We often say that laypeople leading experts is the height of absurdity — and nowhere is this more evident than in the world of journalism. In recent days, an endless stream of news has emerged about the so-called “Baijiu Academician” from Moutai and the “Gold Academician” from Shandong. Online commentary along the lines of “how can liquor qualify someone for academician status?” has been astonishing. This manufactured pressure — whether directed at CAST or CAE — is entirely unfounded. It undermines the fairness of science and is a textbook case of outsiders dictating to insiders.
Naturally, public sentiment toward alcohol has grown increasingly negative — at the very least, it’s bad for your health. But brewing technology belongs to the food industry, which is a genuinely worthwhile field of research. The public’s animosity toward Ms. Wang Li almost certainly stems from the Moutai brand itself. Had she been a researcher at Zunyi University, chances are no one would have paid her the slightest attention.
The public’s understanding of what an academician actually is remains remarkably shallow, and the media have failed to provide proper guidance. China’s official academicians come from two institutions — the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the Chinese Academy of Engineering. CAE academicians are primarily experts in industrial engineering and technology, which is why many medical specialists are found there. Their selection is based overwhelmingly on having solved technical rather than purely scientific problems — developing key pharmaceutical equipment, for instance, or establishing critical testing standards.
The reason I find this manufactured outrage so absurd is that I’ve seen countless ill-informed analyses whose underlying logic is thoroughly unscientific. If we applied the same reasoning, the very notion of academicians in traditional Chinese medicine would be a laughingstock.
For instance, a distinguished journalist declared that establishing a “fingerprint model” for Moutai is no longer cutting-edge technology. By that logic, Dr. Huang (the Shandong gold candidate) would be entirely unqualified to even apply.
Then there are the netizens who insist that Moutai’s brewing techniques are nothing but “traditional secret recipes” — not “frontier science,” let alone “major innovation.” By that standard, TCM research might as well pack up and go home. After all, it’s all just studying traditional secret recipes, right? What’s left to explore?
I would earnestly recommend incorporating substantial science, engineering, and medical coursework into humanities curricula — advanced mathematics, university physics, and an introduction to traditional Chinese medicine, for starters — to prevent people from talking such arrant nonsense in the future.
中文原文 / Chinese Original
我们总说，外行领导内行是滑天下之大稽，这事在新闻领域可谓开枝散叶。这几天，有关茅台白酒院士和山东黄金院士的各类新闻层出不穷，网上诸多关于”白酒也能评选院士”的言论令人震惊，这种压力不论是对科协还是工程院都是莫须有的压力，影响了科学的公平，属于典型的外行管内行事。
当然了，关于酒的负面认识现在是越来越多了，至少对健康不利，但是酿酒技术属于食品行业，是非常值得研究的学科领域，公众对王莉同志的”仇恨”大概都来自茅台吧，如果王同志是遵义大学的研究人员，估计压根就没人关注。
公众对院士的理解非常浅薄，媒体没有做到正确的引导。中国的正牌院士来自两个机构——中国科学院和中国工程院，工程院院士主要是产业工程技术方面专家，所以许多医学领域的专家都在工程院，他们被评为院士的依据绝大多数都是解决了技术问题而不是科学问题，例如研发药物的关键技术设备、关键检测指标等。
我之所以认为这样带节奏很荒谬，是因为看到了许多不切实际的分析缘由，这些人的想法很不科学，如果按照他们的想法，中医院士简直就是笑话。
例如有一位德高望重的新闻人声称”茅台酒指纹模型的建立”早就不算什么新技术，要是这么说的话小黄院士根本就不配去参评。
例如网友们都在说茅台酒酿造技术是”传统秘方”，根本不算”前沿科技”，更别提”重大创新”了，那中医药就不要做科研了，反正都是研究传统秘方么，还有啥可玩的。
郑重建议在文科教学大纲内加入大量的理工医科课程，譬如高等数学、大学物理、中医学概论，省得以后胡说八道。
发表回复