The Chinese Academy of Sciences issued a new regulation prohibiting academicians from publicly publishing academic opinions unrelated to their own professional fields. How to treat this rule? What information is worth paying attention to? I think this kind of ambiguous prohibition is neither reasonable nor feasible, which can only reflect the laziness of the rulemakers' thinking and the weak legal consciousness. There are many similarities between these two physical fields, and there are also many deep ditches and huge valleys that crisscross like mountains. A scientist can't have only one research direction from beginning to end. In addition, citizens' freedom of speech is protected by the Constitution.

First of all, how to define "whether an opinion or speech has nothing to do with one's own professional field"? If an academician in the direction of high-energy physics gives a speech on condensed matter physics, is it "irrelevant to his own professional field"?

These two fields, both of which belong to physics, have many similarities, and many deep ditches and huge valleys are intertwined like mountains, so it is impossible to simply draw a relevant or irrelevant conclusion. There are many similar examples.

Secondly, it is impossible for a scientist to have only one single research direction. If an academician in mathematics wants to do research in biology or even sociology one day, and he writes a paper and publishes it in a peer-reviewed journal, does that violate this provision of the Chinese Academy of Sciences?

In addition, citizens' freedom of speech is protected by the Constitution. If the relevant speech violates specific legal provisions, such as improper profit, then it must be punished according to relevant legal provisions. The internal constitution of the Chinese Academy of Sciences does not take precedence over the constitution.

A scientist, no matter how great his achievements and prestige are, is bound to make mistakes, which may appear in his own research direction or in other directions a little farther away.

For a recent example, for almost all physicists, Maxwell's equation can be regarded as the content in the professional field, but didn't Academician Wang Zhonglin make mistakes in it? Science itself is advancing in countless mistakes. What we need is a peer review environment for free discussion and exchange, and a media environment for serious verification, not a useless and ridiculous ban.