美国《新大西洲》：中国的假科学
26 08 2006年中国的假科学
揭露腐败、剽窃和欺诈
揭露腐败、剽窃和欺诈
美国《新大西洲》2006年夏季号
中国计算机科学家陈进的堕落成了国际头条新闻。他在2003年曾因开发出一种威力强大的新芯片而被誉为民族英雄，但是交通大学在认定他盗用摩托罗拉已有芯片冒充成果之后将其开除。未获得广泛报道的还有今年早些时候，四川大学副校长、中国科学院院士魏于全被指控捏造了两篇癌症免疫学论文的数据。病理学家司履生告诉《基督教科学缄言报》说，在他产生怀疑，向魏索取证据以核实其研究结论后，他遭到拒绝，并开始收到威胁电话。“我要警告年轻学者伪造研究的危害性，”司告诉《缄言报》说，“其伪造很明显，谁都知道。”
同样未在西方获得广泛报道的还有丘小庆事件。这位四川大学的教授在去年被指控伪造了2003年发表在重要刊物《自然·生物技术》上的一篇论文的成果；丘的六位共同作者要求该刊物将他们的名字从论文中取下，声称他们“对这一学术造假感到震惊”，他们是由于理解英语的能力有限，被丘利用了。
刘登义事件在中国之外也鲜为人知。刘是安徽师范大学的副校长，在2005年他被指控冒充四篇发表在科学期刊上的论文作者。其中的三篇论文并不存在。在该指控出现在网上之后，这些论文从刘的履历中消失了，但是他并未面临着任何处理。
这些事件之所以没有引起太多的关注，部分的原因是由于中国的剽窃和科学造假没有太大的新闻价值。这个经济正处于巨大增长之中的国家开始重视科技发展，与此同时学术造假也以惊人的频率出现。在未来的15年中国科研经费计划增加到4倍，增加的经费主要集中投入到大领域的“大项目”，例如纳米技术。中国科学院的一名政策专家希望这将会使中国“从最大的发展中国家转变为一个世界强国”。此外，经费还主要投入到对民族自豪感关系重大的太空探索项目。为了减少对外国进口的依赖性，北京政府发布的最新5年计划强调科学技术“创新”。
不幸的是，有些中国科学家的工作已被证明恰恰是创新的反面：草率从事、复制他人成果或成果根本就不存在。政府想在一夜之间变成科技强国的愿望迫使中国科学家以过快的速度做出突破，常常没能符合研究规范的要求。学术评估和资金分配往往是根据发表的成果的数量，很少看其质量和真正的价值。学者想要保留其职务，就要发表数量多得不合理的论文，同时政府部门也在对他们进行审核，确保国家投资产生回报。另两个主要因素——强调对上级几乎绝对的服从而忽视批判性思维方法的教育体系和臭名昭著的中国知识产权保护状况——也养成了剽窃行为很少被报道、更少被处置的文化气氛。
并非科学领域才有问题；其他学术领域也受影响。《中国新闻周刊》的一篇封面文章《高校的非典型腐败》估计在今年研究生将被要求在“核心期刊”上发表53万篇论文。其中，可能只有2万篇会真正够格在中国1500份受承认的学术期刊上发表，其他的作者会或者采用贿赂的方式，或者在“黑市”冒牌期刊上发表。而正如《中国日报》所述，科技部对180名中国博士生的调查表明，多达60％的人承认交钱发表论文，另有60％的人剽窃他人的工作。
另一种常见的做法是在履历中列出并不存在的论文，就像前面提到的刘登义受到的指控。至少有另两个地位显赫的研究人员——清华大学医学院院长助理刘辉和同济大学生命科学技术学院院长杨杰——最近都因为伪造履历而被开除。但是由于种种原因，揭露和处罚都只是例外。大学领导因为担心学校名誉受损和丧失资金，宁愿对不正当行为视而不见。而没有来自机构的支持，科学界人士也没有兴趣去相互质疑。
2006年5月，在一封“关于中国科学研究诚信的公开信”中，120名在美国的华人科学家呼吁中国建立“公平的规则和权威的的机制来维系和保护中国学术研究的道德诚信”，包括在机构和政府两个层次进行监督。这封信呼吁开设有关科研道德的必修课，建立避免恶意诽谤的适当调查程序和进行无罪假定。科技部对此反应缓慢，先是声称不知道该信的存在，后来又含糊地保证要对资金分配和监管进行改革。也许是由于担心有关丑闻的国际报道会从涓涓细流变成洪流，在7月初，科技部发布措辞强硬的声明，保证要公布被认定造假的科学家的丑行。
同时，互联网上信息的民主化——在中国未被审查和管制的范围内——也使得公众日益注意到该国的科学丑闻。有关剽窃争议的信息交换所是“新语丝”网站，它由美国培养的生物化学学者、真名方是民的方舟子负责管理，已记录了500多起学术造假的指控。这个网站在中国被屏蔽，但是它的内容通过镜像点在中国可以读到。方博士认为是新语丝的揭露导致刘辉和杨杰被开除，合肥工业大学教授杨敬安由于剽窃国外论文被开除党籍，以及几名研究生被开除。新语丝每天更新发布对不正当行为的揭露，往往是从那些害怕公开揭露会丢掉工作的实验室内部人员那里得到的线索。方博士在致《新大西洲》的一封电子邮件中解释说，虽然没有消息提供者的允许他不会公布其名字，但是他不接受匿名举报，并且要求提供证据，在公布指控之前自己也会做一些调查。
然而，有些批评者争论说方博士的所作所为只是让情形变得更加糟糕。有一篇质问“谁监督监督者？”的网上文章引用一些科学家的担忧说，新语丝会伤害无辜的科研人员的名声和职业。一旦公开的指控被证明是没有根据的，就像偶尔曾经出现过的那样，方博士告诉我们他会发表更正和道歉。无论如何，绝大多数的指控都没有被正式确认或澄清；在政府甚至不承认这个监督网站的存在的国家，受到揭露的科学家很少面临任何后果。
方博士预测说，媒体的关注会迫使政府建立一个调查和处理不端行为的部门，但是这样的机构很可能也会像其他政府部门一样面临着内部腐败和混乱。“调查不端行为和腐败的程序应该公正和透明，调查结果必须公开，”他告诉我们，“中国学术不端现象同时也是一个政治和社会问题。在我们能够解决这个问题之前，中国社会必须有一个根本的改变。……我们需要有一个民主的政府，独立的科研教育体制和新闻自由。”方博士警告说，如果没有这些根本的改变，中国科学创新的未来看来会比较黯淡。
（方舟子译）
The Editors of The New Atlantis, “China’s Phony
Science,”
Science,”
The New Atlantis, Number 13, Summer 2006, pp. 103-106.
China’s Phony Science
Exposing Corruption, Plagiarism, and Fraud
The fall from grace of Chinese computer scientist Chen Jin made
international headlines when, after being hailed as a national hero
in 2003 for developing a powerful new microchip, he was fired from
Jiaotong University for faking his findings, having appropriated a
pre-existing microchip from Motorola. Less widely reported were the
allegations earlier this year that Wei Yuquan, vice-president of
Sichuan University and a member of the Chinese Academy of Sciences,
had fabricated data in two articles on cancer immunology.
Pathologist Si Lusheng told the Christian Science Monitor that when
he became suspicious and asked for evidence to verify the claims in
Wei’s studies, he was refused and began to receive threatening
phone calls. “I got involved to warn younger scholars of the harm
of falsifying research,” Si told the Monitor. “The faking is
obvious, everyone knows it.”
international headlines when, after being hailed as a national hero
in 2003 for developing a powerful new microchip, he was fired from
Jiaotong University for faking his findings, having appropriated a
pre-existing microchip from Motorola. Less widely reported were the
allegations earlier this year that Wei Yuquan, vice-president of
Sichuan University and a member of the Chinese Academy of Sciences,
had fabricated data in two articles on cancer immunology.
Pathologist Si Lusheng told the Christian Science Monitor that when
he became suspicious and asked for evidence to verify the claims in
Wei’s studies, he was refused and began to receive threatening
phone calls. “I got involved to warn younger scholars of the harm
of falsifying research,” Si told the Monitor. “The faking is
obvious, everyone knows it.”
Also not widely reported in the West is the case of Qiu
Xiaoqing, a Sichuan University professor accused last year of
faking research for a 2003 article in the major journal Nature
Biotechnology; six of Qiu’s coauthors asked the journal to remove
their names from the article, saying they were “shocked by this
scientific fabrication” and that they were manipulated by Qiu, who
exploited their limited ability to understand English.
Xiaoqing, a Sichuan University professor accused last year of
faking research for a 2003 article in the major journal Nature
Biotechnology; six of Qiu’s coauthors asked the journal to remove
their names from the article, saying they were “shocked by this
scientific fabrication” and that they were manipulated by Qiu, who
exploited their limited ability to understand English.
Nor is the case of Liu Dengyi well known outside of China. The
vice president of Anhui Normal University, Liu was accused in 2005
of falsely claiming authorship of four papers in scientific
journals. Three of those papers never even existed. After the
accusations appeared online, the papers disappeared from Liu’s
résumé, but he did not face any disciplinary action.
vice president of Anhui Normal University, Liu was accused in 2005
of falsely claiming authorship of four papers in scientific
journals. Three of those papers never even existed. After the
accusations appeared online, the papers disappeared from Liu’s
résumé, but he did not face any disciplinary action.
These stories have not attracted much attention in part
because plagiarism and scientific fraud in China are simply not
very newsworthy. They happen with surprising frequency as the
country, undergoing a massive economic boom, turns its attention to
scientific development. China’s research budget is set to
quadruple in the next fifteen years, with the increased funding
mostly directed into centralized “megaprojects” in high-profile
fields such as nanotechnology, which a policy expert at the Chinese
Academy of Sciences hopes will transform China “from the largest
developing country to a world powerhouse,” and space exploration,
which is a matter of intense national pride. Aiming to reduce the
country’s dependence on foreign imports, Beijing’s latest
five-year plan emphasizes scientific and technical
“innovation.”
because plagiarism and scientific fraud in China are simply not
very newsworthy. They happen with surprising frequency as the
country, undergoing a massive economic boom, turns its attention to
scientific development. China’s research budget is set to
quadruple in the next fifteen years, with the increased funding
mostly directed into centralized “megaprojects” in high-profile
fields such as nanotechnology, which a policy expert at the Chinese
Academy of Sciences hopes will transform China “from the largest
developing country to a world powerhouse,” and space exploration,
which is a matter of intense national pride. Aiming to reduce the
country’s dependence on foreign imports, Beijing’s latest
five-year plan emphasizes scientific and technical
“innovation.”
Unfortunately, the work of some Chinese scientists has proven
to be the opposite of innovative: sloppy, copied, or nonexistent.
National hopes of becoming an overnight scientific superpower have
put pressure on Chinese scientists to produce breakthroughs at a
rate that often seems to exceed the time and care necessary for
responsible research. Academic evaluations and funding allocation
are often based on the volume of studies published, with little
regard to their quality or real significance. Unreasonable numbers
of papers are expected of scholars who wish to keep their jobs,
with government panels reviewing them to ensure that state
investments yield results. And two other major factors—an
educational system that values near-total obedience to superiors at
the expense of critical thinking skills, and the infamous state of
China’s intellectual property rights protections—contribute to a
culture where plagiarism is rarely reported and even less
frequently punished.
to be the opposite of innovative: sloppy, copied, or nonexistent.
National hopes of becoming an overnight scientific superpower have
put pressure on Chinese scientists to produce breakthroughs at a
rate that often seems to exceed the time and care necessary for
responsible research. Academic evaluations and funding allocation
are often based on the volume of studies published, with little
regard to their quality or real significance. Unreasonable numbers
of papers are expected of scholars who wish to keep their jobs,
with government panels reviewing them to ensure that state
investments yield results. And two other major factors—an
educational system that values near-total obedience to superiors at
the expense of critical thinking skills, and the infamous state of
China’s intellectual property rights protections—contribute to a
culture where plagiarism is rarely reported and even less
frequently punished.
The problem affects more than just the sciences; other
academic disciplines are implicated as well. A cover story in China
Newsweek on “The Abnormal Corruption of Higher Education”
(translated and graciously provided to The New Atlantis by American
journalist Paul Mooney) estimates that 530,000 published papers in
“key journals” will be required of graduate students in the
coming year. Of those, the magazine reports, perhaps 20,000 will
genuinely merit publication in China’s 1,500 recognized academic
journals, while the authors of the rest will resort to either
bribery or “black market” counterfeit journals. And, as described
in China Daily, in a recent Ministry of Science and Technology
survey of 180 Chinese Ph.D.s, a whopping 60 percent admitted to
paying to have their work published, and another 60 percent copped
to plagiarizing the work of others.
academic disciplines are implicated as well. A cover story in China
Newsweek on “The Abnormal Corruption of Higher Education”
(translated and graciously provided to The New Atlantis by American
journalist Paul Mooney) estimates that 530,000 published papers in
“key journals” will be required of graduate students in the
coming year. Of those, the magazine reports, perhaps 20,000 will
genuinely merit publication in China’s 1,500 recognized academic
journals, while the authors of the rest will resort to either
bribery or “black market” counterfeit journals. And, as described
in China Daily, in a recent Ministry of Science and Technology
survey of 180 Chinese Ph.D.s, a whopping 60 percent admitted to
paying to have their work published, and another 60 percent copped
to plagiarizing the work of others.
Another common practice is to post nonexistent papers on a
curriculum vitae, as was alleged against Liu Dengyi in the example
described above. At least two other prominent researchers—Liu Hui,
dean of Tsinghua University’s medical school, and Yang Jie, dean
of life sciences and technology at Tongji University—were both
recently dismissed from their posts for falsifying their résumés.
But by many accounts, exposure and punishment is the exception.
University administrators, fearing public embarrassment as well as
loss of funding, have a distinct incentive to ignore malfeasance.
And without institutional support, scientific peers are discouraged
from calling each others’ work into question.
curriculum vitae, as was alleged against Liu Dengyi in the example
described above. At least two other prominent researchers—Liu Hui,
dean of Tsinghua University’s medical school, and Yang Jie, dean
of life sciences and technology at Tongji University—were both
recently dismissed from their posts for falsifying their résumés.
But by many accounts, exposure and punishment is the exception.
University administrators, fearing public embarrassment as well as
loss of funding, have a distinct incentive to ignore malfeasance.
And without institutional support, scientific peers are discouraged
from calling each others’ work into question.
In May 2006, in an “Open Letter on Research Integrity in
China,” 120 U.S.-based Chinese scientists called for China to
establish “fair rules and official mechanisms to maintain and
safeguard the integrity of scientific research in China,”
including oversight at both the institutional and governmental
levels. The letter also called for mandatory courses on research
ethics, and a system of due process to avoid malicious slander and
protect the innocent until proven guilty. The Ministry of Science
and Technology responded slowly, first claiming no knowledge of the
letter, then later issuing a vague promise to reform funding
allocation and oversight. Perhaps worried that the trickle of
international coverage of the scandals would turn into a torrent,
in early July the ministry made a stronger announcement, pledging
to publicly shame scientists convicted of fraud.
China,” 120 U.S.-based Chinese scientists called for China to
establish “fair rules and official mechanisms to maintain and
safeguard the integrity of scientific research in China,”
including oversight at both the institutional and governmental
levels. The letter also called for mandatory courses on research
ethics, and a system of due process to avoid malicious slander and
protect the innocent until proven guilty. The Ministry of Science
and Technology responded slowly, first claiming no knowledge of the
letter, then later issuing a vague promise to reform funding
allocation and oversight. Perhaps worried that the trickle of
international coverage of the scandals would turn into a torrent,
in early July the ministry made a stronger announcement, pledging
to publicly shame scientists convicted of fraud.
Meanwhile, the democratization of information over the
Internet—to the extent that it remains uncensored and uncontrolled
in China—has allowed public awareness of the country’s science
scandals to grow. The clearinghouse for information on the
plagiarism controversy is “New Threads,” a website which has
documented over 500 allegations of scientific fraud, operated by
Fang Zhouzi, a U.S.-trained biochemist whose real name is Fang
Shi-min. The website (XYS.org) is blocked inside China, but its
content is accessible in the country through mirror sites. Dr. Fang
credits New Threads with the dismissals of Liu Hui and Yang Jie,
Hefei University professor Yang Jingan’s expulsion from the
Communist Party for plagiarizing foreign papers, and the expulsion
of several graduate students. New Threads publishes daily updates
of misconduct, often receiving tips from lab insiders who are
afraid to speak up for fear of losing their jobs. Dr. Fang notes,
in an e-mail to The New Atlantis, that although he will not publish
an informant’s name without his or her permission, he does not
allow anonymous submissions, and requires supporting evidence and
some of his own sleuthing before making any accusation
public.
Internet—to the extent that it remains uncensored and uncontrolled
in China—has allowed public awareness of the country’s science
scandals to grow. The clearinghouse for information on the
plagiarism controversy is “New Threads,” a website which has
documented over 500 allegations of scientific fraud, operated by
Fang Zhouzi, a U.S.-trained biochemist whose real name is Fang
Shi-min. The website (XYS.org) is blocked inside China, but its
content is accessible in the country through mirror sites. Dr. Fang
credits New Threads with the dismissals of Liu Hui and Yang Jie,
Hefei University professor Yang Jingan’s expulsion from the
Communist Party for plagiarizing foreign papers, and the expulsion
of several graduate students. New Threads publishes daily updates
of misconduct, often receiving tips from lab insiders who are
afraid to speak up for fear of losing their jobs. Dr. Fang notes,
in an e-mail to The New Atlantis, that although he will not publish
an informant’s name without his or her permission, he does not
allow anonymous submissions, and requires supporting evidence and
some of his own sleuthing before making any accusation
public.
Nevertheless, some critics have argued that Dr. Fang’s work
is only making the situation worse. One online article—asking
“Who’s watching the watchers?”—cites some scientists concerned
that New Threads may harm the reputations and careers of innocent
researchers. When published allegations prove groundless, as has
happened on a few occasions, Dr. Fang tells us that he publishes a
correction and apology. In any case, the vast majority of
accusations result in neither conviction nor acquittal; exposed
scientists rarely face any repercussions at all in a country where
the government does not even acknowledge the existence of the
watchdog website.
is only making the situation worse. One online article—asking
“Who’s watching the watchers?”—cites some scientists concerned
that New Threads may harm the reputations and careers of innocent
researchers. When published allegations prove groundless, as has
happened on a few occasions, Dr. Fang tells us that he publishes a
correction and apology. In any case, the vast majority of
accusations result in neither conviction nor acquittal; exposed
scientists rarely face any repercussions at all in a country where
the government does not even acknowledge the existence of the
watchdog website.
Dr. Fang predicts that media attention could pressure the
government into establishing an agency to investigate and punish
allegations of misconduct, but that such a body would likely face
the same internal corruption and disarray as other government
agencies. “The procedure to investigate misconducts and
corruptions should be fair and open, and the findings must be
available to the public,” he tells us. “Scientific misconduct in
China is also a political and social problem. Before we can solve
the problem, the Chinese society must have a radical change…. We
will need to have a democratic government, independent scientific
and educational institutions, and free press.” Without such
radical changes in the country, Dr. Fang warns, the future of
Chinese scientific innovation looks bleak.
government into establishing an agency to investigate and punish
allegations of misconduct, but that such a body would likely face
the same internal corruption and disarray as other government
agencies. “The procedure to investigate misconducts and
corruptions should be fair and open, and the findings must be
available to the public,” he tells us. “Scientific misconduct in
China is also a political and social problem. Before we can solve
the problem, the Chinese society must have a radical change…. We
will need to have a democratic government, independent scientific
and educational institutions, and free press.” Without such
radical changes in the country, Dr. Fang warns, the future of
Chinese scientific innovation looks bleak.
(XYS20060826)
