[求真网2009年1月29日电] 本网高人刘实今收到《科学》杂志发来的如下两封拒稿信（重点被加黑）：
（1）
Dear Dr. Liu,
Thank you for submitting an E-letter to Science commenting on the
Editorial, titled "Celebrating a Year of Science." We have read
over your contribution, but will not be able to publish it. We
are currently only posting those letters most likely to promote
positive and stimulating discussion online.
Please do not reply to this email, as it will not be read by
Science. Unfortunately the volume of submissions precludes specific
discussions about individual submitted E-letters.
Sincerely,
The Editors
Science Magazine
（2）
Dear Dr. Liu,
Thank you for submitting an E-letter to Science commenting on the
Review, titled "Darwin's Originality." We have read over your
contribution, but will not be able to publish it. We are
currently only posting those letters most likely to promote
positive and stimulating discussion online.
这两封信的共同点是“We are currently only posting those letters most likely to promote positive and stimulating discussion online.”（我们现在只上贴那些很有可能促进正面和刺激性的讨论在网上。）
那么刘实的E-letter是怎么不正面和没刺激性呢？
刘实的第一封E-letter是针对《科学》杂志主编Bruce Alberts的社论（Editorial） “庆祝一个科学年”（Celebrating a Year of Science）而发的。该社论主要是吹捧iPSCs（诱导多能干细胞）重编程。而刘实E-letter的题目是“一个突破还是一个破坏：时间将告知”（A Breakthrough or a Breakdown: Time Will Tell）。
该E-letter的全文如下：
A Breakthrough or a Breakdown: Time Will Tell
The mainstream-accepted basic claims for iPSCs are: normal (terminally differentiated adult) somatic cells are directly reprogrammed by some "inducing" factors and thus de-differentiate into pluripotent stem cells that are indistinguishable from embryonic stem cells (ESCs). Some iPSCs are "safe" for regenerative medicine.
The "top" journal-rejected different perspectives on iPSCs are (see publications listed at http://im1.biz/Cloning.htm): iPSCs obtained so far are more likely originated from rare somatic stem/progenitor cells that have lived from the embryonic into the adult stage of life. The reprogramming may activated their reproduction mechanism and thus increased their proliferation rates. iPSCs are distinguishable from ESCs if looked carefully beyond the morphological similarity. No iPSCs made so far are safe because their hyper-proliferation actually reflects their cancer cell nature.
Shi V. Liu (SVL8EPA@gmail.com; http://im1.biz; http://blog.sina.com.cn/im1)
刘实的第二封E-letter针对的是《科学》杂志为庆祝达尔文200年诞辰而发的一篇题为“达尔文的原创性”（Darwin's Originality）的综述。刘实的该E-letter的全文如下（重点句加黑）：
The Editorial for the beginning of Darwin celebration correctly
depicted the remarkable achievement of Darwin: "revealed the
mechanism and process of evolution without having a clue about how
variation was generated" and "with no knowledge of the underlying
genetics" (Science 323:185, 2008).
However, if I wish to say what mistake that Darwin has made in
understanding the origin of life, I would say the "common
ancestor" hypothesis is the most fundamental
one.
More and more evidence suggests that life might have originated
from different abiotic forms of life and thus might not share any
single common cellular ancestor.
Thus, in celebrating the 200th birthday of a great scientist, we need to learn not only how Darwin has changed mankind's thinking but also how overcoming Darwinian thinking can enrich our science further.
For this reason, I encourage everyone to read an article "A Fundamentally New Perspective on the Origin and Evolution of Life" (http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/P2008V3N1A4_Evolution.htm or http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/P2008V3N1A4_Evolution.pdf).
Shi V. Liu (SVL@logibio.com, http://im1.biz)
看得出，刘实的两篇E-letter对《科学》要吹捧的iPSCs（诱导多能干细胞）和达尔文式的进化论来讲都不是“促进正面”而是揭露反面。但两篇都还是有刺激性的讨论。只不过这一刺很可能就把伪科学给刺穿了。那《科学》还有脸面吗？
所以，只好不发。
顶