方舟子的Blog

贾鹤鹏 贺涛/ 北京报道

英国《化学世界》2010年10-12月号

武汉华中科技大学（HUST）一名泌尿外科教授因寻衅滋事罪终审被判入狱，引发了维护中国学术界纯洁的强烈呼声。  

11月8日，华中科技大学肖传国因雇凶殴打“打假斗士”方是民（笔名方舟子）和《财经》杂志的科学编辑方玄昌，被北京中级法院判处拘役5个半月。  

量刑过轻使两名受害人高度不满，而肖传国的律师则认为他不应被认定有罪，不应被监禁，因为这次袭击并没有严重到构成犯罪。随着这次争论的升级，中国的学术道德越来越受到关注。

“我们的学术道德到了最危险的时刻。”长沙中南大学校长黄伯云在11月初中国科学技术协会(Cast)召开的年会上表示。

残忍袭击

方玄昌被打事件发生在6月，2名挥舞钢棍的男子打裂了他的头部，深至颅骨，导致他流了将近两升的血。两个月后，方是民被铁锤和辣椒水袭击，但他只受了轻伤就幸运地逃脱了。  

9月21日，北京警方宣布，凶手已被拘留，涉嫌雇佣他们的主犯为肖传国。

事情的起因要追溯到几年前。2005年9月，方是民发表了一篇文章，质疑肖传国的中国科学院（CAS）院士候选人身份。他在文章中说明，中科院院士要求必须在中国全职工作，但肖传国同时在华中科技大学和美国纽约大学医学中心就职。

方是民在成为专门揭露和批判学术不端行为的专栏作家之前，曾获美国密歇根州立大学生物化学博士学位，他还称，肖传国夸大了他的学术成就，包括将会议论文集中收录的报告作为他的国际论文。

肖传国的出名主要归功于其大胆的手术，他通过重建病人的神经系统部分从而使其重新获得控制排尿的能力，他的病人主要是瘫痪患者或者其他的因神经机能障碍影响了排尿能力的人。但是，方舟子质疑这一成果，认为几乎没有证据支持这一手术是有效的。

随后，方玄昌针对肖传国事件展开调查，并在2009年的《中国新闻周刊》和《科学新闻》杂志上发表文章。方玄昌曾是《中国新闻周刊》的科学编辑和《科学新闻》杂志执行总编辑。

2006年，武汉法院判决方舟子侵犯了肖传国的名誉权，华中科技大学正是坐落在武汉。然而，2007年，北京中级法院判决方舟子批评肖传国的文章只构成正常的学术批评，法院不应做出法律评判。2005年末，中科院院士投票反对肖传国入选院士。

同时，方是民继续质疑肖传国。2009年末至2010年初，方玄昌和其他记者发表了一系列的调查性新闻报道批评肖传国的肖氏反射弧。  

据警方透露，肖传国在2010年初开始计划行凶，他花了10万元（1.5万美元）来雇佣打手。但是，肖传国在法庭上说，他只是想给方是民和方玄昌点小教训，而不是像他们俩说的那样打得头破血流甚至是雇凶买命。

科技体制

这起事件从学术争论升级为雇人袭击，促使中国的公众和学者们都呼吁在科学界建立一个更好的体制。  

“我希望这个案件能够成为解决学术不端问题的好契机。”《科学》杂志总编辑布鲁斯·艾伯茨（Bruce Alberts）在十月中旬访问中国期间表示。

Alberts表示，提高学术道德的关键在于建立一个系统，及时地调查涉嫌学术不端的文章，同时惩罚造假者。  

11月中旬，中国科技部长万钢在上海召开研讨会上表示，科技部将对学术剽窃和学术造假采取零容忍的态度。  

2006年，科学技术部成立科研诚信建设办公室。其他的政府机构也纷纷效仿这一做法，比如教育部、国家自然科学基金委员会和中国科学院。  

不过，方是民表示，这不太可能产生立竿见影的效果。“反复宣称零容忍无济于事，关键是要制定有效的惩罚措施。现在越来越多的学术不端事件被曝光，但只有少数人得到真正的惩罚。”  

方是民的网站以揭露和批判学术不端行为和伪科学著称，在他的网站上，过去十年中指控学术不端行为的事件超过1000个，但是只有很小的一部分被正式调查，而且通常这一小部分还是由媒体首先报道的。

11月初，卫生部发言人针对肖传国案表示，尽管他已经对4000多名患者实施手术，但他的“肖氏反射弧”并没有得到商业化运作的许可。  

“但在此之前并没有该禁令，尽管我和媒体反复地报道手术的后果很严重，不断地向卫生部陈述这个情况。”方是民告诉《化学世界》。  

科学警察

虽然政府很少对方是民等人指控的学术不端行为展开调查，但方是民自从被袭以来，他本人就被公众尊为英雄。  

但是一些人，主要是学者，质疑方是民反对学术不端行为的努力，称他没有能力判断他专业之外的学术领域，以及指责他对中医的坚决否认。

“方等人反对学术不端的努力隐藏了中国科学真正的问题，那就是缺乏真正创新性的研究。我们应该把注意力集中到酝酿着创新的科学和教育系统来。”一位不愿具名的清华大学的科学家表示。

但方是民表示，他更希望当局——如科技部、卫生部和教育部采取更加系统的工作遏制学术不端，而不是他和他的网站。“但是他们做的太少了。”他说。

Academic controversy leads to bloodshed

By Hepeng Jia and Tao He/Beijing, China

Chemistry World 2010 October-December

The imprisonment of a professor of urology after attacks on critics at has led to louder calls to shake up China’s academic community.
On 8 November, Beijing’s Intermediary Court sentenced Xiao Chuanguo of Wuhan-based Huazhong University of Science and Technology (HUST) to five and half months’ imprisonment for hiring thugs to assault an outspoken science fraud buster - Fang Shimin, who goes by well-known pen name Fang Zhouzi - and Fang Xuanchang, science editor of Caijing Magazine.
The two victims are highly dissatisfied with the slight penalty, while Xiao’s lawyer argues he should not be found guilty and imprisoned because the attack was not serious enough. Accompanying the debate is an increasing concern surrounding academic ethics in China.
‘It is a dangerous time for academic ethics,[in China]’ says Huang Boyun, president of Changsha, China-based Central South University, at the annual meeting of China Association for Science and Technology (Cast) in early November.
Bloody attack
The assault against Fang Xuanchang took place in June, when Fang’s skull was cracked by three men brandishing steel sticks. He lost nearly two litres of blood. Two months later, Fang Shimin was attacked with hammer and chili water, but luckily escaped with only minor injuries.
On 21 September, Beijing police announced that the attackers had been detained and the individual suspected of hiring them was identified as Xiao.
A festering wound
In September 2005, Fang published an article criticising Xiao’s candidacy for membership of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS). In it he explained that CAS members must work full-time in China, but that Xiao worked both at HUST and New York University Medical Center, in the US.
Fang, who obtained his PhD in biochemistry from Michigan State University in the US before becoming well-known in China after starting a website to expose scientific misconduct, also claimed that Xiao had exaggerated his academic achievements by including presentations listed in conference proceedings among his international publications.
Xiao is mainly famous for his bold operation to rebuild sections of patients’ nervous systems to return the ability to control urination to those who were paralysed or suffered some other neurological complaint that affected this ability. But Fang questioned the achievement, saying there was little evidence supporting the use of the procedure.
Fang Xuanchang then led investigations into Xiao’s case published in China News Weekly in 2007 and Science News Magazine in 2009, where he had been science editor and executive chief editor respectively.

In 2006, a court in Wuhan, where HUST is located, ruled that Fang had libelled Xiao. In 2007, however, Beijing Intermediary Court ruled that Fang’s articles against Xiao constituted normal academic criticism, and the court should not be involved in the debate. CAS members voted against Xiao joining the organisation in 2005.
Fang Shimin, meanwhile, continued to question Xiao’s claims, and a series of investigative news articles criticising Xiao’s medical procedure were published by Fang Xuanchang and other journalists in late 2009 and early 2010.
According to police, Xiao began to plan the assault in early 2010 and he spent Yuan100,000 (US$15,000) to hire the attackers. But in court Xiao said that he only wanted to teach the two small lessons, rather than cause bloody injuries or even murders as claimed by the two.
Academic discipline
This escalation from academic controversy to physical attack in China has caused increased calls among both the public and academics for better discipline in science communities.
‘I hope this case can become a good chance for the fight against academic misconduct,’ Bruce Alberts, editor-in-chief of the journal Science, said during his visit to China in mid October.
According to Alberts, the key to improve academic ethics is to establish a system to investigate claimed misconduct in a timely manner and punish wrongdoers.
Chinese science Minister Wan Gang promised at a symposium in Shanghai in mid November that his ministry will take a zero tolerance approach to academic plagiarism and fabrication.
In 2006, the Ministry of Science and Technology set up an academic disciplining office. This facility has been replicated in government departments like Education Ministry, National Natural Science Foundation and CAS.
However, Fang says it is unlikely to have an effect overnight. ‘The key is not to claim zero tolerance over and over again, but to give real punishment. There are more and more cases of misconduct being exposed, but only a few of them get real punishment.’
On Fang’s website, famous for exposing and criticising academic misconduct and pseudoscience, allegations of more than 1000 cases of academic misconduct have been made in the past 10 years, but only a tiny proportion of them – often first reported by media – were officially investigated.
In Xiao’s case, a Ministry of Health spokesperson said in early November that his medical procedure, despite having been carried out on more than 4000 patients, has not been approved for commercial operation.
‘But the ban did not appear before this, despite the media and I repeatedly reporting the poor outcomes of the operation and hyped claims to the ministry,’ Fang Shimin told Chemistry World.
Science cop
While the government has not done enough to vet academics as appealed by Fang and others, Fang himself has been hailed by the public as a hero since being attacked.
But some, mainly academics, question Fang’s efforts against academic misconduct, saying he could not judge academic fields outside his specialism or criticising his firm denial of traditional Chinese medicine. 
‘The efforts against academic misconduct by Fang and others have hidden the true problem of Chinese science, which is lack of real innovative research. The attention should be focused on the scientific and education systems that brew innovations, says a scientist at Tsinghua University, who would not be named.
But Fang says that he would prefer the authorities – such as ministries of science, health and education – instead of him and his website to take more systematic work to stamp out misconduct, “But they have done too little,” he says.