美国科学界的"造假"
北美来鸿
BBC中文网 方壶斋
这个题目乍看似乎给人一种感觉：美国科学界已达到了中国的那种需要有专门机构去打假的地步，其实我要说的是另一种假。
最近读了几篇文章，第一个感觉就是美国科学界真是有点乌烟瘴气。第二个感觉呢，就是美国科学界的种种纷争，我们外行人只有看热闹的份，但是看热闹也有看热闹的好处，那就是知道在这个领域里不都是思想统一的。所谓严肃客观的科学其实常常不过是一场人间闹剧。
最近美国有个人，叫汤姆.贝瑟尔（Tom Bethell），写了一本书，名字叫《政治不正确的科学指南》，是一套系列丛书《政治不正确指南》中的一本。 这套丛书的宗旨就是指出学术领域中的政治不正确现象。
"政治上不正确"这个词是美国人发明的，用来描述那些从政治角度来说是不正确的言行。也许这个词刚出来的时候还有点积极作用，但是现在我觉得这个词本身带有一种反讽的味道。有一次我在某个场合说了某个人什么话，然后声明："我这样说是政治上不正确的。"马上就有人说："你的意思是说你说对了？"
具体来说，如果看见一个很肥胖的人就说他fat，那是政治上不正确的。要说他是overweight 或者有 extra pounds。 如果是一个女人，最好说她是个BB （大美人）。但是难道fat 不是客观的吗？
所以我觉得那套丛书用这个词很不适当，因为编辑是要认真地指出学术界的问题的。那就不是政治上不正确，而是事实上不正确。
回到题目上来。汤姆写的书，揭露的是美国科学界制造科学假象以捞取政府资助的现象。他说很多科学家为了自己的终身教职， 利用科学上本来就存在的不确定性，夸大自然界的问题，或者虚构将来会出现的问题，由此制造出一些课题，申请研究拨款，甚至成立政府研究对策机构。这些人的惯常做法是选择对自己有利的事实提出现在存在着某种危机，然后交给媒体去炒作。媒体乐于炒作，因为很多媒体就是靠炒作来扩大发行量的，所以可以跟这些科学家狼狈为奸。炒作的目的就是让政府拨款研究解决危机。作者说，这种危机游戏不单单是科学界的事情。他说新奥尔良水灾就反映了美国扶贫项目的问题。扶贫扶来扶去， 结果是把穷人套在了福利制度里面永远当穷人，而政府工作人员则可以常年利用政府资金扶贫，不愁自己的饭碗。公立学校也是一样。不断地叫喊教育质量下降，目的就是不断地让政府投钱，但是学校的管理人员和老师们并没有真正去提高教育质量。想想也有道理：飞鸟尽良弓藏， 狡兔死走狗烹嘛。问题都解决了，还要你解决问题的人干什么？
汤姆提到的一些政治上不正确的科学项目，都是媒体上常见报道的项目。我们看惯了报纸的人绝不会想到这里面有什么政治动机。 这些项目有爱滋病、全球变暖、禽流感、农药毒素残留等。这些项目都是让我感到吃惊的，因为我早已习惯相信这些的确是我们这个世界面临的问题。
推波助澜
更让我吃惊的是，作者指出美国《科学》杂志-一本我很喜欢的杂志-专门为这种出于某种目的而制造的科学敏感问题推波助澜。
还让我吃惊的是，作者说制造农药余毒神话的始作俑者是1962年写了《沉默的春天》的生物学家卡森(Rachel Carson)。我知道这位作家，因为大学里学的四年级英文课本提到她写的一首诗， 反映原子弹给环境造成的破坏，我还翻译过。最近还买到她的一本优美的散文集，都是写自然的。
作者说，卡尔森的遗产导致环保局规定严格的无毒食品标准，从而提高成本。他说其实根据低量毒素反应理论 (hormesis)，少量毒素对身体反而有好处。这是不是跟中医的"以毒攻毒"有关系呢？
还有一大领域给科学家来钱的就是防病，防衰老，延长寿命。这可以理解，古今中外概莫例外，大家都希望长生不老，健健康康地活着。迎合这种需求，很容易搞出来这个或者那个研究，说它是某种灵丹妙药。这个领域的特点是可证实性低，所以搞花活的余地就更大。除了以上的领域以外，还有关于机器人有可能变成智能人反过来控制人类社会的说法，汤姆认为都是危言耸听。他还专门点了大名鼎鼎的霍金(Stephen Hawking)的名， 说他杞人忧天。跟汤姆唱对台戏的，是一个叫穆尼(Chris Mooney) 的人。 他写的书叫做《共和党绞杀科学的战争》。 在一篇关于汤姆的书的书评中，他说汤姆在所提到的问题上都是在歪曲事实， 说他把共和党对科学家的战争发展到了极致。他说汤姆的书名有个副标题，原文是"自由派长久把持了科学，现在该我们了"， 后来因为害怕司马超之心暴露得太明显， 改成自由派长久把持了科学，现在是更正的时候了"。
穆尼的书指责美国的右翼政府二十多年来想方设法破坏科学家的诚实劳动，妨碍科学家探索解决全球变暖问题、水银污染问题，散布关于干细胞研究的虚假信息，用宗教观念阻碍计划生育，干扰进化论教育。
汤姆和穆尼的对立究竟是党派之争、信仰之争，还是真理与谬误之争，本人没有研究无法说清楚。不过在另一个领域，科学课题的选择的确是出于某种非科学的考虑，这就是美国中学生的科学演示会。以前科学演示会只是激励青少年热爱科学的一种手段， 现在则不同了，越来越多的中学生为了"成名"，为了拿到资助，为了得奖进入名牌大学，专门挑那些媒体关注的问题进行所谓的科学研究， 这些话题就是干细胞研究、全球变暖、神创世界论等等。比如，俄勒冈州一个教会学校的学生以他的所谓"生命起源研究"进入了英特尔科学人才网罗活动的决赛。2004年，美国国土安全部向高中提供两万元的大学奖学金，引来了无数的科学设想：炭疽病毒解毒剂，预报暴力事件的数据模式，能够甄别谁是恐怖分子的计算机模型。
在路易斯安纳州西北地区科学演示会上，一个八岁的小女孩演示了使她获得了家庭学校科学演示会奖项的一个实验：水滴石穿。她说这个实验将证明地球的年龄不是45亿年，而是只有6000年，跟圣经吻合。
美国科学界真是要变假了。
- posted on 08/08/2006
老方此文中说到的那些问题，恰恰是美国科学界的现实。拿我们这些来自共产党国家的人们的眼光看问题，科学就必须是严谨的、公正的、没有私心杂念的。而实际上，科学的发展也是要耍手腕的。现实的未必就是最好的。最正确的未必一定就会得以实现。每一个科学家都在做自己的课题。谁都想把自己的课题做大。谁也都想让自己的声音被世界听到。科学家光会做学问还不行，还要有生存的本领，甚至要会玩弄一点卑鄙政治才行：逢迎政客，利用媒体。没有办法。在这个世界上没有人知道什么才是最合理的或最科学的。人人都要走一点弯路。如果这个世界一切都变得最合理和科学的了，那将是多么可怕的一种情形。 - Re: 缇庡浗绉戝鐣岀殑posted on 08/08/2006
确实是这样的。 - Re: 缇庡浗绉戝鐣岀殑posted on 08/08/2006
还真奇了，我今天正想着好久没见到马慧元JJ or MM? 你就来了。看来我得想念一下笨笨才是。 - Re: 缇庡浗绉戝鐣岀殑posted on 08/08/2006
aeuglein wrote:
还真奇了，我今天正想着好久没见到马慧元JJ or MM? 你就来了。看来我得想念一下笨笨才是。
别忘了想念一下 adagio MM。 - Re: 缇庡浗绉戝鐣岀殑posted on 08/08/2006
好，谁不来念谁，哈哈，怕怕。 - Re: 缇庡浗绉戝鐣岀殑posted on 08/08/2006
这篇文章蛮中肯，但关于农药一节，我还是有异议的。
不止是喜欢卡森，美国人虽然胖，但身体不错的，长寿。食物中毒很
少，卫生，这个在发展中国家就大不一样。
以毒攻毒？都是毒的水果蔬菜，吃得人气色难看！
司马超：昭？笔误。 - posted on 08/09/2006
>方壶斋 wrote:
还让我吃惊的是，作者说制造农药余毒神话的始作俑者是1962年写了《沉默的春天》的生物学家卡森(Rachel Carson)。我知道这位作家，因为大学里学的四年级英文课本提到她写的一首诗， 反映原子弹给环境造成的破坏，我还翻译过。最近还买到她的一本优美的散文集，都是写自然的。
作者说，卡尔森的遗产导致环保局规定严格的无毒食品标准，从而提高成本。他说其实根据低量毒素反应理论 (hormesis)，少量毒素对身体反而有好处。这是不是跟中医的"以毒攻毒"有关系呢？
Rachel Carson's Silent Spring 是在 Modern Library 100 best nonfiction 上的 (5th on board's list, 61 on reader's list)，一本很重要的书，但其中的科学性至今仍很有争议。 - posted on 08/09/2006
The article isn't what its title suggests. In fact, it can be read along with Lao Fang's proposition on "political correctness" in his recent post above.
----------------------------------------------------------
Why the Rich Get Richer
by Robert Kiyosaki
Tuesday, August 8, 2006
Allow me to be politically incorrect: The No. 1 reason people aren't rich is because they're lazy. This is purely my opinion and no one else's, and I have no scientific proof to back it up.
Why the sudden honesty? I'll tell you.
The Best Policy?
One of the things I loved most about the Marine Corps was that I never had to worry about what anyone was thinking. When I was preparing to be an officer, there was no sensitivity training. When superior officers spoke to you, they didn't have to wrap their words in ribbons and bows, and didn't worry about hurting anyone's feelings.
In fact, we often went out of our way to hurt others' feelings just to test their core toughness. (I'd repeat some of the more choice comments I've treasured over the years, but I'm not writing for a military audience.)
When I returned from the war and entered the civilized world of business, I was shocked by the phoniness, the covert hostility (disguised as caring), and the fake smiles that are rampant to this day. It's been over 30 years since I was discharged from the Marines, and I still haven't adjusted.
Today, I'm still hesitant to let my employees know exactly what I'm not satisfied with for fear of being sued, or to compliment a pretty woman for fear of being accused of sexual harassment.
But I'm happy to say that things are changing. We now have reality TV instead of Father Knows Best, a phony show about fake family harmony from my era. Today, commentators like Bill Maher and Jon Stewart rip into politicians under the guise of humor.
We also have Donald Trump, who has millions of people from all over the world tuning in just to hear him say the magic words "you're fired" to an apprentice wannabe. And of course there's Simon Cowell of American Idol, the critic of all critics, whose book of brutally honest dismissals I was recently tempted to buy.
An Honest Assessment
All of this overt honesty, while sometimes contrived, encourages me to be more honest about my favorite subject -- getting rich, and who's most likely to do so.
Most of you who follow my books and this column know how I make my money. First of all, I'm an entrepreneur. I've been starting companies since I was a kid. I never wanted to be an employee -- I always wanted to be in control. I didn't want someone like me telling me what to do. Consequently, I now have companies, agencies, or strategic partners all over the world.
Second, I love real estate. Not only do I think it's the best investment in the world, I can prove it. What other investment is there that has bankers lining up to lend you money? They won't lend you millions of dollars for years at a time to buy stocks, bonds, or mutual funds. And what other investment will your insurance company insure against losses? Surely not mutual funds or a 401(k).
Third, I love commodities like oil and gas. Why do I love them? Because they're in short supply and in great demand. Wars have been fought over oil and gas for years. What do you think the war in Iraq is about?
Finally, I've loved gold and silver for years. Why? Because I don't trust the U.S. government to be good stewards of money. As you may know, the Bush administration has printed more funny money -- over a trillion dollars' worth -- in six years than all past U.S. presidents combined.
Wars have been fought over gold and silver, too. Why do you think the Incas lost their empire to the Spaniards, or the American Indians lost their land to the European settlers? The conquerors may have said that they were acting in the name of God, but remember -- there's only a single letter's difference between "God" and "gold."
No More Political Correctness
The recent outbreak of honesty also inspires me to be more forthcoming in general, and less politically correct. This is the web, after all, where honesty is respected, not suppressed, censored, or forced to be "sensitive" like our old, more traditional forms of media.
You wouldn't be reading Yahoo! Finance if you weren't serious about being rich or becoming rich. So I owe it to you to be more truthful. And I'm not worried about offending the financial losers of the world, because financial losers don't read this column.
So, rather than tell you week after week about real estate, entrepreneurship, gold, silver, oil, and gas, I've decided to occasionally run a less-than-politically-correct column and tell you exactly what I think about the subject of getting rich.
The L Words
It's in this spirit that I opened by saying that lazy people don't get rich. I also said that the difference between "God" and "gold" is a simple "L" -- as in "lazy," or "looting." The conquistadors who looted the Inca Empire in the name of God weren't lazy. They were thugs with guns, but they had ambition.
Another word that begins with "L" is "loser." Over the years, I've met many losers who pray to God to give them gold. They'll never get it that way because, as the Sunday school I went to taught me, God helps those who help themselves. Again, the conquistadors may have been killers and thieves, but at least they knew how to help themselves.
I do, too. As some of you may be aware, I wasn't born rich. And I've written openly about my failures as an entrepreneur and my losses as an investor. I haven't hidden my horror stories. The reason I don't keep them secret is because my failures are the best learning experiences of my life. We learn by making mistakes -- except in school, where we're punished for making mistakes. This may be why most schoolteachers aren't rich.
I'm not recommending that you become an ambitious looter, as Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling were convicted of being. I only want to point out that if you're not a lazy loser, you may find yourself with more gold in your life without having to resort to looting.
Please paste HTML code and press Enter.
(c) 2010 Maya Chilam Foundation