Ok

By continuing your visit to this site, you accept the use of cookies. These ensure the smooth running of our services. Learn more.

« 近日PK有感 | 首页 | 左志坚给方舟子的公开信 »

星期六, 五月 27, 2006

从“打假”到造假:汉芯事件是方舟子揭露的吗?

密码

提要:本文主要是写给那些认为方舟子“打假”“虽然有些地方做错,但主流是好的”的善良人们的。这里不是在指摘小节,而是在告诉大义;不是在指出一个英雄的失误,而是要展示一个堕落者的丑恶。

学术必须诚实,新闻必须真实,网络必须踏实。他们都应该与虚假无缘。如果有人不遵守游戏规则,不管地位多高,名气多大,我们都要揭露他。——方舟子



《自然》插图说明:在网上张贴的对科学造假的指控让人回想起70年代被用来迫害政府敌人的大字报(Accusations of scientific fraud posted on websites remind some of the posters used to persecute 'government enemies' in the 1970s.)

方舟子的声称

著名科学刊物英国《自然》杂志,2006年5月24日发表了题为“被点名的和被羞辱的”(Named and shamed)的特别报道。报道称,中国在科学不端行为猖獗并被揭露的同时,也在发生基于虚假指控的对科学家的文革式迫害。报道引述了刘辉伪造履历事件、司履生指控魏于全造假事件、陈进汉芯造假案,和主要由司魏事件引起的各方争论。文章告诉我们,方舟子(方是民)主持的新语丝网站,也在陈进造假案中,“对引起公众的热烈关注起到了关键作用”( played a key role in fuelling public outcry)。这位加州圣地亚哥的“生物学家”(biochemist)表示,“是他首先公布了陈的公司名字”。(Shi-min Fang, a biochemist based in San Diego, California, claims he was the first to post the name of Chen's company which supposedly re-labelled foreign chips.)

这样的内容,当下在中文网络引起了轩然大波。方舟子当天出来“更正”说,“《自然》的记者写错了,或者写得太模糊容易引起误解”(http://www.xys.org/forum/db/1/95/155.html),据他说,他对《自然》记者是如此解释的。我们姑且相信方舟子说的是真话,全文引述如下:

“我从未为陈进辩护。有关陈进的指控首先被张贴在几个读者众多的互联网论坛,包括我们的论坛(新语丝有一个读者可以自由张贴其评论的论坛)。在有记者确认并与揭发者联系之前,我没有在新语丝上发表这个指控,因为我们的政策是不发表匿名指控。事实上,我帮助某些记者调查并报道这个案件,提供了某些关键信息。我在我们的网站上发表了许多文章支持这一调查并披露了一些信息。我们最先确定了那家为陈进打磨芯片并改换标志的建筑设计公司。我写过一篇文章要求对这一案件进行深入的调查,让更多人承担责任并起诉陈进。”(I never defended Jin Chen. The allegation about Jin Chen was first posted to several popular Internet bulletin boards, including ours (New Threads have a bulletin board that our readers can freely post their comments). I didn't publish this allegation on New Threads until some journalists have identified and contacted the whistleblower, because it is our policy not to publish anonymous allegations. In fact, I help some journalists to investigate and report this case by providing some critical information. I published many articles to support the investigations and disclose some information on our web site. We were the first one to identify the architecture company which polished and re-labeled Chen's chip. And I wrote an article to ask for further investigating this case, finding more people accountable and prosecuting Chen.)

http://www.xys.org/xys/netters/Fang-Zhouzi/interview/nature.txt


《自然》杂志的引述,或者方舟子的“更正”,说的是事实吗?


事实真相回放

一、《自然》杂志报道说:方舟子声称“是他首先公布了陈的公司名字”

2006年1月17日,有人在水木社区BBS发布张贴,宣称“汉芯一号”是通过打磨飞思卡尔(freescale)芯片造假而成;网络媒体新浪科技首先跟进跟举报人取得联系,在1月20日进行了简短报道;交大汉芯公司次日即迅速反应发布否认造假声明(http://tech.sina.com.cn/it/2006-01-21/1314826436.shtml),新浪科技在声称继续追踪的同时,当即删除相关报道并再无动作。与此相反,1月25日(网上版本更早),《21世纪经济报道》发表了记者杨琳桦的《“汉芯一号”造假传闻调查》,这是我们现在所能看到的,对汉芯造假事件最早而详细的报道,也揭开了该报之后十余篇汉芯造假事件深入报道的序幕。

据此,首先“公布陈的公司名字”的,是举报人或者说是新浪科技,跟已经多年不从事任何专业工作的“生物学家”方舟子及其新语丝网站,没有丝毫关系。

二、方舟子说:“我从未为陈进辩护”

不知道方舟子有没有直接为陈进辩护过。但是我们看到,自三月初开始,方舟子基于其对南方报业的宿怨,在经他亲手审核后刊登于新语丝网站、并通过邮件列表向公众散发的新到资料(New Threads)里,连篇累牍刊登质疑甚至辱骂《21世纪经济报道》汉芯造假调查系列报道“新闻伦理”的文章,长达一月之久,并一再亲自出马,极谩骂之能事,把在汉芯造假案中居媒体监督首功的《21世纪经济报道》打成“黑媒体”(http://www.xys.org/xys/ebooks/others/science/dajia7/nfrw101.txt)、把该报记者左志坚作为首席“不良记者”、“造谣”的“流氓”在新语丝首页长久立此存照(http://www.xys.org/xys/ebooks/others/science/dajia6/badjournalists.txt)。

三、方舟子说:“事实上,我帮助某些记者调查并报道这个案件,提供了某些关键信息。我在我们的网站上发表了许多文章支持这一调查并披露了一些信息。”

相信没有网友能够发现方舟子或者新语丝网站,在汉芯造假事件起到了任何积极作用。方舟子能不能告诉大家一下,你向哪些记者提供了哪些“关键信息”呢?我们能看到唯一“关键信息”,倒还真是在经方舟子亲手审核后刊登于新语丝网站、并通过邮件列表向公众散发的新到资料(New Threads)文章里,而且文章名字就说这是“铁证”:“汉芯公司的背后控股公司为江苏民营斯威特公司,而该公司老总严晓群与‘汉芯一号’鉴定组成员、国家863专家组长严晓浪是亲兄弟关系”(http://www.xys.org/xys/ebooks/others/science/dajia7/hanxin20.txt)。

现在大家都知道,严晓群和严晓浪名字相近完全是巧合,他们之间没有任何关系。对于这样的“关键信息”、“铁证”,方舟子和新语丝在传播之后,也没有作任何澄清。

四、方舟子“更正”说:“我们最先确定了那家为陈进打磨芯片并改换标志的建筑设计公司。”

至迟在北京时间2006年3月7日上午九点五十四分,中国最大门户网站新浪网,就张贴了《21世纪经济报道》记者左志坚、杨琳桦的“‘汉芯造假案’系列调查之七:一个工程公司的汉芯生意”(http://tech.sina.com.cn/it/2006-03-07/0954859655.shtml),以大量调查为依据,确定了“为陈进打磨芯片并改换标志的”,是上海瀚基建筑装饰工程有限公司,并给出了网站地址。新语丝网站使用的是美国太平洋时间,比北京时间晚16个小时,直到北京时间3月7日晚上十八点三十五分,我们才在新语丝论坛看到了关于“上海瀚基”的自由张贴(http://www.xys.org/forum/db/1/32/61.html),而这个时候《21世纪经济报道》的揭露文章,早已在中文网络铺天盖地。两天以后的3月9日,由方舟子亲自编辑的新语丝新到资料,才原封不动地照搬了一下“上海瀚基”网站上的介绍。

据此,“最先确定了那家为陈进打磨芯片并改换标志的建筑设计公司”的;分明是“黑媒体”《21世纪经济报道》“造谣”的“流氓”“不良记者”,也跟已经多年不从事任何专业工作的“生物学家”方舟子及其新语丝网站,没有丝毫关系。

显然,无论《自然》杂志对方舟子的引述是否符合方的原意、无论方舟子现在的“更正”是否确为当时他对《自然》杂志的陈述,这都是彻头彻尾的谎言。在汉芯造假案中,方舟子和新语丝网站,根本没有作出任何值得一提的贡献,更不要说什么“首先公布”、“最先确定”。相反,对于投入大量时间精力写出揭露汉芯造假案系列文章的媒体及其记者,却进行了长时间的攻击。汉芯倒了,消息震动中外,方舟子却开始借著名科学杂志的平台,来摘这个“黑媒体”“造谣”“不良记者”的桃子,作为自己头上的光环。

企图在汉芯事件里捞一把,摘“黑媒体”“不良记者”的桃子,这已经不是第一次了。在5月14日“应追究‘汉芯’造假者法律责任”一文中,方舟子煞有介事地写道:“我查过这家美国公司的注册资料,从美国地方政府网站数据库下载的注册表扫描件显示,它是2002年5月22日由陈进本人在美国德州特拉韦斯郡注册的个人所有的公司。”(http://blog.sina.com.cn/u/47406879010003y7);可这样的内容,早在“黑媒体”《21世纪经济报道》2月18日的“‘汉芯一号’造假案调查之三”中,就已经率先详细披露;还是这份“黑媒体”《21世纪经济报道》,在3月9日的“‘汉芯一号’造假案调查之八”中,又进一步率先指出了这个注册日期,当时新语丝对该“不良记者”的批斗正方兴未艾:怎么轮得到方舟子在这类信息已经人所共知的两个多月以后,再来一个“我查过”?


是打碎“打假斗士”光环的时候了

我们还且不论biochemist这个桂冠,是谁告诉《自然》杂志、安到方舟子头上的。方舟子在该文的中文翻译中,欲盖弥彰地把biochemist翻译成 “生物化学学者”;而傅新元教授immunologist的头衔,却仍是按原意翻译成“免疫学家”。他是怎么知道英文里面有这样的区别的呢?尤其生物科学领域发展迅猛日新月异,哪怕按中文,多年不从事任何专业工作的方舟子,怎么居然还可能是“生物化学学者”呢?......

这只不过是这位所谓“打假斗士”,已经沦落到何等地步的最新写照。方舟子无数次在公开场合声称,曾经成功打假五百多起,却只有1%左右得到了处理;这被作为他“打假”卓有成效、而当局视若罔闻的关键依据;既然经过了统计,这所谓五百多起“学术打假”的名单,本应就在手边而且就在电脑里;但令人不可思议的是,无论是他还是他的支持者,都至今无法提供这份如此关键的名单以供公众验证;他的所有拥趸,也坚决拒绝向他作出任何询问。

5月13日,因为傅新元教授等120位华人学者教授关于学术腐败问题的公开信,傅新元先生、方舟子、笔者和另外一位朋友曾一起参与BBC英国广播电台的一个访谈节目。(http://www.xys.org/xys/netters/Fang-Zhouzi/interview/bbc.txt)。仅仅因为从BBC主持人那里知道笔者可能不认同他的观点,方舟子在事先根本不知道笔者为谁、有过什么言论的情况下,就把笔者认定为是“一直”对他进行“谩骂”的“骗子”(http://www.xys.org/forum/db/1/80/3.html);事后,更竟然完全无中生有,一再对笔者作出攻击新语丝服务器的严重指控(http://www.xys.org/forum/db/1/94/2.html,http://www.xys.org/forum/db/1/94/64.html),却至今无法提供任何证据支持该指控;有位网友大胆询问了一句,帖子立即被删、ID立即被封。

毫不夸张地说,方舟子和新语丝的所谓“学术打假”,现在已经发展到这样一个地步:真的和假的都要打、良民和坏蛋一起杀,标准只有一条,只要有利于方舟子和新语丝的炒作。胆敢对此提出异议的,如果是媒体,就成了黑媒体;如果是记者,就成了“不良记者”、“流氓”;如果是普通网友,就成了“骗子”乃至罪犯;120位华人学者教授公开信提出要制止没有根据的谣言传播,就成了要钳制言论自由、制止媒体监督。

我们不否认方舟子当初打假,或许有着正义的本心。六年前由他揭露的陈晓宁基因皇后案,为他赢得很多支持,也让方舟子一举成名。但是随着时间的推移,“学术打假”之于他,已经成为了一条名利双收的终南捷径。不但早年的严谨,早已经烟消云散,而且已经丧失了起码的道德准则,他的所谓“打假”,已经演变成假打、甚至造假、甚至诬陷他人的工具,以达到其个人目的。这在司履生指控魏于全造假事件中,达到了顶点:经方舟子亲自审核并传播的新语丝新到资料里,对魏于全院士大字报式的谩骂轰炸,达数百封之多。这是为什么无数当年方舟子的坚决支持者,已经与他渐行渐远,甚至走到了对立面的主要原因。方舟子的所谓“打假”,没有任何制度的约束,就像当年的大字报,只要政治正确,没有人会对张贴者施加制裁一样。它所依靠的,正如方舟子当年自己说的,是人格的魅力;或者说,靠的是积累下来的信誉。但是,当他的人格已经到了不惜剽窃他的对手的成果、不惜诬陷他的对手为罪犯的程度,他的所谓“打假”的丧钟,是不是也应该敲响了呢?

中国的学术腐败,确实是一个亟待解决的严重问题。但是我们同样应该看到,这个严重问题,并不是孤立的,而是在中国现实的大环境下产生的,在这个大环境下,学术领域,无法自成净土。在学术领域,和在其它领域一样,问题不在于没有正常程序,而在于如何弥补这些程序的漏洞、提高这些程序的效率。汉芯事件就是一个典型的例子:举报人在向媒体通风报信之前,于去年年底就已经向中国有关当局提出举报,国家根据举报派出专家调查组,经过细致严密的调查,才使得该造假行为得到彻底揭露和处理。也和在其它领域一样、和在其他国家一样,媒体监督只能成为正常程序的补充、而不是替代。汉芯事件中,媒体监督的压力对于后来的结果也许产生了一定影响,但是关键还在于遵守了正常程序,也是显而易见的。而这个媒体监督,也是在掌握内幕消息、经过专家证实、并由专业记者进行大量实地调查后作出的监督。一个如新语丝这样,根本没有独立采编、调查能力的——用方舟子本人也认可的说法,一个传播rumours(《自然》杂志语)的——个人网站,还根本就不能算在这个“媒体”之内。文革大字报也当然能揭发出坏人,但更多的是诬陷好人。如果说真正的骗子害怕方舟子,一点没错,正如骗子也会害怕打家劫舍的强盗一样;但是同样恐惧被打劫的,是全体手无寸铁的守法良民。

还是拿那个BBC的访谈节目作例子。在根本不知道对话者为何人的情况下,方舟子BBC访谈前的原话照录:“有意思,虹桥的一个一直在谩骂我的骗子主动要求要和我在BBC上辩论,算他有种”(http://www.xys.org/forum/db/1/80/3.html)。访谈之后,无论是友、还是非友,竟都不约而同地表示钦佩:有勇气;算你有胆量;不怕真实身份暴露吗...... 在自由的天空下,基于一个普通人的良知、对中国社会的关心,参与一个自由电台15分钟的交流节目,说两分钟对于中国学术打假问题的看法,而这个看法与方舟子不尽相同:为什么就至于需要“有种”、甚至需要担心自己的安危?我们可以由此看到,方舟子对其自身“力量”有着何等样的自信;在了解方舟子和新语丝的公众中,自然流露的恐惧,也达到了何种匪夷所思的程度。只是:这到底是一种正义的力量、还是邪恶的力量?

1966年5月16日,中共中央发布了《五一六通知》,正式宣告了无产阶级文化大革命开始。通知中强调“不破不立”,说反对破,就是反对革命。一个很有趣的巧合,整整四十年后,在北京时间的同一天,新语丝网站新到资料,方舟子亲手编辑的链接题目就是:“视频:福建电视台综合频道‘新闻启示录’专题片《方舟子:不破不立》”。

我们无从知道,驱使当年千百万红卫兵小将们张贴大字报“破”牛鬼蛇神、乃至炒家批斗的动力,到底是对建设国家的热情、还是对文明社会的仇恨。但是我们知道,他们给中国大地,带来了几千年来都没有过先例的灾难,给民族留下了至今难以愈合的创伤。我们知道了,正义的大旗下,也可能是邪恶。

这样的悲剧,无论在什么样的程度上、无论在哪一个领域,都再也不能重演了。

2006.5.26

附:

特稿:英自然杂志---真假毁誉搅乱了中国科学界

DWNEWS.COM-- 2006年5月26日22:37:5(京港台时间) --多维新闻

多维社记者张愈编译报道/随着对中国科学界不端行为的指责越来越多,有人担心类似文化革命中的迫害又会出现。中国科学面临一把双刃剑的切割:一面是科学不端行为猖獗,另一面是不实的指责所造成的迫害。

自然杂志25日发表文章指出,由于对官方机构能否妥善调查科学界的欺骗缺乏信任,导致人们越来越依赖网络来拷问中国科学家的记载和文章。但这又引起很多人的另一方面的忧虑,担心这些未经检验的论断可能引起的危害。在美国的一百多位中国科学家向中国政府发出一封公开信,呼吁建立一套能保证公平调查科学界不端行为的机制。

中国承认面临严重的科学不端问题,包括剽窃、伪造数据和篡改数据。问题的严重程度尚不清楚,但最近有关这方面问题的大量报道引起了人们的关注。

3月份,北京清华大学医学院院长助理刘辉被指责利用另一个署名为H. Liu的论文增加自己的着作目录。据称刘拒绝这一指控,谴责有人是利用笔误混淆视听。

4月,成都四川大学被中国媒体批评,因为其一个教授被发现伪造论文,该论文2000年发表时就受到指控。上海交通大学的陈进 2003年声称制造出中国自己的第一块数字信号处理芯片“汉芯”,激起了一片爱国热潮。但2周前,他被自己的学校指控伪造研究成果和窃取外国公司的设计。

这3个案子之引起公众注意,以揭发中国的科技造假着称的中文网站新语丝(http://www.xys.org)起了重要作用。

在前两个案子中,新语丝上指责的帖子导致中国媒体的报道。新语丝的主办者方是民(笔名方舟子),一位居住在美国加州圣地亚哥的生物化学家,第一个将涉嫌用外国芯片贴上自己标签的陈进的大名贴到网上的人。

文章指出,在缺乏适当的规范的调查机制的状况下,新语丝网站牵扯科学家的力量使它成为讨伐中国科学界不端行为的中心。

印地安纳大学的免疫学家傅新元说,正是四川大学的案子驱使他给包括中国科技部部长和中国科学院院长在内的高级科技政策决策者写信,吁请他们采取行动。他的信引起同行的共鸣──在美国的华裔生物学家中间传阅5日,傅收集到120个签名,包括两位在中国的研究者。“我大为振奋,”傅说。

该信指出需要揭露所有的不端行为,然后焦点集中在无事实根据的断言上,特别是那些拿不出实验过程的造假证据就攻击人家的学术观点,最后谴责“不经适当的调查……以匿名的方式公然进行人身攻击”。

傅说四川大学的事件是个相关的案例。该校副校长魏于全2000年在自然医学杂志发表论文,论述利用外内皮细胞作为防止肿瘤生长的疫苗。论文声称在老鼠身上取得成功,并认为该技术适用于人类。

但西安交通大学的免疫病理学家司履生审读魏在2001年的一份资金申请时第一次读到魏的论文就怀疑数据有假。今年3月26日,他听说魏在利用自己的论文申请又一笔大的经费,就在新语丝上指控魏的论文。

司的信在中国媒体上引起愤怒,并导致四川大学对魏的调查。调查的结论是魏没有过错,关于魏的研究的争议不过是普通的学术分歧。中国媒体继续批判魏和四川大学。但许多科学家认为司的指控是不负责任的,是建立在对科学观念和过程的不当解释之上的。

例如,司声称,老鼠的免疫系统应对外细胞的所有蛋白质有反应,而魏的文章认为免疫后的老鼠只选择性地对少数抗原起作用。“这违背了免疫学的基本原理,”司说。

但约翰.霍普金斯大学医学院的免疫学家陈列平,傅的信件的签名者之一,不赞同司的观点。陈说选择性地对一种或少数几种外蛋白质起反应是众所周知的,称为免疫支配。

司也质疑魏用的老鼠的数量,估计约40000只。“这太多了,难以置信,”司说。得到陈支持的魏说司算错了数字,实际所用的老鼠不到5000只。

但即使是为魏辩护的人也承认魏的反应于事无补。例如,司称魏至今拒绝提供多数人认为能了结争议的原始数据。魏告诉自然杂志,“我没说不能提供原始数据供调查,”但没有说明他愿否将数据交出来。他拒绝了所有的不端指控。

四川大学的对此事的调查未能使人信服,主要是它缺乏透明性。“新近四川大学对造假的调查完全是场闹剧,”加州伯克利大学神经学家、上海神经学研究所所长蒲慕明说。自然杂志要求四川大学提供过程和介绍对魏进行调查的委员会的成员。但直到自然杂志付印魏也未提供任何调查信息。

蒲相信这个事件显示了中国的大学缺乏自我调查的能力。“调查结果可能为大学自身的利益所左右,如维护学校的声誉,”蒲说。

傅的信,5月8日发出,呼吁更高级别的基金机构如科技部、中国科学院及国家自然科学基金会等更多地介入调查。

这些机构已经有调查部门。中国科学院1997年就建立了道德委员会,2001年起草了准则。成立于1998年的国家自然科学基金会头五年调查过445项被声称的不端行为(这期间获得它资助的项目月30000个)。对最严重的案例,委员会无限期地禁止当事人申请基金。

但许多科学家认为这些委员会是没有效率的。由于对这些机构解决问题的能力缺乏信任,人们被迫在因特网上发布自己的意见。如,司说他考虑过向中国科学院或科技部投诉,但他却找不到与这两个衙门联系的渠道。于是他在新语丝上公布了自己对魏的指控。自然杂志试图与中国科学院和国家自然科学基金会联系,也未成功。

“正是这种正式机制的效率的缺乏造就了新语丝的重要地位,”傅说。但是,作为一位人权倡导者,他又担心网站不负责任的指控,特别是那些匿名的指控,以及媒体的推波助澜,会让人回想到中国的大字报。

那些贴在墙上的手写的大字报在1970年代文化大革命时期广泛用于迫害被认为是政府的敌人的人。“任何人都可以想写什么就写什么,人人会看,而且相信写的都是真实的,”陈说。“学术界如果大字报重演,就太可怕了。”

傅认为,理想地说,他希望看到中国建立由接受过科学不端调查训练的专家组成、能对造假指控进行调查、类似于美国科研诚信办公室那样的新机构。“那绝对是解决司-魏案所必须的,”自然医学杂志总编辑罗培兹(Juan-Carlos Lopez)说。“‘他说’‘她说’之类的空话人们已经听够了,”罗培兹说,“该是有强势的权威机构介入的时候。”

link

-
Nature 441, 392-393 (25 May 2006) | doi:10.1038/441392a; Published online 24 May 2006

Special Report

Named and shamed

David Cyranoski

Top of pageAbstractAs accusations of scientific misconduct in China become rife, some fear persecution reminiscent of that used in the Cultural Revolution.

Chinese science risks being sliced up by a double-edged sword: rampant scientific misconduct on the one hand, and persecution based on false accusations on the other.

The lack of confidence in official mechanisms for properly investigating fraud has led to increased reliance on websites that challenge the records and publications of Chinese scientists. But many are concerned about the damage such untested allegations can cause; more than 100 Chinese scientists based in the United States have sent an open letter to the Chinese government, asking it to set up mechanisms to ensure that claims of scientific misconduct are investigated fairly.

China admits it faces a serious problem with scientific misconduct, including plagiarism, and the fabrication and falsification of data. The scale of the problem is unknown, but a recent spate of allegations has drawn attention to the issue.

In March, Hui Liu, the vice-dean of Tsinghua University medical school in Beijing, was fired, following claims that he had boosted his publication list with papers by another H. Liu (see Nature 440, 728; 2006). Liu has reportedly denied the charges and blamed the mix-up on a clerical error. In April, Sichuan University in Chengdu was criticized by the Chinese media for finding one of its professors innocent of fabricating a paper; the paper has been under attack since its publication in 2000. And two weeks ago, Jin Chen of Shanghai's Xi'an Jiaotong University, whose announcements of one of China's first digital signal-processing chips in 2003 stoked patriotic fervour, was condemned by his university for faking research and stealing designs from a foreign company.

J. ANDANSON/SYGMA/CORBIS

Accusations of scientific fraud posted on websites remind some of the posters used to persecute 'government enemies' in the 1970s.

In all three cases, a popular Chinese-language website known as New Threads (http://www.xys.org), which has a reputation for disclosing scientific fraud in China, played a key role in fuelling public outcry.

In the first two cases, postings of the accusations on New Threads led to the Chinese media picking up on the stories. And the website's owner, Shi-min Fang, a biochemist based in San Diego, California, claims he was the first to post the name of Chen's company which supposedly re-labelled foreign chips.

The power of the website to implicate scientists in the absence of adequate formal mechanisms of investigation has put it at the centre of concerns over claims of misconduct.

Xin-Yuan Fu, an immunologist at Indiana University in Indianapolis, says it was the Sichuan University case that drove him to write a letter to key science-policy officials, including China's science and technology minister and the head of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, asking them to take action. The letter struck a chord among his peers — within five days of circulating it to other Chinese biologists based in the United States, Fu's letter had collected 120 signatures, including those of two researchers in China. "I was overwhelmed," says Fu.

After noting the need to expose all types of misconduct, the letter focuses on the problem of unfounded allegations, particularly those that attack scientific claims without giving evidence of faulty laboratory procedures. It ends by condemning the tendency to make "personal attacks anonymously in public... in the absence of proper investigation".

Fu says the Sichuan University incident is a case in point. Yuquan Wei, vice-president of the university, published a paper in Nature Medicine in 2000 detailing the use of foreign endothelial cells as a vaccine to prevent tumour growth. The paper claimed success in mice and suggested the technique could work in humans (Nature Med. 6, 1160–1166; 2000).

But Lusheng Si, an immunopathologist at Xi'an Jiaotong University who first came across the paper when reviewing a grant proposal by Wei in 2001, suspected that it contained fabricated data. On 26 March this year, after hearing that Wei was using the paper to request a further large grant, Si attacked the paper on New Threads.

The letter led to a media fury in China and an investigation by Wei's university. Sichuan concluded that Wei had committed no offence, and that the dispute over Wei's research was simply a run-of-the-mill academic disagreement. The media in China has continued to criticize Wei and Sichuan University, but many scientists think Si's attack was irresponsible and based on unsound interpretation of scientific concepts and procedures.

Si contends, for example, that the mouse immune system should respond to all proteins in foreign cells, whereas Wei's paper suggests that immunized mice selectively respond to a few antigens. "This violates a fundamental law of immunology," Si says.

AP

Fallen from fame: Jin Chen, creator of a signal-processing chip, was condemned by his university for faking data.

But Lieping Chen, an immunologist at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland, and a signatory to Fu's letter, disagrees with Si. Chen says that a selective immune response to one or a few foreign proteins is an aspect of well-known phenom–enon known as immunodominance.

Si also questions the number of mice Wei used, estimating this to be around 40,000. "This is too big to believe," he says. Wei, backed by Chen, says Si has miscalculated the number, and that less than 5,000 mice were actually used.

But even those who defend Wei admit that his response hasn't helped. For example, Si claims that Wei has so far refused to release his raw data, which most agree would settle the issue. Wei told Nature, "I did not say I cannot release raw data for inspection", but he has not clarified whether he will make his data available. He has denied all misconduct.

The university's investigation into the matter has failed to convince many that the truth won out, mainly because it lacked transparency. "The recent self-investigation into alleged fraud at Sichuan University is a total joke," says Mu-ming Poo, a neurobiologist at the University of California, Berkeley, and head of the Institute of Neurosciences in Shanghai. Nature's request for details on the university procedure and an introduction to members of the investigation committee was referred to Wei; as Nature went to press he had not provided any information about the investigation.

The recent self-investigation into alleged fraud at Sichuan University is a total joke.

Poo believes the incident is indicative of the fact that most Chinese universities lack the capacity to investigate one of their own. "The outcome is likely to be influenced by the university's own interests, such as protecting its reputation," he says.

Fu's letter, sent on 8 May, calls for greater involvement of higher-level funding bodies such as the science ministry, the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) and the Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC).

These institutions already have investigatory bodies. The CAS established its ethics committee in 1997 and drafted guidelines in 2001. The NSFC committee, established in 1998, says it investigated 445 allegations of misconduct in its first five years (out of an estimated 30,000 projects that it funded during that time). In the most severe cases, the committee indefinitely blocks perpetrators from applying for funds.

But many scientists feel these committees are ineffective, and a lack of confidence in their ability to settle matters is driving those with grievances to publish them on the Internet. For example, Si says he considered sending his complaint to the CAS or to the science ministry, but he was unable to find contact details for either. So he posted his accusation on New Threads instead. Nature's attempts to contact the committees of the CAS and the NSFC were also unsuccessful.

"It is the [effective] absence of such formal mechanisms that makes New Threads important," says Fu. But Fu, a human-rights advocate, is worried that the media frenzy following irresponsible web-based accusations, particularly by those who don't identify themselves, hearkens back to China's 'big letter' posters or 'dazibao'.

These wall-mounted handwritten posters were used to persecute those considered enemies of the government during the Cultural Revolution in the 1970s. "Anyone could write anything, and people would read it and assume it was right," says Chen. "It would be a terrible thing to go through again, in academia."

There's been enough of this 'he said, she said' nonsense.

Fang, who has been widely praised since setting up his website in 2001 for exposing bad science and trying to raise the profile of research ethics in China, defends his postings. He says he only accepts about 10% of submitted letters, and that he only publishes allegations from correspondents who identify themselves to him. He adds that he does some preliminary investigation and sometimes asks outside experts for their opinions.

But several scientists have written to Nature to express concern over how powerful Fang's website has become, saying they are afraid to be named for fear of becoming his enemy.

Ideally, Fu says he would like to see China establish a new agency staffed by experts trained in scientific misconduct that could investigate claims of fraud, akin to the US Office of Research Integrity. That would certainly be necessary to resolve the case of Si versus Wei, says Nature Medicine's editor-in-chief Juan-Carlos Lopez. "There's been enough of this 'he said, she said' nonsense," says Lopez. "It's time for the competent authorities to get involved."

How likely that is to happen is unclear. Fu and his co-signatories have yet to receive any response from the Chinese authorities.

http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060522/full/441392a.html

01:00 发表在 个人文章, 方舟子“打假” | 查看全文 | 评论 (0)