中国学术造假泛滥
美国《基督教科学箴言报》2006年5月16日
Robert Marquand报道
（Yush翻译）
中国一项研究发现，百分之六十的博士侯选人承认剽窃和贿赂。
北京－中国研发业中心的欺诈伪造行为水落石出，令人震惊。这说明那些勇
于揭露中国高校的造假腐败现象而正得到支持的学者们言之不虚。
就在几天前，权威机构透露，用来提高国产计算机技术的汉芯数字信号处理
芯片（所谓“中国的芯片”）并非原创。根据现有证据，“汉芯之父”陈进于
2003年拿一国外公司的产品来赢得了一项金额巨大的招标。具有讽刺意味的是，
他因此成为被大力宣传的、制造中国超级微型芯片这一爱国目标的先锋。
对于中国的科研人员来说，陈进事件虽然令人尴尬，但也实在太平常了。还
有其他造假事件正暴露出来。中国高校剽窃、伪造和腐败现象根深蒂固、司空见
惯，虽广为人知，却普遍未得到监管和惩处。
这次事件发生在全世界对当地企业、出口商品、以及中国科技投入的本质特
征的忧虑逐渐增强之时。盗版DVD曾经一度令人气愤、有时又滑稽可笑，现今已
演变为一件遭到全方位指控的违反高技术知识产权的问题。星期二，美国商会发
布了一份针对中国盗版侵权行为的措辞强硬的白皮书。
上星期，近120位在美国的华人科学家写了一份致科技部官员的表示关注的
公开信。公开信指出，中国的科研标准已严重下滑，国家的声誉处于危险之中。
可笑的是，提高科研声誉的渴望，以及科学家所受到的压力，在某种程度上激起
了投机取巧行为。
科技部最近对180位博士侯选人的研究发现，百分之六十的人承认曾经剽窃，
同样比例的人承认曾经施以贿赂来换取论文发表。
生物化学学者方舟子说：“实际情况可能更糟，特别是在社会科学领域。”
方舟子一部分时间在加利福尼亚，另一部分时间在北京。他开办的网站已经揭露
了超过500起发生在中国的严重学术造假案例。
方先生是最勇猛的揭发者之一，在中国学术圈广为人知又令人敬畏。他真名
方是民，象是一位《旧约》中针对说谎和欺骗的惩罚天使。他的作为已导致学术
界很多高层次的欺诈行为的曝光和人员解职。
他的调查已经揭露了：
*
合肥工业大学杨敬安，在方舟子揭露其剽窃国外学术杂志论文后，被开除
党籍。
*
刘辉，清华大学医学院院长助理，在方舟子发现其冒充纽约大学医学研究
中心主任后被开除。
*
杨杰，上海同济大学生命学院院长，在他承认伪造简历后（译者注：原文
如此。有误）被解职。
汉芯事件是陈先生的一位助手揭露的。这位助手很明显害怕卷入曾被证明无
效的行动，因此于1月17日把揭露信张贴到了新华社电子公告板上。
5月12日，陈进所在的上海交通大学表示，汉芯（即“中国的芯片”）是摩
托罗拉的DSP
56800E。交大迅速开除了陈进。据透露，上海2003年有高层官员参
加的推出芯片的展览会上所展示的，是一块喷过漆的金属（译者注：原文如此。
应该是民工打磨的摩托罗拉芯片）。
然而，方舟子和其他打假者说，丑闻被如此公布出来是例外而非惯例。他们
指出，学术剽窃这一现象的持续存在，主要在于学术腐败蔓延到高等学校的上层
人物、以及揭露这一现象的努力遭到压制。
以魏于全为例。魏先生是四川大学副校长、免疫学家、中国科学院院士。魏
先生最近的一篇描述治疗肿瘤细胞的实验的论文，被宣传为重大突破。中国中部
一位相对来说不大出名的老病理学家司履生仔细阅读了这篇论文，感到如梗在喉。
司向魏提出了直截了当的求证，但魏拒绝提供基本证据，拒绝讨论所用的方法，
甚至拒绝提供实验室购买专用白鼠的单据。可是，凭借这篇论文，魏从中国国家
生命科学与自然基金会得到了6万美元资金－对中国的教授们来说，这是一笔巨
款，有些教授每月只挣350美元。
司深感惊诧。他告诉箴言报，临近退休，没什么可损失的了，于是他开始了
一场小型行动，揭露他所认为的论文中的欺骗之处。
魏几次见司，劝说司不要采取行动。魏答应向司提供一项金额不菲的研究项
目，但司不为所动。于是，另一种压力施加到司身上：司接到令其困扰的电话，
他的妻子在工作上受到压力。最后，四川大学支持了它的副校长。但仍然没有坚
实证据证明医学实验确实曾经做过。
司说：“我参与这件事，是为了警告年轻学者们科研伪造的危害。魏的论文
造假明显，人人都知道。但谁都不敢谈论它，因为川大校长宣称魏的工作是令人
满意的。川大高层领导下令停止讨论这件事，于是就停止讨论了。”
于是，司把一组信件和事实证据发给了方舟子的网站。。
箴言报联系到的四川大学发言人说：“对学术腐败的指控和学术争论没有明
显界限。与学术腐败斗争的人们是不可信赖的，他们这样做是为了出名。我们应
当让学校领导作出裁定。”
在学术欺诈方面做研究的清华大学工程教授赵南元说：“我们要做的是，真
正处罚造假者，把他们踢出去。到目前为止，我们大学的领导只作了口头承诺要
监管此事。问题在于，很多违犯者即使被揭露了也还在那里待着。”
方舟子告诉箴言报：“欺诈者职位越高，他逃避调查和惩处就越容易。”
这里的专家们说，与科技有关的造假的增加导致了对腐败现象的揭露，因为
科学趋向于是一门要出成就的学科，而举证是公认的全过程的一部分。
司履生还说，严谨的科技审查机制一直欠缺。最初把那篇论文发表出来的科
技杂志编辑是按照资历而不是专业能力选出来的。
在审查过程中，学校党委成员有着远比一位知识渊博却资历低的人物更有影
响力的发言权。由于资金来自国家基金，审查组成员很少愿意出头并驳回严肃的
科学主张，尤其是在资金计划是以“国家科研项目”的名义提出的情况下。
World > Asia Pacific
Christian Science Monitor, from the May 16, 2006 edition
(Photograph)
CHEAT: In 2003, Chen Jin held up what was supposed to be a
breakthrough Chinese chip - now exposed as a fraud.
AP/FILE
Research fraud rampant in China
A Chinese study found that 60 percent of PhD candidates admitted
to
plagiarism, bribery.
By Robert Marquand | Staff writer of The Christian Science
Monitor
BEIJING – The stunning revelation of fraud and fakery in the heart
of
China’s R&D industry has vindicated a feisty set of scholars
who are
gaining traction in exposing a culture of fraud and corruption
in
China’s colleges.
Just days ago authorities revealed that the Hanxin digital signal
chip,
a so-called “Chinese chip” designed to enhance home-grown
computer
technology, is not an original. Chen Jin, “father of the
Chinese
chip,” evidently used a product from a foreign firm to win a
lucrative
bid in 2003 - ironically, to spearhead a much publicized
patriotic
national drive to create a Chinese super microchip.
For scientists and researchers in China, the Chen case, while
embarrassing, is all too typical. Other fraud cases are coming
to
light that reveal a deeply ingrained habit of plagiarism,
falsification,
and corruption - widely recognized, but not widely policed or
punished
in Chinese universities.
It also arrives in the midst of growing concerns about the nature
and
character of native firms, of exports, and of the contributions
to
technology and scholarship by China around the world. What has been
an
irritating and somewhat comical issue about pirated DVDs - has
now
morphed into a fuller-scale complaint about high-tech
intellectual
property rights violations. The American Chamber of Commerce
Tuesday
issues a tough “white paper” on piracy violations and practices
in
China.
Last week nearly 120 Chinese scientists living in the US wrote an
open
letter of concern to Ministry of Science officials, arguing
that
standards of research in China have dipped to such lows, that
the
country’s reputation is on the line. Ironically, the desire to
boost
China’s research reputation, and the pressure that puts on
scientists,
is partly fueling the corner-cutting.
A recent Ministry of Science study of 180 PhD candidates in
China
found that 60 percent admitted plagiarizing, and the same
percentage
admitted paying bribes to get their work published.
“The actual situation might be worse than that, particularly in
the
area of social sciences,” says Fang Zhouzi, a biochemist who
splits
his time between California and Beijing, and runs a website that
has
detailed more than 500 cases of serious academic fraud in
China.
Mr. Fang is one of the feistiest whistle-blowers - wellknown and
also
feared in Chinese academic circles. Fang, whose real name is
Fang
Shi-min, is an Old Testament angel of vengeance when it comes to
lying
and cheating, and his work has led to a number of high-level
fraud
exposures and dismissals in the academic world.
His investigations have exposed:
?? Yang Jingan of Hefei Industry University, who was expelled from
the
communist party after Fang disclosed plagiarized essays from
foreign
academic journals;
?? Liu Hui, dean of the Medical School of Tsinghua University, who
was
dismissed after Fang found that Liu falsely claimed to have
been
director of medical research at New York University;
?? Yang Jie, dean of biology at Tongji University in Shanghai, who
was
dismissed after admitting to having a falsified résumé.
In the computer chip case, it was an assistant that exposed Mr.
Chen.
Evidently fearful of being implicated in what was proving a
fruitless
mission, the assistant posted on Jan. 17 an exposé on the
Xinhua
bulletin board.
On May 12, Shanghai’s Jiaotong University, where Chen is based,
stated
the Hanxin, or “Chinese heart chip,” was a DSP 56800E, by
Motorola.
The University promptly fired Chen. The chip on display in Shanghai
at
the festive 2003 chip launch, attended by top officials, was a
painted
piece of metal, it was revealed.
Yet Fang and other fraud-busters say such public disgracings are
the
exception, not the rule. They argue that the culture of
plagiarism
continues mainly because corruption runs to the upper levels of
the
institutions of higher learning, and efforts to expose it are
throttled.
Take the case of Wei Yuquan. Mr. Wei is vice president of
Sichuan
University as well as an immunologist and a member of the
Chinese
Academy of Sciences. A recent article by Mr. Wei describing
an
experiment to treat cancer cells was billed as groundbreaking.
Yet
when Si Lu Sheng, a relatively obscure older pathologist from
central
China, reviewed the article, something stuck in his craw. Mr. Si
asked
Mr. Wei for simple verification. But Wei refused to present
basic
evidence, discuss methods, or even present receipts for lab
purchases
of special white mice. Yet on the basis of the article, Wei
received a
$60,000 grant from China’s National Life Science and Nature fund -
big
money for professors here, some of whom make only $350 a
month.
Si was flabbergasted. Nearing retirement, and with little to lose,
he
started a small campaign to expose what he felt was cheating, he
told
the Monitor.
Wei visited Si several times to talk him out of his campaign. Si
was
offered a lucrative research project. But Si wasn’t biting. So,
a
different kind of pressure was exerted - Si got harassing phone
calls
and his wife was pressured at her job. In the end, the
university
backed its vice president. But no substantive evidence of the
veracity
of the medical test has been forthcoming.
“I got involved to warn younger scholars of the harm of
falsifying
research,” Si says. “The faking is obvious, everyone knows it. But
no
one dares to talk about it, since the university president
declared
the work was acceptable. When the senior leaders at the
university
ordered the discussion to be closed, it was.”
So Si sent a set of letters and the case to Fang’s website.
A Sichuan University spokesman contacted Monday said that, “There
is
no clear line between academic corruption and academic
disputes.
People who are fighting against corruption are not reliable and do
so
to make a name. We should let the leaders of the university
decide.”
“What we need is to actually punish those who commit fraud, to
kick
them out,” says Tsinghua University engineering professor Zhou
Nanyuan,
who does research in the area of science fraud. “So far we only
have
an oral commitment to police this, from our university leaders.
The
problem is that many violators remain, even after they are
exposed.”
“The higher the position a cheater occupies, the easier for him
to
avoid investigation and punishment,” Fang told the Monitor.
The increase in science-related fraud contributes to the exposure
of
corruption, since science tends to be a performance-driven
discipline
where verification is part of the accepted process, experts here
say.
Still, Si says that serious science review mechanisms are lacking.
The
science magazine editors that first published the article were
chosen
by seniority rather than professional capability, Si says.
Party members loyal to the school have far greater say in the
review
process than a more knowledgeable, but less senior, figures.
Since
grants are state funds, few on the review boards are willing to
stick
their necks out and rebut serious scientific claims - especially
for
grant proposals that appear under titles like “national
research.”
(XYS20060519)
◇◇新语丝(www.xys.org)(xys.dxiong.com)(xys.3322.org)(xys.xlogit.com)◇◇
