方舟子获自然杂志2012年首届John Maddox科学捍卫奖
- 主题发起人 老闹子
- 开始时间
- 状态
这2件事情都不熟悉, 你给讲讲
我听到的都是大家熟悉的那几个与名人干的事情, 那几个名人都是读书人出身
Professor Colin Blakemore, University of Oxford and judge:
“We were overwhelmed with the number and quality of nominations, but the two winners stood out. In different ways, in very different environments, Simon Wessely and Fang Shi-min have worked with courage and dignity to uphold the standards of science and evidence against the forces of prejudice and greed.”
- 注册
- 2012-01-25
- 消息
- 15,998
- 荣誉分数
- 5,523
- 声望点数
- 273
请教一下，这个John Madoxx科学捍卫奖看官方介绍是由名为Sense about Science 的慈善机构颁发的，当然它和自然杂志是有关系的，它以自然的前总编命名，自然杂志也是奖金的赞助方之一，不过，即使这样，把它直接称作“自然科学奖”，而且把这个今年才设立的奖金额2000英镑的奖和有百年历史百万奖金的诺贝尔奖并列，是不是比把带博士生的assistant professor称作教授要夸张100倍啊？
俺不懂科学，也比较俗，就是觉得2000英镑太对不起各位对方斗士的高度赞许了，去领个奖来回路费加住宿就没了，更别说还远不够当年方是民被判诽谤诬蔑肖传国罪名成立的赔偿金额。不知各位方粉是不是愿意拿点实际行动支持你们心目中的英雄，不说捐到诺贝尔奖的数额吧，捐个2万镑也好帮老方继续打官司？
- 注册
- 2012-01-25
- 消息
- 15,998
- 荣誉分数
- 5,523
- 声望点数
- 273
韩粉是气不着，方粉可是自娱自乐了。
老方不争气，方粉们难得高兴一回。
但是俺忍不住要再当一回坏人，提醒下方粉上回高兴太早的后果：
上次老方的《吃得少活到老》被人指出抄袭，老方立马自证清白说是田清涞抄的他，让方粉们好一阵欢乐。但是天下没有最牛的只有更牛的，资深方黑深入调查，居然发现老方和老田都是抄的：老方那篇3906字的文章，至少有2535字，约占全文的三分之二，抄自一本名为Biology of Aging: Observations and Principles的英文原著，而且抄的时候还犯了一些低级错误。详细对比和分析都在这里：
http://www.2250s.com/read.php?2-17014-17014
就是不晓得有洁癖的方舟子这回怎么不再自证了。也不知道方粉们是不是要为老方辩护：科普文章抄袭不算抄，论文才算抄(哦对了，社科院的硕士论文抄袭也不能算抄）？把英文原著翻成中文当作自己的论述不算抄？
- 注册
- 2007-08-08
- 消息
- 8,897
- 荣誉分数
- 1,411
- 声望点数
- 373
肖传国落选院士的那一致命锤子
送方是民博士获大奖位置
送方是民博士获大奖位置
- 注册
- 2012-02-27
- 消息
- 9,438
- 荣誉分数
- 2,120
- 声望点数
- 273
请教一下，这个John Madoxx科学捍卫奖看官方介绍是由名为Sense about Science 的慈善机构颁发的，当然它和自然杂志是有关系的，它以自然的前总编命名，自然杂志也是奖金的赞助方之一，不过，即使这样，把它直接称作“自然科学奖”，而且把这个今年才设立的奖金额2000英镑的奖和有百年历史百万奖金的诺贝尔奖并列，是不是比把带博士生的assistant professor称作教授要夸张100倍啊？
俺不懂科学，也比较俗，就是觉得2000英镑太对不起各位对方斗士的高度赞许了，去领个奖来回路费加住宿就没了，更别说还远不够当年方是民被判诽谤诬蔑肖传国罪名成立的赔偿金额。不知各位方粉是不是愿意拿点实际行动支持你们心目中的英雄，不说捐到诺贝尔奖的数额吧，捐个2万镑也好帮老方继续打官司？
楼主的帖子说“方舟子获自然杂志2012年首届John Maddox科学捍卫奖”，你怎么说方舟子获的这个奖不是“自然杂志”授的，反而是一个什么慈善机构授的涅？
能否请楼上诸位看过--哦，不对，应该是--读过自然杂志的桶子们给澄清一下涅？
老何，何百科，你出来给说说到底是咋回事儿？
附：
《自然杂志》网站：
http://www.nature.com/nature/index.html
Sense about Science 网站：
http://www.senseaboutscience.org/pages/about-us.html
John Maddox prize
Two strong-minded individuals are the first winners of an award for standing up for science.
06 November 2012
The British psychiatrist Simon Wessely and the Chinese science writer Shi-min Fang are the two inaugural winners of the John Maddox Prize. Sponsored by Nature and the Kohn Foundation, and stimulated and organized by the UK-based charity Sense About Science, the prize commemorates a former Editor of Nature, John Maddox. John was distinguished for his championing of robust science. The prize rewards individuals who have promoted sound science and evidence on a matter of public interest, with an emphasis on those who have faced difficulty or opposition in doing so. In this inaugural year, the judges (see go.nature.com/9rvd1t) were able to make two awards, each of £2,000 (US$3,200).
China’s rush to modernize and the communist government’s celebration of science and technology have firmly embraced scientists and scientific achievements, sometimes uncritically. And into that permissive milieu has walked a plethora of opportunists ready to take advantage of the situation with padded CVs, fraudulent and plagiarized articles, bogus medicines and medical procedures carried out without clinical evidence.
Related stories
In 2000, Shi-min Fang started to expose these escapades in his New Threads website. As an outsider, trained as a biochemist but turned science writer and commentator, he has done much of what the scientific community aims, but often fails, to do — root out the fakers.
For example, Fang called into question DNA supplements that were widely advertised as a means to rejuvenate the tired, the pregnant and the old. Eventually, the government issued warnings about the supplements. Fang seemed to especially relish smacking down powerful or popular scientists. He even challenged official support of traditional Chinese medicine. But his targets fought back, in one case with particular hostility. In the summer of 2010, thugs hired by a urologist attacked Fang with a hammer and, according to Fang, tried to kill him. Fang had previously challenged not only the efficacy of a surgical procedure developed by the urologist, but also his CV.
Fang imposes transparency on an opaque system. He has opened a forum for criticism and debate in a community that is otherwise devoid of it.
Simon Wessely is a psychiatrist at the Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London, who has specialized in two areas above all — the mental health of military personnel and veterans, and chronic fatigue syndrome. He and his colleagues demonstrated substantial overlap in symptoms between chronic fatigue syndrome and clinical depression. He carried out a massive and ambitious study to test the link between common viral infections and later fatigue, and found that there is no simple causal association. He subsequently developed a treatment approach using cognitive-behavioural therapy techniques, which in many cases brought about substantial improvement and in some was life transforming. This treatment was tested in large clinical trials and can now be found in the guidelines of the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.
“All along the way,” says the individual who nominated him for the prize, “Wessely has had to suffer continued abuse and obstruction from a powerful minority of people who, under the guise of self-help organizations, have sought to promote an extreme and narrow version of the disorder. This version repudiates any psychological or psychiatric element to the extent that psychiatry is viewed as a contemptible discipline, which, by association, denigrates psychiatric patients. Hostile letters, e-mails and even death threats have been directed at Professor Wessely over two decades. Mischievous complaints have been made against him and his clinical team, and bogus questions raised in the Houses of Parliament. He has suffered a vigorous Internet assault and coordinated attempts have been made to turn him into a hate figure. He has been compared to Josef Mengele — particularly hurtful since Simon is the son of holocaust survivors. Simon has, perhaps naively, tried to deal with most of these by seeking dialogue and trying to educate and reassure, rather than by responding in kind.”
Wessely is the first to acknowledge that others working in this field have received similar or even worse abuse. Never­theless, the prize recognizes the very public stand that Wessely has taken over these issues.
Nature congratulates Simon Wessely and Shi-min Fang on their awards.
Two strong-minded individuals are the first winners of an award for standing up for science.
06 November 2012
The British psychiatrist Simon Wessely and the Chinese science writer Shi-min Fang are the two inaugural winners of the John Maddox Prize. Sponsored by Nature and the Kohn Foundation, and stimulated and organized by the UK-based charity Sense About Science, the prize commemorates a former Editor of Nature, John Maddox. John was distinguished for his championing of robust science. The prize rewards individuals who have promoted sound science and evidence on a matter of public interest, with an emphasis on those who have faced difficulty or opposition in doing so. In this inaugural year, the judges (see go.nature.com/9rvd1t) were able to make two awards, each of £2,000 (US$3,200).
China’s rush to modernize and the communist government’s celebration of science and technology have firmly embraced scientists and scientific achievements, sometimes uncritically. And into that permissive milieu has walked a plethora of opportunists ready to take advantage of the situation with padded CVs, fraudulent and plagiarized articles, bogus medicines and medical procedures carried out without clinical evidence.
Related stories
In 2000, Shi-min Fang started to expose these escapades in his New Threads website. As an outsider, trained as a biochemist but turned science writer and commentator, he has done much of what the scientific community aims, but often fails, to do — root out the fakers.
For example, Fang called into question DNA supplements that were widely advertised as a means to rejuvenate the tired, the pregnant and the old. Eventually, the government issued warnings about the supplements. Fang seemed to especially relish smacking down powerful or popular scientists. He even challenged official support of traditional Chinese medicine. But his targets fought back, in one case with particular hostility. In the summer of 2010, thugs hired by a urologist attacked Fang with a hammer and, according to Fang, tried to kill him. Fang had previously challenged not only the efficacy of a surgical procedure developed by the urologist, but also his CV.
Fang imposes transparency on an opaque system. He has opened a forum for criticism and debate in a community that is otherwise devoid of it.
Simon Wessely is a psychiatrist at the Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London, who has specialized in two areas above all — the mental health of military personnel and veterans, and chronic fatigue syndrome. He and his colleagues demonstrated substantial overlap in symptoms between chronic fatigue syndrome and clinical depression. He carried out a massive and ambitious study to test the link between common viral infections and later fatigue, and found that there is no simple causal association. He subsequently developed a treatment approach using cognitive-behavioural therapy techniques, which in many cases brought about substantial improvement and in some was life transforming. This treatment was tested in large clinical trials and can now be found in the guidelines of the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.
“All along the way,” says the individual who nominated him for the prize, “Wessely has had to suffer continued abuse and obstruction from a powerful minority of people who, under the guise of self-help organizations, have sought to promote an extreme and narrow version of the disorder. This version repudiates any psychological or psychiatric element to the extent that psychiatry is viewed as a contemptible discipline, which, by association, denigrates psychiatric patients. Hostile letters, e-mails and even death threats have been directed at Professor Wessely over two decades. Mischievous complaints have been made against him and his clinical team, and bogus questions raised in the Houses of Parliament. He has suffered a vigorous Internet assault and coordinated attempts have been made to turn him into a hate figure. He has been compared to Josef Mengele — particularly hurtful since Simon is the son of holocaust survivors. Simon has, perhaps naively, tried to deal with most of these by seeking dialogue and trying to educate and reassure, rather than by responding in kind.”
Wessely is the first to acknowledge that others working in this field have received similar or even worse abuse. Never­theless, the prize recognizes the very public stand that Wessely has taken over these issues.
Nature congratulates Simon Wessely and Shi-min Fang on their awards.
- 注册
- 2004-07-18
- 消息
- 46,711
- 荣誉分数
- 20,503
- 声望点数
- 1,393
- 状态
