方舟子的Blog

方舟子摘译自英国智囊机构Demos在2007年出版的《中国：下一个科学强国？》一书第49～50页，作者James Wilsdon and James Keeley

监督不正当行为

如果说生物伦理的架构正在持续改善的话，那么有一个问题在整个中国科学界似乎正变得越来越严重，那就是剽窃和学术造假。至今还没有哪一起像韩国的黄禹锡事件那样在国际上臭名远扬，但是过去的两年里，人们已目睹了一系列学术造假小丑闻。最重大的事例涉及上海交通大学微电子学院院长陈进，他在2006年5月因为伪造一项据称有重大突破的芯片研究而被开除。陈博士因为其研究工作曾经获得政府表彰，并获得超过750万英镑的研究资金，但是被发现他只是重新利用摩托罗拉一家子公司制造的芯片，简单地加上自己公司的标记。

在一位知情者向校方告发后，陈博士最终被逮住。不过，人们担忧有许多事例未被告发，有些人觉得学术不端行为的大环境是当前中国学术体制采用的奖励和评估方式造成的。人们很容易指责个别科学家的道德缺陷，却忽视了这些事件发生的更大因素。陈博士就是个典型的事例。他从美国回到中国时获得了高薪和大笔的研究经费。但是伴随着这些慷慨赏赐的是对成果的定期审核和一个不原谅失败的评估体制。不正当行为是这一混合体的几乎不可避免的产物。此外还有压力，甚至导致自杀：在过去的两年间，有一批年轻的中国科学家死亡，它们与学术评估的高压有关。正如一名博士生告诉我们的：

“有这么多的压力和刺激，这么多的诱惑。金钱，权力和声望全都来自科学成就。但是在科学家职业如此早期阶段，不应该有这么大的压力。”（匿名采访，上海生物学博士生）

在这些极端事例的后面，高等教育界还存在着一种更加微妙和普遍的剽窃文化。中国科学院理论物理研究所所长欧阳钟灿最近接受《科学》采访时，把这个环境描述为“普遍存在着同时或先后一稿多投，自我剽窃没有新意的论文，个人和机构在论文挂名，以及直捷了当的剽窃”。政策制订者正在关注这些问题，特别是在黄禹锡事件之后，因为它让许多人感到一个国家的科学声誉是多么容易被玷污。同时也有来自其他方面的压力。在2006年5月，120名大多在美国工作的华人科学家签署了一封“关于科学研究诚信的公开信”并交给科技部部长徐冠华。它呼吁建立新的程序防止不端行为，并要求学生和研究人员上学术诚信与科学道德的课程。2006年11月，为了回应这些呼吁，科技部宣布采取一系列措施，包括在科技部内部设立一个有关科研诚信的特殊办公室，对剽窃和伪造数据加以新的严惩，以及加强项目评估体制。

这些措施要产生效果还需要时间。不过，有些人仍然怀疑这些改变是否足以对付产生不端行为的根基。住在圣地亚哥的生化学者和科学作家方是民（方舟子）是这些辩论中一个有影响力的声音。在1994年，他创办了中文网站新语丝，该网站最近这几年揭露了大约500起学术造假事件。对他的努力并非没有争议，有些人指责新语丝发表没有根据的谣言，但是方是民很清楚该网站提供什么样的服务：

“由于两方面的原因，它在反对中国科学界的腐败现象时发挥了有限的但是必要的作用：首先，中国没有新闻自由……其次，中国没有一个可以让人信服的官方渠道供报告、调查和处罚学术不端行为。造假者不必担心他们有一天会被逮住而受惩处。因此不端行为泛滥成灾。”（对方是民的采访，2006年9月15日）

他承认这些问题现在已被摆上了政策议事日程，但是觉得中国政府“在这个问题上只不过是在做表面文章。虽然已经制定了一些规章，但是它们极少被执行。”

China: The next science superpower?

James Wilsdon and James Keeley

First published in 2007
Copyright Demos

About Demos
Demos is one of the UK’s most influential think tanks. Our research focuses on five areas: cities, culture, identity, public services and science. We analyse social and political change, which we connect to innovation and learning in organisations.

pp.49-50

Policing misconduct

If frameworks for bioethics are steadily improving, one problem that appears to be worsening across Chinese science is that of plagiarism and research fraud. While nothing has so far attracted the international notoriety of the Woo-Suk Hwang affair in South Korea, the past two years have seen a series of minor scandals over research ethics. The highest profile case involved Jin Chen, dean of the Microelectronics School at Shanghai Jiaotong University, who was fired in May 2006 for faking the research behind a supposedly groundbreaking microchip. Dr Chen, who had received government praise for his work and was the recipient of over ￡7.5 million in research grants, was discovered to have been reusing chips made by one of Motorola’s subsidiaries, to which he had simply added his company logo.125

Dr Chen was eventually caught after a whistleblower reported him to the university authorities. There is concern though about the many cases that go unreported, and the wider climate of research misconduct that some feel is being fostered by the incentives and evaluation procedures now in place across the Chinese research system. It is easy to pin the blame on the moral weakness of individual scientists, while ignoring the wider reasons why such cases occur. Dr Chen is a case in point. He received a substantial salary to return to China from the US, and a big grant for his research. But with such largesse comes regular scrutiny of results and an assessment system that can be unforgiving of those who fail. Misconduct is an almost inevitable product of this mix. Another is stress and even suicide: there has been a spate of deaths among young Chinese scientists in the past two years, linked to the intense pressures of research assessment.126 As one PhD student told us:

‘There are so many pressures and inducements, so many temptations. Money, power and prestige all flow from scientific success. But there shouldn’t be so much pressure on scientists at such an early stage in their careers.’127

Behind these more extreme examples, there is a more subtle and pervasive culture of plagiarism within higher education. In a recent interview with Science, Ouyang Zhingcan, director of CAS’s Institute of Theoretical Physics, described an environment ‘that’s rife with simultaneous or serial duplicate manuscript submissions, self-plagiarized cookie-cutter papers, individual and institutional honorary authorship, and outright plagiarism’.128 Policy-makers are waking up to these problems, particularly after the Hwang affair, which has sensitised many to the ease with which a country’s scientific reputation can be tarnished. There has also been pressure applied from elsewhere. In May 2006, an ‘open letter on research integrity’ was signed by 120 Chinese scientists mostly working in the US and sent to Xu Guanhua, the minister for science. It called for new procedures to prevent misconduct and compulsory courses for students and researchers on research integrity and scientific ethics.129 In November 2006, MOST responded to these calls by announcing a series of measures, including the creation of a special office for research integrity within MOST, tough new penalties for plagiarism and falsifying data, and a tightening up of the system for project evaluation.130

It will take time for these policies to have an effect. Some, however, remain sceptical that the changes will be adequate to tackle the root causes of misconduct. Shi-min Fang, a biochemist and science writer based in San Diego, is an influential voice in these debates. In 1994, he launched the Chinese-language website New Threads,131 which has exposed around 500 cases of research fraud in recent years. His efforts have not been without controversy, with some accusing New Threads of circulating unjustified rumours, but Shi-min Fang is clear about the service that the site provides:

‘[It] is playing a limited but essential role in fighting corruption in Chinese science for two reasons: First, China does not have [a] free press… Second, there is not a credible official channel to report, investigate and punish scientific misconduct. The cheaters don’t have to worry they will someday be caught and punished. Therefore the misconduct becomes rampant.’

He accepts that these issues are now moving up the policy agenda, but feels that the government is ‘just paying lip service to this issue. Although some guidelines have been created, they are rarely enforced.’132