目前可能仅提供给期刊的编委们写，不知以后会不会开放。奇怪的不仅是这些，而更有意思的是我看到的第一篇文章是有关DALAI LAMA在SFN发表演讲的消息，全文如下，大家也可以到Nature Neuroscience的主页去查看这篇文章：

Our chief editor Sandra Aamodt left me a phone message here in the office on Saturday, reporting from the scene in the Convention Center before the DL lecture. Seems she narrowly avoided being squeezed to death by the crowd! Did she manage to get into the hall and hear the talk? Stay tuned...

难道去听的人真的很多？希望有知道消息的朋友还是友情提醒一下，还要担心被“挤死”？

Also on Saturday, the New York Times ran an op-ed piece by the DL, titled "Our Faith in Science". The link ought to work until Friday Nov 18, but let me excerpt what I think are the main points anyways:

"... the ancient version of cosmology I had been taught... held that the moon was a heavenly body that emitted its own light. But through my telescope the moon was clearly just a barren rock, pocked with craters. If the author of that fourth-century treatise were writing today, I'm sure he would write the chapter on cosmology differently. If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change."

如果科学能证明佛教是错误的？宗教和信仰的问题恐怕得特殊对待。

Quite a contrast to the scriptural literalism we hear from so many Christian groups, creationists in particular! Next comes a short discussion of collaborations between Tibetan Buddhist monks and neuroscientists. Richard Davidson's work, as well as studies under way in the labs of Jonathan Cohen and Margaret Kemeny are briefly mentioned. The point is that science and Buddhism can enrich each other - science sets Buddhism straight on cosmology, and may be able some day to explain the neurological mechanisms at work during successful meditation. Buddhism (indeed all religion) can enrich science by contributing an ethical perspective:

"... we must find a way to bring ethical considerations to bear upon the direction of scientific development, especially in the life sciences. By invoking fundamental ethical principles, I am not advocating a fusion of religious ethics and scientific inquiry. Rather, I am speaking of what I call "secular ethics," which embrace the principles we share as human beings: compassion, tolerance, consideration of others, the responsible use of knowledge and power. These principles transcend the barriers between religious believers and non-believers; they belong not to one faith, but to all faiths. ..."

"... It is all too evident that our moral thinking simply has not been able to keep pace with the speed of scientific advancement. Yet the ramifications of this progress are such that it is no longer adequate to say that the choice of what to do with this knowledge should be left in the hands of individuals. This is a point I intend to make when I speak at the annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience today in Washington. I will suggest that how science relates to wider humanity is no longer of academic interest alone. This question must assume a sense of urgency for all those who are concerned about the fate of human existence."

So far, so good. In fact, there are a good number of serious-minded bioethics efforts under way. In the context of stem cell research and cloning, bioethics also gets a lot of public attention. See the fine American Journal of Bioethics blog for the scoop on all things bioethics. Now what does the DL recommend from the Tibetan Buddhist perspective? Nothing specific in the entire piece, unfortunately! He ends with this sentence:

"Scientists should be more than merely technically adept; they should be mindful of their own motivation and the larger goal of what they do: the betterment of humanity."

Okay... clearly the DL appreciates science and scientific progress. But if, as he suggests, "secular ethics" could take care of the ethical quandaries thrown up by scientific advances, do we need the science/religion dialogue at all?