Friday, August 25, 2006

冥王星從九大行星裏除名

在捷克召開的國際天文學會,天文學家在星期四投票決定將Pluto從九大行星裏除名,重新被定義為dawrf planet大新聞。

Pluto被除名的主要原因在於國際天文學會新採納了一個行星的定義,該行星必須是主宰該區域的主要星體,才能被定義為太陽系裏的主要行星。

有些天文學家對這個決定頗為失望,甚至認為這是語言學上的災難:

"We now have dwarf planets which are in fact not planets. I consider this a linguistic catastrophe. I think the union is going to get a lot of flak for this, in doing it in such a muddy way," said Owen Gingerich, chairman of the IAU's official planet definition committee.


不管如何,大家的地球課本內容就是要改寫了。 Link: Astronomers expel Pluto from the planetary club

Tuesday, August 22, 2006

The female brain

Way back in February I read from brain wave that there's a new book called "the Female Brain" due to be published in August. Today I found from news it's out now. This book is written by a scientist called Louann Brizendine.

In her new book, "The Female Brain," Brizendine says that women are better than men at remembering the details of emotional events because their brains are structurally and chemically different. This is not essentialist malarkey; scientists have studied living, thinking female (and male) brains with PET and MRI scans. Simply put, the hippocampus -- site of emotions and memory formation -- is larger in women, as are the brain areas for language. Men, on the other hand, have larger brain centers for action and aggression. (They also have 2 1/2 times the brain space devoted to the sexual drive, according to Brizendine.) Much of these variances start in utero, during the eighth week of pregnancy, when the then-female brain will either receive a testosterone surge or not. The screenwriters of "Click," then, weren't so far off the mark.
So there are fundamental differences in the brains between men and women. Though it's more or less a cliché. It's still interesting for me to know the scientific facts behind this well known phenomenon. However the reviewer gave this book quiet merciless critiques.
Brizendine sounds surprisingly naive elsewhere in the book as well. After speculating that, like prairie voles, some men may have a gene sequence for monogamy, Brizendine delivers this scoop: "We now know women cheat, too." One wonders how many studies Brizendine had to sift through before coming to this conclusion. And while it's fascinating to learn why women's brains get in their way of having round-the-clock sex, do we really need a neuropsychiatrist to tell us that a woman won't have sex with her partner while she's angry at him?

For a scientist, Brizendine relies heavily on anecdotes. Even though she says that child development is "inextricably both" nature and nurture, she starts Chapter 1 with a vivid story of a patient who gave her 3-year-old daughter a toy fire truck instead of a doll. One afternoon, the patient walks into her child's room to find her rocking the truck and saying, "Don't worry, little truckie, everything will be all right." Though this is hardly proof that the girl's brain was hardwired for nurturing -- we don't know what other environmental influences (television, friends, babysitters, other female figures) may have shaped her -- it serves to support Brizendine's point that "there is no unisex brain.
As far as a scientific book is concerned, we might expect more scientific information from this book. However I was talking with my publisher friends about how publishers "wrap" and promote publishing nowadays. Since lots of readers don't really "think" critically, the publishers try to draw attentions by putting some sensational anecdotes in front of readers' faces. I've been reading several popular scientific books with similar layout. I wonder whether it's because of the publisher or the writer so the book doesn't present so much scientific arguments and facts. I need to think seriously whether to spend money on that book or not now. ^^

Friday, August 18, 2006

Chinese senior ambassador to UN said: Every inch of territory is more valuable than people's life

I heard the most ridiculous interview with Chinese most senior ambassador to UN about the Chinese military expansion.
he said..

the moment when Taiwan goes independent supported by WHOEVER, china will have no choice.. will have to do "business" through whatever means we'll do business at any cost.. ... one inch of territory is more valuable than our people's life ... he said.. it's better for US to shut up.. to keep quiet.. is much much better
...it's hight time to shut up, don't tell china what's good for china.. THANK YOU VERY MUCH

It's more vivid to listen to the tone in his conversation. He did emphassize those bold words with very strong tone. I am wondering why Taiwanese news medias aren't broadcasting this kind of therrible declaration to people to make people more realistic about China.
Listen to it from here http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rmhttp/downloadtrial/radionews/bbcradionewspod/bbcradionewspod_20060817-1800_40_pc.mp3

Thursday, July 27, 2006

新科學裏的哲學問題-神經研究與道德問題

最近認真閱讀神經認知相關的網路文章或是觀看相關的webcast,時常造訪英國的dana foundation。Dana foundation的成立主要是對一般大眾傳遞腦部研究的一些成果與重要的議題。基金會時常邀請著名的學者進行現場演講或是討論,讓一般大眾能有機會與這些平時關在研究室裏的學者有直接對話的機會,一般民眾更能直接了解一些具有爭議性的議題。透過網路,基金會舉辦的這些座談傳達到更多其它的角落裏。

最近我特別注意到的是基金會網站裏許多關於腦部研究蓬勃發展之後衍生的道德問題的討論,每一次的pannel discussion後我們看到的不是一個已被回答的問題,而是在討論裏被丟出來更多的問題。

因為腦內造影技術的發達,我們幾乎每天都可以看到新的研究發現轉載在網路新聞裏,而且多以聳動的文字作標題,例如「多工傷害學習」或是「拒絕會啟動腦部危險行為機制」、「自閉症男性患者的腦部情緒神經較少」等。

在今年七月的Times Online 裏(註1)的文章裏提到1992年時美國一位男性跟妻子爭執之後,將她殺害並從十二樓丟下,他的辨護律師提出腦部掃描的證據證明被告的腦部腫瘤造成他無法控制他的衝動行為而求輕量刑。三年後另一個案例是某個慈善機構的經理挪用公款,辯護律師用腦部磁核造影證明他在犯行期間,腦部逐漸痿縮,最後檢查官同意求處較少的刑期。

2003年Dana foundation舉行的神經道德座談(註2)裏提到,美國75%的兒童藥物沒有經過兒童臨床研究證實它的療效或影響,甚至是Ritalin(治療ADHD,注意力不足過動症的藥物),也沒有臨床實驗結果證明它的效果(現在可能已有研究成果),更不用提到關於學齡前兒童服用Ritalin後長期的追踪研究。2003年美國才開始研究Ritalin對發育中的腦部的後續影響。

2005年6月Dana foundation關於神經道德的討論(註3)裏,倫敦政經學院社會學教授Nikolas Rose指出一直到五年前,美國使用了全世界95%治療ADHD的藥物,而在義大利,這個疾病在當時的罹患率卻是未知,表示社會認知環境影響到對某些疾病的認定。這個不僅是道德的問題,而是政治、社會、甚至是生物經濟學的問題。(在座談裏他甚至使用「共同製造的流行病」來形容ADHD的例子)

在相同的坐談裏,牛津大學神經學教授Paul Matthews說道,在這個時間點裏,大腦對我們來說還是「無法預測」的。「心智起源於腦裏神經的作用」,負責任的人會說這樣的說法仍是一個「假設」,因為在任何的狀況下,我們都不能直接證明這個事實。我們可以預測一個突觸的行為反應,但一毫米平方的腦可以有十萬多的腦神經元,每個神經元又有一萬到二十萬的突觸連結進來,形成非常複雜的系統,任何一個參數的改變造成的結果在目前是遠超過我們能預測的範疇之外,所以我們需要一個完全不同的思考架構,來探討「預測」的問題,但我們還離這個目標很遠。

Dr. Rose並提到,神經認知研究與腦部研究的道德問題並不是一個離我們尚遠的問題,現在就有很多需要被探討的問題,譬如孩童使用Ritalin藥物的問題、強制病人服用精神藥物、憂鬱症的藥物治療界定日漸模糊的問題,或是焦慮失常(anxiety disorder)的新興市場的問題,這些議題在當下都應該被充份探討。

關於大腦研究還有很多其它的道德問題需要在學術與大眾間充份討論。2005年底美國有一個案例是使用充滿爭議的brain fingerprinting(註4)技術證明死刑犯對當時的重要細節並不記得,被告希望能因此免除死刑。目前這個結果並不被陪審團採用。所以我們將面對的問題幾個明顯的問題範疇:

一、腦部研究的成果在詮釋與應用上的問題。
二、治療或是「優化」的問題:例如,在什麼樣的情形下我們可以「操弄」腦部的反應?以著名的帕金森氏症為例,目前有一些方法是以腦部刺激來減輕它的症狀。那麼我們可以服用藥物來增加我們的記憶嗎?如果可能的話,我可以在明天考試前,吃下一片帶有增強記憶功能的麵包(想起小叮當的情節了嗎?)然後去考試嗎?或者是我可以把它當成保健藥物,每天服用嗎?如果有讓人變聰明的藥物(假設神經研究一直發展下去,這一天就會來臨的話),那服用這樣的藥物有道德問題嗎?
三、還有正常與不正常的界線問題。

這些問題其實都需要許多在科學之外的討論與釐清,在我們還沒有真正科學實事之前,我們就需要哲學思考來填補這個空缺,直到科學進一步地實證出我們的哲學推論為止。但到那時之前,讓我們再重覆一下Paul Matthews的那句話:「到目前為止,心智起源於腦裏神經的作用,都還只能算是假設。」

相關連結

註1 A head for trouble 
註2 Dana foundaion podcast in 2003 about neuroethics
註3 Dana foundation webcast in 2005
PBS 上關於Brain fingerprinting 介紹
Nikolas Rose: http://www.lse.ac.uk/people/n.rose@lse.ac.uk/
Paul Matthews: http://www.seh.ox.ac.uk/index.cfm?do=viewStaff&personID=41

Wednesday, July 26, 2006

My bicycle route to work

辛亥路六段 -->
世新大學 -->
景美景華公園 -->
木柵花市 -->
與羅斯福路平行的小巷(119)巷 -->
芳蘭路(與基隆路平行的小路) -->
台大農場
這個時節騎到靠山邊的路,都會聞到不知名的花香。