Skip to main content

Smart ... 聰明……

The latest issue of the scientific journal Nature has a report on ‘smart mice’ that have certain genetic manipulation to enhance some brain functions. Compared to normal ones, these manipulated mice show better performance in a variety of standard tests. For example, it takes fewer trials for them to find the floating platform when swimming in a body of water (the water maze), or they are able to find their way through a more complicated labyrinth in a shorter time. However these advantages do come with some trade-offs. The mice that perform better in a complicated labyrinth perform less well in a simpler labyrinth than normal mice, and one of the manipulated genes in another type of smart mice is often involved in cancer development. (If you cannot read the article online, please ask me for a pdf copy.)

Of course the scientists hope to learn something from the mice to advance treatments for neurological disorders or enhance mental functions. But before they can reach meaningful and definitive conclusions from their studies, many of us can’t already wait to enhance our mental performances with medications that were originally intended for counteracting attention deficiency or improving alertness under sleep deficit. With the continual improvement in gene technology, it’s not so far-fetched that one day we may be able to tweak our genomes for improving our mental abilities or curing some currently intractable neurological conditions.

The longer term consequences of such ‘mental enhancement’ in humans are yet to be seen for ages to come because of our longer lifespan. If anything can be generalised from the mice experiments, it would be that there is a price to pay for any enhancement to brain function, be it subtle and of longer tem or deleterious and immediate. At this stage, we simply don’t know enough of how the brain works to be able to manipulate it profitably at will without side-effects. High-performing autism provides a good illustration of how individuals displaying extreme talent in a specialised field often have a flip side in the form of difficulties in social interactions. Can there ever be a person with an all-round brain? Even if human technology may never get us there, will natural evolution be able to do it for us one day, given enough time? These days many of us can’t help but notice how today’s baby and young children are smarter than their generation, because of improved health standards, better care and greater environmental stimuli. This has no doubt provided a good starting point for evolution to select for a smarter future human race with better capabilities of the brain.






最新一期科學期刊《自然》有篇介紹「聰明老鼠」特寫,這些老鼠經過基因改造後,腦功能有所提升,在多種實驗室測試中比正常老鼠有較佳表演,例如放在水裡游泳時能更快找到浮台,又或在複雜的迷宮中更快找到出口,但有得必有失,那些在複雜迷宮表演較佳的老鼠在簡單迷宮反而不及正常老鼠,而另一種聰明老鼠被更改的基因則有份參與癌症形成的過程。(如未能在網上閱讀原文,請問我索取pdf文本。)

研究這些聰明老鼠的目的,是希望可以研制出醫治神經疾病或提升腦功能的療法,但很多人都不等這些研究結果了,近年都開始自行服用原來治療注意力不集中或在長期睡眠不足下提醒的藥物,以提升工作或學習的表演。隨着基因科技日益進步,他日透過改造基因以增強腦功能或醫治神經疾病,也並非天方夜譚。

究竟人類利用藥物提升腦功能有甚麼長遠後果,也許不會像實驗老鼠一樣很快便看到,但這些老鼠實驗要是能帶出一個訊息,那就是提升腦功能就得付出代價——可能祇是輕微而經較長時期才浮現,或是即時可見且有嚴重負面影響的。我們目前對腦的認識實在太少,根本沒有把握可以隨意提升任何功能而無損其他方面,有些患了自閉症的人,在特定領域有非人成就,卻難以和他人正常交往,正好說明了腦功能有多複雜。人類擁有一個全能腦裝是有可能的事嗎?就算人類科技力有不逮,自然進化長遠又會不會為人類帶來這樣的腦袋?現代人往往驚嘆,今時今日的嬰孩和兒童都比以前聰明,全賴醫學進步、照顧更周全和更多環境刺激所賜,自然進化的起點向前推進,將來經進化篩選的人類,腦袋祇會愈見發達。

Comments

eric said…
想起Flowers for Algernon裡面嘅情節。
太過扭曲天然,一定有遺憾。
GK said…
連呢本書都未睇過,唉……
多謝推介!
eric said…
我也是前幾年才知道有這書。
結局很悲慘,看完心噏了整天。
不過真的很值得看,不長,應該納入中學教材。

Popular posts from this blog

不求甚解,可以嗎?

端午節在尖沙咀海傍的無人機燈光表演,事後廣受網民嘲笑俗氣、像長輩圖等,屈原「現身」在空中飄更讓我覺得是其於死忌顯靈,很是詭異。 我在臉書轉發了ReNews的報導,想不到有人會點讚,而且是一個多年沒見的外國人,我納悶她究竟喜歡什麼、知否「到底發生什麼事」,只可猜想是她從沒見過用無人機砌出漢字,欣賞此藝術吧。 我在港大工作時,有國內同事有次跟我路過英皇書院時,對我說他對那學校沒好感,因為他討厭楊受成。我聽了先是心中有點驚訝,但沒流露出來,並笑着解釋道:英皇是英國國皇的意思,英文叫King's College,是政府辦學,跟楊受成的英皇集團一點關係也沒有!那同事沒意會背後的殖民史,更與搞娛樂事業的公司穿鑿附會,不過不應嘲笑,我反而覺得其不把自己困於校園、留意附近社區之精神可嘉(很多港人一向覺得國內人來港後往往不踏出自己人的小圈子呢)。 文藝創作和社會/社區的形成,固然與背後的歷史和文化息息相關,但評析時又是否完全不可抽離背景呢? 近年對香港流行曲的評論(尤其對當紅的鏡仔),時常着重「咬字」,例如姜濤最新的《DUMMY》就獲多人稱讚咬字清晰聽得明歌詞。歌手追求發音清晰,固然對歌唱是有好處,但如以發音不清就批評歌曲又會不會太輕易抺殺了整個作品?世界音樂如此多元,不懂外語是否就要封閉自己不接觸其他地區的音樂?而就算我們這些外國人聽得懂外語歌詞,我們大概也不夠資格評論歌手咬字是否清晰標準吧。正如閱讀文字作品,讀者又會不會因為不明白其中幾個字的意思而認為作品不值一讀?又如果對作品的評語只是「用字淺顯易明」,除非是兒童書,不然作者也會啼笑皆非或覺得膚淺吧? 不求甚解,原意是要領會大意而不必着眼於字眼之意思,到今天則演變成不深入理解。了解相關背景,明白作品的細節,固然定品評和鑑賞甚有裨益,但現實中大家受時間和個人知識所限,往往只能對背景資料簡單了解、略知一二,只可看到事物較表面之處。然而,不完全理解創作背後的原意,也不一定妨礙受眾對其之欣賞和評價;不完全理解一地的歷史,也不全然妨礙人們對當地建築、規劃等表達讚賞或提出疑問。聽歌不要執着要求歌手字正腔圓,歌詞大意聽一兩遍一般都可明瞭大概,就算不想深究歌詞,旋律節奏等也可以是欣賞音樂的切入點。不過話說回來,無人機燈光表演,如果主辦者用心思考主題和舖排,再在字體設計下功夫,同時彰顯漢字的內涵和美學,豈非更妙?

Newborn, new experiences (1) 新生兒,新體會(1)

The birth of our daughter at the end of September marks a new chapter and brings about new life experiences for me and my wife. 小女9月底出生,為我和太太揭開人生新一章,也帶來新的體驗。 Mum was admitted to a nearby public hospital for the birth. The maternity ward is a lifely and buzzling place, subdivided into many rooms occupied by up to 4 mums and their babies at a time. Visiting hours is from 08:00 to 20:00, and up to one person can visit at one time and two different people each day. These limitations are part of the hospital's covid policies when the rest of the society has moved on as if nothing had happened - apparently there used to be no limit to visitations before covid, so a dad could in fact accompany the mum and baby all night long. One long-lasting impression from the maternity ward was the symphony of baby cries in which all babies took their turns to join including mine. Calming down the baby was almost impossible in this ambience and was very tough on mum especially when she was battling her

正字正確

廣州最近掀起保衛廣東話運動,早前星期日明報副刊一篇 文章 ,已對此作了精譬分析,我也不必插嘴了。 不過我想談談另一個相連的問題,相信久不久也會困擾好些港人,就是怎樣才算「正確」、「正統」的書面語。 我們自少便被老師耳提面命,廣東話絕不可用於寫作(雖然現在大行其道,我在網上留言甚至偶而寫電郵都會用廣東話),粵語和港式詞彙應以書面語(以普通話為標準的用語)取代,於是把雪櫃寫成冰箱、櫃桶寫成抽屜,諸如此類,從小已習慣,我也沒異議。 但香港實在很多獨有的或跟國內有差別的詞彙,應用於主要給香港人看的場合當然沒問題,但國內或其他華人就可能覺得蹩腳甚至不一定明白。同樣國內的好些用詞,港人看到也會覺得有點不自然甚至礙眼。我寫網誌不時都會掙扎,究竟用國內的用詞好(我想一般來說應該是比較「正規」的,而且近幾年跟來自國內的人多了交往,或多或少都學到一點他們的用語),還是香港的說法好(始終不少讀者都是香港人,用上國內的詞語他們或許會覺得有點怪怪的),所以我盡可能兩者兼用,港式說法通常以括號並列,但我有時祇會用國內的用詞,也有時祇用香港的說法,可見我也往往拿不定主意。 問題是應該怎樣劃界線,區別「正確」和「不正確」的書面用語呢?我們應該遵從甚麼的「標準」?比方說在香港,學生寫了一句「我的志願是太空人」,公認是沒有問題的,老師一般也不會勉強學生寫「我的志願是航天員」,好了,這樣便是承認了香港和國內的用語確有區別,但既然如此,為甚麼把該句寫成「我嘅志願係太空人」時,老師便一定不會容許?又或者為甚麼寫作時硬要把雪櫃寫成冰箱、櫃桶寫成抽屜?這道界線是誰定的,定立時又有甚麼理據?香港可不像很多國家般,有一個高高在上的法定語文機構(例如法國的Académie française),又或有權威性的詞典(例如英國的牛津字典,和國內的辭海),對語文作出一定規範,難免令人寫作時感到無所適從,甚麼香港和粵語詞彙可以用於書面、哪些不可。 用語的取向,也涉及文化取態的問題,我像一般港人一樣也認同寫作時要用書面語,盡量跟隨普通話的「標準」,但不會全盤用國內的詞彙和行文,一來不習慣,二來不免總有種維護本土文化的潛意識,特別是香港和國內社會制度上和文化上始終有點隔閡,這種矛盾不一定輕易化解。 究竟甚麼才算是「標準」、「正確」的書面中文,我想大概沒有「標準答案」,往往靠個人的見識和學養才可作出定奪,但隨著香港跟國內交往越來越