在德国时期，自1999年发布筹建国际系统生物科学与工程协会与会议，约是2000年和2001年美国科学促进协会（AAAS）连续邮寄给我奖励作为AAAS会员的证书，自那时，几乎常常收到来自Science发送的有关新闻，2003年参加在澳大利亚举办的第19届国际遗传学大会的信息也是AAAS的email资讯，约2年前发送过在线讨论Translational Medicine（转化医学），以下是刚才注意收到（October 18, 2012 9:34 AM）的关于诺贝尔奖等与科学好与坏关系讨论的信息提供参考，正如我一贯的看法，科学研究是面对未来的未知知识发现和未知技术发明等，权威和科学奖是面对过去的已知乃至在领域内人人皆知的成就，如果跟随权威或奖项的研究，那就不太可能开拓未来的新领域或做出诺贝尔奖水平的原创成就等。

Sponsored by Agilent Technologies
Is the Nobel Prize Good for Science? Today at 3:00 p.m.      When Alfred Nobel signed his last will and testament in 1895, he created a legacy to honor "those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind." More than 100 years later, the Nobel Prizes have also inspired another proud tradition: whining. The right people didn't get the prizes. The categories don’t make sense. Awards should be given posthumously. Lost amid the bickering and bruised egos is a bigger question: Are the Nobel Prizes—and similar awards—good or bad for science?  Join experts in scientific innovation Scott Stern and Bruce Weinberg as we tackle this and similar questions, and take yours, today at 3 p.m. EDT.  You can submit your questions before the chat starts or at any time during the live Q&A. Find us on Twitter at #ScienceLive. And don't forget, this and other chats are archived. Get e-mail reminders of upcoming events by registering for ScienceNOW e-mail alerts. ​
ScienceLIVE is brought to you by the news staff of Science