新闻聚合器
欧洲大型强子对撞机刷新质子流对撞能级纪录
卫生部长陈竺在《科学》杂志发表社论
教育部：构建专业学位研究生服务保障体系
我国科学家领衔发现驰龙类新属种
Forensic Delusions
A groundbreaking report by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) last year recognized that much of forensic science is not rooted in solid science. Many forensic disciplines — such as hair microscopy, bite-mark comparisons, fingerprint analysis, firearm testing and tool-mark analysis — were developed solely to solve crimes. They evolved mainly in the context of individual cases, which often had significant variation in resources and expertise. They have not been subjected to rigorous experimental scrutiny, and there are no standards or oversight in the United States or elsewhere to ensure that validated, reliable forensic methods are used consistently. With the exception of DNA analysis, no forensic method has been proved to reliably and accurately demonstrate a connection between evidence and a specific source. …
We advocate the creation of an office of forensic science improvement and support (OFSIS) within the US Department of Commerce to spur independent research, develop standards and ensure compliance. … [Some] within the forensic-science and law-enforcement fields … argue that an OFSIS is not necessary and that laboratory accreditation is sufficient. … They argue that an OFSIS would cost too much … and that it could create chaos in the US justice system by reopening countless old cases. … Political and criminal-justice ends — rather than research imperatives — have taken forensic science off course. … See www.just-science.org.
More here. The primary social pressure on law court practices is for courts to give the appearance of punishing guilty folks. Observers have much less info on who is actually guilty. So the main pressure on legal standards is that officially-accepted evidence seem to the public, juries, and judges to indicate guilt, not that it actually indicate guilt. We expect the law to be overconfident about its evidence.
Requiring that legal evidence standards stand up to independent experimental scrutiny would create a more accurate legal system, but at the expense of reducing the apparent rate at which the guilty are punished. So I expect, sadly, this proposal to be rejected.
Spy in the sky that sees round corners
科学松鼠会讲座（王道还·上海·杭州·南京）
你没看错，杭州，南京，我们来了！这是科学松鼠会系列讲座的第2-4期，主讲者是我们的老朋友，来自台湾的王道还先生，北京的同学还记得去年的2个小时吗？讲达尔文他都让我们笑了那么多。江南的同学们，你们有福啦。
王道还·人类自然史系列讲座（上海/杭州/南京）；3月26-28日
主办方：科学松鼠会
特约支持：兴业全球基金
门户网站合作：新浪科技
视频合作：土豆网
特别鸣谢：东方早报、虾米网、先锋书店
主持人：姬十三
每场均有神秘嘉宾，敬请期待
媒体联络：marilynma82@gmail.com
没看错，还有北京的，敬请期待
上海站
主题：人类特异的性象(sexuality)
地址：上海东方艺术中心演奏厅
（地图在这里：http://www.shoac.com.cn/rhddy.asp）
时间：2010年3月26日19：30-22：00
报名人数：250人
介绍：性象就是与生殖直接有关的解剖、生理、行为特征，包括两性关系。人属于哺乳类，但是人类的两性关系却像鸟类。难怪诗人会以「在天愿为比翼鸟」讴歌爱情了。但是，人为什么会演化出这种两性关系？
（讲座免费，但上海站讲座需要领票入场，领票的相关事宜我们会在确认邮件里说明，请仔细阅读，未得到确认的肯定进不来）
杭州站
主题：达尔文与达尔文革命
地址：杭州贝塔咖啡馆（杭州市西湖区通普路41号(高技街的交叉口)，地图在这里：http://www.cafebeta.com/map）
2010年3月27日14：00-16：30
报名人数：150人
介绍：1859年，达尔文出版《物种原始论》，在西方知识界同时引发了生物学革命与人文革命。本讲从达尔文这个人谈起，介绍他的家世、科学思想渊源，以及他的人格特质。但是重点在西方现代生物学的历史源流，以及社会脉络。
（讲座免费，鼓励消费，但不强制）
南京站
主题：人类演化的化石证据
地址：南京先锋书店五台山总店（南京广州路173号：http://www.xf1996.com/main/index.php）
时间：2010年3月28日 14：30-17：00
报名人数：150人
介绍：人类与非洲两种现生黑猩猩来自同一祖先。六百万年前，人的始祖就出现了，然而他们的行为与社会，我们仍不清楚。在行为上与我们接近的人类祖先，直到两百五十万年前才出现。不过，尽管十九世纪是演化论时代，如今我们已拥有丰富的古人类化石，学者对于如何辨认人类祖先，一开始就有争议，而且至今仍未稍歇。
（讲座免费）
【主讲人介绍】
王道还，1953年，台北市出生，台湾大学人类学硕士(1980)，哈佛大学生物人类学(biological anthropology)博士候选人，专业背景是演化生物学、神经解剖学、神经心理学。现任台湾中央研究院历史语言研究所人类学组助理研究员。业余从事科学写作与翻译，担任台湾行政院国家科学委员会《科学发展月刊》常务编委、台湾《科学人》（Scientific American）编译委员、中国《环球科学》（Scientific American）专栏作家。译作已有十本。
【如何参加】
报名链接：http://www.askform.cn/4637-71184.aspx
选择参加的场次，报名确认邮件将在报名系统关闭后统一发出（大约是3月25日前后），报名成功的同学会收到我们的确认邮件，请耐心等待，请不要反复提交数据！名额珍贵，请不能来的同学不要报名，现场签到，没有得到确认的肯定进不来。
【微博直播】
本次讲座将通过科学松鼠会新浪微博文字直播，欢迎不能来现场参加的同学届时关注，并且可以实时通过微博向嘉宾提出问题。
附：王道还先生作品一览
1985
《科學革命的結構》中譯本編輯
(The structure of scientific revolutions, by Thomas Kuhn, 2nd ed. 1970)
《达尔文》（台北：联经出版公司）
(Darwin, by J. Howard, 1982)
1998
《枪炮、病菌与钢铁》（与廖月娟合译）（台北：时报文化出版）
(Guns, germs and steel, by Jared Diamond, 1997)
《性趣何来？》（台北：天下远见出版）
(Why is sex fun, by Jared Diamond, 1997)
1999
《达尔文作品选读》（台北：诚品书店出版）
2000
《第三种（黑）猩猩》（由时报文化出版）
(The third chimpanzee, by Jared Diamond, 1992)
《好小子贝尼特》（台北：允晨文化出版）
(Good Benito, by Alan Lightman, 1994)
2001
《计算机生命天演论》（台北：时报文化出版）
(Darwin among the machines, by George B. Dyson, 1997)
2002
《盲眼钟表匠》（台北：天下远见出版）
(The blind watchmaker, by Richard Dawkins, 1986)
2003
《达尔文与基本教义派》，台北市：果实出版社（城邦集团）
(Darwin and fundamentalism, by Merryl Wyn Davies, 2000)
2004
《天人之际》，台北市：三民书局
2005年9月
《医学简史》，台北市：商周出版（城邦集团）
Blood & guts: a short history of medicine, by Roy Porter (1946-2002), 2002
function copyCode(id){
var testCode=document.getElementById(id).value;
if(copy2Clipboard(testCode)!=false){
alert("生成的代码已经复制到粘贴板，你可以使用Ctrl+V 贴到需要的地方去了哦！ ");
}
}
copy2Clipboard=function(txt){
if(window.clipboardData){
window.clipboardData.clearData();
window.clipboardData.setData("Text",txt);
}
else if(navigator.userAgent.indexOf("Opera")!=-1){
window.location=txt;
}
else if(window.netscape){
try{
netscape.security.PrivilegeManager.enablePrivilege("UniversalXPConnect");
}
catch(e){
alert("您的firefox安全限制限制您进行剪贴板操作，请打开'about:config'将signed.applets.codebase_principal_support'设置为true'之后重试，相对路径为firefox根目录/greprefs/all.js");
return false;
}
var clip=Components.classes['@mozilla.org/widget/clipboard;1'].createInstance(Components.interfaces.nsIClipboard);
if(!clip)return;
var trans=Components.classes['@mozilla.org/widget/transferable;1'].createInstance(Components.interfaces.nsITransferable);
if(!trans)return;
trans.addDataFlavor('text/unicode');
var str=new Object();
var len=new Object();
var str=Components.classes["@mozilla.org/supports-string;1"].createInstance(Components.interfaces.nsISupportsString);
var copytext=txt;str.data=copytext;
trans.setTransferData("text/unicode",str,copytext.length*2);
var clipid=Components.interfaces.nsIClipboard;
if(!clip)return false;
clip.setData(trans,null,clipid.kGlobalClipboard);
}
}
本文地址（转载请注明出处）： 复制
收藏、分享这篇文章：
更多...
Agrees object is not Prussian
Dr. Minka Cosgrove writes [AIR 15:6]:
I disagree with Doris Morra (AIR Vents 15:4) and Sugreeva Baliga (AIR Vents 15:5) that Olivia Rausch is necessarily a moron. I of course agree with them that the photo in Rausch’s article (“Museum Treasures for Children,” AIR 14:7) does not show a “disused late-nineteenth century Prussian cannon shell” as Rausch claims, and that it is a piece of whale anatomy. We must, however, allow for the possibility that Rausch is an over-sheltered ignoramus. By the way, I, like Dr. Baliga, have a husband who has one exactly like it.
Wait, what? Did you see or not? [bioephemera]
A slight science journalism FAIL in a story at iO9, originally from the New Scientist:
the Title: "First Quantum Effects Seen in Visible Object"
the Lede: "Does Schrödinger's cat really exist? You bet. The first ever quantum superposition in an object visible to the naked eye has been observed."
the Discovery: "[researchers showed] that a tiny resonating strip of metal - only 60 micrometres long, but big enough to be seen without a microscope - can both oscillate and not oscillate at the same time."
the Wait, what?: "Alas, you couldn't actually see the effect happening, because that very act of observation would take it out of superposition." (emphasis added)
Okay: this is one of those times where "seen" (in the title) should not be used to mean "observed". And I'd play down the "first time seen in a visible object"/"naked eye" angle, since - regardless of the scale of the object - the quantum effect itself is by definition not "visible".
Could this be some kind of journalistic riff on the Schrodinger's Cat paradox (dead, not dead; seen, not seen)? Perhaps this article is a FAIL and a not-FAIL at the same time, but if you read it, you spoil the effect?
Read the article and tell me what you think. Especially the physicists. Does it sound silly to you, too?
Read the comments on this post...Winds 'n' gusts
The best of the rest from the Physics arXiv this week:
Three-Dimensional Cloaking Device Operates at Terahertz Frequencies
A Search For The Mpemba Effect: When Hot Water Freezes Faster Than Cold Water
Wolfgang Pauli 1900 to 1930: His Early Physics in Jungian Perspective
Evolutionary Establishment of Moral and Double Moral Standards Through Spatial Interactions
科学家立场是否受金钱影响
Winners of the Intel Science Talent Search Announced
科学家用“发情狂”昆虫替代农药
七情上脸的DNA肖像
在照相术出现之前，想把容貌留在历史的长河里可不是件容易的事；如果做不成自给自足的伦勃朗，就只能靠艺术家给画像。问题是，以前很长一段时间里根本没有“因人而异”的肖像画的概念，艺术家随便画个路人甲乙丙丁后写上被画者的姓名就能交货，只靠服装和饰物的不同来区别画中人是国王还是主教，摆在一起简直像克隆军团来袭。就算后来有了画肖像神乎其技的委拉斯奎兹，也不等于你能摊上靠谱的艺术家，如果他那天心情不好呢？王昭君当年就是被这么坑了，以至于只能待业三年后气鼓鼓地出塞去养草泥马；万一碰上店大欺客的毕加索，画得不像还敢说“你会像我的画的，你会的”，更令人情何以堪的是，顾客最后还真的逐渐眉目如画了……
眉目如画也有很多种如法，是如拉斐尔画的苹果脸还是如莫迪里阿尼画的丝瓜脸，很大一部分是由遗传信息DNA的序列决定的。人和人的DNA序列有99.9%以上都相同，但就是那非常微小的差异，影响了你我对萝卜白菜的偏爱，和长出萝卜腿白菜色脸的几率。
在人类基因组计划顺利完成后，针对个人的DNA测序已蔚然成风，所测的大多就是这些细微的差异。用棉签在口腔里刮刮，寄去测序公司后不久就能收到一份充满了“或许，可能，应该”字眼的报告——虽然时下的测序技术已经能够精确测出单个碱基，科学界却还未能充分了解每段DNA的功能作用。所以在经济危机发生后，经营了十多年的测序服务龙头之一、冰岛的deCODE公司轰然破产; 有Google投资做后盾的23andMe也大幅度裁员——世道艰难，最先受创的就是奢侈品行业，谁愿意在这时节花一千多美元去测测自己三十年后发胖与否？
商品好不好销要看你怎么卖。现在有几家测序公司已经不再主打“基因表示你就算喝水也会变肥”这类很伤人的测序结果分析报告，而是另辟蹊径地卖另一种商品：测序结果本身，也即是那些ATGC碱基的排列方式，或者电泳照片，美其名曰“DNA肖像”。电泳是测序中常会用到的技术，用来分离大小不同的DNA片段，电泳照片说白了就有点像数目各异的等长小棒子们平行地散落在画面上，你要说它符合极简主义也行，要不想做解释，客人一进客厅看见了会如遇麻将知己般惊呼“哗！好大一张九条！”
这种时候可能就需要艺术家来救场。纽约的夫妻店“DNA艺术形式(DNA Art Forms)”公司制作DNA肖像的方式将科学与艺术结合得颇为有机：理工科出身的丈夫保罗·扎维尔卡（Paul Zawierka)负责DNA测序；艺术家妻子凯瑟琳·扎维尔卡（Catherine Dapra Zawierka）则负责将测序结果整合到肖像或风景画中去。开始创作前凯瑟琳会与客户详谈以了解其性格和喜好，用她的话来说是与客户一起“从精神上和基因上认识自身”，并籍此创作出“现代肖像画”；她专注于人与人之间那细微的差别，并尽量在画面中凸显出来，因此根据客户不同，她的作品风格也随之多变：
“我们对您的祝愿(Our Wishes for You)”是一位妇女送给她丈夫五十岁生日的礼物，她和女儿们化身为蒲公英送出给丈夫/父亲的祝福：母亲是最大的紫色蒲公英，两个女儿则是粉红色的小蒲公英；三种颜色的蒲公英种子飘飘扬扬地在空中飞舞，不指出来根本想不到这是原本长得像麻将九条的DNA条带。这幅画所表现出的温情脉脉，正应和了蒲公英的花语“爱的回应”。
“开始(The Beginning)”的主题也是关于情感的，气氛却犹如梦境般暧昧而神秘：画面正中有眉目难辨的一对男女，他们似乎是在交谈，隔着安全距离，遵循着君子自道的私人礼貌；背景里浓雾翻滚，让他和她像是在时间的无涯的荒野里没有早一步也没有晚一步地遇到；而前景里两人的DNA片段正交缠得此消彼长，一瞬间泄露了相互吸引的天机，又仿佛暗示着这场纠缠如命数注定般不可避免。这幅画的客户是两名（拒绝透露身份的）演员，他们在片场相逢相识相爱，去年订婚后请凯瑟琳画了这幅超现实风味的画做爱情纪念。这被定格一刻是一切的开始，是将动未动的一瞬。有首歌唱道，我能想到最浪漫的事，就是和你一起慢慢变老，意思不外就算我们老得连老年痴呆症的基因都认不出来了，也有些当年的心情忘不掉。
“伦敦的呼唤(London Calling)”是凯瑟琳最成功的作品之一：阴霾天气里，一位孤单男士的背影正在离去，他身着毫无特色的套装，左手提着公文包，右手执伞举过头顶，从头到脚都是忧郁的蓝；在画中人伞上淅沥的不是雨丝，而是他自己的DNA条带。近景中主角的孤单无助和远景中模糊人群的无动于衷，让人想起爱德华·蒙克的“尖叫”的构图，只是这里连呼号都无，愈发显得阑珊；大面积使用的蓝色、灰色和褐色让画面气氛透露出爱德华·霍珀式的孤寂和疏离感，更衬出主角的天生消极。这幅画是凯瑟琳为他们夫妇俩的一个朋友所作，那位朋友必须在伦敦和柏林之间往返奔波，两个城市都多雨，阴暗且严肃，他进退两难又不得不勉力为之。凯瑟琳把握到这种情绪并将其反映到画面上，就画出了现代人疲于奔命却无法跳脱自身命运的凄凉。落在伞上的DNA此刻更像一个符咒，一场圈套，一种被诅咒的行为模式。
就算是不包括实际人物的抽象画，凯瑟琳也操作得不拘一格，可动可静：“生命的琴键(Keys of Life)”里诸个色块被一丝不苟地并置，像是砖房外墙遇上纯粹造型风格；而结合了凯瑟琳自己和她妹妹的DNA信息的“指纹 (Fingerprints)”，颜料挥洒间又有抽象表现主义那股顾盼自如的劲儿。这其中展示的DNA信息已经模糊难辨，装饰意味大过科学上的象征性，但是就像中国山水画的精髓不在透视准确上一样，谁会在乎这条DNA条带是不是偏左了五厘米？在我采访凯瑟琳的当天，她正好完成新作“自此以后 (Evermore)”。她告诉我以后的计划包括将自己家谱与纽约城旧地图结合的混合材质作品，并表示她最想画的人是达芬奇和米开朗基罗，听到这个点子，我忍不住想到了那些将冤家面对面并置的格斗游戏。我们等着瞧吧。
DNA肖像的卖点就在于其信息的“唯一”。血型要跟十几亿人共享，同星座的也有好几亿，只有DNA信息是独一无二的——至少在克隆军团出现之前。万一有天克隆军团出现了集体要求画DNA肖像，其实我们也有办法可以胜任愉快：在安迪·沃霍的玛丽莲·梦露重复头像前面盖上一墙九条……
（发表于《艺术世界/松鼠看艺术》，文中第一幅图来自clearexplained.com，第二副来自DNA11公司，其余皆出自DNA Art Forms公司)
function copyCode(id){
var testCode=document.getElementById(id).value;
if(copy2Clipboard(testCode)!=false){
alert("生成的代码已经复制到粘贴板，你可以使用Ctrl+V 贴到需要的地方去了哦！ ");
}
}
copy2Clipboard=function(txt){
if(window.clipboardData){
window.clipboardData.clearData();
window.clipboardData.setData("Text",txt);
}
else if(navigator.userAgent.indexOf("Opera")!=-1){
window.location=txt;
}
else if(window.netscape){
try{
netscape.security.PrivilegeManager.enablePrivilege("UniversalXPConnect");
}
catch(e){
alert("您的firefox安全限制限制您进行剪贴板操作，请打开'about:config'将signed.applets.codebase_principal_support'设置为true'之后重试，相对路径为firefox根目录/greprefs/all.js");
return false;
}
var clip=Components.classes['@mozilla.org/widget/clipboard;1'].createInstance(Components.interfaces.nsIClipboard);
if(!clip)return;
var trans=Components.classes['@mozilla.org/widget/transferable;1'].createInstance(Components.interfaces.nsITransferable);
if(!trans)return;
trans.addDataFlavor('text/unicode');
var str=new Object();
var len=new Object();
var str=Components.classes["@mozilla.org/supports-string;1"].createInstance(Components.interfaces.nsISupportsString);
var copytext=txt;str.data=copytext;
trans.setTransferData("text/unicode",str,copytext.length*2);
var clipid=Components.interfaces.nsIClipboard;
if(!clip)return false;
clip.setData(trans,null,clipid.kGlobalClipboard);
}
}
本文地址（转载请注明出处）： 复制
收藏、分享这篇文章：
更多...
中国倒影在美国
虽然在海外生活了十多年，我的胃依然是中国胃。
生活在美国小镇的我，每到一个大城市，总要到那里的中国城去好好吃上一番。因为工作的原因，波士顿是我经常去的一个大城市。到美国的头几年，曾经呼朋唤友，把很多的老外拉到波士顿的中国餐馆聚会。后来才认识到，不是每个老外都认可中国城，特别是在不少人心目里中国城环境太脏。不记得从哪里听来的了，有这么一种说法，说是要知道中国城餐馆的饭菜好不好，看看那里厕所就知道了。厕所越脏，饭菜越香。
晚餐到还罢了，反正大家也看不太清楚中国城到底有多脏。我有一次带一个同事去吃早餐，他最终是一点东西也没吃。还有一位德国朋友，某下午独自一人走访波士顿中国城，回来后对我直摇头。他曾多次访问中国，后来还娶了位中国人做老婆。
最讨厌我总要去中国城的莫过于我的女儿CC了。CC也喜欢中国饭菜，但她无法忍受中国城的脏乱和味道。那里的中国百货店，总是弥漫着一种刺鼻的味道，确实令人难以忍受，我自己也慢慢变得挑剔起来。上个月去波士顿，尽管日程安排紧张，我还是到中国城吃了一次午饭，但是百货店的味道则让我却步，空手而归。
One thing we can all agree on [Starts With A Bang]
It's a question of whether we're going to go forward into the future, or past to the back. -Dan QuayleThis is my last day writing before my spring break begins, and I'm hoping for some great weather as I prepare to head to the Oregon coast. Warm weather, clear skies... I can picture it now. In my dreams, it looks something like this.
It makes me think about global warming, the greenhouse effect, and whether this is really cause for concern or not.
On one hand, it's definitely true that heating the planet up by even a few degrees will have catastrophic effects on our sea levels as the ice sheets over Antarctica and Greenland melt, displacing hundreds of millions of people and causing worldwide changes in the production of our food supply. For example, if the sea level rises by just 60 meters (that's a partial melting of those ice sheets), all of the areas in red on the map will go from being (mostly habitable) land to being underwater.
Click to enlarge, of course, and note that huge sections of the U.S., India, China, England, and coastal Europe will be underwater. So that's one hand.
But on the other hand, could changes to the atmosphere really be the cause of changes in temperature? In all honesty, it's hard to answer that question just from looking at Earth.
Luckily, we have some other, nearby worlds to help shed light on our situation. Let's take a look at the planets of the inner Solar System: Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars.
Mercury is the closest to the Sun, and gets awfully hot, topping out at about 450 Celsius (840 Fahrenheit) during the hottest part of the day & year. And as you might expect, of the four rocky planets we have to look at, Mars is the coldest. But if you look at the hottest part of Mars during the hottest times, it can get all the way up to about 27 Celsius (81 Fahrenheit), which isn't too bad, considering how much farther away it is!
As you'd expect, Earth is cooler than Mercury but warmer than Mars. And I bet that you'd expect Venus -- being closer than Earth but farther away than Mercury -- would have temperatures in between Mercury's and Earth's.
Well. It turns out that Venus has an average temperature of about 460 Celsius (860 Fahrenheit), with no significant differences between day and night temperatures, even though a day on Venus lasts about 117 Earth days!
What gives? Venus is about twice as far from the Sun as Mercury, and therefore receives only about one-quarter of the energy from the Sun for each square mile of its surface as compared to Mercury.
So what gives? Why is Venus so hot? If you really want to know, all you have to do is look at Venus' atmosphere. Take a look at the swirling clouds in the atmosphere, and you'll immediately know something fishy is up.
Venus has an atmosphere that's something like 93 times as thick as Earth's, and over 96% of that atmosphere is carbon dioxide. That thick atmosphere lets lots of Solar Radiation (visible and ultraviolet light) in. When the planet tries to get rid of it -- just like Earth does -- it re-radiates that energy in the infrared. But carbon dioxide doesn't let infrared light through very well, it reflects it back onto the planet's surface.
This is how a greenhouse works, and that's why it's called the greenhouse effect!
This is a real effect, it really happens, and everyone agrees that this is the cause for why Venus is as hot as it is.
If everyone can agree on this, then the question isn't whether putting carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is going to cause a greenhouse effect: it does. (And people contending otherwise, like this, are wrong, and now you know why.) The real question -- the only one up for debate -- is this: how much of an effect will adding carbon dioxide to our atmosphere cause?
Scientifically, it is no longer a question of whether global warming happens when you increase carbon dioxide in your atmosphere: it does. It's now a question of how much carbon dioxide will lead to an unacceptable level of warming for Earth, and what -- as the only species on the planet capable of doing something about it -- we're actually going to do.
Read the comments on this post...李源潮勉励“千人计划”入选专家：做改革者和建设者
法国合成阻断艾滋病病毒传播的分子
