方舟子的Blog

（Nick Otto摄）

方是民的网站揭露大陆学术界的剽窃、造假行为。这位科学界监督者告诉Joey
Liu为何其工作正变得艰难

崇高的呼唤

香港《南华早报》2006年1月26日

　　对那些假造研究成果和履历的中国科学家来说，方舟子是一个可怕的名字。这位分子生物学学者和专栏作家主办一个很受欢迎的网站新语丝，关注中国大陆的学术腐败。

　　方的真名是方是民，由于他的揭发，在去年有几名研究生被开除，三名占据高位的学者被解雇——清华大学医学院院长助理刘辉；上海同济大学生命科学技术学院院长杨杰；和合肥工业大学教授杨敬安（译注：应是安徽师范大学副校长刘登义。杨敬安是在2002年受到处理的）——都是因为剽窃研究成果。在一系列丑闻之后，科技部上周宣布成立一个科学道德委员会和监督办公室以打击学术造假和剽窃。但是这一新闻并没有让这位自命的科学监督者感到振奋。

　　新语丝网站在大陆被屏蔽，虽然其内容通过一些镜像点可以看到。在网上揭露科学不端行为6年之后，方认为如果没有民主政体、独立的科教机构和新闻自由的话，官方监督系统将会是无效的。相反地，今年39岁的方说他的工作正在变得更为艰难，因为他的揭露损害了越来越多有影响力的人物。

　　“我们肯定需要有一个揭露错误行为的体系；一个人的力量是有限的，”方在其北京家中说。“但是我非常怀疑这个官方监督体系会有成效。有些造假案件与科技部有关，因此他们为了自己的利益会去保护造假的科学家。学术腐败是一个社会和政治问题。”

　　方宣称自2000年以来他已披露了多达600起的科学不端行为案例，但是其中的多数都被大学和政府所忽视。有影响的科学家被开除的情形很罕见。关于刘辉一事，方说清华校方起初并不想做出任何处罚，在刘辉的同事的压力之下才采取了行动。在方在其网站发布对刘辉的指控4个月后，刘被开除。

　　“即使在一个案例被披露之后，校方也会试图掩盖它，以保护学校名声和经济利益，”他说。“如果被指控造假的人很有权势，例如是中国科学院院士，那更是如此。他们能带来大量的经费，而且他们在学校内部的关系根深蒂固或者与高层官员有很深的渊源。”

　　他举例说，他发现有约20名院士参与剽窃或学术造假，但是没有一个受到官方的调查或处理。

　　方在美国获得博士学位。他说他是在通过网上新闻报道获悉大陆科学界造假非常猖獗之后，才变成了打假斗士。那些报道表明虽然有许多海归人员被吹捧为英雄，但是他们研究成果的重要性往往被夸大了，有的甚至伪造履历。因此他开始去揭露这种造假行为。

　　美国一家生物技术公司为了使用他和另三名科学家发现的一种与艾滋病毒有关的蛋白质而支付专利费，这给了他一些稳定的收入。但是他主要通过给报纸写专栏和出书获得收入。“我过着简单的生活，这些收入够用了，”他说。

　　与他网上文章的激烈措辞相反，这位福建人是个和善、说话柔和的人。他的网站最初是为海外中国留学生中的中国文学爱好者提供一个论坛。做为一名业余诗人，他在1994年与一些朋友创办了《新语丝》，当时他正在密歇根州立大学攻读博士学位。

　　这个论坛张贴唐诗、宋文以及他自小喜爱的作者鲁迅的著作。“鲁迅是个孤独的战士，与当时的社会弊病作战，”他说。

　　受鲁迅的理想主义的影响，方在获得博士学位之后放弃了学术研究，改而与学术腐败作战。

　　“在当时进行得很顺利，因为我的大多数目标是那些假冒履历回国的留学生，”他说。“但是到了2003年，在我开始针对越来越多的国内科学家时，阻力增大了。”

　　批评者争辩说方没有资格对其专业以外的领域发表评论，比如社会科学和人文艺术。他好战的语气——冒犯者常常被描述为“骗子”和“弱智”——更进一步激怒了那些习惯小心翼翼的批评的成名人物。但是他坚持认为他在美国所受的科研训练和做为一个文学爱好者，使他能够做出基本的判断。

　　而且，他说有许多知道内幕的人士和专家学者在帮助他。通过互联网，他常常收到其他实验室科学家的通风报信，他们担心公开说出来会丢掉工作。未经允许他不会透露举报者的姓名，但是也不接受匿名的举报。举报必须有证据支持，而且把举报公开之前，他自己也做一些调查，包括从专家学者那里获得帮助。

　　个别的指控后来被证明是不成立的，但是方为其做法辩护，说他发表了更正和道歉。反对者对此不以为然，他们注意到他的网站没有给来自恶意攻击者的评论提供地盘。

　　这并不是说方在其无所顾忌的战役中毫发无损。他已在北京和西安输掉了两个损害名誉权案件，并正在上诉在武汉的另一个案件。

　　不过，这位科学牛虻并没有遭到冷落。在11月，几位著名学者，其中包括物理学家何祚庥，设立了一个基金帮助打击猖獗的科学造假。方是其首位受资助者——该基金将会用于支付他的诉讼费用。

　　方依然无所顾忌，把他在法庭上的失败归咎于中国大陆不正常的司法系统，并拒绝道歉，因为他的文章“不是人身攻击”。他反对坏科学的战役的最新目标是中医。他说中医的治疗方法是建立在一个包含了民间经验、哲学以及迷信的混合体基础上的。“许多草药实际上毒性很大；在被用于治疗之前应该对它们做仔细的研究。但是许多中医从业者为了赚钱掩盖了这一点，”他说。

　　他说一般的中国人对科学存在许多错误观念，想要写更多的文章让公众能接触到科学。他最新的一本书《科学成就健康》就是这种文章的汇总。

　　“这将是我以后的主要工作。”他说。“揭露科学造假是破坏性的，但是科普写作则是建设性的。我对后者更有兴趣，因为他结合了我的两大兴趣，科学和写作。”

Fang Shimin’s website has identified plagiarism and graft in
mainland academia. The watchdog scientist tells Joey Liu why his
job just gets harder

HIGHER CALLING

FRIDAY, JANUARY 26, 2007
South China Morining Post

FOR CHINESE SCIENTISTS falsifying research and resumés, Fang
Zhouzi is a dreaded name. The molecular biologist and freelance
writer runs a popular website, New Threads, highlighting academic
corruption on the mainland.

Fang, whose real name is Fang Shimin, was credited last year with
the expulsion of several graduate students and the dismissal of
three prominent academics – Liu Hui, assistant dean of medicine at
Tsinghua University; Yang Jie, dean of the school of life sciences
and technology at Tongji University, Shanghai; and Hefei Industry
University professor Yang Jing’an – for plagiarising research.
Following the series of scandals, the Ministry of Science and
Technology announced last week that a science ethics committee and
a supervisory office would be set up to combat academic fraud and
plagiarism. But the self-appointed scientific watchdog hasn’t been
heartened by the news.

The New Threads site (www.xys.org) is blocked on the mainland,
although the content is accessible through mirror sites. And, after
six years of exposing scientific misconduct on the Web, Fang
reckons the official monitoring system will be ineffective without
a democratic government, independent scientific and educational
institutions and a free press. On the contrary, the 39-year-old
says his work is getting harder, as more influential people are
hurt by his exposés.

“We definitely need a system [to expose wrongdoing]; an
individual’s power is limited,” Fang says at his Beijing home.
“But I seriously doubt that it [the official monitoring system]
can work. Some [academic] fraud cases are linked to the Ministry of
Science and Technology, so it’s in their interest to protect those
dishonest scientists. Academic corruption is a social and political
problem.”

Fang claims he has uncovered up to 600 cases of scientific
misconduct since 2000, but most were ignored by the universities
and the government. Dismissal of influential scientists is rare. In
Liu’s case, Fang says Tsinghua administrators were reluctant to
mete out any discipline, and only took action following pressure
from his colleagues. Liu was fired four months after Fang’s
accusations were published on his website.

“Even when a case is disclosed, the university will try to cover
it up to protect its reputation and economic interests,” he says.
“This applies particularly when the accused is powerful, for
example, members of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. They can bring
in a lot of funding, and they have deep-rooted relations within the
university or with senior officials.”

He cites how none of the 20 academy members that he linked to
plagiarism or misconduct had been officially investigated or
punished.

Fang, who earned his doctorate in the US, says he turned fraud
fighter after learning about the prevalence of mainland scientific
chicanery through online news reports. The articles showed that
although many returning researchers were feted as heroes, the
importance of their research was often exaggerated and some were
even lying on their CVs. So, he began to expose such
misconduct.

Royalties paid by a US biotech company for the use of an
HIV-related protein that he and three other scientists isolated
gives him some financial stability. But he makes his living mainly
as a newspaper columnist and from his books. “I live a simple life
and this income is enough,” he says.

In contrast to his feisty online rhetoric, the Fujian native is a
gentle, soft-spoken man. He first set up his website as a forum for
Chinese literature lovers overseas. An amateur poet, he founded New
Threads with a few friends in 1994 while he pursued a doctorate at
Michigan State University.

The forum posted Tang poems, Song dynasty prose and works by Lu
Xun, his favourite author since childhood. “Lu was a lonely
warrior, fighting against social maladies at that time,” he
says.

Influenced by Lu’s idealism, Fang gave up academic research after
gaining his PhD to fight academic corruption.

“It was smooth-going at that time because most of my targets were
overseas students who cheated on their CVs when they returned to
China,” he says. “But in 2003, when I began to target more
domestic scientists, the resistance grew.”

Critics argue that Fang isn’t qualified to comment on fields
outside his specialisation, such as social science and the liberal
arts. His belligerent tone – offenders are often described as
“crooks” and “idiots” – further grates on establishment
figures used to more circumspect criticism. But he insists his
training as a researcher in the US and as a literature lover
enables him to make basic judgments.

Moreover, he says he is aided by many insiders and leading
scholars. Thanks to the internet, he often receives tips from other
laboratory scientists who are afraid to speak up for fear of losing
their jobs. He doesn’t publish an informant’s name without
permission, but neither does he entertain anonymous submissions.
Charges must be supported by evidence and he undertakes some of his
own investigation, including seeking help from leading scholars,
before making any accusations public.

A few allegations later proved groundless, but Fang defends his
actions, saying he publishes corrections and apologies. That gets
short shrift from opponents, who note that his website allows
little room for comments from detractors.

That’s not to say Fang has emerged unscathed from his
no-holds-barred campaigning. He has lost two libel cases in Beijing
and Xian, and is still appealing the judgment in another suit in
Wuhan.

However, the scientific gadfly hasn’t been left in the cold. In
November, several celebrity academics, including physicist He
Zuoxiu, set up a fund to help fight rampant fraud among scientists.
And Fang is the first to benefit – the fund will contribute to his
legal defence.

Fang remains defiant, attributing his court defeats to a warped
legal system on the mainland, and refuses to apologise because his
writings “are not personal attacks”. The latest target of his
campaign against bad science is traditional Chinese medicine. He
says the ancient methods of healing are based on a combination of
folk experiences, philosophy and even superstition. “Many herbal
medicines are actually very toxic; they have to be studied
carefully before being used for treatment. But many practitioners
cover this up to make money,” he says.

He says ordinary Chinese hold many misconceptions about science,
and wants to write more stories to make it accessible to the
public. His latest book, Science and Health, is a collection of
such stories.

“It’s going to be my major work in the future.” he says.
“Exposing scientific fraud is destructive, but writing popular
science materials is constructive. I’m more interested in the
latter because it combines my two interests,science and writing,”