根伯發飆，拍案怒斥方舟子！

2011年8月21日

親愛的方博士,

真是一個大笑話！如果我堅持把你的來信及回信公開，你就威脅要退出討論？首先，如果不公之於眾，我寫的那些公開信還能叫公開信嗎？其次，你本來就幾乎從不參加討論，你的威脅有意義嗎？第三，我以為你的事業就是幫助中國發現與揭露不論何時何地的造假，那麽你為什麽拒絕參加一個針對什麽是剽竊與侵犯版權的公開討論？最後，最重要的是，你背著我一直在你的網站與中國媒體上攻擊我，你怎麽有臉要求我不公開你的信件？因此，無庸置疑，此信發給每個人，你要幹什麽，隨你。你除了自定規則，是不遵守別人的規則的。

你質問我從何處得到你剽竊我的文章達到90%的結論，抗議說絕不會超過50%。好吧，我簡捷明快地回答你：顯然，我從未見識到你的全部文章，包括你遞送的文本！你應該記得寄給我你文章的譯文，它並非全文。因此，如果我誤解了你竊取了多少我的文章，你跟其他人一樣難辭其疚。

不管怎麽說，起碼我們討論的是你的文章竊取了多少我的內容。對此，你的自稱支持者之一（見所附電郵）還將之定量在60%。不管我們怎麽看這個問題，所有人，包括你自己，都同意你的文章很大一部分取自我的文章。因此，問題就歸結於多少是不適當的？你已經承認，在你最初博文中就應當因為雷同程度而提及引用我。如果雷同程度如此高，你又憑什麽否認剽竊與侵犯版權指控？將之變為公開討論的確切原因正是因為多少雷同是不適當的需要推敲，而你自己的認可也顯然有助於我對你的批評。

你還宣稱我自製了剽竊與侵犯版權的標準。對此我堅稱我指控你剽竊與侵犯版權的標準並非自己心血來潮。對這些問題每一個重要的雜誌與每一個教育機構都有指南並且都大致相同。如果象你這樣的中國學者希望參與世界科學文化，你必須學會遵守這些指南所立定的規則。我為你附上美國化學協會的標準。你應當注意到，不僅僅是你無權複製我的文章，甚至我自己都不能從我的發表文章中複製超出400字的內容，也不能再使用我自己的圖表，除非取得雜誌的允許。版權不僅保護作者的權益，也保護出版商的權益！這就涉及到我們的討論中還沒有論及的一個要點，這就是你不僅剽竊與（或）侵犯了我的文章的版權，也剽竊侵犯了牛津大學出版社的版權，該出版商出版了含有我的文章的書。你從他們那裏獲得了使用我的材料的許可沒有？

你對這一問題的迄今為止的回應是你是打假專家，你鑒定你沒有剽竊我，也沒有侵犯我的版權。然而，你拒絕提供你的鑒定標準，這不僅是讓我，也讓中國人民茫然無知，你指責任何人造假采取什麽標準。這還有更進一步的問題：即使你最終遮遮掩掩地說出你的標準來，你也不能成為你這一案的裁定者。實際上，在任何案例中，你都不能同時扮演指控者、法官、與陪審團的角色，然而，那正是你試圖為已攫取的權力。

現在我們就進入了問題的中心。我對你是否偷竊了我的部分作品的擔心遠不如我擔心你把自己當成了監督中國造假行為的一個不受製約也不承擔指控的角色。沒有任何個人應當擁有你所攫取的權力。你（我也一樣！）擁有絕對的權力，也實際上是絕對的義務，來揭露任何造假，但是你無權決定你的指控是否正確。你應當看到，如果你有此特權，我也應該有，那樣的話，就可以因為我說你剽竊與侵權了，你就剽竊與侵權了。你顯然不願就此伏法，我也不願如此行事。但是你必須籍著這樣的矛盾理解到你不能擁有超越別人的特權。決定造假取決於沒有偏見的、沒有利益傾向的行為者，無論是在這一案例中，還是其它你指控別人的案例或者你受指控的案例中。我不知道究竟在中國，或者在世界其它地方可以決定你可以不經過允許而使用多少我的作品，但我確信，那必不是你自己！我現在的對此事的最大期望是此案會導致中國針對造假（比如剽竊與侵犯版）的案例處理實踐以及誰擁有此類事件的發言權帶來巨大的變化。

21 August 2011
Dear Dr. Fang,

What a joke! You threaten to no longer participate in this dialogue if I insist on making your emails to me, and mine in return, public? In the first place, what is the point of public letters, such as those that I have written, if they are not public? In the second place, since you have not participated in this discussion at all for quite some time, what difference does it make? Third, I thought your goal was to help China identify and reveal frauds wherever and whenever they occur, so why are you refusing to participate in an open discussion about what constitutes plagiarism and copyright infringement? And finally, and most importantly, how can you have the gall to demand that I keep private your emails to me when you have been attacking me and on your website and in the Chinese press behind my back this entire time? So, yes, this letter is going to everyone, and you can do as you like. You don?t play by anyone?s rules but your own anyway?

You ask where I got the figure that you have plagiarized as much as 90% of my article in yours and object that it could not possibly be more than 50%. Well, there?s a simple answer: I apparently have never been shown your entire article, even by you! You will recall sending me your translation of your article. It does not appear to be complete. So if I have been misled as to the amount my material that may be in your article, you are as much to blame as anyone.

In any event, at least we are talking about how much of my article appears in yours. On this point, one of your self-proclaimed supporters (email attached) actually puts the amount of your article that matches mine at 60%. No matter how we look at it, everyone ? including you ? agrees that a substantial portion of your article is drawn from mine. So the issue becomes how much is too much? You have already admitted that there was sufficient commonality that you should have cited me as the source of your arguments in your original blog. So if there is that much commonality, how can you deny both plagiarism and copyright infringement? The reason for making this a public debate is precisely because the issue of how much is too much needs to be hashed out and your own admissions certainly help make my case against you.

You also claim that I am making up my own definitions of plagiarism and copyright infringement. I insist on pointing out with regard to this question that the criteria I am using in accusing you of plagiarism and copyright infringement are not something I have made up. Every major journal and every educational institution has guidelines regarding these points, all of which are very similar. If Chinese scholars, such as yourself, expect to participate in the worldwide culture of science, you must learn to abide by the standards set forth in these guidelines. I have attached one such set from the American Chemical Society. You will note that not only do YOU not have the right to reproduce my article, even I do not have the right to use more than 400 words from my own publication, nor can I use my own illustrations, without written permission from the journal. Copyright not only protects the author of a work, but also the publisher of that work! This raises a point that has not yet been discussed in our correspondence, which is that you have not only plagiarized and/or breached the copyright on my article, but also Oxford University Press, which published the book in which my chapter appears. Did you get their written permission to use my material?

Your only response to that issue so far has been to say that you are an expert on fraud and you know that you have not plagiarized me or violated my copyright. Yet you refuse to reveal the criteria you are using in making that decision, which not only leaves me in the dark, but also leaves the people of China in the dark about how you reach your conclusions regarding the fraudulent behaviors of anyone you accuse. And there is an additional problem: even if you get around to divulging your criteria, you can?t be the judge in your own case. Indeed, you can?t be the accuser, judge and jury in any fraud case ? and yet that is exactly the power you have attempted to accrue to yourself.

And here we get to the crux of the matter. I am far less worried about whether you have stolen some of my work than I am worried that you have set yourself as an unassailable and unregulated monitor of fraud in China. No individual should ever have the power that you have taken upon yourself. You have every right, and indeed every responsibility ? as do I! ? to point out fraud wherever you think it occurs, but you do not have the right to decide whether your accusations are valid. For you see, if you have that right, then so do I, in which case you would be guilty of plagiarism and copyright violations just because I said so. You clearly don?t want that to be the case (nor do I), but you must learn from this controversy that you cannot have that power over others, either. The determination of fraud must lie in the hands of unbiased, disinterested parties, both in this case and in any other case you might bring or be accused of. I?m not sure who in China, or in the world, should decide how much of my work you should be permitted to use without permission, but I do know it is not you! My fondest hope at this point in time is that our controversy will lead to substantial changes in how fraudulent practices such as plagiarism and copyright infringement are handled in China and in who has the authority to handle such issues.