http://im1.biz/Cloning.htm

Is the true reason for this weird selection perhaps the fact that Nature actually learnt about some major problems of its own iPS “airplanes” and thus deliberately chose not to highlight them any more? Then, why did Nature still place high the iPS “airplanes” taking off from other “airports”? Was this unselfish credit given out actually a responsibility trap that was planed for the capture of others’ iPS airplanes that Nature had already known of their falling fate?

......

By an un-respectable adoption of an un-welcomed advice, Science has escaped from making a great Breakdown of the Year by not picking iPS “airplane” as The Breakthrough of the Year. However, the keeping of iPS “airplane” as a “strong” runner-up (14) will still bring Science much deserved “credit” for promoting bad science.

I am confident that, when the day of a few “top” journals covering the “sky” of scientific communication is over, the sunrays of “truth” will reach the Earth. Then the strong “runner-up” captured in Science will be looked back at in the bright daylight of the future scientific judgment. Furthermore, I wish those unscientific and also unethical editors of Science will then not miss on collecting their much deserved “credit’ for having promoted some pseudo-science and, at the same time, suppressed true science all these years.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to Science! Let true science bless the whole world!

这到底是什么英文啊？