不明真相的群众没有资格讨论浙大海归自杀事件

给戴眼镜者的诱饵 加比雷尔（马其顿）

给戴眼镜者的诱饵 加比雷尔（马其顿）

浙大最近这件事情，在大众媒体上很低调，但在科学网上却很火爆。科学时报记者也写了一篇报道，大家好像都基于那篇报道透露的信息来讨论，但是那篇报道恰恰没有提供足够的信息。正如吴宝俊所说，遗书“对于遗书的内容，一共6页，媒体和浙大只公开3行字，其余的以“保护隐私”为由拒绝公开”。目前的信息并不足以评判各方的是非对错。饶毅说“要慎防，要避免”，本无问题，我很赞成——防罢了，没说啥。但他文章里却强烈暗示抑郁症的因素，那就不实证了。

人死，我们要表示惋惜和同情。但在是非问题上，无论站在哪一边都需要证据。我们一向处于的状态却往往是不明真相，正如这次这样。因此我们是没有资格站在任何一方的。媒体报道有预设，我们大部分人都有预设，都对事情有主观上的判断。饶毅归因于抑郁症这是主观判断，其他人归因于政策黑暗也是主观判断，谁也不比谁更接近真相。

如果我们仅仅是凭已知的信息进行逻辑推断，那我可以尝试一下：浙大称遗书的余下部分因“保护隐私”而不公开，可以理解为浙大害怕如果公开将承受法律风险：公开了，大家知道真相高兴了，但浙大会被人告。另一种可能就是余下部分对浙大不利，因此浙大恶意地掩盖。问题的关键是在于法律。在法律上，浙在有没有权这么做。如果它没权这么做但这么做了，违反了什么法。好，如果违了某法，谁去提起诉讼？如果浙大在法律上是有权这么做的，你无论怎么猜测浙大的动机都是徒劳。事实上，浙大的确公开了部分遗言。那么，它是否公开了对自己有利的遗言呢？好像恰恰 相反，“残酷、无信、无情”。我是浙大的话，要掩盖全掩盖好了，向在公开的一部分要导致挨批，掩盖另一部分又导致挨批……

再就是更重要的问题，涂博士为什么自杀。大家实际上都是暗示来暗示去，没有明确过自己的观点。我帮他们明确一下：那就是浙大当初承诺了丰厚的条件，包括物质上的和职业发展上的，但涂博士归国之后没有兑现，甚至长期不准备兑现，导致涂博士深受打击而自杀。不知道我瞎帮忙明确的这个观点他们同不同意？但这么说并不靠谱。作为精神正常的人，被这样的机构欺骗，可以告上法庭，也可以愤而跳槽。为什么会选择自杀？所以我们需要把浙大猜测得更恶一些：浙大不仅把一个有研究能力的海归骗回来长期做讲师，还通过其地位和手腕沟通了其他各大高校将这个人列入黑名单，不予招聘，彻底短了该名博士的职业前途。再就是莫须有地为这名博士添加了信用污点，他再也回不到美国了。我觉得即使这样，人无论如何也需要上法庭告一下，告不赢再自杀不迟。

可见，如果要逻辑推断，怎么推断都行，因为我们的前提不是基于事实，而是随便选的。你想得出什么结论，你就选一个什么前提。大多数人之所以极其自然地不约而同地“明白”了“真相”，是因为我们长期处于“不明真相”的神秘主义状态，练就了一副阴谋论的头脑。科学训练并不能驱散这样强大的非理性传统。可惜的是没有人觉得需要停止无谓的猜测和争论，而是联合起来挖掘真相——法律上的真相，不是猜的真相。

由中国人组成的社会永远不会是好社会

我发现有很多人在诟病中国的学术界，进而有更多的人在诟病中国社会现状，但没听过有谁诟病过自己。无论怎么换血，无论怎么改朝换代，只要仍是一堆中国人，那么多个朝代你随便选哪个都黑。

你觉得是因为民智不启吗？对的。但愚民无非是为了好统治，每个中国人心中的一个梦想偏偏就是风调雨顺国泰民安，你说你怎么启民智？人家甘愿愚。

只有把黄河文明重新发源一次，不许种地，不许发展成农耕文明，现在才有可能改观。

什么学术界有人跳楼？小case啦！对于想回国的人你只要考虑一个问题：你斗得过中国人吗？在中国，别看有医院有学校，好像有各行各业，但其实都是虚的。所有人在做的事情不是他们的专业，而是——斗。你回国只要考虑你斗不斗，斗不斗得过，就行了。

OA week webina: China's illy defined scientific journal policy

Nature Network博客上的原文：http://network.nature.com/people/andrewsun/blog/2009/10/20/oa-week-webina-chinas-illy-defined-scientific-journal-policy

On 9:45 Tusday GMT+8 a webina was organized by Zhiming Wang, editor of Nanoscale Research Letters. In the webina Patrick Brown, director of PLoS, gave a talk to the Chinese audience on the OA strategy and the single paper metrics feature of PLoS website.

A surely relevant topic of the survival and development of any journal is the highness of its ‘impact’. Highly concerned by Chinese effort to boost the development of local scientific journals, Patrick criticized strongly, agreed by all Chinese audience, on the ill institution of current Chinese science policy and its destructive effect on journals. In China, number of papers published on higher-impact journals is linked with the promotion and funding of the authors, that is, personal interest. This renders journals with additional economical status, either favorable or unfavorable determined by their “highness of impact”, because personal interest is never met for free in a free market society. An invisible bargain exist between every pair of journal and authorship. By “highness of impact”, one means simply impact factor in China. This, as mentioned by Patrick, conducts a “very destructive punishment” for all new journals, including esp. OA ones. Journals don’t have ISI impact factors for at least two years even they have been indexed. Some journals with ‘experimental’ way of peer-review or distribution process are even not indexed by ISI (e.g. PLoS one). Under China’s current reality, authors get punished if they publish their results on these journals. I wondered how many submission from China does PloS one received each year compared with other non-OA, ISI indexed journals. Patrick had to look up a bit but he answered that in general China ranks almost the lowest in publishing on new journals.

Although the single-paper metrics feature of PLoS journals can be a better alternative to the impact factor of the whole journal when it comes to grading a person in science community, the reason behind the ill policy is much more general and is also influencing other scientific process badly in China; evaluation of a person or institute’s scientific achievement is still to a large extent not conducted by peers but general, ‘macroscopic’, administrative roles, who have nothing more to rely on except quantitative measurements such as numbers of paper, ISI impact factors, h-index. Instead of only referring to the advantage of these measures, they rely on the whole of them including their negative effects which are surely larger.

An atmosphere that appreciates the status of scientific peers, either administrative and cultural, is highly needed, which though is not possible in the current state of education system of China.