博主按：饒毅把通訊地址政治化後，science作了一個報道，看了之後感覺報道還是相當客觀，從中也可以看出兩岸合作關係一直是良好的，而且通訊地址已經形成了慣例。現在是饒毅先生對已經形成的慣例提出了自己的公開質疑。另外饒毅先生未經合作者同意擅自更改人家的通訊地址的懷疑也被報道坐實！
附一：science報道的中文翻譯
過去十年來，台灣和中國大陸的科學家增加了合作機會，也反應兩邊政府逐漸趨於友好的局勢。但冷戰時的思維，在一個問題上，掃了一項研究計劃的興－如何在合作計劃的文獻中，分辨台灣的研究單位？
過去，兩邊的科學家試著回避政治問題。在文獻上，隻表示台灣，而省略「中華民國」（Republic of China）；中國大陸的共同作者，也隻標明「中國」，不寫出「人民共和國」。而現在，中國大陸北京大學的神經科學家饒毅（Yi Rao），堅持要將台灣的共同作者所處的大學，在文獻中標示為「中國台灣」（Taiwan, China），甚至要求台灣的科學團隊接受這樣的格式。
台灣新竹的清華大學的神經生物學家江安世（Ann-Shyn Chiang），所帶領的合作研究團隊，經過不斷的奔波拜訪，並和饒毅的研究團隊交換意見，最近才有一名江團隊的學生加入饒團隊，要解開章魚胺（octopamine）在果蠅腦中的作用機製。饒毅最近投稿了一篇研究草稿，共同作者包括江安世及他的學生，但作者服務單位的國立清華大學卻被標示位於「中國台灣」（Taiwan, China）。台灣的行政院國家科學委員會（National Science Council）接受在地址上標明「Taiwan」或「Taiwan ROC」，「從單純的科學角度出發，這的確合理」江安世表示。
饒毅卻不同意，所以在這周，沒有先和江安世商量，就寫信給物理學家，現任國科會主任委員李羅權（Lou-Chuang Lee），還有副本給
在另一封給
饒毅的作法，看來會改變自1990年代起的標準處理方法。屬於早期跨越海峽兩岸，進行研究合作的王子敬表示：「自1997年第一篇發表開始，我們就會在文獻中使用『台灣，台北』和『中國，北京』。」他在中央研究院物理研究所帶領的團隊，和北京高能物理研究中心合作。
針對ScienceInside的提問，國科會副主委陳正宏（Cheng-Hong Chen）在郵件中響應，地址格式並不妨礙兩岸的科學合作；2009年有1035篇合作研究，增加到2010年有1207篇。而且在Google學術搜索，你可以輕易地找到千百篇兩岸合作研究中，標注「台灣，台北」及「中國，北京」。
江安世表示，他想單純地專注於科學研究，「就個人來說，我相信中國和台灣朝著友好的方向前進。借著更多的耐心，我希望我們能為雙方科學研究做出貢獻。」
附二：science報道的英文版
Where to Locate Taiwan? Chinese Co-Authors Disagree
by Dennis Normile on 12 August 2011, 1:03 PM
Collaborations between scientists on Taiwan and the Chinese mainland have been steadily increasing for the past decade, reflecting the gradual rapprochement between the two governments. But a bit of Cold War rhetoric is chilling at least one project—over the question of how to identify a Taiwanese institution in a co-authored paper.
In the past, scientists on both sides have tried to avoid political issues by locating such institutions as simply being in "Taiwan," dropping "Republic of China." Mainland collaborators have reciprocated, giving their location as "China," omitting "People's Republic." Now, a mainland researcher, neurobiologist Yi Rao of Peking University, is insisting that co-authors identify their university as being located in "Taiwan, China," even asking Taiwanese scientific authorities to endorse that format.
The collaboration between Rao's group and a team led by neurobiologist Ann-Shyn Chiang of National Tsing Hua University in Hsinchu, Taiwan, started with back-and-forth visits and exchanges of ideas. Recently, one of Chiang's students assisted Rao's team in experiments aimed at understanding the role of a biomolecule known as octopamine in the Drosophila brain. Rao drafted a paper including Chiang and the student as co-authors but with National Tsing Hua University located in "Taiwan, China." "It was unexpected," Chiang says, explaining that Taiwan's National Science Council allows those it funds to give their address as Taiwan or Taiwan ROC. "From a simple scientific point of view, [the rule] is reasonable," Chiang says.
Rao disagrees. So earlier this week, without consulting Chiang, he wrote to physicist Lou-Chuang Lee, minister of Taiwan's National Science Council, and copied, among others, Bruce Alberts, editor-in-chief of Science. In his e-mail, Rao noted that his group was willing to drop PRC from their address and use Beijing, China; he suggested that the National Science Council change its policy. "When there are collaborations between scientists across the Taiwan Strait, it seems to be a very good compromise for both sides to leave out [RO or PR], but leave China in the address," Rao wrote.
In a separate e-mail to ScienceInsider, Rao explained: "On the mainland side, the major concern is about Taiwan independence. When a paper lists 'Taipei, Taiwan' together with 'Beijing, China,' it equates Taiwan with China, not as a part of it." He went on to warn that if Taiwan's National Science Council cannot change the rule, it would make it "extremely difficult for mainland Chinese scientists to co-author papers explicitly or implicitly endorsing a Taiwan that is not a part of China."
Rao appears to be altering what has been standard practice since the late 1990s. One of the first institutional-level cross-strait collaborations brought together researchers from the Chinese Academy of Sciences's Institute of High Energy Physics in Beijing and Academia Sinica's Institute of Physics in Taipei. "We have been using the 'Taipei, Taiwan' and 'Beijing, China' affiliation format in our publications since the birth of the [collaboration] in 1997," says Henry Tsz-king Wong, who heads the collaboration for Taiwan.
Responding to an inquiry from ScienceInsider, Cheng-Hong Chen, deputy minister of Taiwan's National Science Council wrote in an e-mail that their address format requirement has not hindered collaborations, with the number of papers with co-authors from China and Taiwan growing from 1035 in 2009 to 1207 in 2010. And a quick search on Google Scholar turned up hundred of papers co-authored by Peking University researchers and their Taiwanese counterparts for which the addresses given for the institutions were "Taipei, Taiwan" and "Beijing, China."
Chiang says he simply wants to concentrate on research. "Personally, I believe that China and Taiwan are heading [in] a friendly direction. With more patience, I hope we can all contribute to promoting scientific collaborations between the two sides," he says.
附三：台灣自由時報的報道
【2011/8/13 13:16】
〔本報訊〕海峽兩岸的學者合作討論學術研究已經行之有年，但最近卻爆出中國北京大學的教授饒毅與台灣清華大學教授江安世對於研究論文中，如何定義「台灣」惹出紛爭，饒毅甚至無理要求雙方將R.O.C（Republic of China）、P.R.C（People's Republic of China）中的RO與PR都拿掉，一起用「China」來表示國籍，他還寫信給美國科學促進會（AAAS），認為台灣與中國並不是對等的。
其實，兩岸學者為避免政治紛爭，在國籍上並不會特別要求得是中國或者台灣，並且在大多時間，台灣都使用「Taipei，Taiwan」，中國則是「Beijing，China」，但北京大學教授饒毅卻寫信給美國科學促進會（American Association for the Advancement of Science），他強調若把「Taiwan」與「China」放在一起，就表示這是對等的2個國家，而台灣就不屬於中國的一部分。
隻是從兩岸開始學術合作後，這樣的「署名」已經沿用好幾年，饒毅卻威脅台灣國家科學委員會要放棄隻用「Taiwan」或「Taiwan，R.O.C」的政策，否則將會阻礙兩岸繼續學術合作，饒毅甚至「建議」台灣國科會把R.O.C的中RO拿掉，中國方麵也會把P.R.C的PR去除，雙方一起使用「China」來正名。
媒體報導，對於如此無理的要求，清華大學教授江安世表示，「這相當令人意外，以學術角度來說，使用Taiwan或者R.O.C都相當合理。」江安世還說，他相信兩岸正朝著一個友好的方向前進，隻要有更多耐心，雙方都可以在促進兩岸合作的議題上做出更多的貢獻。
