« 简单评几句方舟子“简单评几句‘120位中国科学家’的公开信” | 首页 | 芦笛译：《日本最伟大的胜利，英国最惨痛的失败》序 »
星期五, 五月 12, 2006
据传的120华人科学家公开信第二稿
这是第二稿。
所有跟贴·加跟贴·新语丝读书论坛http://www.xys.org/cgi-bin/mainpage.pl送交者: limitations 于 2006-5-10, 15:57:37:
回答: 这封公开信被改得面目全非了。 由 limitations 于 2006-5-10, 12:42:04:
An open statement on the Wei-Si's case
We are a group of scientists who are concerned with the case involving accusations against Professor Wei Yu-quan of Sichuan University for his paper published in Nature Medicine in 2000.
We would express our views on this case as follows:
1. We are totally against every kind of scientific misconducts and strongly believe that a research scientist should keep high standards in bioethics. However, to reveal and judge a scientific misconduct, we must follow necessary legitimate due procedure of investigation. As an example, PHS has guideline concerning scientific misconduct in USA, in which the investigation of an accusation of misconduct should initially be kept confidential, and it should firstly be handled and investigated by the internal committee of the institution involved. "Innocent until proven guilty" is an important principle we should adhere to.
2. We understand and appreciate the public outcry against the scientific misconducts. It is clear that the public has the right to know what scientists have done with the public fund. However, we should also point out that for the questions concerning scientific misconduct, it could be too specialized and too professional to be fully understood by the public. It must be first judged and solved by a committee of experts. Attempts to mislead public or use news media to gain partial support, or exert anonymous personal attacks or spread rumors are not accepted as professional practice.
3. We have read Prof. Si's original comments on Wei's work in 2003 that were submitted to Nature Medicine and the corresponding rebuttal/reply by Wei. These comments and reply apparently belong to normal academic disputes, which we saw frequently among scientist colleagues in the Western countries. The both parties in the disputes have their rights to dispute or rebuttal. The scientific questions and disputes should be solved by further experiments, especially by those from other laboratories.
4. In general, we should culture a tradition of open and responsible scientific debate on important issues in China. This open debate requires responsibility, and real names in any open communications should be signed to show this responsibility. We support freedom of expression of the public and everyone. We believe that establishment of an honorable tradition of responsible open debate on important issues with signed real names is an important step for building up an infrastructure for promoting scientific research in China.
5. To avoid a possible chaotic consequence, and to be fair to both parties involving an accusation or rebuttal of scientific misconduct. We recommend that institutions or governing bodies in China set up due procedures and a chain of authorities for handling scientific misconduct. This includes a rule that will allow establishing ad hoc committees of experts to promptly investigate any accusation of scientific misconduct proposed by an expert signed with his/her real name. If the dispute or accusation cannot be solved at the institution level, the higher governing body or the funding agencies or professional societies should get involved, and external committees of investigation can be further set up until the problems is satisfactorily solved. It is important that both accuser and accused should be legally protected during investigation. The conclusions of investigation should be made public. A well-solved case can set examples for the future practice and to foster a tradition of proper behavior for scientists.
Sincerely,
Signed:
Affiliations:
关于“魏-司”事件的公开声明
我们关注针对四川大学魏于全教授2000年发表在《自然医学》杂志上论文的指控事件。作为科技工作者我们对此事件表示如下之观点：
1. 我们坚决反对任何形式的学术不端行为，并强烈主张一个科技工作者应当保持高标准的学术道德规范。与此同时，对于揭露和评断一种科学不端行为，我们必须遵循必要的合法适当的调查程序。例如，美国公共卫生署关于学术不正当行为的处理指南规定对学术不正当行为指控的调查起初应当是非公开的，其首先应当由所涉及机构的内部委员会处理并调查。“无罪论定 (Innocent until proven guilty)”是我们应当坚持的一个重要原则。
2. 我们理解并感谢公众对于学术不端行为的强烈指责。很显然，公众有权利知道科技工作者利用公众基金所从事的研究活动。可是，我们应当指出，对于有关学术不端行为的问题，由于其过于专业化，一般公众很难完全理解。任何企图误导公众或利用新闻媒体去求得偏袒支持，或进行人身攻击或传播谣言的行为都是不可接受的。
3. 我们已经阅读了司履生教授2003年原来投寄给《自然医学》上关于魏论文的评论以及魏的回答。这些评论及回答显然是属于正常的学术争论，这种情况我们在西方国家科技工作者同事之间会经常会看到。争论双方均有权争辩或答辩。对于科学问题及争辩应当用进一步的实验，特别是用来自不同实验室的进一步的实验来解决。
4. 作为原则，我们应当在中国培养公开而负责的学术辩论的传统。这种公开讨论或辩论必需有负责的态度。因此，在任何公开的通讯中都应当签署实名，以显示其责任。我们支持公众和任何人的言论自由。我们相信，建立一个对于重大事件进行实名负责公开争论的优良传统，是促进中国科学研究发展基本设施建设的一个重要步骤。
5. 为了避免可能出现的混乱结果，也为了对关于学术不端行为辩论的当事人双方公正，我们建议中国的研究机构或主管部门建立起一种合适的程序和一系列的权威机构来处理学术不端行为。这包括建立一个制度，允许建立特别专家委员会来迅速调查真实署名的，对学术不端行为的指控。在调查期间，不论是指控者或被指控者，都应受到合法保护。如果争论或指控不能够在该研究机构层面上解决，那么，更高的主管部门和基金支持机构或专业协会就应当介入，甚至进一步建立一个外部调查委员会，直到问题得到圆满解决。调查的结将予以公布。 一个好的解决案例能够为将来的实践树立起样板，并能为科技工作者培养出良好行为之传统。
译注：bioethics 译为“学术道德”
Scientists 译为“科技工作者”更适合中国国情。
Scientific misconduct 译为“学术不端行为”
http://www.xys.org/forum/db/1/78/241.html
傅新元就为何要发起公开信的解释（E-mail)
所有跟贴·加跟贴·新语丝读书论坛http://www.xys.org/cgi-bin/mainpage.pl送交者: limitations 于 2006-5-15, 13:40:51:
From: Xin-Yuan Fu [mailto:xfu@iupui.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 11:57 AM
Subject: Revised2: An open statement on Wei Yu-Quan's case
Importance: High
Dear Colleagues,
In the past 24 hours, I have received a large number of emails in response to the Statement. Many colleagues have agreed to sign this statement and/or proposed suggestions/corrections. I have revised the Statement based on the suggestions / corrections. A colleague has kindly translated it into Chinese. Now I am sending you this revised Statement both in English and Chinese.
Why are we doing this? I believe all of us care very much about healthy development of science in our motherland. Many of us have collaborations with scientists in China or directly lead research projects and have students there. We all know the problems we are facing in China. A major problem is about the infrastructure for scientific research in China. To have a right way to deal possible disputes is an important one. To build up a proper environment for scientific communications, we need to work on specific cases. Now the Wei-Si case gives us an opportunity to do this.
It should be pointed out that, in this statement, we do not take any side, or make a right or wrong judgment for Wei-Si case.
What we are doing is to suggest a due procedure for solving this case and also for other future scientific disputes.
We realize that, on one hand, we need to take firm actions against all kinds of misconducts; on the other hand, we must prevent and oppose a "culture revolution" style in handling disputes in scientific issues. This statement is to give our voice on these important issues. In my view, our action could be more necessary than that simply contribute to specific research projects.
We should take our responsibility.
If more of you would sign this statement or have further suggestions/comments, please let me know. I hope to send this signed Statement to CAS, Sichuan University and NSF first. Then we will try to publish it in a newspaper in China.
Cordially,
Xin-Yuan
Xin-Yuan Fu, Ph. D.
Professor
Department of Microbiology and Immunology
Walther Oncology Center
Indiana University School of Medicine
635 Barnhill Drive, MS 420
Indianapolis, IN 46202-5120
Phone: 317-274-2082
Fax: 317-274-4090
E-mail: xfu@IUPUI.edu
http://www.iupui.edu/%7Emicro/fu.html
http://www.xys.org/forum/db/1/82/114.html
相关链接：120位中国科学家关于科学研究诚信的公开信
02:55 发表在 方舟子“打假” | 查看全文 | 评论 (0)