发信人: icestone (凤翼天翔), 信区: Biology
标 题: 饶毅对《自然》关于达赖喇嘛报道的回应
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Fri Aug 5 12:28:16 2005), 站内

【 以下文字转载自 Science 讨论区 】
发信人: luobo (菠萝), 信区: Science
标 题: 饶毅对《自然》关于达赖喇嘛报道的回应
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Fri Aug 5 12:24:31 2005)

Dear Lab,

Some of you may have noticed a Nature report on July 28th which quoted me as
against the invitation by the Society for Neuroscience (SfN) for the Dalai
Lamato give a featured lecture on the Neuroscience of Meditation at the 2005
annual meeting. Since then, I have received inquiries, interviews (including
the BBC), as well as protesting and supporting emails from different people.
Supporting emails have provided me with more materials, the protesting ones
are focused on my national origin. To avoid confusion, I am writing down the
following.

1) I will be less mindful if religious leaders happen to be linked to good
science, which is rare. So far there is only one paper published in a
respectablejournal on the Dalai Lama kind of meditation. It is bad science.
Thus the Dalai Lama has no more qualification to lecture on “the Neuroscience
of Meditation” than the Pope to lecture on “the Neuroscience of Sex”: one
based on meditative experience and the other on exemplary abstinence. It would
have been less an insult to intelligence if the Dalai Lama lectures at a
monastery or tothose with IQ similar to the current White House occupants.

2) Richard Davidson at U. Wisconsin, a long time admirer of the Dalai Lama,
isthe major psychologist involved in Buddhist meditation research. Davidson
told the New York Times that “the vast majority of meditation research is
schlock”. His own 2004 PNAS paper is no exception to this characterization.
My critique on his paper is not short but is available for those interested in
details.

3) The announcement of the society of neuroscience (SfN) is based claims
madeby Davidson to the news media several years ago, which have not been
substantiated by any peer-reviewed publications (not even the substandard PNAS
paper).Even if the SfN keeps the lecture, it should correct this oversight to
lessenthe spreading of unproven claims.

4) It is dim-witted to say that every Chinese against the Dalai Lama lecture
is motivated by politics. The Dalai Lama gives many talks. It requires either
stretching the imagination or lowering the intelligence to think that
cancelinga lecture to specialized scientists will have any impact on global
politics or that the Chinese government would care about this lecture.

5) It is thinly veiled racism to accuse those against the Dalai Lama
invitation as currying favor with the Chinese government. This ignores the
long historyof independent scholars in China or of Chinese origin. I co-
authored a critique on a major Chinese ministry in the 2004 Nature supplement,
which was immediately banned in China (see Nature July 14th editorial). Some
appreciate it while some want to label it as foreign interference. Now the
opinion against theDalai Lama lecture is interpreted by some as a proxy for
the Chinese government. It won’t hurt for those looking at China or the
Chinese to take off the racial or political glasses. I am not blind to the
fact that the Chinese are notcompletely immune from racism and this criticism
thus includes reverse racismby some Chinese.

Without the racial bias, one can find that Chinese scholarship is neither
short in history nor absent at the present time.

Yi

致实验室同仁：
也许你们其中有人注意到7月28日《自然》一篇报道引用了我反对“神经科学会”邀请达
赖喇嘛到2005年年会上给专门演讲：打坐的神经科学。其后，我收到了不同人（包括BBC
）的询问、采访、抗议和支持的电子邮件。支持的提供了更多材料，抗议的主要是针对我
的族裔来源。为避免不清楚，我写下如下几点。

1) 如果宗教领袖碰巧与好的科学有关，我不那么在意，不过这种情况很少。迄今为止，
和达赖喇嘛那种打坐有关的研究只有一篇在体面的杂志上发表，而且其科学很差。因此，
达赖喇嘛讲“打坐的神经科学”的资格，并不多于教皇讲“性的神经科学”：前者可能打
过不少坐，后者节欲也是典范。如果让达赖喇嘛到庙里去讲、或者讲给目前白宫居住者们
那样智商的人去听，可能还不辱斯文。

2) Wisconsin 大学的Richard Davidson是研究和尚打坐的主要心理学家，也是达赖喇嘛
的长期崇拜者。他曾对纽约时报说“绝大多数打坐研究都是垃圾”。他自己2004年的PNAS
论文不例外于这个形容。我对他论文的批评不短，可以给对细节感兴趣者。

3) 神经科学会(SfN)的有关宣布是依据Davidson几年前给新闻媒体的号称，这些号称没有
任何已经发表的同行评议的论文以数据来支持（那篇不达标准的PNAS论文也没有）。即使
SfN要坚持此演讲，它仍应该纠正此错以减少传播没有证实的号称。

4) 比较愚蠢的逻辑才会说每个反对达赖喇嘛演讲的华人都是因为政治。达赖喇嘛演讲多
的是。浮想联翩或者降低智力才会认为取消一个给专业科学家的演讲对全球政治有任何影
响、才会认为中国政府对这样的演讲有任何关心。

5)有指责说反对达赖喇嘛演讲的人都是为了讨好中国政府，这种指责不是什么隐藏的很深
的种族主义。它无视中国和华人有独立学者的长期历史。我在2004年《自然》增刊里共同
署名发表过一篇对中国一个主要部委做法的批评，被立即禁止在中国发行（见《自然》
2005年7月14日社论）。有人赞赏、也有人歪曲它是外国干涉。现在我对达赖喇嘛演讲的
发对意见却又被攻击成给中国政府说话。其实如果能脱下种族和政治的眼镜来中国和华人
，实在没有什么坏处。我不是盲目到以为华人没有种族歧视，所以这个批评的对象也包括
华人的反向歧视。

去除种族偏见，可以看到华人的学术精神在历史上不缺、现在也不是没有。

饶毅
--

※ 来源:·BBS 未名空间站 http://mitbbs.com·[FROM: 63.192.]