Opinion

Nature 461, 881 (15 October 2009) | doi:10.1038/461881a; Published online 14 October 2009

Stitching science together

Cameron Neylon¹

ILLUSTRATION BY M. HODSON

Science communication today remains firmly wedded to its print origins. We cling to the notion that 'the real version' exists on the page. Beyond ease of delivery, we take very little advantage of the potential of the World Wide Web to transform the way we store and transfer knowledge. We rarely take the opportunity to update material with new data, or to provide a record of how a document or data set has changed. Gene names and protein structures should be routinely linked to database entries through hyperlinks. The outputs of computational processes should be connected to their inputs, so analyses can be redone. If we can make these records accessible to humans and readable by machines, then whole new types of analysis will become possible, indeed standard.

Many of these things are possible today. But they are hard to achieve. Much effort has gone into solving parts of the problem, by big players such as Microsoft and Amazon as well as by smaller organizations. Electronic lab notebooks can help to capture the details of science, and databases can make it available to the user. Reference-management tools such as Delicious, semantic data stores and Wikipedia can help to wire up and monitor knowledge. But the tools are often difficult to use and don't 'talk' to each other. There is no single framework that makes it easy to link all the steps of science. Scientists do their analysis and writing using different software, and prepare graphs and record data using different tools.

Very few companies worldwide have both the expertise and resources to take on the task of stitching this together. So it is with great interest that I have watched Google develop its product, Google Wave. The company describes Google Wave as "what e-mail would look like if it were invented today". It blends elements of e-mail with instant messaging and online collaborative authoring. The big change is that the 'document' or 'wave' is shared between all the participants and updates flow in real time. You no longer need to worry about which version of a document you have e-mailed around. This is helpful for scientists, but not revolutionary. Where Wave offers a big step for science is in two other functionalities.

Two steps forward

First, Wave introduces the idea of robots: automated agents that can be invited into a document. Robots could look through your paper checking for Protein Data Bank codes or gene names, for example, and putting in links to the databases. A robot might represent a lab instrument, adding data automatically to your laboratory record when they become available. You can easily add maps, video or three-dimensional graphics to your work using 'gadgets' or 'applications', familiar from services such as iGoogle and Facebook. Robots can interact with this information, making it possible to have a dashboard in your inbox to monitor and control instruments in the lab.

The second step forward is using versions. Each wave maintains a record of every change. It could be possible to check each step from data collection to drawing a graph and its publication. This would allow a reader to step through an analysis to see where conclusions have come from, and would make detecting fraud — or honest mistakes — much easier.

Google has done a good thing in making the protocol and programming tools open source, enabling people to test and build. Perhaps 50 people, myself included, from experimental scientists to journal publishers, have been testing the prototype system for science applications since June, building robots that link chemical information, visualize data and format references. Since 30 September, a much bigger group has been testing. But real benefits will come only if the system is widely adopted. Perhaps a new generation of scientists will be required to exploit the power that working with these dynamic documents and tools offers.

Solving the current problems in science communication requires the intervention of strong companies such as Google. But it will take more than technical advances to provoke scientists into taking full advantage of the web. We need pressure, and perhaps compulsion, from journals and funders to raise publishing standards to the new level made possible by such tools. Google Wave may not be, indeed is probably not, the whole answer. But it points the way to tools that build records and reproducibility into every step. And that has to be good for science.

BOOK REVIEWED-The Power of the Internet in China: Citizen Activism Online

by Guobin Yang

Columbia University Press: 2009. 320 pp. $29.50, £20.50

JIANAN YU/REUTERS/CORBIS

China's online community has found its own voice.

In July this year, a 20-year-old university student in the southern Chinese city of Hangzhou was sentenced to three years in prison for driving recklessly and killing a pedestrian. This would have been a sad but unremarkable case, except that it was only brought following a huge national outcry. Reports that local police initially protected the student, whose family was well connected, were spread over the Internet and eventually forced the police to respond.

Similar examples of online citizen activism occur every day. The Power of the Internet in China analyses how the Internet's rapid development in China has given its citizens a mechanism to air and share individual opinions that may differ from official positions, to connect and organize often against the will of the authorities, and to improve their own lives directly and visibly. The Internet allows Chinese citizens to practise, as cultural critic Raymond Williams termed it, "unofficial democracy".

In researching the book, Guobin Yang, a professor at Columbia University who grew up in China, read Chinese material first-hand, observed and participated in online forums and interacted with Chinese citizens online. The book's 70 case studies range from patients with diabetes or hepatitis B fighting against governmental employment discrimination, to Internet-organized worldwide demonstrations in response to the 1998 Indonesian atrocities towards the local ethnic Chinese population, to massive online and offline protests over news reporting by Western media in the run-up to the 2008 Beijing Olympics.

Yang's recounting of notable events along the historical path to China's online activism brought back old memories of my own. The first electronic gathering place targeted at people interested in China — the USENET newsgroup soc.culture.china — was started soon after I left Beijing for Cambridge, UK, in late 1987. I quickly became an active participant, devoting entire mornings to reading and replying to postings. As a student, I helped edit China News Digest, the first China-themed English-language electronic newsletter, which was published free by e-mail.

The milestone event for the citizens' Internet inside China was the founding in 1995 of the Tsinghua Bulletin Board System (BBS), which was started by students at the computer-science department of Tsinghua University, where I was an undergraduate. Even today, with the prevalence of text messaging, blogs, YouTube and Twitter, the BBS continues to be a widely used online platform in China, and its underlying technology has progressed from dial-up connections to broadband networks.

Although filled with vivid anecdotes, this book is an academic publication. Its storytelling is punctuated by jargon and scholarly narratives, including numerous academic references. Nonetheless, it is a valuable information resource. Yang's analysis covers a broad canvas and includes many statistics. The investigation into the business side of online activism will particularly fascinate many readers. Online viewings surely translate into money, and manufactured online contention generates lots of viewings. Some businesses, including art dealers, present items as 'banned in China' to promote their wares. Also a reality are competitive tactics, such as the '50 cents party' — people who are paid 50 cents an item for posting prescribed messages at online forums.

Governmental control of content is the elephant in the room. The mechanisms for restricting content flow into China and for controlling domestic Internet content — down to a single book entry on Amazon, for example — have become sophisticated in recent years. This is aided by the fact that only a few state-owned access points connect the domestic Internet to the outside world. Chinese 'netizens' counter these constraints with ingenuity, such as using Internet proxies to bypass state firewalls, or posting opinions in unrelated forums to postpone detection. The Chinese habit of reposting — in which a user copies an article in its entirety to a new forum, rather than linking to the original posting — makes the job of eradicating an erratic blog much harder.

Sixteen years ago this month, media magnate Rupert Murdoch declared that "advances in the technology of telecommunications have proved an unambiguous threat to totalitarian regimes everywhere". Last year, China overtook the United States as the country with the largest online population. In the time between, Yang's book documents how China's netizens have stumbled on online activism as a response to, among other things, a flawed justice system. Time will tell whether the revolution in communication technologies will lead to a new cultural or social revolution.

1. Li Gong is chairman and chief executive of Mozilla Online, 21 Jian Guo Men Wai Avenue, Chaoyang, Beijing 100020, China.
   Email: lgong@mozilla.com

Internet addiction center opens in US

AP – This photo taken Sept. 1, 2009 shows reSTART Internet Addiction Recovery Program client Ben Alexander …

By NICHOLAS K. GERANIOS, Associated Press Writer Nicholas K. Geranios, Associated Press Writer – 22 mins ago

FALL CITY, Wash. – Ben Alexander spent nearly every waking minute playing the video game "World of Warcraft." As a result, he flunked out of the University of Iowa.

Alexander, 19, needed help to break an addiction he calls as destructive as alcohol or drugs. He found it in this suburb of high-tech Seattle, where what claims to be the first residential treatment center for Internet addiction in the United States just opened its doors.

The center, called ReSTART, is somewhat ironically located near Redmond, headquarters of Microsoft and a world center of the computer industry. It opened in July and for $14,000 offers a 45-day program intended to help people wean themselves from pathological computer use, which can include obsessive use of video games, texting, Facebook, eBay, Twitter and any other time-killers brought courtesy of technology.

"We've been doing this for years on an outpatient basis," said Hilarie Cash, a therapist and executive director of the center. "Up until now, we had no place to send them."

Internet addiction is not recognized as a separate disorder by the American Psychiatric Association, and treatment is not generally covered by insurance. But there are many such treatment centers in China, South Korea and Taiwan — where Internet addiction is taken very seriously — and many psychiatric experts say it is clear that Internet addiction is real and harmful.

The five-acre center in Fall City, about 30 miles east of Seattle, can handle up to six patients at a time. Alexander is so far the only patient of the program, which uses a cold turkey approach. He spends his days in counseling and psychotherapy sessions, doing household chores, working on the grounds, going on outings, exercising and baking a mean batch of ginger cookies.

Whether such programs work in the long run remains to be seen. For one thing, the Internet is so pervasive that it can be nearly impossible to resist, akin to placing an alcoholic in a bar, Cash said.

The effects of addiction are no joke. They range from loss of a job or marriage to car accidents for those who can't stop texting while driving. Some people have died after playing video games for days without a break, generally stemming from a blood clot associated with being sedentary.

Psychotherapist Cosette Dawna Rae has owned the bucolic retreat center since 1994, and was searching for a new use for it when she hooked up with Cash. They decided to avoid treating people addicted to Internet sex, in part because she lives in the center with her family.

According to Dr. Kimberly Young of the Center for Internet Addiction Recovery in Bradford, Pa., addiction warning signs are being preoccupied with thoughts of the Internet; using it longer than intended, and for increasing amounts of time; repeatedly making unsuccessful efforts to control use; jeopardizing relationships, school or work to spend time online; lying to cover the extent of Internet use; using the Internet to escape problems or feelings of depression; physical changes to weight, headaches or carpal tunnel syndrome.

Exactly how to respond is being debated.

For instance, Internet addiction can be a symptom of other mental illness, such as depression, or conditions like autism, experts say.

"From what we know, many so-called `Internet addicts' are folks who have severe depression, anxiety disorders, or social phobic symptoms that make it hard for them to live a full, balanced life and deal face-to-face with other people," said Dr. Ronald Pies, professor of psychiatry at SUNY Upstate Medical University in Syracuse, N.Y.

"It may be that unless we treat their underlying problems, some new form of `addiction' will pop up down the line," Pies said.

There is debate about whether to include Internet addiction as a separate illness in the next edition of the "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders," due in 2012, which determines which mental illnesses get covered by insurance.

Pies and Dr. Jerald Block, of Oregon Health Sciences University in Portland, said there is not enough research yet to justify that.

"Among psychiatrists there is general recognition that many patients have difficulty controlling their impulses to chat online, or play computer games or watch porn," Block said. "The debate is how to classify that."

Cash, co-author of the book "Video Games & Your Kids," first started dealing with Internet addiction in 1994, with a patient who was so consumed by video games that he had lost his marriage and two jobs.

Internet addicts miss out on real conversations and real human development, often see their hygiene, their home and relationships deteriorate, don't eat or sleep properly and don't get enough exercise, Rae said.

Alexander is a tall, quiet young man who always got good grades and hopes to become a biologist.

He started playing "World of Warcraft," a hugely popular online multiplayer role playing game, about a year ago, and got sucked right in.

"At first it was a couple of hours a day," he said. "By midway through the first semester, I was playing 16 or 17 hours a day.

"School wasn't interesting," he said. "It was an easy way to socialize and meet people."

It was also an easy way to flunk out.

Alexander dropped out in the second semester and went to a traditional substance abuse program, which was not a good fit. He graduated from a 10-week outdoors-based program in southern Utah, but felt he still had little control over his gaming.

So he sought out a specialized program and arrived in Fall City in July. He thinks it was a good choice.

"I don't think I'll go back to `World of Warcraft' anytime soon," Alexander said.

Books and Arts

Nature 459, 778-779 (11 June 2009) | doi:10.1038/459778a; Published online 10 June 2009

Charting the heavens from China

Jane Qiu¹

ARTS REVIEWED: -The Dunhuang Star Chart

The British Library, London
Until 18 August 2009.

BRITISH LIBRARY, OR.8210/S.3326

The three stars that make up the familiar 'belt' of Orion are recognizable in this panel from the seventh-century star chart discovered near Dunhuang, China.

Along the ancient trade route of the Silk Road connecting China and the West, the Mogao Caves honeycomb the Mingsha Hill some 25 kilometres southeast of Dunhuang, a desert town in Gansu province. Excavated between the fourth and fourteenth centuries, the caves were Buddhist shrines and temples where travellers prayed for the success of their journeys.

In 1900, the Taoist priest Wang Yuanlu propelled the Mogao Caves to the status of an archaeological crown jewel when he stumbled upon a hidden library in Cave 17. It contained more than 40,000 manuscripts on a myriad of subjects, from religion, history, art and literature to mathematics, medicine and economics. The documents had been sealed in the cave by Buddhist monks in the eleventh century.

Among the manuscripts was an exquisite star chart. It shows the entire sky as visible from China, skilfully drawn by hand in red and black inks onto a fine, four-metre-long paper scroll. In 1907, archaeologist Marc Aurel Stein took the chart and more than 7,000 other cave manuscripts to the British Museum in London.

Dated to between 649 and 684 ad, the chart is the oldest extant graphical star atlas in the world, explains Susan Whitfield, director of the British Library's International Dunhuang Project, which aims to make information and images about the artefacts available on the Internet. The atlas is on display at the British Library in London this summer to celebrate the International Year of Astronomy.

The atlas is divided into two sections. One shows 26 drawings of differently shaped clouds accompanied by text on cloud divination. The other section portrays 12 star maps, each depicting a 30 ° division of the sky in the east–west direction, plus a map of the circumpolar sky. The star positions are drawn as observed from a latitude of 34° N, possibly from the Imperial Observatory in Chang'an (present-day Xi'an) or another site in Luoyang.

The atlas shows 1,339 stars arranged in 257 groups, or asterisms, two of which resemble the constellations of the Big Dipper and Orion. It includes faint stars that are difficult to see with the naked eye, and several in the Southern Hemisphere. The styles of the dots differentiate the three schools of astronomical tradition established during the Warring States period (476–221 bc), each of which adopted alternative names and descriptions for the star groups.

The positions of the brightest stars are surprisingly accurate to within a few degrees, says astronomer Jean-Marc Bonnet-Bidaud of the CEA, the French Atomic Energy Commission, who has studied the atlas together with Whitfield and Françoise Praderie of the Paris Observatory (J.-M. Bonnet-Bidaud , F. Praderie and S. Whitfield J. Astron. Hist. Herit. 12, 39–59; 2009). Stars near the celestial horizon are drawn using a cylindrical projection, in which meridians are mapped to equally spaced vertical lines, and circles of latitude are mapped to horizontal lines. The circumpolar region uses an azimuthal projection, preserving the directions of the stars from a central point. These methods are still used in geographical mapping today.

Ancient Chinese astronomers divided the celestial circle into 12 sections to follow the orbit of Jupiter, known as the Year Star in China, which loops the Sun about every 12 years. The Jupiter cycle is also the basis for the 12 months of the year that make up the Chinese calendar. On the Dunhuang chart, the text accompanying each star map names that region of sky, the astrological predictions associated with it and the states of the Chinese empire thought to be influenced by that division.

The chart may have been reproduced from an earlier atlas by tracing it on to fine paper. It has no coordinate grid, and shares wording with another traditional astronomical text, Yue Ling, or Monthly Ordinances, which has been dated to around 300 bc. Yet it remains the earliest-surviving detailed map of the entire northern sky, pre-dating others by several centuries. Older star maps described only part of the sky. The Book of Fixed Stars, an Arabic work written by the Persian astronomer Abd al-Rahman al-Sufi (903–986 ad), displays individual constellations but gives no information on their relative positions. The oldest-known star chart in Europe is the Vienna manuscript. Dated to 1440 ad, it shows only a limited number of stars in northern constellations, plotted in an azimuthal projection from the ecliptic pole.

The chart may have been used to consult the heavens to predict earthly events. Astronomy was an imperial science in ancient China, and court astronomers and astrologers created star charts from at least the fifth century bc. Chinese emperors sought celestial clues for political and warfare decisions, and the importance of divination led to an early precision in star catalogues.

But why was the chart kept in the Mogao Caves rather than in the imperial archive? "It remains a mystery," says Whitfield. A political and secret document, it may have served a military purpose rather than being a guide for travellers. When the Taoist priest discovered the hidden library, he could hardly have guessed that he was opening the door to a world of such fascinating antiquity.

See http://www.nature.com/astro09 for more on the International Year of Astronomy.

The editors suggest the following Related Resources on Science sites:

In ScienceNOW

Smog Takes a Holiday

Phil Berardelli (1 May 2007)
ScienceNOW 2007 (501), 2.
 |  Full Text »

Abstract

China should stop discouraging scientists from setting up learned societies.

The spread in China of unproven stem-cell therapies for conditions such as epilepsy and spinal cord injuries has left the nation's health authorities concerned. There is no clear evidence that these treatments work — nor that they are killing people. Of the thousands of patients from China and abroad who have been treated, some seem to think that they have been helped, even if only modestly, and many more are ready to fork out thousands or tens of thousands of dollars to try out the treatments. Are the clinicians taking advantage of people desperate for a cure? How can the government — and the potential patients — make sense of this?

One obvious place from which to seek guidance would be the national stem-cell society. But China doesn't have one. A group of scientists, including many of the country's most prominent and internationally established researchers, are trying to create one.

The Chinese authorities, however, tend to have an aversion to congregations— especially those such as the Falun Gong, which they believe pose a threat to the country's stability. So the Ministry of Civil Affairs keeps a tight hold on who is allowed to organize in any formal sense. As a result, China's stem-cell hopefuls must go through the slow process of planning and applying to become a 'level 2' society. That means they have to convince an established society to take them on as an appendage, which will dramatically reduce their ability to function effectively. A level 2 society doesn't control its own purse strings and decisions have to pass through the parent organization.

Yet, as the example above illustrates, allowing scientists to draw together can only benefit China, both by helping scientific progress and by assisting with the challenges faced by the Chinese nation.

It is not just the government that needs to rethink its approach: the researchers themselves need to pursue newer forms of social organization. Scientists in the south often don't know what is happening in the north and vice versa. Most of the current learned societies do not function well. Annual meetings are often a matter of pomp, with elite researchers showing up to swagger about and form cliques based on pedigree rather than scientific views. Introducing graduate students to the broader community is a low priority. Constructive criticism is more likely be taken as grounds for breaking off relations than as insightful advice. Many scientists simply don't bother to go.

Scientists in the south of China often don't know what is happening in the north and vice versa.

Sometimes 'megaprojects' draw researchers together. But the planning meetings for such packages can be more like dividing the spoils than building the most constructive research programme.

China's science loses competitiveness because of these failings. Stronger societies would pave the way for better communication and more productive collaborations, and would allow a platform for feedback of scientific criticism. That, in turn, would provide a body of honest reviewers with whom funding bodies could consult. Too often, instead of listening to a variety of voices to get a representative view from 'the community', funding bodies listen only to certain well connected scientists. Strong domestic scientific societies have the additional benefit of being reference points for constructive contact with scientists and societies elsewhere. And they can also act as advisory bodies to the government.

Gone are the days of small research communities in China. Science has grown significantly, to China's credit and benefit. For the country to benefit more fully, networking by its researchers likewise needs to be allowed to flourish.

Research Highlights

Nature 457, 939 (19 February 2009) | doi:10.1038/457939c; Published online 18 February 2009

Networks: Know a good dentist?

Books and Arts

Nature 457, 1087 (26 February 2009) | doi:10.1038/4571087a; Published online 25 February 2009

Movies for a scientific mind

Jascha Hoffman¹

Letters

Correspondence

Nature 457, 379 (22 January 2009) | doi:10.1038/457379e; Published online 21 January 2009

Culture clash in Chinese university: a response

Keming Cui¹

Abstract

An online row highlights the need for Chinese universities to fix their hiring policies.

In October, an online war broke out between Yi Rao, a neuroscientist and Peking University's dean of life sciences, and Keming Cui, a plant biologist and professor emeritus at the university who has a string of positions on academic and awards committees and editorial posts on Chinese journals to his name.

Cui retired from Peking University four years ago but kept his laboratory there. This year he tried to have his associate professor formally take over the lab. Such transfers of power are common in China, but they are also criticized as a way for powerful professors to hold lab space beyond their tenure. Rao refused to acknowledge the transfer of authority. Instead he planned to drastically cut the lab's size.

Rao, the first Peking University dean to be hired through an international search, says he wants to ensure that the university hires the best faculty members through appropriate evaluation. He also wants to ensure that qualified outsiders are considered and that an inbred academic system is avoided. Rao says that the associate professor will have a few years to prove himself before he is evaluated for promotion and to see whether he can keep the laboratory.

On 9 October, Cui began writing a string of entries in his blog, which became widely read when copied by other websites and the online bulletin boards of Peking University. Cui described Rao's action as belittling his field of plant anatomy because it was not a 'hot' area. He made a stand for basic science. The blog drew some sympathetic comments from students, who copied it to more widely read student blogs. Rao, whose own blog normally gets about 2,000 hits per entry, immediately posted his defence, which picked up 10,000 hits.

Newspapers hesitate to pick up such hot potatoes, so the debate devolved to the blogs. Although they offer a platform for such discussion, blogs also make irresponsible name-calling possible. After alleging that Rao was trying to cut off support for a discipline of science, Cui compared Rao's efforts to the activities of Trofim Lysenko — the Soviet 'state scientist' who in the 1940s used his close connections to the Soviet leadership to crush scientists who opposed his views.

Both scientists are in all likelihood doing what is natural to them to promote the next generation of scientists. The situation is further confused by Peking University's lack of clear guidelines on how to proceed in such situations, leaving new regulations set against old customs. When Rao took over as dean in September 2007, the university made it clear in writing that such hiring decisions would be his to make.

Deans and university presidents in China are watching to see how the situation is resolved. Will Cui, who worked at Peking University for more than 40 years, be able to raise public support and use his connections with senior colleagues to get his way? Or will Rao be able to stand his ground? It should, and looks as if it will, be the latter.

But further changes are needed. China and its universities now have the money to undertake proper recruitment exercises, and more universities should be seeking candidates beyond their walls and outside China's borders. They need clear, consistently applied guidelines on who has the authority to make those decisions. Of course, although a clear policy would be good, vesting that much power in one individual's hands, as Rao recognizes, requires caution. So regulations that check and make transparent the actions of those given decision-making power will also be needed.

辗转地转一下，据说原文在姚毅的博客上，有兴趣的自己找出处吧。 

http://www.sciencenet.cn/blog/user_content.aspx?id=42993

在贵阳出席全国生化和分子生物学大会期间，得知北大生命科学学院退休教授崔克明老师最近在网上发表几篇公开文章，提出意见和呼吁。其中有些问题涉及到对学院发展原则的误解，并希望“全国科技工作者评判”。据说，也有很多反应。因为崔老师明天就要出国探亲半年，而我今天傍晚才回北京，还因为国内以为北大不公开回答教授意见就可能有什么不可告人的隐情，所以，我也就公开回复。

崔老师的文章包括两个方面的问题，一是学院管理，二是崔老师退休后实验室的将来。我没有发现崔老师和我在原则上的差别，崔老师批判的也是我已经批判过的。我们的差别在于，具体如何实践，在现代如何选择，在现有条件下如何决定。我尽量理清一些主要问题，一一作答。如果遗漏，以后补充。

1）学院应该如何评判学科和实验室？崔老师也许没有时间看我发表的文章（例如科学网博客、或学院《科学文化》版）。其实，我的观点和崔老师一样，不赞成用SCI。我在文章里、在学院，多次强调不能以发表文章的杂志引用率（SCI）来评判。我也不同意简单地以文章本身的引用率来评判文章。各个学科不同，没有简单的数字可以代替科学的评价。我介绍其他科学家的工作，都是说明其意义，不是SCI点数（我也不知道任何杂志的SCI点数）。我认为，各实验室的工作，应该由同行来评议，看它对本学科的意义。如果是应用学科，看应用效果。

2）学院绝大多数实验室都做基础研究，都是基础学科，所以谈不上“赶尽杀绝”基础学科。学院资源有限，不可能同等支持所有学科。“冷门”学科，如果确实有前景、有意义，有人、有能力，可以发展。但是不能因人设事，而且要有一定标准。我本人正好不是热门追求者。我在公开发表的访谈中、在上任的第一天，说过要做有长期影响的工作，也就不是一时热门的工作。我提倡做教育，不会得SCI，也不太可能在我任期中有外人可以看到的“成果”，我着眼于几十年出学生。学科也是一样，我认为，北大在保护生物学有一定基础，而这个学科对国家也重要，所以，我多次和保护生物学的老师交流，我们今年新聘的三位实验室负责人，其中一位是保护生物学。崔老师知道，从SCI来说，保护生物学不是热门。支持保护生物学，不是为学院争得外界的“好评”，因为现时确有很多人在争SCI。但我在任期间，不准备让学院加入这个行列。我们应该做有意义的工作，试图有长远影响，而不赶热门。这个思想，应该和崔老师表达的也一致。

3）学院如何聘任PI。所谓PI，需要向不知道的读者解释：这是和教授等头衔分开的一个身份，大意是独立的实验室负责人，有自己独立研究，独立经费，独立指导研究生等。

我们学院新聘的PI，都需要有证据表明，确实能独立领导课题组，有较好的发展潜力。我们的目标是一些PI做出重要科学贡献，在国内、国际有竞争力。这也不是SCI为依据。实际上，我非常反感申请人写上SCI分数。我在美国、在北大招聘时，都拒绝过SCI高的人。我们并不是以SCI来选择新PI，有两位SCI不高，但是我们觉得有科学潜力。虽然这个工作并不容易，最后是看成功率高低，并不可能100%正确。

新聘的PI需要得到进一步支持，才能在学术上发展，做出成就。并非已经成绩斐然，可以让学院获得荣誉。即使他们来以前有成就，学院今后评判的，也是他们来北大以后的成就。

崔老师提出，学院是否培养PI。我的意思是，我们当然培养研究生、培养博士后。他们如果有竞争力能成为PI，那就是培养了PI。但我认为，聘PI时必需从国际范围获得最佳人选，而不照顾内部某个候选人。这既不公平，也不利于学院发展。以前有些实验室内部培养了副教授，这些人有些不是作为独立研究人员培养的，而是作为终身助手。学院如果照顾内部人选晋格为PI，等于各实验室越权代替学院做决定，而没按照学院要求的严格标准来招聘。至少造成近亲繁殖，也不能排除有些教授为自己安排不退休而自选接班人。学院确立一般规则，不是针对某个实验室。

4）学院支持老师发展，包括支持以前提拔的副教授、非PI教授。但不能揠苗助长，不能改变标准，不是让他们做不称职的事。而是鼓励他们找到对自己、对学院都比较好、比较合适的出路。我上任不久和全体副教授开过会，讲明前景，如果他们能在几年内可以成为独立PI，很好。如果不行，他们应该考虑加入其他实验室，或者做他们最称职的工作。也就是说，人尽其才。我和崔老师实验室副教授说的，与此一致。

不能因以前实验室提拔，而今后高枕无忧。讲清楚不仅对学院负责，也是对副教授们负责。国内好的单位现在竞争性很强，如果不提醒年青的副教授们头脑清醒而奋起，那不是负责任的态度。

现在提拔副教授，与几十年前支持王选，在很多方面都没有可比性。如果崔老师（或其他老师），强烈推荐我们学院有哪个老师在学术潜力上是生物学的王选，用具体的学术判断来说明，我非常欢迎。

对于不能独立领导实验室的老师，改做教学、行政、或其他合适的工作，对个人、学院、学生，都合乎情理。对于现有老师，只要勤恳工作，学院就想办法安排合适的工作，并不准备“开除”。需要开除的，是少数长期不工作、不回国而有工资的员工。目前，不是北大或者学院对员工严厉，而更常出现员工要挟学校。对以前的员工，学院是和谐社会为主导，但有一定限度，虽然限度比较宽。进行的是渐进改革。对新聘的，是立即进入高要求的新体制，对以前遗留的问题积极并妥善解决，但不能为将来发展制造新的问题。

5）对于崔老师说北大一些历史传统，我希望崔老师有时间能多写一些，我自己就喜欢看。院网站上，近几个月也登出许多回忆文章，从张景钺、陈阅增、沈同老师到我们生物系第一届毕业生、林学家郝景盛。

6）有传统不是继续支持一个实验室的充分理由。即使我这样比较喜欢谈传统的人，也认为，未来发展潜力是确定是否支持一个实验室的标准。

学科可以有变化。不可能一个学院所有时候支持每个学科，也不可能支持每个以前支持过的学科。需要依据多个因素加以选择，如果说，“两次全国有关学术大会上做了此报告，均收到广泛欢迎，后被发表在宁夏大学学报上”，这样的叙述，说服力不够强。

至于学院选择学科和李森科有什么关系，我没能跟上崔老师的思路。李森科以伪科学压制真科学；我们是讨论老师退休了，在什么情况下还能保持相关实验室，好像差别很大。一个规模有限的学院缺少一个学科，不可能判学科死刑。一个实验室能和“国家的未来”相关的，也不太多。

7）我没说过聘任PI要国际评审，而是要有国际竞争力。在学术上要有潜力。起步的PI并不是学术最终阶段。成为PI几年后需要进行国际评审，要求比较其学术水平。用国际评审，一是国际上专家多，二是避免国内用SCI。如果崔老师认为有“无论在国内还是在国际上都是数一数二的”人，而且同行也这么认为，学院当然支持。如果原来实验室“数一数二”，但是以后没有人选可以做到，情况就不同。诺贝尔奖得主的博士后到我们北大申请工作，我们也拒绝过。一视同仁。

8）我鼓励退休老师为学院发展献计献策、提意见和建议。学院对退休老师非常宽容，但不可能无限制。对自律的老师也不公平。不止一个老师退休多年后继续有实验室，而水电费交不出。退休老师遗留的法律问题，学院和我得花时间解决。退休老师自我返聘，有可能是好心，但也带来问题比如占用空间资源、耽误学生。如果大家可以自我返聘，退休制度就难以执行。学院要避免一些后遗症。比如，如果某个老师违规超龄招研究生，退休时学生还有5、6年才毕业，退休老师是否个个有精力、有充分的条件带好研究生？学院是否要考虑学生利益？所以学院不能常规性热心支持退休老师自我返聘。这是讨论退休老师的一般性问题，不是特指崔老师。崔老师说的具体补贴，没有人和我说过。“接班”老师的问题，我说的原则，适用于所有对实验室。我公开说过，希望上面也澄清了。

9）崔老师文章里面，有些是误解了以后的推论，我就不解释。比如，很多次提到高影响因子。因为我不提倡简单的高影响因子，推论我也多半同意，就不再重复。崔老师文章有些话，不是我的原话，有些归于我的观点，不是我的观点，我也不讨论。我的观点比较明确，而且也容易查到。

10） 有些事情和实验室、学科无关，我不讨论。只是有句话，崔老师意思我上任后，学院改变了传统而要叫官职，要称我为院长。这离事实不太近。我上任第一天就让学生不要叫院长。我后来也时不时纠正。我本人在这方面比较极端：我从来没有制过名片，不管是以前还是现在；我对很多人，也不呼其官职。如果崔老师到一楼问一下，可以知道学院行政人员没人叫我院长。

11） 我到任后，推辞过老师和退休老师约谈。崔老师如果事先要澄清或者讨论，也没问题。现在事情公开，不是由于内部不能讨论。对于北大“民主、自由”的传统，我认为，如果把握场合不合适，可能进入误区。1950年代中国讨论大民主小民主的混淆，看来现在还没结束。美国大学不在公开场所讨论人事，也因场合之分。学校、专业机构的具体人事、经费支持，一般不适合公众广泛讨论。在世界各国都一样。另外，我第一次和学院教授见面时说过，我绝对不会在学院发脾气。这次也是一样。所以，请崔老师放心，今后交流无需顾忌。

12） 我愿意具体了解是否有以前没有交流、不清楚的情况。就此事，我不会因为公开了有压力，就特别迁就、或者反弹。

学院原则不变，我们继续努力。

如果崔老师愿意面谈，或者出国后愿电话联系，请约时间。

饶毅

2008年10月16日

附崔老师的博客文章。

http://blog.51xuewen.com/blog/H_aShow.aspx?blog=cuikm&ID=4393

2008-10-9 21:01:39

大学和科研单位的各级领导应该成为伯乐，而不应满足于当赛马场上的裁判

按我的理解，赛马场的裁判只要有一颗公平的心，用好精确的计时器就行，无论谁的马，只要第一个冲过终点线就是第一，但伯乐就不同了，他要在马厩中或牧马场中从众多的不知名的，甚至是小马驹中挑选出未来有可能在赛场上获得冠军的马匹。二者相比前者就容易多了，后者风险很大，而且不可能立竿见影，很快得到“突出成绩”，获得领导赏识，显示自己的天才。所以现在咱们大学和科研单位的众多领导中都在争当裁判，而不愿意当伯乐。你要当教授，当PI，我就拿你发表论文的影响因子和篇数比，高的就上，低一点就下，只要当上就有实验室补贴，当不上就靠边站，你看有多公平。而且我不用培养，全世界招聘，这样下来我单位很快就是世界第一，谁比得了。可是这样下来，我们的大学还有自己的传统吗？所有小马驹都不要，都赶走，等你在别处成长为冠军后我再聘回来。可是你想过没有，等他成为冠军后，想到你当年的冷酷无情，还能回来吗，除非他是那种有奶就是娘的人。再者，如果全国全世界的单位都这样做，宝马良驹还有出头之日吗。所有影响因子高的文章都是热门领域的，所有热门都是从冷门来的，只有把冷门变成热门的人才是站在这个领域最前沿的人，跟在后边的也可以发表影响因子很高的文章，但绝对没有原始创新，只是给人家的原始创新增加点证据。据说北大高薪聘来的生命科学院院长饶毅教授就在努力成为这样的裁判，甚至他还要凭自己的智慧决定哪个学科陈古落后而将之淘汰。可是据我所知还没听说历史上哪个学科被淘汰了，而是向前发展变化了，小心走了当年苏联李森科的老路。

http://www.51xuewen.com/blog/B_Ashow.aspx?blog=cuikm&id=4410

2008-10-10 16:09:19

评饶毅教授的“不培养PI”大学学院管理模式

据说（对不起，又不是亲耳听到，不过我也没有资格听到），北大生命科学学院院长饶教授公开讲，生命科学学院不培养PI（当然也就不培养教授，当然，也就不培养院士）。请问，北大是大学还是工厂（即使工厂也要研究开发自己的创新产品），这样的北大还能培养出王选吗？如果当年的北大也像饶教授这样管理，早在上世纪60-70年代王选就会被赶出北大，可能现在我们还在使用美国人或英国人开发的中文系统。请问，哪个原始创新一开始就被专家权威认可过，不被认可，能在引用率高的杂志上发表吗？达尔文的进化论提出时遭到的是咒骂和批判（可能也是一种高引用率），如果饶教授在当时敢聘用他吗？Haberlandt提出细胞潜在全能性学说（可以说没有此学说就没有今天的克隆技术，生物技术）时连直接实验证据都没有，只发表在一个小城镇的杂志上，按今天的标准，影响因子能高吗？按饶教授的标准能聘用他吗？第一个提出遗传基因理论的孟德尔就更得被扫地出门了。这样下来不用说培养出诺贝尔奖得主，就是国家自然科学一二等奖得主也不可能。因为这些奖励不是奖那些影响因子高的文章，而是奖那些系统研究取得原始创新成果的项目。所谓创新，就是与众不同，甚至是反潮流的，而且创新性越大，得到大多数潮流派认可的可能性越小，所以说“真理往往在少数人手里”。这就是为什么国家自然科学基金要注意支持那些非共识项目的道理。如果按饶教授的管理办法，不仅那些刚起步的原始创新项目的研究者将被赶出北大生命科学学院，就是那些已得到大多数国际同行认可，但还没有到达顶峰成为新热门的项目也将被扫地出门，或者被扼杀在摇篮中或苗圃中。如果做先进经验推广到全北大，乃至全中国，结果可想而知。

2008-10-10 21:45:24

http://www.51xuewen.com/blog/B_Ashow.aspx?blog=cuikm&id=4413

“赛马场裁判？式领导下的PI们、教授们

在前述“赛马场裁判”式的领导下，PI们，博导们就要努力多发表高影响因子的论文，否则就有被淘汰的危险，为了达到多发、快发高影响因子论文的目的，提高“效率”，有的就把研究生（硕士和博士）当成实验员、打工仔使用，给他们安排一个个实验，实验完了把结果交给老板（研究生们通常这样称呼他们的导师），由老板写论文。因为对教授们来说自己写论文比修改学生的论文容易得多，效率高得多。而且导师可以根据学生的表现和毕业的需要安排谁当第一作者。结果是努力做实验的学生也能及时毕业，好像也没意见。

但是这就出现一个问题，这样培养出来的博士生自己不能发现问题，提出研究课题，分析问题和解决问题，更不会写论文，这还是合格的博士生吗？这只是在培养高效率的实验员、高级打工仔。这样下去就毁了一代人，断送了科研事业。

我想问一下，这样的改革适合国家的长远利益吗？救救我们的大学！！

http://www.51xuewen.com/blog/B_aShow.aspx?blog=cuikm&ID=4442

2008-10-11 20:16:57

饶毅院长，刀下留人，请勿将基础学科赶尽杀绝

在我的前文中已经评论了饶毅教授在北大生科院的一些改革措施。在此，在全国科学工作者面前，以一个退休老教授的名义，也代表我的老师和我的是兄弟们（虽然没有征得他们的同意，但我想我能代表他们），如果我的师爷在天有灵的话，也会同意我代表他，请求饶毅院长刀下留人，请勿把基础学科赶尽杀绝。虽然北大校长许智宏是我的师兄，但我不想通过他的权利求你，而在这里与你摆事实讲道理，请全国科技工作者做评判。下面是我们实验室的简介：

木本植物发育生物学实验室

木本植物发育生物学实验室是张景钺教授1932年回国后被聘北京大学生物学系植物学教授后创立的，是我国第一个开展植物形态学研究的实验室。张教授是我国植物学的奠基人之一，中国科学院生物学部委员（即现在的中科院院士），为我国植物学各分支学科培养了第一代学术带头人，如古植物学的徐仁院士、植物分类学的吴征益院士、植物胚胎学的王伏雄院士、植物解剖学的李正理教授等都是他利用本实验室培养的学生。

李正理教授是本实验室的第二代负责人， 1957年从美国回国后即进入本实验室工作，开始了形态发生的研究，是我国最早开展此方面研究的植物学家之一，同时还开展了大量解剖学研究，为我国的植物形态学，特别是植物解剖学的发展做出了开拓性的贡献，培养的学生遍布植物形态学的各领域，并大多数已成为这些领域的学术带头人，如现北大校长许智宏院士、原西北大学生物系主任胡正海教授、原兰州大学生物系主任王勋陵教授和原杭州大学生物系主任余象煜教授等都是他利用本实验室培养的学生。

实验室现在的负责人崔克明教授是李正理教授的学生，自1978年开始，便在李正理教授指导下从事植物剥皮再生的解剖学研究工作。 1989年从瑞典农业大学林学院森林遗传与植物生理学系做访问学者回国后，开始与从事生物化学和分子生物学研究的老师合作，将剥皮再生机理的研究逐步深入到生理学、生物化学和分子生物学，并将研究范围逐步扩展到形成层活动周期、休眠机理和发育过程中，特别是木质部细胞分化过程中的细胞程序死亡，并涉及了雌雄异株树木的性别决定机理、银杏胚珠发育等木本植物发育生物学的诸多领域。

目前，实验室的研究方向主要有：

1．树木剥皮再生过程中形成层细胞的发生、未成熟木质部细胞的脱分化、转分化和再分化机理。

2．形成层活动周期的研究（活动式样、内源植物激素变化、基因表达变化的研究等）

3．木质部细胞分化机理（细胞程序死亡、次生壁建成）

4．杜仲的性别决定

改革开放以来，特别是获得国家985项目支持以来，学校和院里没给过一分钱的支持，是我们靠实力从国家基金委申请到了近二十个的面上基金，在此我对他们的支持表示衷心的感谢。1999年又应原中国林科院院长江泽慧教授的邀请参加了我国林学的第一个973项目，这可是我们实验室的救命钱，我在许多场合都说过对江教授的感激之情。此项目结束后我们又有幸申请到了一个自然科学基金林学重点项目，真是又一次救了我们实验室的命。但谁知这只是延缓了一下死刑的来临。为什么我们能连续得到国家自然科学基金的资助，而且不是像许多人那样挤进973项目，而是应邀参加，并担任一个课题的负责人呢？决不是靠什么关系，因为像我这种北大的教授，常被亲友们戏称为书呆子，不食人间烟火的另类，就是对关系学一窍不通，更不知后门在哪里，怎么走。就是靠我们实验室的坚实工作，一步步从最基础的植物形态解剖学，逐步扩展吸收进植物生理学、植物生物化学、植物分子生物学，从不随波逐流，而是坚定的走自己的路，我们是植物学专业，但我们是以树木为材料，特别是主要以我国特有的，也是具有重要经济价值的杜仲为材料，抓住从生产中来的课题--杜仲剥皮再生的机理进行研究，我们把国内外认为不可能的事一步步变成了现实，从形态解剖学机理到生理学、生物化学机理，再到分子生物学机理，文章也由主要在国内《植物学报》上发表逐步发展到在国际刊物上发表，已连续在去年的影响因子为3.91的杂志上发表了四篇，其中有一篇要不是在复审时赶上暑假换了评审人而遭到无理刁难，就在一去年影响因子6以上的杂志上发表了。诸位可知，我们研究的是林学的基础理论，而在SCI收录的杂志里林学中影响因子最高的杂志，其影响因子才2多点不到3。因为我们的研究是地地道道自己的课题，许多都是原来国际上都认为是不可能的生物学现象，被我们证明是可能的了，因此都是原始创新，这要得到国际同行的认可有多难大家是知道的，经过我们多年的努力，反复宣传，现在总算得到一些在木材形成研究领域中很牛的大家的认可，我们正在把我们的一个最新的发现一再补充实验，争取发到影响因子10以上的杂志上发表。因为我已退休，但我的重点基金项目还没完，学生也没毕业完，我还在自己返聘自己（学校和院里都不给我一分钱的返聘费，是从我的基金劳务费和原来973项目结余的一点经费中支出，原来因我有没毕业的研究生院里还给一点，为研究生讲课也还给一点，但暑假中有关负责人告诉我，我的研究生是延期的，不能再给返聘补贴，前面已多给我一年，院里要扣回，以后如果还愿意给研究生开课可以开，但不是必修课，院里不再给返聘补贴钱。最近因听说，实验室要交面积费，而且数目巨大，但是每年院里给每个PI10万元的补贴，可用于交实验室面积费，也可购买仪器，我们实验室准备接我班的一名副教授找到饶院长（按照北大的传统，从不称呼官职，现在这一传统也在变化，我也只好从众）谈话，饶院长告诉他，我已退休，已不是PI，PI的补贴不能给，他还不是PI，当然更不能给此补贴，实验室使用面积费必须交，不然就交回实验室，不管你历史多悠久，也不管你在国内是不是第一，只有拿到国际上评，达到国际领先才能保留。至于我们实验室的这位副教授，饶院长给了两条出路，一是到别的教授名下当助手（据我院另一位副教授博导告诉我，饶院长早已明确我们院不培养PI，现在的助手不可能再当PI），要想成为PI，一是现在拿到国际上评审，如果是国际领先就可当PI，否则……（饶院长没明确说，但我猜想就是走人）。这不就是对我们实验室下了封杀令吗，连缓期都没有。

我们实验室在植物形态解剖学领域无论在国内还是在国际上都是数一数二的，而且随着发育生物学的发展，这一基础所占有的地位越来越重要，我们这里毕业的博士生就因为这方面基础好被美加等国重要实验室的青睐，很容易联系到博士后的位子。现在院里许多实验室的切片都到我们实验室做，切片请我们看。当然现在他们因经费充足，纷纷购买此方面仪器，他们多数都误以为只要有了仪器，就像分子生物学试验那样能做好。岂不知，这是个手工活，照书本是做不好的，看片子就更要有丰富的经验才能变认清楚。所以前年院研究生会应研究生的要求请我给研究生讲怎么制片，我就明确告诉他们，我要讲不讲切片的具体方法，就讲植物形态学在现代生命科学中的地位，后来我又在两次全国有关学术大会上做了此报告，均收到广泛欢迎，后被发表在宁夏大学学报上（见附件）。在北大生科院像我们这样的基础学科实验室本来有好几个，现在就剩这一个了（我们为此付出的辛劳，只有我的老师和师兄弟知道）。因此我要在此大声疾呼：“饶院长，刀下留人，不要将基础学科赶尽杀绝”，我还要向全国的科技领导者和工作者疾呼：“为了国家的未来，救救基础学科！！”

交管局又发通知了

北京市交通管理局紧急通知：7月20日实行单双号限行后车流量大幅下降，但是出行人流量不降反升，公共交通压力加大。为此，交管局决定，从7月25日起，全市六环以内，市民实行单双眼皮限行措施，单眼皮单日出行，双眼皮双日出行，一单一双只能夜晚0~3点出行，。望广大市民安排 出行时间。

注: 对戴墨镜出行的按故意遮挡号牌处罚!

Twelve Things You Should Never Tell Your Mother

1. You've had sex.

2. You’ve had sex in her bed.

3. Your mother-in-law is a better cook.

4. You aren't wearing clean underwear.

5. You aren't wearing any underwear.

6. You're spending Thanksgiving with your in-laws.

7. You used to steal money from her purse.

8. You used to steal Xanax from her purse.

9. You lied about the dog breaking her Waterford vase in 1988.

10. You don't believe in marriage.

11. Your new boyfriend is married.

12. You used to wish she was more like Mrs. Brady.