博主按：饶毅把通讯地址政治化后，science作了一个报道，看了之后感觉报道还是相当客观，从中也可以看出两岸合作关系一直是良好的，而且通讯地址已经形成了惯例。现在是饶毅先生对已经形成的惯例提出了自己的公开质疑。另外饶毅先生未经合作者同意擅自更改人家的通讯地址的怀疑也被报道坐实！
附一：science报道的中文翻译
过去十年来，台湾和中国大陆的科学家增加了合作机会，也反应两边政府逐渐趋于友好的局势。但冷战时的思维，在一个问题上，扫了一项研究计划的兴－如何在合作计划的文献中，分辨台湾的研究单位？
过去，两边的科学家试着回避政治问题。在文献上，只表示台湾，而省略「中华民国」（Republic of China）；中国大陆的共同作者，也只标明「中国」，不写出「人民共和国」。而现在，中国大陆北京大学的神经科学家饶毅（Yi Rao），坚持要将台湾的共同作者所处的大学，在文献中标示为「中国台湾」（Taiwan, China），甚至要求台湾的科学团队接受这样的格式。
台湾新竹的清华大学的神经生物学家江安世（Ann-Shyn Chiang），所带领的合作研究团队，经过不断的奔波拜访，并和饶毅的研究团队交换意见，最近才有一名江团队的学生加入饶团队，要解开章鱼胺（octopamine）在果蝇脑中的作用机制。饶毅最近投稿了一篇研究草稿，共同作者包括江安世及他的学生，但作者服务单位的国立清华大学却被标示位于「中国台湾」（Taiwan, China）。台湾的行政院国家科学委员会（National Science Council）接受在地址上标明「Taiwan」或「Taiwan ROC」，「从单纯的科学角度出发，这的确合理」江安世表示。
饶毅却不同意，所以在这周，没有先和江安世商量，就写信给物理学家，现任国科会主任委员李罗权（Lou-Chuang Lee），还有副本给
在另一封给
饶毅的作法，看来会改变自1990年代起的标准处理方法。属于早期跨越海峡两岸，进行研究合作的王子敬表示：「自1997年第一篇发表开始，我们就会在文献中使用『台湾，台北』和『中国，北京』。」他在中央研究院物理研究所带领的团队，和北京高能物理研究中心合作。
针对ScienceInside的提问，国科会副主委陈正宏（Cheng-Hong Chen）在邮件中响应，地址格式并不妨碍两岸的科学合作；2009年有1035篇合作研究，增加到2010年有1207篇。而且在Google学术搜索，你可以轻易地找到千百篇两岸合作研究中，标注「台湾，台北」及「中国，北京」。
江安世表示，他想单纯地专注于科学研究，「就个人来说，我相信中国和台湾朝着友好的方向前进。借着更多的耐心，我希望我们能为双方科学研究做出贡献。」
附二：science报道的英文版
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：台湾自由时报的报道
【2011/8/13 13:16】
〔本报讯〕海峡两岸的学者合作讨论学术研究已经行之有年，但最近却爆出中国北京大学的教授饶毅与台湾清华大学教授江安世对于研究论文中，如何定义「台湾」惹出纷争，饶毅甚至无理要求双方将R.O.C（Republic of China）、P.R.C（People's Republic of China）中的RO与PR都拿掉，一起用「China」来表示国籍，他还写信给美国科学促进会（AAAS），认为台湾与中国并不是对等的。
其实，两岸学者为避免政治纷争，在国籍上并不会特别要求得是中国或者台湾，并且在大多时间，台湾都使用「Taipei，Taiwan」，中国则是「Beijing，China」，但北京大学教授饶毅却写信给美国科学促进会（American Association for the Advancement of Science），他强调若把「Taiwan」与「China」放在一起，就表示这是对等的2个国家，而台湾就不属于中国的一部分。
只是从两岸开始学术合作后，这样的「署名」已经沿用好几年，饶毅却威胁台湾国家科学委员会要放弃只用「Taiwan」或「Taiwan，R.O.C」的政策，否则将会阻碍两岸继续学术合作，饶毅甚至「建议」台湾国科会把R.O.C的中RO拿掉，中国方面也会把P.R.C的PR去除，双方一起使用「China」来正名。
媒体报导，对于如此无理的要求，清华大学教授江安世表示，「这相当令人意外，以学术角度来说，使用Taiwan或者R.O.C都相当合理。」江安世还说，他相信两岸正朝着一个友好的方向前进，只要有更多耐心，双方都可以在促进两岸合作的议题上做出更多的贡献。
