君问归期未有期，
巴山夜雨涨秋池。
何当共剪西窗烛，
却话巴山夜雨时。
日日阴雨，湿冷彻骨，云雾偶有消散，屋后山尖的新雪犹抱琵琶。工作不敢有一日停歇，在泥泞湿滑的山路上寻访云里人家。
大概要度过最冷的一个五一节了。
4/28/2007
4/12/2007
4/09/2007
What Is a Left-Libertarian?
Now and then, I'm confused with the definition of left and right in politics partly because of the paradoxical CCP official propaganda. Sometimes I took myself as an individualist, while another day I found consistent with egalitarianism. Was I suffering from split personality? So I took the Political Compass questionnaire composed of a long list of questions on a broad spectrum of social and economic topics to check which side I am taking on earth.
The result appears even far clearer than I expected. Read from the diagram below, I am significantly marked with a tag of left-libertarian.
Then what is in deed a left-libertarian or liberal leftist?
Rather than the redundant and boring interpretation, I think the following map could shed more light on this classification.
Besides, there is also a chart of internationally known contemporary leaders on the compass to revive the coordinate.
Comparing my position on the compass with the later two, it is so exciting for me, though not much to surprise, to find myself standing with the Holy Hero Gandhi side by side, as well as Mandela and Dalai Lama, who are all icons on my book. What is more, finding George W Bush well at the other end of the diagonal makes the analysis even more convictive, which is certainly not at odds because the test is not a mystic prophecy but a positivistic generalization.
Can anything else be told from the compass? Yes, a lot. For example, it is obvious that near all the 'successful' political leaders are authoritarians. Why does a dictator always win in the name of democracy? And as to China, most of the puzzling phenomena, including the crazy economic blooming and the crazier social polarization, could be interpreted by the CCP government's translocation across the vertical axis from Stalin to Bush. Unfortunately, it doesn't make me much less uncomfortable, if ever any, as I'm a 'left-libertarian'.
The result appears even far clearer than I expected. Read from the diagram below, I am significantly marked with a tag of left-libertarian.
Then what is in deed a left-libertarian or liberal leftist?
Rather than the redundant and boring interpretation, I think the following map could shed more light on this classification.
Besides, there is also a chart of internationally known contemporary leaders on the compass to revive the coordinate.
Comparing my position on the compass with the later two, it is so exciting for me, though not much to surprise, to find myself standing with the Holy Hero Gandhi side by side, as well as Mandela and Dalai Lama, who are all icons on my book. What is more, finding George W Bush well at the other end of the diagonal makes the analysis even more convictive, which is certainly not at odds because the test is not a mystic prophecy but a positivistic generalization.
Can anything else be told from the compass? Yes, a lot. For example, it is obvious that near all the 'successful' political leaders are authoritarians. Why does a dictator always win in the name of democracy? And as to China, most of the puzzling phenomena, including the crazy economic blooming and the crazier social polarization, could be interpreted by the CCP government's translocation across the vertical axis from Stalin to Bush. Unfortunately, it doesn't make me much less uncomfortable, if ever any, as I'm a 'left-libertarian'.
4/07/2007
PhD的后现代生活
昨晚大学老同学聚会宴饮，做东的是从美国归来度假的准PhD，作陪的也十之八九是未来的PhD，例外的几位是准Md。不但从学历上看像是一场学术会议，实际的进程更是如此。
旧友重逢，自然有道不尽的千言万语，从何说起呢？最熟悉的，当然是实验室了！于是半桌子的准PhD们开始逐项讨论实验手册里的技术问题：从ELISA到western，从E. Coli到小白鼠……可惜俺远离这个行业好多年，业务早已生疏，不能完整复述，抱歉抱歉。
间或好像也听见一两句实验室门外的事情，原来无论内外，准Phd们的业余生活不外乎在网上看看国内外肥皂剧和娱乐节目，此外，实验，实验，实验……
半桌子热火朝天的学术会议，半桌子面面相觑的沉默不语。想找个话题打破尴尬，又实在找不出共同语言，俨然是生活在两个位面中的人群。
环境果然塑造人。实验室的一堵墙，把世界分成相互隔离的两个空间，与围城相反，一旦进去就再难出来，一旦出来也决不想进去。里面的人和外面的人互相观望，对方俨然都是怪物。
说句实话，我现在倒是很感激八家村，虽然其脏其乱其吵在最初的日子里曾令我不胜烦恼，但日子久了慢慢意识到，正是每天上班在八家村穿行的经历，使自己的脚扎根在社会底层的土壤之中而免于沉醉于象牙塔的玄虚之中不能自拔（原本是有这个倾向的），才得以有勇气把胆大妄为的研究计划付诸践行。
所谓PhD，Doctor of Philosophy，哲学博士是也，但恕我眼拙，实在是看不出实验员的哲学在哪里。前些年听过一次普林斯顿大学分子生物系某华人教授的讲演，大体上是要为人生规划指点迷津的意思，可惜表现出的哲学水平实在是对不起PhD的名头，居然还大受追捧……好在该校的生态进化生物学在此之前已经跟分子生物学分家了，还不至于因此污了May爵爷留下的金字招牌。
都抱怨国内的学术环境恶劣，在腐败堕落的土鳖砧木上嫁接教书不育人的海龟接穗，又指望能长出什么又大又甜的果子来呢？前些日子中国政府出台了一套优待海归学者的规定，居然连子女就学也提供优待，果然是中国特色，不好想象这些小恩小惠能召回来什么样的金凤凰。倒是陈丹青先生的评论中肯些，如今的海归，做技术的多如牛毛，有思想的寥若晨星，还是不要过高期望的好。
说到自己，实在不堪，一边是留美预备学校的传统影响，一边是海归学者的拙劣榜样，摇摇摆摆一晃两年，眼看变成青春梦一场，不想偶遇Tim，每天学术、艺术、政治、宗教海侃，又教诲俺科学的Convergence和Divergence，方知PhD果真有哲学的，于是又死灰复燃起来了。不妨试试去读个懂点儿Ph的D回来。
旧友重逢，自然有道不尽的千言万语，从何说起呢？最熟悉的，当然是实验室了！于是半桌子的准PhD们开始逐项讨论实验手册里的技术问题：从ELISA到western，从E. Coli到小白鼠……可惜俺远离这个行业好多年，业务早已生疏，不能完整复述，抱歉抱歉。
间或好像也听见一两句实验室门外的事情，原来无论内外，准Phd们的业余生活不外乎在网上看看国内外肥皂剧和娱乐节目，此外，实验，实验，实验……
半桌子热火朝天的学术会议，半桌子面面相觑的沉默不语。想找个话题打破尴尬，又实在找不出共同语言，俨然是生活在两个位面中的人群。
环境果然塑造人。实验室的一堵墙，把世界分成相互隔离的两个空间，与围城相反，一旦进去就再难出来，一旦出来也决不想进去。里面的人和外面的人互相观望，对方俨然都是怪物。
说句实话，我现在倒是很感激八家村，虽然其脏其乱其吵在最初的日子里曾令我不胜烦恼，但日子久了慢慢意识到，正是每天上班在八家村穿行的经历，使自己的脚扎根在社会底层的土壤之中而免于沉醉于象牙塔的玄虚之中不能自拔（原本是有这个倾向的），才得以有勇气把胆大妄为的研究计划付诸践行。
所谓PhD，Doctor of Philosophy，哲学博士是也，但恕我眼拙，实在是看不出实验员的哲学在哪里。前些年听过一次普林斯顿大学分子生物系某华人教授的讲演，大体上是要为人生规划指点迷津的意思，可惜表现出的哲学水平实在是对不起PhD的名头，居然还大受追捧……好在该校的生态进化生物学在此之前已经跟分子生物学分家了，还不至于因此污了May爵爷留下的金字招牌。
都抱怨国内的学术环境恶劣，在腐败堕落的土鳖砧木上嫁接教书不育人的海龟接穗，又指望能长出什么又大又甜的果子来呢？前些日子中国政府出台了一套优待海归学者的规定，居然连子女就学也提供优待，果然是中国特色，不好想象这些小恩小惠能召回来什么样的金凤凰。倒是陈丹青先生的评论中肯些，如今的海归，做技术的多如牛毛，有思想的寥若晨星，还是不要过高期望的好。
说到自己，实在不堪，一边是留美预备学校的传统影响，一边是海归学者的拙劣榜样，摇摇摆摆一晃两年，眼看变成青春梦一场，不想偶遇Tim，每天学术、艺术、政治、宗教海侃，又教诲俺科学的Convergence和Divergence，方知PhD果真有哲学的，于是又死灰复燃起来了。不妨试试去读个懂点儿Ph的D回来。
4/06/2007
SCIENCE AND SOCIETY: Framing Science
SCIENCE AND SOCIETY:
Framing Science
Matthew C. Nisbet1* and Chris Mooney2Issues at the intersection of science and politics, such as climate change, evolution, and embryonic stem cell research, receive considerable public attention, which is likely to grow, especially in the United States as the 2008 presidential election heats up. Without misrepresenting scientific information on highly contested issues, scientists must learn to actively "frame" information to make it relevant to different audiences. Some in the scientific community have been receptive to this message (1). However, many scientists retain the well-intentioned belief that, if laypeople better understood technical complexities from news coverage, their viewpoints would be more like scientists', and controversy would subside.
In reality, citizens do not use the news media as scientists assume. Research shows that people are rarely well enough informed or motivated to weigh competing ideas and arguments. Faced with a daily torrent of news, citizens use their value predispositions (such as political or religious beliefs) as perceptual screens, selecting news outlets and Web sites whose outlooks match their own (2). Such screening reduces the choices of what to pay attention to and accept as valid (3).
Frames organize central ideas, defining a controversy to resonate with core values and assumptions. Frames pare down complex issues by giving some aspects greater emphasis. They allow citizens to rapidly identify why an issue matters, who might be responsible, and what should be done (4, 5).CREDIT: PHOTOS.COM
Consider global climate change. With its successive assessment reports summarizing the scientific literature, the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has steadily increased its confidence that human-induced greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming. So if science alone drove public responses, we would expect increasing public confidence in the validity of the science, and decreasing political gridlock.
Despite recent media attention, however, many surveys show major partisan differences on the issue. A Pew survey conducted in January found that 23% of college-educated Republicans think global warming is attributable to human activity, compared with 75% of Democrats (6). Regardless of party affiliation, most Americans rank global warming as less important than over a dozen other issues (6). Much of this reflects the efforts of political operatives and some Republican leaders who have emphasized the frames of either "scientific uncertainty" or "unfair economic burden" (7). In a counter-strategy, environmentalists and some Democratic leaders have framed global warming as a "Pandora's box" of catastrophe; this and news images of polar bears on shrinking ice floes and hurricane devastation have evoked charges of "alarmism" and further battles.
Recently, a coalition of Evangelical leaders have adopted a different strategy, framing the problem of climate change as a matter of religious morality. The business pages tout the economic opportunities from developing innovative technologies for climate change. Complaints about the Bush Administration's interference with communication of climate science have led to a "public accountability" frame that has helped move the issue away from uncertainty to political wrongdoing.
As another example, the scientific theory of evolution has been accepted within the research community for decades. Yet as a debate over "intelligent design" was launched, antievolutionists promoted "scientific uncertainty" and "teach-the-controversy" frames, which scientists countered with science-intensive responses. However, much of the public likely tunes out these technical messages. Instead, frames of "public accountability" that focus on the misuse of tax dollars, "economic development" that highlight the negative repercussions for communities embroiled in evolution battles, and "social progress" that define evolution as a building block for medical advances, are likely to engage broader support.
The evolution issue also highlights another point: Messages must be positive and respect diversity. As the film Flock of Dodos painfully demonstrates, many scientists not only fail to think strategically about how to communicate on evolution, but belittle and insult others' religious beliefs (8).
On the embryonic stem cell issue, by comparison, patient advocates have delivered a focused message to the public, using "social progress" and "economic competitiveness" frames to argue that the research offers hope for millions of Americans. These messages have helped to drive up public support for funding between 2001 and 2005 (9, 10). However, opponents of increased government funding continue to frame the debate around the moral implications of research, arguing that scientists are "playing God" and destroying human life. Ideology and religion can screen out even dominant positive narratives about science, and reaching some segments of the public will remain a challenge (11).
Some readers may consider our proposals too Orwellian, preferring to safely stick to the facts. Yet scientists must realize that facts will be repeatedly misapplied and twisted in direct proportion to their relevance to the political debate and decision-making. In short, as unnatural as it might feel, in many cases, scientists should strategically avoid emphasizing the technical details of science when trying to defend it.
4/05/2007
生物学？
终于赶在进山之前战战兢兢地向导师汇报了我那个离经叛道的研究计划。我估计在上一次课题组会之后肯定就已经有师兄师姐在背后议论：那小子搞的到底是什么啊？
是什么？我也不知道。说起来这个问题已经困扰我有些年月了。
当初报考大学的时候选了生物系，后来才发现原来此“生物科学与技术系”实乃“技术系”，整日与取样器、离心机、PCR和电泳仪打交道，讨论话题总跳不出实验室的瓶瓶罐罐。于是毅然叛逃，改投生态。后又不知不觉七转八转，经济学、心理学、社会学也都或多或少掺杂其中，以至于自己也不知究竟该称其为何物了。既然不论是人还是E. Coli都还在生物的广义范畴之内，就且把我的工作算作生物学吧。不过虽然名曰研究生物学，其实惭愧得很，上一次在卧龙与鸟类专家Tim一起工作，没事脖子上也挂着个望远镜装模作样地站在山坡上观鸟，其实能认得的大概两只手就数得过来。这算哪门子生物学呢？我想起两个故事。
第一个是我自己的故事：还是在研究生院上课那会儿，有一天刚下过雨，我夹着本书在院子里溜达（这是大学是留下的毛病，天气好的时候在室外转悠，天气不好的时候躲到图书馆，总之尽可能不在教室上自习）。在路边发现一个蚂蚁洞，大个的黑蚂蚁（对不起，我向来对动物分类不感冒）正出出进进从洞里往外搬沙子，忙得不亦乐乎，几只带翅的雄蚁也钻出来凑热闹，也许是晒太阳。我下意识地就蹲到路边不走了，就跟儿时在自家小院里一样，“一，二，三……”数了一会儿才反应过来自己在干什么。于是又开始思考这样一个问题：我的“生物学”同行们遇到这种情况又会作何反应呢？若是我当初在实验室的同仁们，想必一定抓几只回去化验了，测序？提蛋白？基因克隆？总之肯定是死无全尸了。换做热衷于分类的博物学友人，大概早就带着标本瓶子满载而归了，这一次倒是能留得全尸，而且还能像列宁同志一样漂漂亮亮地躺在玻璃盒子里永垂不朽呢。至于我这样的生态学或者社会生物学的爱好者，本能的反应就是像个密探似的悄悄呆在旁边别动，掏出记事本来记录如下统计数据：每一时刻有多少蚂蚁爬入，多少爬出，有多少衔了沙子，沙子搬到多远，相互间有何交流动作……这就是不同生物学视角下的蚂蚁，微观实验者目无全蚁，分类专家眼里的一只蚂蚁代表一窝蚂蚁，而对生态学来说，一窝蚂蚁才算是蚂蚁。
第二个故事是Martin Nowak在哈佛大学的报告会上讲的：有一天他碰上一个牧羊人赶着一大群羊，他走上去跟牧羊人说：“我要是猜出你有多少只羊，你能给我一只吗？”牧羊人很好奇，于是答应了。Nowak看了一眼羊群，说：“83。”牧羊人很是吃惊，尽管不情愿，也还是让Nowak选了一只羊牵走。Nowak牵着自己选的羊没走出多远，牧羊人就从后面赶了上来。他要反悔？不，他说：“也给我一个机会吧。如果我猜出你是干什么的，你把羊还我行吗？”Nowak也很好奇，于是也答应了。“你是一个数学生物学家(mathematical biologist)。”牧羊人毫不犹豫地说。这回吃惊的轮到Nowak了。“羊可以还给你，但是你得告诉我你是怎么猜出来的。”“瞧，先生，你牵走的是我的狗。”——这也是生物学家呢，哈哈。
这里原本是一片自由的开阔地的，后来陆陆续续来了很多拓荒者，建起了房子，也修起了蜘蛛网一样的篱笆。现在我在这里散步，就不得不费劲地翻越一道又一道篱笆，连衣服也刮坏了，但我还是乐此不疲。
有些鸟大概是不能关在笼子里的。
是什么？我也不知道。说起来这个问题已经困扰我有些年月了。
当初报考大学的时候选了生物系，后来才发现原来此“生物科学与技术系”实乃“技术系”，整日与取样器、离心机、PCR和电泳仪打交道，讨论话题总跳不出实验室的瓶瓶罐罐。于是毅然叛逃，改投生态。后又不知不觉七转八转，经济学、心理学、社会学也都或多或少掺杂其中，以至于自己也不知究竟该称其为何物了。既然不论是人还是E. Coli都还在生物的广义范畴之内，就且把我的工作算作生物学吧。不过虽然名曰研究生物学，其实惭愧得很，上一次在卧龙与鸟类专家Tim一起工作，没事脖子上也挂着个望远镜装模作样地站在山坡上观鸟，其实能认得的大概两只手就数得过来。这算哪门子生物学呢？我想起两个故事。
第一个是我自己的故事：还是在研究生院上课那会儿，有一天刚下过雨，我夹着本书在院子里溜达（这是大学是留下的毛病，天气好的时候在室外转悠，天气不好的时候躲到图书馆，总之尽可能不在教室上自习）。在路边发现一个蚂蚁洞，大个的黑蚂蚁（对不起，我向来对动物分类不感冒）正出出进进从洞里往外搬沙子，忙得不亦乐乎，几只带翅的雄蚁也钻出来凑热闹，也许是晒太阳。我下意识地就蹲到路边不走了，就跟儿时在自家小院里一样，“一，二，三……”数了一会儿才反应过来自己在干什么。于是又开始思考这样一个问题：我的“生物学”同行们遇到这种情况又会作何反应呢？若是我当初在实验室的同仁们，想必一定抓几只回去化验了，测序？提蛋白？基因克隆？总之肯定是死无全尸了。换做热衷于分类的博物学友人，大概早就带着标本瓶子满载而归了，这一次倒是能留得全尸，而且还能像列宁同志一样漂漂亮亮地躺在玻璃盒子里永垂不朽呢。至于我这样的生态学或者社会生物学的爱好者，本能的反应就是像个密探似的悄悄呆在旁边别动，掏出记事本来记录如下统计数据：每一时刻有多少蚂蚁爬入，多少爬出，有多少衔了沙子，沙子搬到多远，相互间有何交流动作……这就是不同生物学视角下的蚂蚁，微观实验者目无全蚁，分类专家眼里的一只蚂蚁代表一窝蚂蚁，而对生态学来说，一窝蚂蚁才算是蚂蚁。
第二个故事是Martin Nowak在哈佛大学的报告会上讲的：有一天他碰上一个牧羊人赶着一大群羊，他走上去跟牧羊人说：“我要是猜出你有多少只羊，你能给我一只吗？”牧羊人很好奇，于是答应了。Nowak看了一眼羊群，说：“83。”牧羊人很是吃惊，尽管不情愿，也还是让Nowak选了一只羊牵走。Nowak牵着自己选的羊没走出多远，牧羊人就从后面赶了上来。他要反悔？不，他说：“也给我一个机会吧。如果我猜出你是干什么的，你把羊还我行吗？”Nowak也很好奇，于是也答应了。“你是一个数学生物学家(mathematical biologist)。”牧羊人毫不犹豫地说。这回吃惊的轮到Nowak了。“羊可以还给你，但是你得告诉我你是怎么猜出来的。”“瞧，先生，你牵走的是我的狗。”——这也是生物学家呢，哈哈。
这里原本是一片自由的开阔地的，后来陆陆续续来了很多拓荒者，建起了房子，也修起了蜘蛛网一样的篱笆。现在我在这里散步，就不得不费劲地翻越一道又一道篱笆，连衣服也刮坏了，但我还是乐此不疲。
有些鸟大概是不能关在笼子里的。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)