2004-11-17 03:07:06周大祥
科學家：政治是一種公民責任
政治與科學的關係事實上是牽扯不清的。在歷史上，科學典範的操弄，往往成為政治人物利用科學面紗來累積其政治資本的好方法。納粹生物學家可以「種族淨化研究所」的名義冷血地殺害猶太人，煙商可以贊助吸煙無礙健康的研究來公開獲利（R. Crowe拍過一部片扮演良心發現的科學家如何與上司其煙商對抗），蘇聯共產黨可以讓生物學家「發現」社會主義良好分子的思想可由基因遺傳！這些事實告訴我們，孤立而敗德的科學研究，只會對人類社會造成更大的危害。而這些研究，往往都是在所謂「學術中立」的美麗糖衣下的毒蘋果。
台灣目前也有一股希望學者「保持中立」的聲浪。真理的追求與學術成就本為從事研究者所應追求，然而，控制了學者參政或提供正確建議的機會，將其困鎖於白色巨塔中，只是將社會所資助的科學研究給「聖域化」，將學者困成了社會中的邦外之民，而拱手將政治議題的起始權讓渡給政客，黑道份子，影視明星，記者手上。
學者作為一個特殊的社會群體，自應發展其獨特之professionalism，這是責無旁貸之責任。不過，別忘了柏拉圖告訴我們哲學家為什麼要參政的故事—被比自己笨的人統治，是哲學家不能忍受的事！
那麼，做為現代哲學家的你，願意放棄自己的公民責任，丟掉手上的麥克風嗎？
中國時報 政治新聞 931104
科學家涉政治《自然》雜誌筆戰 李遠哲成焦點
林志成、許志強／綜合報導 諾貝爾獎得主該涉入政治嗎？不久前美國四十八位諾貝爾獎得主公開表態支持民主黨總統候選人凱瑞，在國際學術界引起激烈爭辯，兩派人馬最近在知名學術期刊《自然》展開筆戰，我國唯一一位諾貝爾獎得主李遠哲是這場戰役焦點之一。
不久前，美國國家衛生研究院前主任Harold Varmus及當年與丁肇中一起得到諾貝爾獎的B urtom Richter等四十八位諾貝爾獎得主公開表態挺凱瑞。他們認為，學術圈一向崇尚自由，但共和黨總統候選人布希明顯是保守派，彼此理念不同，他們全力支持自由派的凱瑞。
這項消息出現後，十月七日出刊的《自然》雜誌刊登一篇由台灣中山大學生物科學系教授徐芝敏等人的「科學家和老師應跟政治劃清界限（ignore politics）」文章。徐芝敏等人認為，得諾貝爾獎的科學家有比直接涉入政治選舉更好的貢獻社會方式，他們的專長在物理、化學、醫學，應該在這些方面追求卓越，不是跳進自己不熟悉的政治領域。
徐芝敏等人舉例說，台灣唯一一位諾貝爾獎得主中央研究院院長李遠哲兩千年公開表態支持陳水扁，之後仍不斷大聲說出自己政治立場，不專注在科學領域的結果，就是混淆身為一個科學家角色。李遠哲過去曾參與十年的台灣教改，但因為不成功，很多大學教師公開連署，要他為台灣教改負責。
李遠哲不久前在一場教師節頒獎典禮上表示，主導社會脈動的人是老師不是政治人物。徐芝敏表示李遠哲哲應該激發更多年輕人成為老師，不是讓自己跳入政治漩渦中。過去長期在美國居住的華人傑出科學家楊振寧，最近決定在大陸清華及北京大學教物理，並繼續從事研究工作，這才是一位諾貝爾獎得主該做的事。
徐芝敏等人的這篇文章刊出後，引起國際學術界熱烈討論。十月二十八日出刊的《自然》雜誌，登出三篇分別由英國牛津大學、美國史丹佛大學及柏克萊大學學者的文章。他們一致認為，科學家應該涉入政治，在政治上做出正確選擇後，還要大聲說出來，供其他人參考。
這些學者表示，律師、作家及電影明星都可以在選舉時公開表明支持對象，要科學家在得到諾貝爾獎後就不能政治表態，這是剝奪他們參與政治的權力，非常不公平。這些學者主張，諾貝爾獎得主有參政權，也可以在選舉時表明立場，沒人可以禁止。
對於自己和別人共同發表的文章引起論戰，中山大學生物科學系教授徐芝敏昨晚僅透過助教回應一句話：「我不參與政治」，其他不願意多談。
Copyright 2004 China Times Inc.
以下我摘錄原文及其反駁文件：
Nature 431, 627 (07 October 2004); doi:10.1038/431627c
Scientists and teachers should ignore politics
Sir – We read with interest your News story "Nobel laureates spearhead effort to put Kerry in the White House" (Nature 430, 595; 2004) about scientists campaigning in the United States.
Nobel laureates have more productive ways to benefit society than entangling themselves in the chaotic web of political campaigns. The expertise of the American Nobel laureates is in physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine — otherwise they would have received their Nobel Prizes for peace efforts. Why should their expertise in their chosen subjects make them masters in the sphere of politics?
We witnessed an example of this activity in Taiwan's 2000 presidential elections, and we find reasons for concern. Taiwan's only Nobel laureate, the chemist Lee Yuan-tseh, supported the Democratic Progressive Party nominee, Chen Shui-bian, before Chen's election to office in 2000. After that election, Lee continued to speak out on political matters, with sometimes mixed results. Lee has been involved in educational reforms in Taiwan for more than a decade, but last year university lecturers launched a signature campaign, asking him to take responsibility for what they considered to be failures in educational reform.
Yet Lee's scientific achievements have been rightly acclaimed. He has also been honoured as a Chinese scholar by the People's Republic of China. Perhaps his greatest skill is in inspiring a younger generation to become teachers themselves. Lee's reported words at a recent award ceremony for teachers in Taipei are worth recalling: "It is teachers, not politicians, who control the lifeline of society."
We recently heard that the 82-year-old Chinese scientist Yang Cheng-ning, who received the 1957 Nobel Prize in physics and has lived for many years in the United States, now teaches physics at Tsinghua University in Beijing as well as continuing his research. This is what laureates should be doing, not taking part in politics.
Minna J. Hsu
Department of Biological Sciences, National Sun Yat-sen University, Kaohsiung 40424, Taiwan
Govindasamy Agoramoorthy
Department of Applied Foreign Languages, Tajen Institute of Technology, Yanpu, Pingtung 907, Taiwan
兩位史丹佛學者及一位柏克萊學者聯名對徐文的駁斥
Nature 431, 1036 (28 October 2004); doi:10.1038/4311036a
Scientists must conquer reluctance to speak out
Sir – We read with some concern the views of M. J. Hsu and G. Agoramoorthy in Correspondence, that "Scientists and teachers should ignore politics" (Nature 431, 627; 2004). They argue that scientists help society most effectively through teaching and research, rather than by taking part in election campaigns. In the current political climate in the United States, this well-intentioned argument represents a grave threat to both science and society.
The politicization of science threatens to undermine the value of science to society by obscuring scientific consensus and misleading policy-makers and the public. Although the threat is external — and most apparent in the suppression and manipulation of science by the Bush administration — the resolution is largely internal. More than 5,500 scientists have signed the Union of Concerned Scientists' statement of protest, and more than 1,800 environmental scientists have signed a separate statement at http://www.scienceinpolicy.org. But it will take a greater outcry from the scientific community to bring this issue to the prominence it deserves. Scientists must step forward to protest against the manipulation of their results, or the obfuscation of accepted science will become an enduring tactic in political manoeuvring.
Already, scientific information is often clouded in the public arena. Evidence from competing expert witnesses in court cases, for example, makes it difficult for juries to decipher scientific evidence.
Attempts at journalistic balance similarly give equal weight to ideas that have unequal scientific support. This practice — which is neither good journalism nor an effective presentation of scientific knowledge — often creates the misconception that there is serious scientific debate about a particular issue when, in reality, there is virtually none.
For example, journalists gave roughly equal attention to the views of isolated scientists, including those funded by stakeholding industries, long after the wider scientific community reached consensus over the health threat posed by smoking and over the likelihood of human-induced climate change. In the former case, outcry from physicians and scientists finally penetrated the disinformation campaign by the tobacco industry (to society's great benefit). Yet in the climate-change arena, the naysayers still have a significant voice despite the consensus against them.
Politicians increasingly employ a similar misrepresentation of science in public policy debates. If such manipulation is allowed to continue, scientists' constructive provision of unbiased, realistic assessments to policy-makers will be compromised.
Unfortunately, calling on scientists to defend their work from political manipulation bumps squarely against a deep reluctance among scientists to appear partisan. After all, the impartiality of science is largely responsible for the confidence most Americans have in scientific information. Scientists are legitimately concerned that advocacy may undermine the public perception that scientists are relatively apolitical and concerned primarily with facts. But what use is a voice that is held in high esteem but never raised?
We argue that the current assault on science sufficiently threatens the role of science in society to merit the risk of speaking out. Advocacy is less dangerous than sitting quietly on the sidelines while politicians and interest groups undermine the scientific method by perpetrating junk science.
Stephen Porder
Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305-5020, USA
Kai M. A. Chan
Center for Conservation Biology, Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305-5020, USA
Paul A. T. Higgins
151 Hilgard Hall, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720-3110, USA
英國學者對徐文的駁斥
Nature 431, 1036 (28 October 2004); doi:10.1038/4311036b
Why leave it to others to speak up about science?
Sir – Your correspondents M. J. Hsu and G. Agoramoorthy (Nature 431, 627; 2004), seem to deny to scientists a right that lawyers, financiers, writers and even movie stars claim for themselves, which is direct involvement in political processes.
If this was ever a wise policy it is surely no longer, when science is so often the pawn of politics and individual politicians. The law on stem-cell research, for example, varies from one country to another according to political dogma. As a postgraduate researcher at a British university, I urge scientists to spare such time as they can afford to be involved with politics — as I have done myself, serving on a local council and even standing for parliament.
There is no good reason why lawyers and movie stars should have an exclusive right to debate science matters, any more than scientists should have the final say in the film industry or the law.
The fewer impenetrable membranes with which scientists surround themselves and their work, the better.
Ian Flintoff
22 Chaldon Road, London SW6 7NJ, UK
台灣目前也有一股希望學者「保持中立」的聲浪。真理的追求與學術成就本為從事研究者所應追求，然而，控制了學者參政或提供正確建議的機會，將其困鎖於白色巨塔中，只是將社會所資助的科學研究給「聖域化」，將學者困成了社會中的邦外之民，而拱手將政治議題的起始權讓渡給政客，黑道份子，影視明星，記者手上。
學者作為一個特殊的社會群體，自應發展其獨特之professionalism，這是責無旁貸之責任。不過，別忘了柏拉圖告訴我們哲學家為什麼要參政的故事—被比自己笨的人統治，是哲學家不能忍受的事！
那麼，做為現代哲學家的你，願意放棄自己的公民責任，丟掉手上的麥克風嗎？
中國時報 政治新聞 931104
科學家涉政治《自然》雜誌筆戰 李遠哲成焦點
林志成、許志強／綜合報導 諾貝爾獎得主該涉入政治嗎？不久前美國四十八位諾貝爾獎得主公開表態支持民主黨總統候選人凱瑞，在國際學術界引起激烈爭辯，兩派人馬最近在知名學術期刊《自然》展開筆戰，我國唯一一位諾貝爾獎得主李遠哲是這場戰役焦點之一。
不久前，美國國家衛生研究院前主任Harold Varmus及當年與丁肇中一起得到諾貝爾獎的B urtom Richter等四十八位諾貝爾獎得主公開表態挺凱瑞。他們認為，學術圈一向崇尚自由，但共和黨總統候選人布希明顯是保守派，彼此理念不同，他們全力支持自由派的凱瑞。
這項消息出現後，十月七日出刊的《自然》雜誌刊登一篇由台灣中山大學生物科學系教授徐芝敏等人的「科學家和老師應跟政治劃清界限（ignore politics）」文章。徐芝敏等人認為，得諾貝爾獎的科學家有比直接涉入政治選舉更好的貢獻社會方式，他們的專長在物理、化學、醫學，應該在這些方面追求卓越，不是跳進自己不熟悉的政治領域。
徐芝敏等人舉例說，台灣唯一一位諾貝爾獎得主中央研究院院長李遠哲兩千年公開表態支持陳水扁，之後仍不斷大聲說出自己政治立場，不專注在科學領域的結果，就是混淆身為一個科學家角色。李遠哲過去曾參與十年的台灣教改，但因為不成功，很多大學教師公開連署，要他為台灣教改負責。
李遠哲不久前在一場教師節頒獎典禮上表示，主導社會脈動的人是老師不是政治人物。徐芝敏表示李遠哲哲應該激發更多年輕人成為老師，不是讓自己跳入政治漩渦中。過去長期在美國居住的華人傑出科學家楊振寧，最近決定在大陸清華及北京大學教物理，並繼續從事研究工作，這才是一位諾貝爾獎得主該做的事。
徐芝敏等人的這篇文章刊出後，引起國際學術界熱烈討論。十月二十八日出刊的《自然》雜誌，登出三篇分別由英國牛津大學、美國史丹佛大學及柏克萊大學學者的文章。他們一致認為，科學家應該涉入政治，在政治上做出正確選擇後，還要大聲說出來，供其他人參考。
這些學者表示，律師、作家及電影明星都可以在選舉時公開表明支持對象，要科學家在得到諾貝爾獎後就不能政治表態，這是剝奪他們參與政治的權力，非常不公平。這些學者主張，諾貝爾獎得主有參政權，也可以在選舉時表明立場，沒人可以禁止。
對於自己和別人共同發表的文章引起論戰，中山大學生物科學系教授徐芝敏昨晚僅透過助教回應一句話：「我不參與政治」，其他不願意多談。
Copyright 2004 China Times Inc.
以下我摘錄原文及其反駁文件：
Nature 431, 627 (07 October 2004); doi:10.1038/431627c
Scientists and teachers should ignore politics
Sir – We read with interest your News story "Nobel laureates spearhead effort to put Kerry in the White House" (Nature 430, 595; 2004) about scientists campaigning in the United States.
Nobel laureates have more productive ways to benefit society than entangling themselves in the chaotic web of political campaigns. The expertise of the American Nobel laureates is in physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine — otherwise they would have received their Nobel Prizes for peace efforts. Why should their expertise in their chosen subjects make them masters in the sphere of politics?
We witnessed an example of this activity in Taiwan's 2000 presidential elections, and we find reasons for concern. Taiwan's only Nobel laureate, the chemist Lee Yuan-tseh, supported the Democratic Progressive Party nominee, Chen Shui-bian, before Chen's election to office in 2000. After that election, Lee continued to speak out on political matters, with sometimes mixed results. Lee has been involved in educational reforms in Taiwan for more than a decade, but last year university lecturers launched a signature campaign, asking him to take responsibility for what they considered to be failures in educational reform.
Yet Lee's scientific achievements have been rightly acclaimed. He has also been honoured as a Chinese scholar by the People's Republic of China. Perhaps his greatest skill is in inspiring a younger generation to become teachers themselves. Lee's reported words at a recent award ceremony for teachers in Taipei are worth recalling: "It is teachers, not politicians, who control the lifeline of society."
We recently heard that the 82-year-old Chinese scientist Yang Cheng-ning, who received the 1957 Nobel Prize in physics and has lived for many years in the United States, now teaches physics at Tsinghua University in Beijing as well as continuing his research. This is what laureates should be doing, not taking part in politics.
Minna J. Hsu
Department of Biological Sciences, National Sun Yat-sen University, Kaohsiung 40424, Taiwan
Govindasamy Agoramoorthy
Department of Applied Foreign Languages, Tajen Institute of Technology, Yanpu, Pingtung 907, Taiwan
兩位史丹佛學者及一位柏克萊學者聯名對徐文的駁斥
Nature 431, 1036 (28 October 2004); doi:10.1038/4311036a
Scientists must conquer reluctance to speak out
Sir – We read with some concern the views of M. J. Hsu and G. Agoramoorthy in Correspondence, that "Scientists and teachers should ignore politics" (Nature 431, 627; 2004). They argue that scientists help society most effectively through teaching and research, rather than by taking part in election campaigns. In the current political climate in the United States, this well-intentioned argument represents a grave threat to both science and society.
The politicization of science threatens to undermine the value of science to society by obscuring scientific consensus and misleading policy-makers and the public. Although the threat is external — and most apparent in the suppression and manipulation of science by the Bush administration — the resolution is largely internal. More than 5,500 scientists have signed the Union of Concerned Scientists' statement of protest, and more than 1,800 environmental scientists have signed a separate statement at http://www.scienceinpolicy.org. But it will take a greater outcry from the scientific community to bring this issue to the prominence it deserves. Scientists must step forward to protest against the manipulation of their results, or the obfuscation of accepted science will become an enduring tactic in political manoeuvring.
Already, scientific information is often clouded in the public arena. Evidence from competing expert witnesses in court cases, for example, makes it difficult for juries to decipher scientific evidence.
Attempts at journalistic balance similarly give equal weight to ideas that have unequal scientific support. This practice — which is neither good journalism nor an effective presentation of scientific knowledge — often creates the misconception that there is serious scientific debate about a particular issue when, in reality, there is virtually none.
For example, journalists gave roughly equal attention to the views of isolated scientists, including those funded by stakeholding industries, long after the wider scientific community reached consensus over the health threat posed by smoking and over the likelihood of human-induced climate change. In the former case, outcry from physicians and scientists finally penetrated the disinformation campaign by the tobacco industry (to society's great benefit). Yet in the climate-change arena, the naysayers still have a significant voice despite the consensus against them.
Politicians increasingly employ a similar misrepresentation of science in public policy debates. If such manipulation is allowed to continue, scientists' constructive provision of unbiased, realistic assessments to policy-makers will be compromised.
Unfortunately, calling on scientists to defend their work from political manipulation bumps squarely against a deep reluctance among scientists to appear partisan. After all, the impartiality of science is largely responsible for the confidence most Americans have in scientific information. Scientists are legitimately concerned that advocacy may undermine the public perception that scientists are relatively apolitical and concerned primarily with facts. But what use is a voice that is held in high esteem but never raised?
We argue that the current assault on science sufficiently threatens the role of science in society to merit the risk of speaking out. Advocacy is less dangerous than sitting quietly on the sidelines while politicians and interest groups undermine the scientific method by perpetrating junk science.
Stephen Porder
Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305-5020, USA
Kai M. A. Chan
Center for Conservation Biology, Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305-5020, USA
Paul A. T. Higgins
151 Hilgard Hall, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720-3110, USA
英國學者對徐文的駁斥
Nature 431, 1036 (28 October 2004); doi:10.1038/4311036b
Why leave it to others to speak up about science?
Sir – Your correspondents M. J. Hsu and G. Agoramoorthy (Nature 431, 627; 2004), seem to deny to scientists a right that lawyers, financiers, writers and even movie stars claim for themselves, which is direct involvement in political processes.
If this was ever a wise policy it is surely no longer, when science is so often the pawn of politics and individual politicians. The law on stem-cell research, for example, varies from one country to another according to political dogma. As a postgraduate researcher at a British university, I urge scientists to spare such time as they can afford to be involved with politics — as I have done myself, serving on a local council and even standing for parliament.
There is no good reason why lawyers and movie stars should have an exclusive right to debate science matters, any more than scientists should have the final say in the film industry or the law.
The fewer impenetrable membranes with which scientists surround themselves and their work, the better.
Ian Flintoff
22 Chaldon Road, London SW6 7NJ, UK