自從和邱老爺子對薄了公堂，中國的學術屆和科學家就注定了悲哀。太多的司法、行政、政治、金錢、和商業的幹預，使長期坐在象牙塔內閉門造車的科技創新，逐步進入計算機屏幕和大眾媒體的監督。
隨著經濟一體化的到來和社會腐敗的大眾化，中國的學術打假，也已經提前實現了國際化。今年五月份世界最著名的學術期刊《自然》第四百四十一卷的一篇長篇新聞專題報道：名與辱（ＮＡＭＥＤ ＡＮＤ ＳＨＡＭＥＤ），就把中國目前學術打假的淵源和黑幕，捅出了亞洲，走向了世界：
Nature 441, 392-393 (25 May 2006) | doi:10.1038/441392a; Published online 24 May 2006; Corrected 2 June 2006
Special Report：Named and shamed
David Cyranoski
Abstract
As accusations of scientific misconduct in China become rife, some fear persecution reminiscent of that used in the Cultural Revolution.
Chinese science risks being sliced up by a double-edged sword: rampant scientific misconduct on the one hand, and persecution based on false accusations on the other.
The lack of confidence in official mechanisms for properly investigating fraud has led to increased reliance on websites that challenge the records and publications of Chinese scientists. But many are concerned about the damage such untested allegations can cause; more than 100 Chinese scientists based in the United States have sent an open letter to the Chinese government, asking it to set up mechanisms to ensure that claims of scientific misconduct are investigated fairly.
China admits it faces a serious problem with scientific misconduct, including plagiarism, and the fabrication and falsification of data. The scale of the problem is unknown, but a recent spate of allegations has drawn attention to the issue.
In March, Hui Liu, the assistant dean of Tsinghua University medical school in Beijing, was fired, following claims that he had boosted his publication list with papers by another H. Liu (see Nature 440, 728; 2006). Liu has reportedly denied the charges and blamed the mix-up on a clerical error. In April, Sichuan University in Chengdu was criticized by the Chinese media for finding one of its professors innocent of fabricating a paper; the paper has been under attack since its publication in 2000. And two weeks ago, Jin Chen of Shanghai's Jiaotong University, whose announcements of one of China's first digital signal-processing chips in 2003 stoked patriotic fervour, was condemned by his university for faking research and stealing designs from a foreign company.
J. ANDANSON/SYGMA/CORBIS：Accusations of scientific fraud posted on websites remind some of the posters used to persecute 'government enemies' in the 1970s.
In all three cases, a popular Chinese-language website known as New Threads (http://www.xys.org), which has a reputation for disclosing scientific fraud in China, played a key role in fuelling public outcry.
In the first two cases, postings of the accusations on New Threads led to the Chinese media picking up on the stories. And the website's owner, Shi-min Fang, a biochemist based in San Diego, California, claims he was the first to post the name of the company that supposedly polished and re-labelled another brand's chips for Chen.
The power of the website to implicate scientists in the absence of adequate formal mechanisms of investigation has put it at the centre of concerns over claims of misconduct.
Xin-Yuan Fu, an immunologist at Indiana University in Indianapolis, says it was the Sichuan University case that drove him to write a letter to key science-policy officials, including China's science and technology minister and the head of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, asking them to take action. The letter struck a chord among his peers — within five days of circulating it to other Chinese biologists based in the United States, Fu's letter had collected 120 signatures, including those of two researchers in China. "I was overwhelmed," says Fu.
After noting the need to expose all types of misconduct, the letter focuses on the problem of unfounded allegations, particularly those that attack scientific claims without giving evidence of faulty laboratory procedures. It ends by condemning the tendency to make "personal attacks anonymously in public... in the absence of proper investigation".
Fu says the Sichuan University incident is a case in point. Yuquan Wei, vice-president of the university, published a paper in Nature Medicine in 2000 detailing the use of foreign endothelial cells as a vaccine to prevent tumour growth. The paper claimed success in mice and suggested the technique could work in humans (Nature Med. 6, 1160–1166; 2000).
But Lusheng Si, an immunopathologist at Xi'an Jiaotong University who first came across the paper when reviewing a grant proposal by Wei in 2001, suspected that it contained fabricated data. On 26 March this year, after hearing that Wei was using the paper to request a further large grant, Si attacked the paper on New Threads.
The letter led to a media fury in China and an investigation by Wei's university. Sichuan concluded that Wei had committed no offence, and that the dispute over Wei's research was simply a run-of-the-mill academic disagreement. The media in China has continued to criticize Wei and Sichuan University, but many scientists think Si's attack was irresponsible and based on unsound interpretation of scientific concepts and procedures.
Si contends, for example, that the mouse immune system should respond to all proteins in foreign cells, whereas Wei's paper suggests that immunized mice selectively respond to a few antigens. "This violates a fundamental law of immunology," Si says.
AP：Fallen from fame: Jin Chen, creator of a signal-processing chip, was condemned by his university for faking data.
But Lieping Chen, an immunologist at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland, and a signatory to Fu's letter, disagrees with Si. Chen says that a selective immune response to one or a few foreign proteins is an aspect of well-known phenom–enon known as immunodominance.
Si also questions the number of mice Wei used, estimating this to be around 40,000. "This is too big to believe," he says. Wei, backed by Chen, says Si has miscalculated the number, and that less than 5,000 mice were actually used.
But even those who defend Wei admit that his response hasn't helped. For example, Si claims that Wei has so far refused to release his raw data, which most agree would settle the issue. Wei told Nature, "I did not say I cannot release raw data for inspection", but he has not clarified whether he will make his data available. He has denied all misconduct.
The university's investigation into the matter has failed to convince many that the truth won out, mainly because it lacked transparency. "The recent self-investigation into alleged fraud at Sichuan University is a total joke," says Mu-ming Poo, a neurobiologist at the University of California, Berkeley, and head of the Institute of Neurosciences in Shanghai. Nature's request for details on the university procedure and an introduction to members of the investigation committee was referred to Wei; as Nature went to press he had not provided any information about the investigation.
The recent self-investigation into alleged fraud at Sichuan University is a total joke.
Poo believes the incident is indicative of the fact that most Chinese universities lack the capacity to investigate one of their own. "The outcome is likely to be influenced by the university's own interests, such as protecting its reputation," he says.
Fu's letter, sent on 8 May, calls for greater involvement of higher-level funding bodies such as the science ministry, the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) and the Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC).
These institutions already have investigatory bodies. The CAS established its ethics committee in 1997 and drafted guidelines in 2001. The NSFC committee, established in 1998, says it investigated 445 allegations of misconduct in its first five years (out of an estimated 30,000 projects that it funded during that time). In the most severe cases, the committee indefinitely blocks perpetrators from applying for funds.
But many scientists feel these committees are ineffective, and a lack of confidence in their ability to settle matters is driving those with grievances to publish them on the Internet. For example, Si says he considered sending his complaint to the CAS or to the science ministry, but he was unable to find contact details for either. So he posted his accusation on New Threads instead. Nature's attempts to contact the committees of the CAS and the NSFC were also unsuccessful.
"It is the [effective] absence of such formal mechanisms that makes New Threads important," says Fu. But Fu, a human-rights advocate, is worried that the media frenzy following irresponsible web-based accusations, particularly by those who don't identify themselves, hearkens back to China's 'big letter' posters or 'dazibao'.
These wall-mounted handwritten posters were used to persecute those considered enemies of the government during the Cultural Revolution in the 1970s. "Anyone could write anything, and people would read it and assume it was right," says Chen. "It would be a terrible thing to go through again, in academia."
Fang, who has been widely praised since setting up his website in 2001 for exposing bad science and trying to raise the profile of research ethics in China, defends his postings. He says he only accepts about 10% of submitted letters, and that he only publishes allegations from correspondents who identify themselves to him. He adds that he does some preliminary investigation and sometimes asks outside experts for their opinions.
But several scientists have written to Nature to express concern over how powerful Fang's website has become, saying they are afraid to be named for fear of becoming his enemy.
Ideally, Fu says he would like to see China establish a new agency staffed by experts trained in scientific misconduct that could investigate claims of fraud, akin to the US Office of Research Integrity. That would certainly be necessary to resolve the case of Si versus Wei, says Nature Medicine's editor-in-chief Juan-Carlos Lopez. "There's been enough of this 'he said, she said' nonsense," says Lopez. "It's time for the competent authorities to get involved."
How likely that is to happen is unclear. Fu and his co-signatories have yet to receive any response from the Chinese authorities.
* The original version of this story placed Jin Chen at the wrong university. This has been corrected (1 June 2006). Correction (2 June 2006): Hui Liu was assistant dean of Tsinghua University medical school in Beijing, not vice-dean as originally stated in this article. In paragraph 6, we should not have referred to Jin Chen's company, but rather the company that supposedly does work for Chen.
在５月２５日刊出的這篇文章中，作者（David Cyranoski）質疑目前學術打假的公正性，呼籲由中國官方建立公正與權威的學術打假機構。打假英雄方舟子和他無堅不摧的打假網站《新語絲》遭到了點名。
這還不夠，在緊接著的下一期（６月１日），《自然》雜誌刊出了編者按，把中國的學術腐敗，直和南韓相提並論。同樣，中國的教育科研機構和《新語絲》打假的公正性，再一次遭到了質疑。
Editorial
Nature 441, 549-550 (1 June 2006) | doi:10.1038/441549b; Published online 31 May 2006
Finding fraud in China
Abstract
As Chinese research expands, who is looking out for faked results?
The investigation of research misconduct is always fraught with difficulty, even if the necessary protocols and experienced expert committees are fully in place. In China, they are not. If the nation is to get to grips with the problem of misconduct as it becomes a substantial scientific power, that situation has to change.
Chinese research agencies do have structures for investigating misconduct allegations, but in the absence of open discussion and independent press scrutiny, few researchers have much faith in them. The rapid and open exchange of information over the Internet has some potential to fill the void, but it also carries risks (see Nature 441, 392–393; 2006). It could readily break down into a dangerous game of unregulated accusation and counter-accusation, shedding no light on actual misconduct.
The power of the Internet in identifying scientific fraud was amply demonstrated last year in the case of Woo Suk Hwang, the discredited South Korean cloning researcher. Online portals discussed suspicious images and data in Hwang's papers, ultimately leading Seoul National University to pursue an investigation that exposed Hwang's fabrications. And Internet postings of allegations that Jin Chen faked digital-processing chips contributed to his dismissal from Shanghai Jiaotong University last month.
The Internet can play a particularly important role in countries such as China and South Korea that do not have adequate systems for investigating misconduct allegations. That isn't to say that countries with systems in place are totally on top of the problem, but at least they have developed some of the institutions and protocols needed to handle it.
Organizations charged with assessing allegations of scientific misconduct do exist in China, and on paper the system appears functional — but there is no evidence that it really works. China lacks an independent press to report on such matters. The very size of the country and subsequent disparate implementation of policies set in Beijing make matters worse.
In addition, the cultural importance of 'saving face' in Chinese society makes the full-frontal public attacks that tend to characterize Western misconduct allegations almost unthinkable. There are no effective provisions to protect whistleblowers, so it is hard to believe that anyone who observes misconduct would summon the courage to report it to the authorities.
It is in this climate that New Threads, a Chinese-language Internet site run by a single researcher based in San Diego, has come to play a significant role in the monitoring of scientific conduct. This arrangement is deeply problematic, however.
In China's recent history, 'bottom up' accusations have often been abused by the authorities to persecute perceived enemies of the state. This was especially true during the Cultural Revolution, when simply pasting a poster on the wall calling someone a 'bourgeois' could destroy their livelihood. The threat of innocent people being branded as 'pseudoscientists', either by a jealous rival or by the state, further clouds the misconduct picture in China.
The only real solution to this problem is a great deal more complex than hooking up to an Internet connection. It requires the establishment of independent offices in Chinese research agencies, rather like the inspector general's office at the US National Science Foundation, or the Office of Research Integrity at the US health department. The system can only operate effectively if it offers protection to whistleblowers. It also requires a new generation of scientists to be educated in what constitutes proper scientific conduct. And it needs to ensure that investigations give anyone accused the opportunity to demonstrate their innocence.
China is struggling to come to terms with these kinds of requirements in society at large, as well as within the scientific community. For a multiplicity of reasons — of which the desire for scientific progress is just one — addressing them ought to be the government's greatest priority.
三個星期後，署名方是民（譯音）的方舟子，就對《自然》雜誌這種指責，做出了如下的反擊：
Nature 441, 932(22 June 2006) | doi:10.1038/441932a; Published online 21 June 2006
Misconduct: lack of action provokes web accusations
Shi-min Fang
New Threads Chinese Cultural Society, PO Box 26194, San Diego, California 92196, USA
Sir:
As the webmaster of New Threads (http://www.xys.org) — the website "at the centre of concerns over claims of misconduct", according to your Special Report "Named and shamed" (Nature 441, 392–393; 2006) — I cannot agree with your comment that "some fear persecution reminiscent of that used in the Cultural Revolution".
The Cultural Revolution was started by Chairman Mao in 1966 and formally ended with his death in 1976. Although 30 years have passed, the memory of this calamity is still vivid in many Chinese minds — it is understandable that some fear the tragedy might someday recur. But it is ridiculous to compare free speech on the Internet to the violence of the Cultural Revolution, which was controlled by a dictator, allowed for no freedom and included governmental persecution of 'class enemies'. I find it ironic that 120 Chinese-American scientists and self-appointed human-rights advocates have signed an open letter appealing to the Chinese government to suppress media and public opinions: they still need to learn what free speech and human rights mean.
I agree that China should establish an official channel to investigate allegations of misconduct. In fact, I made this suggestion as early as 2001, in a speech to the Chinese students and scholars association at the University of California, San Diego (see http://www.xys.org/xys/netters/Fang-Zhouzi/science/yanjiang.txt). But before this channel exists, and to make sure it functions properly after it is established, free press and free speech are indispensable.
在６月２１號給《自然》雜誌編輯部的來信中，方舟子不同意《自然》雜誌新聞報道中１２０名海外華人學者和自封的人權鬥士對他和《新語絲》的指責，認為他們還需要學習什麽是言論自由和人權。但方舟子同意建立官方打假機構，並聲稱他是最早在２００１年就在加州大學的一場中文演說中作出過這樣的建議。
科羅拉多大學的黃征（譯音），也對《自然》雜誌特別新聞報道和編者按中譴責中國學術打假時使用的措詞，表示了抗議：
Nature 441, 932(22 June 2006) | doi:10.1038/441932b; Published online 21 June 2006
Misconduct: exposure is not like Cultural Revolution
Zheng Huang
Radiation Oncology Department, University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center, Aurora, Colorado 80045, USA
Sir:
Your Special Report (Nature 441, 392–393; 2006) and Editorial "Finding fraud in China" (Nature 441, 549–550; 2006) express deep concern about accusations of scientific misconduct in China. You rightly point out that it should be the government's greatest priority to crack down on scientific misconduct, if it is rife.
The New Threads website covers wide areas such as literature and popular science. It is well known for posting accusations of all types of scientific misconduct, and providing a forum for people to discuss their concerns. There are good reasons for the popularity of the website among intellectuals and the general public. It is the motivation of those condemning it that needs to be questioned.
It is misleading to suggest that high-profile researchers could be persecuted through accusations made against them on the Internet, or to compare this to the Cultural Revolution. I witnessed the violence of the Cultural Revolution in my childhood. My parents were abused by the Red Guard because of their family, education and professional background. I cried when I saw crosses marking their names in posters and cartoons.
The Cultural Revolution was a mass movement organized by the country's leader to crack down on his opponents. New Threads is just a platform without any official power: openness is the key to its success. It has become a portal for the grass roots who are ignored by official channels, such as university authorities, when they report misconduct. Internet debate and the resultant public attention can act as a warning to people attempting to violate research ethics. This is nothing like the horror of the Cultural Revolution.
文學城的網友化學鍵，也就是被方舟子在互聯網上公布了真實姓名的吳國勝（譯音），對方舟子的辯解，提出了反證：
Nature 442, 132(13 July 2006) | doi:10.1038/442132a; Published online 12 July 2006
Misconduct: forum should not be used to settle scores
Guosheng Wu
700 Lower State Road, North Wales, Pennsylvania 19454, USA
Sir:
Although China is developing its science and technology at an unprecedented speed, scientific misconduct is a serious issue, as you have highlighted in your Special Report "Named and shamed" (Nature 441, 392–393; 2006)
Shi-Min Fang, the webmaster of New Threads (http://www.xys.org), has defended, in Correspondence (Nature 441, 932; 2006), this website's role in disclosing scientific misconduct on occasions when the authorities have ignored whistleblowers.
Like many other Chinese scientists working overseas, I care very much about scientific misconduct in China. However, I have also been concerned for a long time about the quality of articles published on New Threads. Often, I find that there are few facts and little investigation behind the accusations, and that many articles are mixed with assumptions and personal attacks on named scientific researchers.
One such example is that of Hualiang Jiang, a principal investigator working at the Shanghai Institute of Materia Medica. Because I work in a similar field, I am familiar with Jiang's work and publications, although I have never met him. New Threads contains several articles (urls provided) attacking Jiang personally, using many insulting words such as "idiot". It seems that some of the articles were written by someone who may have been an unsuccessful job candidate at Jiang's institute.
Disclosing scientific misconduct is not simply about free speech, as claimed by Fang. It is also about being professional, objective and serious. Only verified facts should be published on the website, if it is claiming to monitor incidents of scientific misconduct. It should not be used for unsubstantiated attacks in the name of free speech, not only because of the personal and professional effects on the scientists concerned, but also because readers, especially young students, could be misled.
另外，國內的學者王奇誌（譯音），也不甘落後，對如何辦好學術打假發表了意見：
Nature 442, 132(13 July 2006) | doi:10.1038/442132b; Published online 12 July 2006
Misconduct: China needs university ethics courses
Qizhi Wang
Department of Mechanics, College of Architecture and Environment, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan 610065, China
Sir:
Your Special Report "Named and shamed" (Nature 441, 392–393; 2006) and Editorial "Finding fraud in China" (Nature 441, 549–550; 2006) report that scientific misconduct has become rampant in China, especially in universities. I would like to add my view to those of previous correspondents (Nature 441, 932; 2006).
Misconduct is hampering the sound development of science in the nation's higher-education system. If scientific misconduct cases are not handled by the university (or other concerned authority), and much-needed outside supervision is not available, then each occasion that comes to light damages the academic reputation of the university concerned, the whistleblower and the person accused.
Unfortunately, serious and justified investigations of suspected fraud have been largely ignored by China's universities, with the exceptions of the prestigious Tsinghua University and Shanghai Jiaotong University, each of which has recently dismissed a professor (returned from abroad in each case) for fabricating research achievements or results. However, details of these investigations have not been disclosed, so other universities cannot learn from them.
Obviously, it is the university involved in a fraud case — not the Ministry of Education, the media, websites, journals or newspapers — that has the power to dismiss or demote the accused, if guilty. A mechanism is needed to deal with such eventualities.
To cope with embarrassing situations such as those currently being highlighted in the media, I suggest that editorials and articles on the subject in science journals such as Nature and Science should be used as materials for teaching a course of research ethics to students in China's universities. Access to case studies being taught in scientific ethics courses elsewhere would also be valuable. Our universities should play a key part in fighting scientific misconduct, and every honest Chinese professor should make a contribution to such courses as part of providing a complete university education.
一時間，戰火紛紛，美國的權威雜誌上，充滿了黃皮膚的中國人。
就連台灣駐倫敦的外交代表陳麥克，也渾水摸魚，在《自然》雜誌上發表聲明，抗議《自然》雜誌發表的一幅地圖中，把台灣染成了和大陸一樣的黃顏色！
Nature 442, 132(13 July 2006) | doi:10.1038/442132d; Published online 12 July 2006
Speaking for Taiwan about colours, maps and politics
Michael Chen
Taipei Representative Office in the United Kingdom, 50 Grosvenor Gardens, London SW1W 0EB, UK
好在旅居倫敦的大陸學者孫正領（譯音），立即也在《自然》雜誌上進行了精彩的反擊:
Nature 442, 244(20 July 2006) | doi:10.1038/442244c; Published online 19 July 2006
Same colour, many different countries
Zhen-Ling Sun
Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, Alfred Denny Building, University of Sheffield, Western Bank, Sheffield S10 2TN, UK
Sir:
Michael Chen, in Correspondence (Nature 442, 132; 2006), raised a question about the colours used in a map with the News Feature "Forward planning" (Nature 440, 987–989; 2006). He was concerned that showing both the People's Republic of China and Taiwan as yellow would make people think that they comprised one country. However, all the countries shown as having proposed repositories for nuclear waste are coloured yellow, including Sweden, Finland, the United Kingdom and France. This certainly does not mean that these pairs of neighbouring countries have been united into one.
According to the World Nuclear Association (http://www.world-nuclear.org), Taiwan has nuclear power reactors in operation, and therefore it should not be excluded from the issue discussed in the News Feature. I can see nothing wrong with the colours used in the map. Being simple and focused, it fulfilled its purpose.
哎吆額的娘哦，原來在《ＮＡＴＵＲＥ》上發表一篇文章，竟然比TNND登一篇廣告還容易！
以方是民（和我還一家，晦氣，盡管是500年的事）為偉大領袖，以領袖的鐵哥們HunHunSheng等人為網絡打手(24小時輪番上陣時刻檢察一切腐敗的ID)，正在發動一起聲勢浩大的運動。
時隔40年，階級鬥爭重新在華人世界啟動，一時間引發國際傳媒如自然雜誌的廣泛關注，新華社似乎也不甘落後，以領袖夫人劉菊花為代表正在背後領導新華社準備和自然雜誌決一雌雄，看看誰的人多誰的力量大。。。 。。。
做事謙虛一點，在取證和用詞上謹慎一點，應該是沒有壞處的。
怎麽這個名字都被屏蔽掉了 ， 怕啊 :-)
Sorry, Xi-Lin, I used too much of your space
可以建議教育部寫進小學一年級算術教材 ， 畢竟學術腐敗應該 從娃娃抓起 。
補充 ， 我還沒有說過這件事是誰對 ， 因為我沒有掌握必要的知識和信息， 更不可能盲目地去簽名 。
徐之闐:對和傅新元兩封公開信的初步比較分析
支持率：
根據自述，新語絲每天有四五十萬人次的閱讀量。相信對新語絲感興趣的人，大都是所謂知識分子。 遺憾的是，在大張旗鼓喧嚷後， 一個星期下來 這次僅僅有三百來人簽署此信，簽名的比率千分之一都不到，可見的實際支持率了。這也證明了，大多數去瀏覽新語絲的人士，是報著看八卦新聞的心理，去看熱鬧的。
最讓人驚訝的是，的公開的鐵杆支持者中，最有知名度的所謂“知識分子” 鄒承魯和何祚庥，都拒絕在此公開信中簽名。對此，想必這些已經簽名的人對此結果會大失所望，甚至會有被棄置的感覺吧。
為什麽鄒承魯和何祚庥都拒絕簽署此公開信？鄒承魯先生和三百多位簽名者的絕大部分相比，專業上應更有權威，為何不簽名？這已經很說明問題。
與此相比，傅新元的公開信，僅僅在內部，通過電子郵件寄給他的生物學同事，收信人僅僅有三百多位科學家，其中一百二十位聯署，收信者和簽名者的比率超過三分之一。這在任何征集簽名信的事例中，是非常成功的。
專業性和權威性：
的公開信牽涉到一個很專業的問題。有關專家的意見應當是一言九鼎。很顯然，的公開信簽名者中，幾乎沒有任何有關此案件的醫學和法律專業的人士，大都是些基本群眾。不可否認，大部分簽名者的動機是支持科學打假。他們是出於義憤，而不是基於對專業問題的切實了解而簽名。這也說明了已完全失去了有關專業人士的支持。
與此不同的是，傅新元的公開信純粹是專業人士和眾多權威科學家的的簽署。因此影響力不可同日而語。
民主過程：
的公開信是一人指導發令，大家盲從的過程。對公開信不可有任何質疑。而傅新元的公開信是在科學同事之間，經過民主討論，反複醞釀修改，最後成型。
©Boxun News Network All Rights Reserved.
所有欄目和文章由作者或專欄管理員整理製作，均不代表立場
法 院 如 果 有 不 公 ， 最 理 性 的 辦 法 是 向 更 高 一 級 法 院 上 訴 ， 而 不 是 發 動 不 一 定 知 道 全 部 事 實 的 人 民 和 國 內(新 華 社 ，人 民 網， CCTV 等) 和 國 外(xys.org) 的 媒 體 搞 聲 勢 浩 蕩 的 群 眾 運 動；
誰 敢 說 大 話 ， 最 高 人 民 法 院 也 會 偏 袒 一 個 學 術 腐 敗 分 子 ?
他 也 可 以 向 科 協 ， 科 學 院 發 公 開 信 ， 可 以 向 國 際 媒 體 如 Science, Nature 撰 稿。
難 道 要 搞 全 民 公 訣 不 成 ?
再 說 ， 看 看 那 些 簽 名 的 單 子 ， 我 真 的 很 "汗"?
還 想 想 在 在 海 外 有 多 少 華 人 知 識 分 子 ? 看 到 那 封 簽 名 信 的 人 有 多 少 ? 光 是 新 語 絲 的 固 定 訂 閱 戶 頭 就 不 下 ...? 你 還 是 自 己 去 問 方 吧 . 或 者 數 數 xys forum 上 的 ID 數 量 .
還 瞎 搬 運 科 學 "霸 王" 鄒 承 魯 來 壓 人 啊 ?
(1)他 的 那 個 采 訪 稿 怎 麽 批 評 肖 或 者 裘 了 ? 我 的 理 解 能 力 不 至 於 那 麽 差 .
(2) 他 是 個 八 十 多 歲 的 人 ， 難 道 學 術 腐 敗 也 要 一 個 長 年 霸 道 的 老 人 來 專 政 ?
(3)關 於 (2), 可 以 參 考 大 量 的 網 絡 資 料 ， 我 自 己 也 親 耳 從 很 多 生 物 行 業 的 朋 友 說 過 。
想 起 年 初 ， 麵 對 我 的 批 評 ， 他 要 找 說 法 ， 就 可 以 把 我 告 上 公 堂 了。 對 他 的 批 評 怎 麽 就 成 了 誣 蔑 了? 我 就 那 麽 惡 劣 ? 先 找 我 要 實 名 ， 然 後 不 經 允 許 就 把 我 的 實 名 公 布 於 眾 ， 以 為 我 就 那 麽 容 易 臭 ?! 我 告 訴 他 我 學 習 和 工 作 過 的 所 有 單 位 ， 可 以 去 找 我 的 任 何 可 以 打 假 的 資 源 ， 怎 麽 就 是 不 開 打 ? 還 發 動 朋 友 和 網 友 對 我 搞 攻 擊 ， 刪 我 的 帖 子 ， 封 我 的 ID, 封 我 的 IP... ...
而 對 於 我 在 Nature 的 一 篇 短 文 怎 麽 沒 有 任 何 勇 氣 寫 篇 文 章 來 討 伐 一 下 ? 這 種 事 情 對 他 來 說 ， 我 可 從 未 聽 過 啊 ?
極 其 罕 見 的 "沉 默 是 金"!
到 是 古 人 雲 ， 浪 子 回 頭 金 不 換。 他 還 年 輕 ， 改 掉 惡 習 還 是 可 以 繼 續 為 社 會 做 貢 獻 的 。
美國是一個極端重視法律的社會，公民以及企業和學術界的官司也從來沒有中斷過，大都是涉及環境保護和企業及私人利益的。可是沒有見到，因某某科學家因為受到了學術上的誹謗和人格上的侮辱，而上了法庭的。
照常說，有理不怕言高，腳整不怕鞋歪。事關學術道德和人品，這原告人和被告人，誹謗的和被誹謗的，竟然還都理直氣壯，興師動眾，大張旗鼓，大肆宣揚。實在是有一點兒滑稽。
如 果 法 院 能 夠 依 法 判 案 ， 這 事 情 本 身 不 一 定 是 壞 事 。 如 果 方 不 服 法 院 裁 決 ， 更 好 的 辦 法 是 向 更 高 一 級 法 院 上 述 ， 雙 方 都 可 以 依 此 類 推 。 值 得 無 法 再 打 官 司 了 。 最 後 還 是 不 滿 ， 那 麽 可 以 更 多 地 讓 媒 體 介 入 ， 鼓 勵 法 律 專 家 進 行 分 析 ， 甚 至 是 人 大 修 改 法 律 。
另 外 ， 法 律 應 該 參 考 如 中 科 院 ， 科 協 等 學 術 權 威 機 構 的 意 見 。
到 目 前 為 止 ， 所 看 到 的 是 方 舟 子 以 及 他 的 網 站 大 量 的 一 麵 之 詞 ， 很 多 言 論 本 身 都 可 能 已 經 違 法， 比 如 公 開 地 聲 稱 江 漢 法 院 的 法 官 呂瑛如 何 違 法 地 判 案 ， 她/他 的 上 司 如 何腐 敗 等 等 。 這 和 文 革 的 大 字 報 還 有 多 少 區 別 ? 這 種 觀 念 還 打 什 麽 官 司? 直 接 說 沒 法 打 就 得 了 。
下 麵 這 個 呼 籲 全 世 界 華 人 學 者 用 實 名 來 聲 援 方 的 ， 竟 然 得 到 人 民 網 的 默 許 。 人 民 網 是 否 應 該 先 看 一 些 中 國 新 聞 法 是 怎 麽 寫 的， 而 不 是 另 一 方 麵 壓 著 我 的 文 稿 一 直 不 發 ， 連 個 回 音 都 沒 有 。 而 Nature 雜 誌 的 兩 位 編 輯在 收 到 來 稿 之 後 很 快 地 就 答 複 了 ， 而 且 是 那 麽 的 禮 貌 ， 專 業 ... ... 國 內 的 事 情 ， 真 是 無 法 用 理 性 去 分 析 。
http://scitech.people.com.cn/GB/4660757.html
中國的學問人，真的就沒有道德廉恥了麽？真的隻有上法庭一條道嗎？有ＳＣＩＥＮＣＥ，也有ＮＡＴＵＲＥ，學術上的糾紛，大家清者自清，濁者自濁，關法官和律師什麽事！
http://blog.wenxuecity.com/blogview.php?date=200608&postID=3109