下产生的，比如说网络言论、图片和视频等不受控制的东西，以及来自于传感器的数据等。这些是所谓的“非结构化数据”，通常不能为传统的数据库所用。 但是，旨在从互联网时代非结构化数据的庞大“宝藏”中获得知识和洞察力的计算机工具正在迅速发展中。在这种工具发展的最前沿是迅速取得进步的人工智能(AI)技术，比如说自然语言处理、模式识别和机器学习等。 这些人工智能技术能应用于许多领域。举例来说，谷歌的搜索和广告业务及其实验中的机器人(19.530,0.13,0.67%)汽车都利用了很多的人工智能技术。在加利福尼亚州的公路上，谷歌的机器人汽车已经跑了数千英里的路。谷歌的这两项业务都让“大数据”时代的挑战却步，它们对数量庞大的数据进行分析，并作出瞬时的决策。 反过来，大量的新数据也正在加快计算领域的进步，这是“大数据”时代中的一个良性循环。举例来说，机器学习算法能基于数据来进行学习，数据越多机器就能学到越多。以苹果在去年秋天推出的iPhohne手机Siri语音助理服务为例，这个应用的源头可回溯至五角大楼的一个研究项目，该项目随后被分离出来，成为了一家硅谷创业公司。苹果在2010年收购了Siri，并继续向其提供更多数据。时至今日，在人们提供成百上千万条问题的环境下，Siri正在变成一种日益熟练的个人助理，能向用户提供提醒服务、天气预报、餐饮建议和对大量问题作出解答等服务。 麻省理工学院斯隆管理学院的经济学教授埃里克-布吕诺尔夫松(Erik Brynjolfsson)称，如果想要理解“大数据”的潜在影响力，那么可以看看显微镜的例子。显微镜是在四个世纪以前发明的，能让人们看到以前从来都无法看到的事物并对其进行测量——在细胞的层面上。显微镜是测量领域中的一场革命。 吕诺尔夫松解释称，数据测量就相当于是现代版的显微镜。举个例子，谷歌搜索、Facebook帖子和Twitter消息使得对人们行为和情绪的细节化测量成为可能。 吕诺尔夫松进一步指出，在商业、经济及其他领域中，决策行为将日益基于数据和分析而作出，而并非基于经验和直觉。“我们能开始变得远为科学化。”他这样说道。 有很多的轶事证据表明，数据至上的思考方式将带来很高的回报。其中，最著名的例子仍旧是迈克尔-刘易斯(Michael Lewis)在2003年出版的《点球成金》(Moneyball)一书，这本书记录了低预算的奥克兰运动家队是如何利用经过分析的数据和晦涩难解的棒球统计学来找到被评价过低的棒球手的。在布拉德-皮特(Brad Pitt)主演的电影版《点球成金》去年被搬上银幕以前，深度的数据分析就不仅已经成为棒球领域中的标准，而且在英国足球联赛等其他体育项目中也是如此。 沃尔玛(WMT)和Kohl’s等零售商也已经开始对销售额、定价以及经济学、人口统计学和天气数据进行分析，藉此在特定的连锁店中选择合适的上架产品，并基于这些分析来判定商品减价的时机。UPS等货运公司也正在对卡车交货时间和交通模式等相关数据进行分析，以此对其运输路线进行微调。 Match.com等交友网站也经常会仔细查看其网站上列出的个人特征、回应和交流信息，用来改进其算法，从而为想要约会的男女提供更好的配对。在全美范围内，以纽约市为首的警方部门也正在使用计算机化的地图以及对历史性逮捕模式、发薪日、体育项目、降雨天气和假日等变量进行分析，从而试图对最可能发生罪案的“热点”地区作出预测，并预先在这些地区部署警力。 吕诺尔夫松及其两名同僚在去年发表研究报告称，数据指导下的管理活动正在美国企业界中蔓延开来，而且这种管理活动正开始获得回报。这三名学者对179家大型公司进行了研究，发现那些采用“数据驱动型决策”模式的公司能将其生产力提高5%到6%，这种生产力的提高是很难用其他因素来解释的。 在公共卫生、经济发展和经济预测等领域中，“大数据”的预见能力正在被开发中，而且已经崭露头角。研究者发现，曾有一次他们发现“流感症状”和“流感治疗”等词汇在谷歌上的搜索查询量增加；而在几个星期以后，到某个地区医院急诊室就诊的流感病人数量就有所增加(还需要指出的是，医院急诊室发布报告的时间通常要比病人就诊的时间晚上两个星期左右)。 联合国(微博)已经推出了名为“全球脉动”(Global Pulse)的新项目，希望利用“大数据”来促进全球经济发展。联合国将进行所谓的“情绪分析”，使用自然语言解密软件来对社交网站和文本消息中的信息作出分析，用来帮助预测某个给定地区的失业率、支出削减或是疾病爆发等现象，其目标在于利用数字化的早期预警信号来提前指导援助项目，以阻止某个地区重新陷入贫困等困境。 在经济预测领域中，已经有研究表明，与不动产经济学家所作出的预测相比，谷歌上住房相关搜索查询量的增加或减少的趋势能更加准确地预测未来一个季度中的住房市场走势。美联储及其他机构已经注意到这一点。在去年7月份，美国国家经济研究局(National Bureau of Economic Research)主持召开了一次研讨会，此次会议所讨论的内容是“大数据时代的机会”及其对经济领域的影响。 “大数据”还已经令针对社交网络运作方式的研究发生了变化。在20世纪60年代，哈佛大学的斯坦利-米尔格拉姆(Stanley Milgram)利用包裹作为研究媒介，进行了一项与社交网络相关的著名实验。他将包裹寄往美国中西部地区的志愿者，指导他们如何将包裹带给波士顿的陌生人，但不能直接交付；参与实验者如果想要通过邮寄方式来交付包裹，那么目标对象就是能是他们认识的人。结果表明，一个包裹换手的平均次数相当之低，仅为6次左右。这是对所谓“小世界现象”的经典阐释，据此形成了“六度分隔”(six degrees of separation)的流行词汇。 时至今日，社交网络研究的内容涉及如何采集庞大的数字化数据集合，用来阐释网络上的集体化行为。这种研究的结果表明，你认识但不经常联系的人——在社会学中被称为“微弱联系”(weak ties)——是职务空缺小道消息的最佳来源，原因是与关系亲密的朋友相比，这些人在略有不同的社交世界中穿行，因此能看到你和你最好的朋友们所无法看到的机会。 在有关某个主题的交流中，研究学者们还能看到其影响模式和高峰——举例来说，可以通过追踪Twitter上的趋势标签的方式来达成这个目标。对于数量庞大的用户人群来说，Twitter这个在线“玻璃鱼缸”是透视其实时行为的窗口。康奈尔大学教授乔恩-克伦伯格(Jon Kleinberg)称：“我寻找的是数据中的‘热点’，这是我需要理解的一种活动爆发的现象。只有通过‘大数据’，你才能做到这一点。” 毫无疑问，“大数据”本身也存在一些风险。统计学家和计算机科学家指出，“大数据”的集合和高密度的测量将令“错误发现”的风险增长。斯坦福大学的统计学教授特来沃尔-哈斯迪(Trevor Hastie)称，如果想要在庞大的数据“干草垛”中找到一根有意义的“针”，那么所将面临的问题就是“许多稻草看起来就像是针一样”。 此外，对于统计学恶作剧和有偏见的实情调查活动而言，“大数据”也提供了更多的原材料。“大数据”为一个老把戏提供了高科技的手段，那就是——我知道事实，现在让我们来找到事实吧。乔治梅森大学的数学家瑞贝卡(6.99,0.03,0.43%)-高尔丁(Rebecca Goldin)称，这是“最有害的数据使用方式之一”。 数据已被计算机和数学模型所驯服和理解，这些模型就像是文学中的隐喻修辞，也就是一种简化后的解释方式。对于理解数据而言，这些模式是有用的，但它们也存在局限性。私人部门的倡导组织发出警告称，一个基于网络搜索的模式可能会发现一种相关性，从而作出不公平或是带有歧视性的统计推断，对产品、银行贷款和养老基金提供的医疗保险造成影响。 虽然面临着这种警告，但“大数据”时代的降临看起来已是无可逆转。数据已经坐到了驾驶员的位置上，它就在那里，有用而且宝贵，甚至还很时尚。 资深数据分析师称，长期以来，朋友们一谈到他们的工作就会变得厌烦，但现在突然变得好奇起来。这些分析师们认为，《点球成金》是促成这一变化的原因之一，但实际原因远非如此简单。哥伦比亚大学统计学家兼政治科学家安德鲁-格尔曼(Andrew Gelman)称：“文化已经发生了改变。现在人们的想法是，数字和统计学是有趣的，是一种很酷的东西。”(金良/编译)
纽约时报对这次纽约爱乐乐团演出我的作品的评论： Bao Yuankai’s “China Air Suite,” drawn from a collection of folk-song adaptations, showed a sophisticated instrumental palette redolent of Debussy’s. 鲍元恺“中国风组曲”选自民歌改编曲集，这部作品显示出的精妙的乐队音色调色板带有德彪西式的芬芳。
武夷山老师的博文：" 天生的道德能力？ "让我想起《纽约时报》2010年5月5日发表的长篇文章" The Moral Life of Babies "。 图片来自《纽约时报》杂志 这篇耶鲁大学心理学教授 Paul Bloom 写的文章介绍了该校 婴儿认知中心 近10年的研究，发现婴儿不仅天生具有基本的算术和物理常识--他们对看似违反物理定律的现象表示惊讶，而对符合物理定律的现象不怎么关心；对1+1=2没有特别的兴趣，而对违反1+1=2的木偶表演有异常的兴趣--而且具有基本的道德判断 。 Bloom的文章很有趣，除了文章，还有录像： http://video.nytimes.com/video/2010/05/04/magazine/1247467772000/can-babies-tell-right-from-wrong.html 武老师提到 Jonathan Haidt。我 2008年 曾介绍过他 在 《 SCIENCE 》发表一篇题为“ The New Synthesis in Moral Psychology ” ( 道德心理学的新综合 ) 的综述文章，总结了把演化论应用于道德研究的新结果，见： http://blog.sciencenet.cn/home.php?mod=spaceuid=714do=blogid=36003
看《纽约时报》对电影《金陵十三钗》的点评 昨天看到了一篇《纽约时报》对电影《金陵十三钗 (The Flowers of War)》的点评及网友提供的译文, 有点意思。先声明，我没有看过《金陵十三钗》。不过从评论来看，电影不论在中国还是美国好象都引起了一些争议，连这个影评本身也是带争议性的，呵呵，比如在第四段结尾影评人说"Other recent Chinese films have displayed more... demonization of the Japanese army"到底是想表达什么意思，是日本军队被妖魔化了呢还是更充分体现了他们的妖魔性。 不多说了，中文版和英文原文都在下面。欢迎拍砖，别砸我的头就行:-) 《纽约时报》点评电影《金陵十三钗》(译文来自文学city网，稍作修改) 作者： Mike Hale 生命的每一个无谓的牺牲最终似乎都会有自己的催人泪下的故事。这是为《金陵十三钗》进行辩护的唯一方式，在这部影片里，资深的中国导演张艺谋回顾1937年的南京大屠杀的方式是某种类似于后台歌舞剧，偶尔会被可怕的谋杀或者强奸打断的东西。 并不是说残暴的大片就得自行成为一场灾难；像《乱世佳人(Gone with the wind)》、《加里波底（Gallipoli）》就有自己的优点。但是，在《金陵十三钗》两个半小时 远没有耗光之前，这部影片就已经陷入了所描述事件与张先生对其疏远又奇怪的轻薄处理之间的不平衡—从本质上来说，这种处理是指他拒绝对中国历史最可怕的篇 章之一表明立场。 由于费用高昂、国家认可，并已申奥，《金陵十三钗》得到了充分的宣传，上周这种声音更是尘嚣日上，彼时该片的英国影星，克里斯蒂安·贝尔（Christian Bale）对......的拜访被强行阻止。(此处省略数字) 但是如果简单地认为张先生只会对日本人侵略和占领南京采取一种肤浅的、爱国的办法处理，这种恐惧是错位的，尽管这不是完全没有依据。其他最近的一些中国电影已经更多展现的是充满感情色彩的爱国主义(链接例子：《唐山大地震》)、 沙文主义 (链接例子：《陈真》)以及日本军队的妖魔化 (链接例子：《叶问》) 。 他对1937年事件的真正处理方式是用其作为一种奢华的、受好莱坞启发的情节剧的背景，这些也让他成为艺术电影的宠儿。此过程中，大部分的元素他都没有能够实现— 宏伟、历史背景、真正的悲怆，这些东西本该可令此片更有价值。 只要故事合适，正如《大红灯笼高高挂》或者《十面埋伏》里面一样，张先生对优美外观近乎临床式的关注以及肥皂剧式的结构会产生有趣的结果。然而，在 《金陵十三钗》当中，你能够感觉到他跟自己的材料在做斗争，根本无法定调，或者停留在一个引人入胜的叙述上，甚至连故事的连贯性都做不到。（剧本由刘恒与 严歌苓编写，原著是严歌苓女士） 张先生与大屠杀故事大格局之间的距离体现在他决定将影片的大部分场景局限在一个虚构的欧式教堂区里面。其结果是一种人造的外景氛围；开场是从街道开始，进行一场真正硝烟弥漫的战争，烟雾（以及某处一大堆面粉激起的粉尘）将人物与现实世界的南京隔绝开来。 贝尔先生扮演约翰·米勒（John Miller），一位名声不好的美国流浪汉，机缘巧合，此人成为了一名殡葬员；影片开始时他正在穿过一场进攻教堂的战斗，然后有人出钱让他在那里主持一场 葬礼。还有两群人赶往这里，各有大概12人左右的青年女子，也即本片中的十三钗。如果没有可靠的历史参照的话，她们属于一种产品设计，被形象地符号化为： 穿着蓝色素袍的修道院学生以及穿着五彩斑斓的性感旗袍的妓女。 各方均在教堂中避难，穿上死去牧师的长袍的米勒，在楼上的猜疑学生和处于守势躲在地下室的自卑妓女（她们迅速将地窖变成了闺房；你几乎可以闻到香水 的味道）之间架起二元论者（Manichaean，摩尼教徒）的桥梁。这是事件的一种不自然的、温床般的状态，可以概括为张先生酷爱之极乃至于不断重复的 场景：笑着的妓女以慢镜头摇曳着穿越教堂院落，对即将到来的灾难不以为然。 当然，灾难必至，尽管大难临头时影片采用了一种拐弯抹角的古怪形式。一群人最终做了似乎是终极的自我牺牲，这种牺牲充满着性别上和社会化的弦外之 音，不过这发生在镜头之外，如果曾有此事的话。影片结构的这种含煳其辞，也许可以被解释为— 故事是有其中的一位学生旁白讲述的，而我们所看到的，可能就相 当于她选择性的、罗曼蒂克化的回忆，不过事实上这不能成为借口。 与此同时，屏幕上镜头冒险摇向了外面的世界，偶尔闪过的几个场景似乎是为了加快动作并让大家记住自己正在观看一部战争片。在张先生对中国至上主义概 念仅有的几个让步之一当中，一位军官（佟大为）出于夸张的英雄主义，孤身一人吸引了一支日本小分队离开教堂。随后，显然是在感伤的屈服之下，两位妓女离开 了教堂，去执行那种只会在电影中才会发生的疯狂的怜悯行动，其后果尤其令人不安。除了这一系列事件以外，张先生对日本人的暴行的叙述表现出了克制，大都以表现威胁和恐吓的形式。 贝尔先生交出了值得尊敬的表演，在那种情况下如果说是活泼的表演的话有点古怪，他的任务是不幸的，要扮演一个实际上不合理的角色。米勒从机会主义者 到救世主的转变可能是这类电影的必备元素，但是展现其转变的场景却交代得很匆忙且低效。张先生把一位美国人当做了自己影片的中心人物，却又让他简化为跟适 婚女性那样吵个不停，就像加里·格兰特（Cary Grant）在暴力得多的《呆鹅爸爸（Father Goose）》里面一样。 另外还有几部反映南京大屠杀的电影，包括由陆川执导的悲惨的情节剧 《南京！南京（City of Life and Death）》,以及由比尔·古藤塔（Bill Guttentag）和丹·史度曼（Dan Sturman）的纪录片《南京（Nanking）》，跟这些炒作没那么厉害但是质量远超自己的影片相比，《金陵十三钗》会很痛苦。那些制片人是带着观点 来的。而张先生呢，则是退避到旧电影的迷雾当中，拒绝上场战斗。 英文原文来自《纽约时报》网站: December 20, 2011 Movie Review | 'The Flowers of War' A Shady American in the Nanjing Massacre By MIKE HALE Eventually, it seems, every senseless waste of life gets its own gauzy tear-jerker. That’s about the only way to justify “The Flowers of War,” in which the veteran Chinese director Zhang Yimou revisits the Nanjing massacre of 1937 by making something resembling a backstage musical, with breaks for the occasional ghastly murder or rape. There’s nothing that says the atrocity blockbuster has to be a disaster in its own right; films like “Gone With the Wind” and “Gallipoli” have their good points. But long before its two and a half hours are up, “The Flowers of War” is sunk by the disproportion between the events being portrayed and Mr. Zhang’s distanced, strangely frivolous treatment of them — in essence, his refusal to take a point of view on one of the most gruesome chapters in Chinese history. “Flowers” has received bountiful publicity for being expensive, state-approved and Oscar-submitted, buzz that got louder last week when the film’s British star, Christian Bale , was forcibly prevented from visiting......(a few words omitted) But fears that Mr. Zhang would take a one-dimensional, patriotic approach to the Japanese invasion and occupation of Nanjing (formerly Nanking), while not entirely unfounded, are misplaced. Other recent Chinese films have displayed more sentimental nationalism , jingoism and demonization of the Japanese enemy . His real approach to the events of 1937 is to use them as a backdrop for the kind of deluxe, Hollywood-inspired melodrama that has made him an art-house favorite. In the process he fails to deliver on most of the elements — grandeur, historical sweep, genuine pathos — that would have made the film worthwhile. Given the right story, as in “Raise the Red Lantern” or “House of the Flying Daggers,” Mr. Zhang’s almost clinical attention to pretty surfaces and soap-opera mechanics can have entertaining results. In “Flowers,” though, you can feel him at war with his material, never settling on a tone or a compelling or even coherent narrative. (The screenplay is by Liu Heng and Geling Yan, based on a novel by Ms. Yan.) Mr. Zhang’s distance from the larger story of the massacre is embodied in his decision to set most of the film within the compound of a fictional European church. The result is an artificial, back-lot atmosphere; the opening scenes, set in the streets, take place in an actual fog of war, with smoke (and at one point the dust from a large mound of flour) isolating the characters from the real world of Nanjing. Mr. Bale plays John Miller, a disreputable American vagabond who happens to be a mortician; as the film begins he is making his way through the fighting toward the church, where he is to be paid to conduct a burial. Also on the move are two groups of a dozen or so young women, the flowers of the title. They are, as a matter of production design if not credible history, visually coded: convent students in severe blue jackets and prostitutes in seductive, rainbow-hued silken dresses. All of these parties take refuge in the church, with Miller, who dons the robes of a dead priest, bridging the Manichaean divide between the suspicious students upstairs and the contemptuous, defensive prostitutes hiding in the basement. (They quickly transform their cellar into a seraglio; you can practically smell the perfume.) It’s a contrived, hothouse state of affairs, summed up in a scene Mr. Zhang likes so much that he repeats it: the laughing prostitutes sashaying across the churchyard in slow motion, oblivious to the impending tragedy. There will be tragedy, of course, though when it comes it takes a weirdly oblique form. One group eventually performs what appears to be an ultimate sacrifice, full of sexual and social overtones, but this happens off-camera, if it happens at all. The coyness can be explained, perhaps, in terms of the film’s structure — the story is narrated by one of the students, and what we see may correspond to her selective, romanticized memories — but it cannot really be excused. On-screen, meanwhile, the camera ventures into the outside world in occasional scenes that seem timed to goose the action and remind us that we’re watching a war movie. In one of Mr. Zhang’s few outright concessions to the notion of Chinese supremacism, a lone officer (Tong Dawai) draws a contingent of Japanese soldiers away from the church in an act of hyperbolic heroism. Later, in a surrender to gross sentimentality, two prostitutes leave the church on the sort of insane mercy mission that happens only in movies, with particularly disturbing consequences. Aside from that sequence Mr. Zhang is restrained in his depictions of Japanese brutality, which mostly take the form of threats and intimidation. Mr. Bale, turning in a respectable if oddly chipper performance under the circumstances, has the unfortunate task of playing a character who doesn’t really add up. Miller’s conversion from opportunist to savior may be another stock element of this sort of movie, but the scene meant to showcase his transformation is rushed and ineffective. Having made an American the central figure in his film, Mr. Zhang reduces him to wrangling flocks of nubile women, like Cary Grant in a much more violent “Father Goose.” “The Flowers of War” suffers greatly in comparison to several far superior, less hyped movies about the Nanjing massacre, including the harrowing drama “City of Life and Death,” directed by Lu Chuan , and the documentary “Nanking,” by Bill Guttentag and Dan Sturman . Those filmmakers came armed with points of view. Mr. Zhang, retreating into the mists of old movies, has declined to take the field. “The Flowers of War” is rated R (Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian). War violence and sexual assault. THE FLOWERS OF WAR Opens on Wednesday in Manhattan. Directed by Zhang Yimou ; written by Liu Heng and Geling Yan, based on the novel by Ms. Yan; director of photography, Zhao Xiaoding; edited by Meng Peicong; music by Chan Quigang; production design by Yohei Taneda; costumes by William Chang Suk-Ping; produced by Zhang Weiping; released by Wrekin Hill Entertainment in association with Row 1 Production. In Mandarin and English, with English subtitles. At the Landmark’s Sunshine Cinema, 139-143 East Houston Street, East Village. Running time: 2 hours 25 minutes. WITH: Christian Bale (John Miller), Ni Ni ( Yu Mo), Zhang Xinyi (Shu), Huang Tianyuan (George Chen), Tong Dawai (Major Li), Atsuro Watabe (Colonel Hasegawa), Shigeo Kobayashi (Lieutenant Kato) and Cao Kefan (Mr. Meng).
Dictators Get the Deaths They Deserve By SIMON SEBAG MONTEFIORE Published: October 26, 2011 The New York Times 接录： the death of a democratic leader long after his retirement is a private matter, but the death of a tyrant is always a political act that reflects the character of his power. If a tyrant dies peacefully in bed in the full resplendence of his rule, his death is a theater of that power; if a tyrant is executed while crying for mercy in the dust, then that, too, is a reflection of the nature of a fallen regime and the reaction of an oppressed people. 民主领袖退休后的死亡是私事，但暴君的死亡总是政治事件，反应其权力的性质。如果暴君在其统治的辉煌中平静地死在床上，其死亡就是那权力的表演场；如果他在尘埃中乞求时被处死了，那也只不过是反应了其崩塌政权的性质与被压迫人民的反抗。 This was never truer than in the death, last week, of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. The only difference between his death and those of so many other tyrants across history was that it was filmed with mobile phones, a facility unavailable to contemporaries of, say, the Roman emperor Caligula.上周卡扎菲上校的命运算是最明显不过。他的死亡与历史上许多的其它暴君的区别在于现在有了手机，可以录相，这在比如罗马暴君卡力古拉的时代就不可想像。 In modern times, it was more frenzied than the semi-formal execution, in 1989, of the Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu, but not as terrible as the ghastly lynching, in 1958, of the innocent King Faisal II of Iraq (age 23) and his hated uncle, who were supposedly impaled and dismembered, their heads used as soccer balls. In 1996, the pro-Soviet former president of Afghanistan, Najibullah, was castrated, dragged through the streets and hanged. 在现代，比起1989年齐奥塞斯库半正式的处决来说，的确有点狂乱，不过，还比不上1958年伊拉克的无辜国王费萨尔II世与他逗人恨的叔叔惨淡的命运，他们据说被钉死了再肢解，脑袋被人当球踢。在1996年，阿富汗亲苏联的总统纳吉布拉，先被阉割，再拉来游街，然后才被吊死。 Colonel Qaddafi’s tyranny was absolutist, monarchical and personal. The problem with such dictatorships is that as long as the tyrant lives, he reigns and terrorizes. As Churchill put it, “dictators ride to and fro upon tigers from which they dare not dismount.”卡扎菲上校的暴政是绝对的，君主式的， 侵害到每个人。这样的独裁的麻烦在于，只要暴君还活着，他就用恐怖统治全国。用丘吉尔的话说，“独裁者必须虎狼环侍，不敢独行。” Romans were so terrified of the emperor that it was not enough to assassinate him. They wanted to see him dead: fearing it was a trick and lacking cellphone footage, they had to be convinced. The mile-long line of Libyans who were keen to see Colonel Qaddafi’s cadaver in its shop-refrigerator-tomb would understand this perfectly. 罗马人对卡尼古拉暴君是如此害怕，刺杀他还远远不够，民众需要亲眼看到他确实是死了：害怕那是假相陷阱，没有手机摄下的镜头，他们需要确据。那些人排队数公里长，为要看卡扎菲上校在冰箱里的尸体，肯定可以理解这一点。 Sometimes the killing of tyrants is specially designed to echo the leader’s vices. Shajar al-Durr, an Egyptian sultan’s widow who became (uniquely in Muslim history) a sultan in her own right, was notorious for her extravagance. When she murdered her new husband in 1257, his concubines beat her to death with her own clogs — both a sign of Arab contempt and the medieval equivalent of death by stiletto. It was said that Edward II, notorious for homosexual relationships with his favorites, was killed with a red-hot poker. The upside-down suspension of the dead Mussolini with his mistress in a town square signaled the end of his pretensions to Caesarian heroism and Casanovan machismo.有时暴君之死就是要彰显其罪恶。 一个埃及苏丹的遗孀夏甲*阿尔杜尔在穆斯林历史上独树一帜，自己也成了苏丹，因为奢侈铺张而臭名昭著。当她在1257年谋杀了她的新的丈夫时，她被丈夫的嫔妃们用她自己的木屐给打杀了——那是阿拉伯蔑视的标志，也是中世纪的屈辱死法。据说爱德华II世，喜欢跟宠臣玩同性相交游戏，是给烧火棍捅死的。墨索里尼跟他的情妇尸体倒吊大街上示众，是显示他自命凯撒式的英雄以及貌似潘安的帅哥命运的终结。 Colonel Qaddafi faced an entirely fitting end. When he asked his frenzied killers, who had known no other ruler in their lives, “Do you not know the difference between right and wrong?” he had already taught them the answer. We may call this auto-tyrannicide. The manically terrifying but ruthlessly brilliant Mamluk sultan Baibars I, was more literally a victim: according to some accounts, he regularly poisoned his guests until, in 1277, he absentmindedly downed a glass of poisoned fermented camel’s milk himself. During the Crusades, the Atabeg of Mosul and Aleppo (in today’s Iraq and part of Syria), Zangi, who liked to castrate the children of enemies, and possibly his boy lovers as well, was supposedly stabbed in his bed by one of those humiliated eunuchs. When Stalin suffered a stroke in 1953, he had recently arrested dozens of doctors for treason. He lay in his own urine for more than 12 hours before his henchmen dared to call a doctor. He was not murdered — like Colonel Qaddafi, he was the author of his own destruction.卡扎菲上校完全是自食其果。当他责问他的狂乱的凶手时， 他们一生中只知道他这位统治者，“你们懂得区分正确与错误么？”他早就教给他们了一个答案。我们可以称之为暴君式的自杀。 那位疯狂恐怖残暴的马穆鲁克苏丹白巴斯I世，实际上是一个受害者：据说他经常给自己的客人下毒，在1277年，他漫不经心地给自己灌下了一杯下了毒的骆驼酵奶。在十字军东征时代，摩苏尔与阿勒颇（现伊拉克与部分叙利亚）的阿塔贝格（藩王）展机，喜欢阉割敌人的孩子，可能也包括自己儿时好友，据说被一受到羞辱的太监捅杀在床上。当斯大林在1953年中风躺在床上时，他才以颠覆罪名逮捕了几十个医生。在他的心腹敢打电话叫医生时，他在自己的尿中躺了12个小时。他没有被谋杀，正如卡扎菲一样，他才是毁灭自己的人。 Unlike monarchs, who pass power to their heirs at the moment of death to ensure the survival of the regime, tyrants must simply survive as long as possible. Hence inhumane struggles by indefatigable doctors to keep ailing dictators — Chairman Mao, Leonid I. Brezhnev, Marshal Tito, General Franco — alive. Only the ingenious North Koreans have solved this problem by declaring Kim Il-sung immortal, perpetual president.不象王朝君主在临死时把权力交给继承者以确保政权延续，暴君需要挣扎着活到极限 。因此，不知疲倦的医生们会以非人道的方式维持将要断气的独裁者——毛泽东、勃列日涅夫、铁托、以及佛朗哥将军等就是范例。只有聪明的北朝鲜解决了这一问题，他们宣布金日成练就不死金身，是其永远的主席。 ALL tyrannies are virtuoso displays over many years of cunning, risk-taking, terror, delusion, narcissism, showmanship and charm, distilled into a spectacle of total personal control. Tyrants are the greatest of all actor-managers — omnipotent impresarios. They will last only as long as prestige, prosperity and a vestige of justice are maintained. Uninhibited bloodletting can also work — as Bashar al-Assad and Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, have demonstrated — until luck eventually runs out in the shape of treason, outside interference or a tsunami of rebellion like the Arab Spring. It is hard to imagine that there would be anything but giblets left if those two now fell into the hands of their people. 所有的暴政都是大场面地表演多年积累的阴险、冒险、恐怖、妄想、自恋、虚伪、与做作，浓缩到完全的针对所有个人的控制的奇境中。暴君是所有有表演天赋的管理者之最——万能的形象家。他们在威信、繁荣、以及那点正义形象消失后就无以为继。无限制的流血恐怖也可能有用——就象阿萨德与伊朗的霍梅尼所表现的一样——直到运气用尽，终结于叛乱、外来干涉、或者像阿拉伯之春的海啸式的人民起义。很难想像，假如这对活宝活入人民手中，是否会有点内脏会保持完全。 Colonel Qaddafi could have saved his family and thousands of lives by retiring to a villa and later facing the International Criminal Court. Yet the narcissist envisages his downfall only as a mise-en-scène featuring his followers, family and country, consumed in his bonfire of egomaniacal nihilism. Colonel Qaddafi must have planned to die in battle like Richard III and Macbeth, or to kill himself. Yet this monstrous poseur totally bungled his own death. 卡扎菲上校可以保全其一家及千万人的性命，只需要退位隐居，面临国际刑事法院而已。然而，这个自大狂非得要把他的追随者、家庭、和国家拉上表演舞台，在他狂涨的自我毁灭中陪葬。卡扎菲上校肯定计划要象理查三世和麦克白一样死在战场上，或自杀。然而，这个让人笑掉牙的假打却最终把自己的死亡计划搞得一蹋糊涂。
美将举行长征活动要求食品标明转基因。 直言了，2011-09-01 |2011-09-02 12:40:14。 http://zhiyanle.blog.hexun.com/67794896_d.html 。 昨天，纽约时报等报道，10月01日到16日，美国将有大规模的“知情权长征”（Right2Know-March）全国性活动，要求美国当局实行所有食品清晰标明是否含有转基因成分的政策。 该长征活动举行16天，起点是纽约市郊区、终点是首都华盛顿白宫门前，途经十几个都市中心和消费市场中心，并在当地举行讲演、聚会和签名等活动。与此同时，美国东部其它州、西部加州和南方几个州，也举行各种响应性规模聚会活动。到达目的地当天，所有参与各州同时举行大规模聚会，向白宫打出“我们要知道我们的食品是不是转基因”的要求。 该长征活动将是半个多世纪来美国最大规模的针对当局政策的民众聚会活动之一，带有历史性意义。根据组织者资料显示，该活动赞助者包括有机农业产品组织、消费者权益组织和弱势群体组织、还有一些私人组织等，讲演者大都是知名人士，其中包括科学家等学界人士。自七月中下旬开始，相关训练和锻炼活动已经在相关各州开始。 美国现行的转基因食品政策是克林顿当局开始的，其特点是“DADT”（不问不说），即美国FDA-部门规定自愿标记、但实际上实行不标记政策；同时，美国农业部实行“天然作物”标记政策、说明产品不是转基因食品。如此，形成了一个“是者不标记、标记不是者”的模糊标签政策，即转基因作物食品享受特殊待遇。由此而来的是，转基因食品市场状态和消费状态，都没有也无法从事官方和相关组织机构的监督、调查和统计，任凭转基因公司自己操纵市场行为，于是，出现消费者中毒或过敏等症状、出现生态环境发生危害等异常情况，也无法做医学、科学和司法的调查和处理（譬如数据封闭造成无证据等问题），即转基因公司处于可以为所欲为而逍遥法外的特殊待遇之地位。 美国现行的转基因食品标签政策已经实行了近20年。一开始，该标签就受到消费者社会的强烈反对，引发了社会冲突。随着时间迁移，官方内部也出现了分裂。譬如，前总统高尔就公开表示反对先行政策、主张转基因食品明确标记的政策。去年，美国联邦法院判决、允许食品标记是否含有转基因成分；并行的是，转基因鱼SALMON审批事件导致美国多数沿海各州立法挑战先行转基因食品政策，声明说，一旦转基因鱼获准上市，那么，本州将实行所有食品标记是否含有转基因的标签政策。就是说，从去年开始，随着社会冲突加剧和官方分裂加深、现行的转基因食品标签政策也已开始瓦解崩溃。 在今年举行的年度CODEX-会议上，美国代表团首次表示不反对食品标签标记是否为转基因，改变了美国官方坚持了20年立场。如此，经过联合国相关机构批准，食品标签标记转基因与否将成为国际贸易法规规范，美国做食品进出口也得遵守。国际社会评论说，这是一个非常重要的发展步骤，至少，它表明，美国官方承认了美国FDA-转基因食品标签政策所依据的“实质等同”原则已经崩溃，也就是承认了“第一代”转基因技术作物已经彻底失败。 然而，奥巴马当局的态度十分暧昧：一方面，奥巴马一家人建议全民食用天然食品和尽量避免转基因食品、且奥巴马夫人直接登台、带领全家以身作则；可是，另一方面，奥巴马当局对现行政策却采取不闻不问的做法，以至于民众和官方内部都不知道奥巴马当局究竟是要继续还是要修改现行政策。不言而喻，如此暧昧态度和前景不明只能加剧社会冲突和官方内部分裂。 一个刚发生不久的事件：美国国务卿希拉里的科学顾问谢职另就。进入白宫前，希拉里是转基因公司孟山都的主要律师代表之一；担任国务卿后，她的科学顾问甚至不顾利益冲突忌讳、跟孟山都公司代表一道、在《科学》杂志联名发文“反思”文章，为现行转基因食品政策辩护；她的顾问谢职后，在纽约时报发文继续竭力为现行政策辩护，受到读者社会的猛烈抨击。一些议论说，希拉里任职到期后，孟山都公司甚至整个转基因利益关系公司将失去一个所谓的有官方资历的“代言人”，之后，还有谁能充当希拉里的角色、将是个大问号。 在事关全局的转基因食品标签政策发生本质动摇和走向不明之际，无疑，“知情权长征”全国性活动将发挥震动性作用。议论时，同事朋友们几乎异口同声：根据过去半个世纪的事实经验看，若当局能及时回应和做出政策修改，那么，一切将平安无事；不然，就可能深化冲突和导致全国性的社会分裂的严重危机，越南战争就是个典型的历史性例子。他们诙谐地说：诚如纽约时报述评所说，一个小小的食品标签居然酿成了全国性社会冲突；但愿目前已经成为全国性大问题的转基因食品政策冲突、不会演变成美国国内社会的“越南战争”。 本人当即想到的是：显然，国内的农业官员及其雇用的推手所说的“美国人不在乎转基因食品知情权”云云，是个特大的谎言欺骗。当然，更重要的问题是：在转基因作物食品问题方面，中国为什么要为了一些金钱利益而重复美国的失败和社会冲突呢？美国有条件拿转基因搞折腾，中国有条件搞那折腾吗？ 参考阅读： 从美国农业部更正农药数据说起。2011-08-10 22:57:22。 http://zhiyanle.blog.hexun.com/67072412_d.html 。 转基因：“实质等同”原则的曲解和瓦解。2011-02-24 08:54:57。 http://zhiyanle.blog.hexun.com/61623387_h.html 。 来源参考： 纽约时报述评：先赢利，再说环保。 Profits Before Environment。August 30, 2011, 10:27 pm。 http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/30/profits-before-environment/?ref=geneticallymodifiedfood 。 知情权长征活动： the GMO Right2Know March。 You Don’t Have to Stand Alone Against Genetically Engineered Food (GMOs)! Join the GMO Right2Know March Oct 1-16, 2011。 http://www.right2knowmarch.org/ Right2Know’ March from NYC to White House Oct 1-16。 http://www.right2knowmarch.org/news-room/ 。
最早听到高铁出事是于7月23日晚11点多，在烟台参加2011CCC会议期间，西南交大谭谨博士在浏览新闻时叫道“动车出事了”。“啊！？”，想不到，然而，更加让人想不到的还在后面：死伤的人数及对事故真相的遮遮掩掩的态度。 我们为同时失去五位亲人的家属痛惜，为失去双亲的小伊伊难过，然而随着时间的流逝，人们渐渐会淡忘，但留给人们的伤痛确是永远的。 在我们“多、快、好、省”建设社会主义时，请放慢我们的脚步，也请媒体不要大力宣传“比预定计划提前多少天完成了工期”。当楼脆脆，桥脆脆应运而生时，人的生命被当成了实验对象，被用来检验能否经受住“脆脆”们的严峻考验。慢工出细活，严肃认真、细致专业完成任务体现对他人生命的尊重，因为生命对我们每一个人来说就只有一次，在爱惜自己生命的同时，也请珍惜他人同样宝贵的生命。 纽约时报一则微博： 中国 ，请停下你飞奔的脚步，等一等你的人民，等一等你的灵魂，等一等你的道德，等一等你的良知！不要让列车脱轨，不要让桥梁坍塌，不要让道路成为陷阱，不要让房屋成为废墟。慢点走，让每一个生命都享有自由和尊严。每一个个体，都不应该被这个时代抛弃。 http://bbs.railcn.net/viewthread.php?tid=713831extra=page%3D1 （ Fears that transparency and safety have become secondary to other concerns was present in many Weibo postings on Sunday. One blogger in particular posted an eloquent appeal for more care and caution in China’s rapid development: “China, please stop your flying pace, wait for your people, wait for your soul, wait for your morality, wait for your conscience! Don’t let the train run out off track, don’t let the bridges collapse, don’t let the roads become traps, don’t let houses become ruins. Walk slowly, allowing every life to have freedom and dignity. No one should be left behind by our era.” http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/25/world/asia/25train.html?_r=2ref=asia ）
纽约时报的报道： http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/25/world/asia/25train.html?_r=1ref=asia 最后一段话： Fears that transparency and safety have become secondary to other concerns was present in many Weibo postings on Sunday. One blogger in particular posted an eloquent appeal for more care and caution in China’s rapid development: “China, please stop your flying pace, wait for your people, wait for your soul, wait for your morality, wait for your conscience! Don’t let the train run out off track, don’t let the bridges collapse, don’t let the roads become traps, don’t let houses become ruins. Walk slowly, allowing every life to have freedom and dignity. No one should be left behind by our era.”
文/李大光 近些年来，最惊人的科学事件大概就是克里格·文特尔所率领的团队的所谓“人造生命”的奇迹了。他们在2010年5月的Science杂志上宣布，将人工合成的染色体植入了细菌细胞,得到表达人工染色体的新支原体。一些支持者认为，这项生物技术有着巨大的潜能，比如创造出具有特殊功能的新微生物，用作替代石油和煤炭的绿色燃料，或用来帮助清除危险化学物质或辐射，或合成能帮助消除过多二氧化碳的细菌，从而缓解全球变暖问题等等。藻类生物燃料有时被环境学家称为“燃料藻”（oilgae），是一种对解决人类能源问题有巨大希望的技术。这种燃料是从与汽油、柴油和飞机燃料等石油产品具有同样分子结构的藻类提取出来的。 克里格·文特尔称自己“成功地发现了获得研究经费的独特方法”（ 《纽约时报》）。他获得经费的尝试是成立的“合成基因组”（ Synthetic Genomics）公司以获得研究合成生物的经费。文特尔的研究方向引起了美国总统和教皇的关注，同时也吸引了大量的投资。投资公司包括微软、埃克森石油公司、英国石油公司（BP）、马来西亚一家从事砾岩开发的公司以及墨西哥几家工业公司。在盖茨投资之前，“拱创业伙伴”（Arch Venture Partners）、维康基金会（Wellcome Trust）以及温洛克公司（Venrock companies）也投入了5千万美元。 藻可通过太阳光被转化为无碳能源，这是一个具有无限经济价值的技术。去年，每英亩藻每年可以转化2000加仑燃料，而棕榈树仅能产生650加仑，甘蔗仅仅能产生450加仑燃料，而玉米每年每英亩仅仅能生产出250加仑燃料。这对任何能源企业都是巨大的商机。就是在这种技术未来的感召力下，吸引了大量的工业界人士。最引人注目的就是三家公司：阿米里斯生物技术公司（Amyris Biotechnologies）、LS9、Codexis以及克里格·文特尔成立的“合成基因组公司”。为吸引投资创建他的基因组研究所（The Institute for Genomic Research），他成立了三个基金会：基因组促进基金会（The Center for the Advancement of Genomics, TCAG)、生物替代能源基金会（The Institute for Biological Energy Alternatives, IBEA)以及克里格·文特尔基金会（The J. Craig Venter Science Foundation）。 Time杂志认为：文特尔被“科学成果、成果发表以及学术地位承认，以及诺贝尔奖的诱惑”所驱使，“商业运作是获得科学结果的手段。” 无独有偶，斯坦福大学斯蒂文·奎克(Steven Quake)生物工程师，2010年6月份仅仅用了10万美元将个人基因图谱进行了解读。这是他在继文特尔用100万美金将DNA发现者詹姆斯·沃森的个人基因图谱解读后，费用最低的个人基因图谱解读。但是，这对于普通大众来说，价格还是有点贵。奎克研制出了世界上第一个“个人基因图谱解读器”，价格仅为48000美元。这个体积仅似一个大冰箱的机器，可以在4个星期之内对一个人的基因进行解读。这个机器的整个研制过程都是奎克自己掏钱进行的。他的成功震惊了世界。这意味着，只要有了这台机器，一个家族的基因可以得到解读，从而得知家族遗传病史和基因缺陷，通过干细胞移植进行治疗。 为了使个人基因图谱解读普及化，使所有的普通人都能够得到自己的基因图谱。美国“X Prize”基金会宣布，基金会将拿出1000万美元寻求技术突破，在2019年前将个人基因图谱解读成本下降到1000美元。这个计划正在进行中。无数的母亲和父亲为这个人类最大的生命技术将带来的幸福所感动。 那么，X Prize 基金会是个什么组织呢？它既不是政府组织也不是研究所，而是纯粹的NGO。这个基金会成立于1995年，主要目的是鼓励为了人类的福祉而进行的基础创新研究工作。基金会是非营利组织，主要工作是创办和进行世界范围内的大型国际奖励竞赛，以促进在研究和发展领域的投资。激励投资的主要领域有：教育和全球发展；能源与环境；生命科学；太空和海洋探索。世界上竟然有激励企业对科学技术进行投资的基金会，而且目前在壳牌的投资做保证的前提下，正在取得积极的进展。 科学技术的作用已经引起几乎所有政府的重视。政府正在逐步成为科学技术研究的主要投资方。但是，在发达国家，仍然存在多元的投资模式。除了政府投资以外，私人、慈善机构、企业等投资仍然占有巨大的比例。这些投资渠道弥补了政府投资必然会带来的忽略多元需要的倾向，在弥补科研缺口和在激励最初不受重视，没有预见前景的领域，以及在遭遇到伦理、政治或者某个领导人的偏见的时候，起到重要的作用。 波士顿谘询顾问公司（Boston Consulting Group，BCG）的调查显示，虽然增长步伐放缓，去年全球百万富翁家庭数增加了12.2%，达到1,250万。美国的百万富翁家庭最多，有520万，其次是日本拥有150万，中国有110万，英国有57万。在富翁越来越多的时候，中国也越来越成为世界上最大的奢侈品消费市场。中国不妨在鼓励企业或者有钱人向科技投资方面做一些有益的尝试。 注：本文节选自《科学时报》2011-06-23 A2 “克里格·文特尔的科研经费”。
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]欧美对《金陵十三钗》的评论：对人性认识的差异?](http://image.sciencenet.cn/album/201112/25/11230555guet5ex8uk5ygz.jpg.thumb.jpg)
![[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)
