欢迎! 登陆 注册

高级搜索

Part IX: An evil villain's fight for his career (3956 查看)

December 09, 2012 05:36PM
【Note: The PDF file is more reader-friendly. Click the title to open it.】


Shamelessness Shouldn’t Be Anyone’s Nature
──An Open Letter to Nature (Part IX)


Xin Ge, Ph. D.

Columbia, SC, USA



AN EVIL VILLAIN’S FIGHT FOR HIS CAREER

Prelude: A tale of three fakers

In November, 2005, Hwang Woo-suk scandal rocked the scientific communities around the world. Fang, strangled in Nu River controversy, obviously eager to jump out the slough and jump on the bandwagon of “standing up for science,” started his strategic transition swiftly to catch “China’s Hwang Woo-suk.”

On November 23, 2005, Fang published an article entitled “Professor Liu Hui, Assistant Dean of Tsinghua Medical School, Fabricated His Publication Record,” in which he, based on “recent information” fed to him, alleged Liu Hui assimilated publications by other “Liu H.” into his own resumé. Later, it was found that Dr. Liu had committed other frauds. Tsinghua University dismissed Liu Hui in March, 2006. The incidence was hailed as one of the greatest achievements in Fang’s “fraud busting” career by domestic and international news media[1].

Ironically, just about one month before Fang’s exposure of Liu Hui’s fraud, his own fraud was exposed by others on the internet. From November 11 to 13, 2005, Fang, along with his buddy Dr. He Shigang, went to Henan University to give lectures on evolution under the title of professor of Biophysics Institute, Chinese Academy of Sciences. When the fraud came to light, Fang explained this way:

“At that time, I didn’t know that I was entitled a professor of Biophysics Institute, Chinese Academy of Sciences. ……It was not until I finished the last lecture, about to leave the university, and went to the administration building of College of Life Sciences to receive an interview by the school publication, that I noticed the announcement of the lectures at the main entrance which described my identity as a professor of Biophysics Institute, Chinese Academy of Sciences. At that time, I had no opportunity to clarify the matter. I mentioned the matter to He Shigang on our way back from Kaifeng, he felt strange too. He joked that the Biophysics Institute benefited from my fame at no cost.”[2]

It was rumored that Fang earned 10,000 RMB for his 3-day, 6 hours’ labor, which made him the highest paid biologist in China at that time. However, about 3 years before that, Fang had sharply criticized Tsinghua University for their hiring of some oversea professors at an annual salary of 1 million RMB[3].

More ironically, Fang’s buddy He Shigang acted just like Liu Hui. According to He, he received his Ph.D. from Australian National University in 1995, but he was a Harvard/HHMI investigator from 1994-1997[4]. Of course he has never been a HHMI investigator. What he was nothing but a pre-doctoral/post-doctoral research fellow. Fang has not exposed He’s “padded CV” yet, and he probably never will, not only because they were moonlighting comrades. It is rumored that Dr. He Shigang is related to academician He Zuoxiu, Fang’s strongest backer. Although the senior He denied that the junior He is his son, but he stopped short of declaring that they have no blood relationship at all. The junior He’s close tie to Fang’s clique was also evidenced in this incidence: According to Dr. He, before taking the position of the Dean of the College of Life Sciences at Peking University, Dr. Rao Yi, a high-profile Fang’s follower, listed many conditions to be met by the University, and one of them was hiring He Shigang at PKU as well[5].

Remember Fang’s Four Cardinal Principles to “root out the fakers” I mentioned before? Compared with Fang’s gangsters, Dr. Liu Hui’s only fault was that he didn’t purchase “fraud insurance” from Fang, had he done so, he would have been enjoying his glory on the campus of Tsinghua University now.

Act I: Mr. Zuo and Ms. Zhang: The accusers

On Dec. 31, 2005, the first item on “The Newly Arrived” on the New Threads was an article entitled “Qiu Xiaoqing, an Oversea Returnee Professor at Sichuan University, Fabricated a Nature Article to Deceive People, Six Deceived Co-authors Request Nature Biotechnology Withdraw Their Names and Co-authorship from the Article”[6]. The content of the article was, in fact, a letter sent to the Editor in Chief of Nature Biotechnology, in both Chinese and English, dated Dec. 18, 2005. Here are the first and last paragraphs of the letter:

“As co-authors of the article entitled ‘An engineered multidomain bactericidal peptide as a model for targeted antibiotics against specific bacteria’, published in your journal on November 15, 2003, we are writing this letter to request that our names and co-authorship be officially withdrawn from this article. We can not tolerate to be manipulated by the corresponding author, Mr. Xiao-Qing Qiu (‘corresponding author’ or ‘Qiu’) and remain a part of scientific fabrication.”

“All of the hard evidence indisputably proved this article published in your journal (in English) is a scientific fraud. The Pharmaceutical Study Report demonstrates the data and ‘invention’ that was presented in this article is scientific fabrication. Because of our English barrier, we were misled by the corresponding authors to become co-authors of this article. For our own professional reputation, responsibility and moral principle, as well as the sake of the dignity of the scientific community, we request officially and publicly to withdraw our names and co-authorships from this article because we can not remain connected to this scientific fabrication.”[6]

Why would a letter to Nature Biotechnology ended up on the New Threads? Why the six co-authors with an “English barrier” which was so huge that they couldn’t read their own English paper, could write a letter in English to the editor of Nature Biotechnology? Who are these co-authors?

It was revealed later that the first four of the six co-authors were the employees of Sichuan NTC Holding Limited (四川新泰克控股有限公司), a company belonged to a group of farmer entrepreneurs, or ex-government officials, depending on whom you listen to[7]. In 2002, NTC acquired the license permit for the development of Dr. Qiu’s discovery at the price of 2 million RMB. The first author of the letter, Mr. Zuo Junyong, was TNC’s project manager who was sent to Dr. Qiu’s lab to learn the technology. According to multiple newspaper reports, Zuo admitted that he “knew nothing about the technology, just acted as an assistant.”[8] In other words, these authors were not professionals, therefore they had no “professional reputation” to lose.

The other two co-authors were Zhang Shuhua and Ou Zhenrong, from National Sichuan Antibiotic Industrial Institute, and they were professionals indeed. However, in December, 2004, they published a paper with a conclusion that “Ph-SA has specific anti-Staphylococcus aureus effect in vitro, significant anti-Staphylococcus aureus effect in vivo.”[9] Also, in The Sixth National Conference on Infectious Diseases and Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, held in Shanghai between June 29 and July 2, 2005, these two people, along with three others, presented a paper demonstrating that Ph-SA had strong antibacterial activities, both in vitro and in vivo[10]. Furthermore, the Pharmaceutical Study Report, obviously drafted by them and mentioned in the letter as one of the major evidence, showed conclusion contrary to what they claimed against Dr. Qiu. (Detailed below.)

Therefore, the letter to Nature Biotechnology is mainly false. No wonder the journal didn’t take action to meet these co-authors’ demand. The question is: why these co-authors took the action in the first place?

Act II: NTC, Prophet, and Dr. Zhao: The manipulators

On Jan. 9, 2006, the New Threads published another two articles attacking Dr. Qiu. One article was an open letter by Sichuan NTC Holding Limited, the title was: “A Medical Revolution or Scientific Fraud: An Open Letter to Nation-wide News Media about the Authenticity of the Nature Paper and Patented Discovery by Sichuan University Professor Qiu Xiaoqing,”and the other was entitled “Qiu Xiaoqing is China’s Hwang Woo-suk, Let’s See How Sichuan University Meets the World Standard,” authored by a person using a pseudonym Puluofei (浦洛斐), which sounds exactly like “Prophet,” another party in the dispute, Prophet Biopharmaceuticals, Inc.[11] According to an investigation conducted by Southern Weekend, Prophet Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. sent a request to Nature Biotechnology on August 16, 2005, on behalf of the six co-authors, formally asking for the withdrawal of their names from the paper[12]. Before that, Dr. Zhao Lijun, a biochemist in the U. S., sent a letter to Nature Biotechnology in May, 2005, questioning Dr. Qiu’s discovery, according to Science magazine[13].

So, who was this Dr. Zhao Lijun? According to the letter to Nature Biotechnology by the six co-authors, he was “[t]he scientific advisor for Prophet” and worked at the University of Georgia; according to NTC’s Open Letter to Chinese News Media, Dr. Zhao acted on the side of “oversea investor,” Prophet Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., in the controversy, and worked in the U. S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). However, Dr. Zhao himself repeatedly denied that he had any business connection to any parties in the controversy, claiming his involvement was “purely from academic point of view, everything is for scientific research.”[14] On Jan. 19, 2005, Prophet Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. forwarded Dr. Zhao’s email to DR. Qiu, “seriously questioned” Qiu’s discovery, alleging that Qiu’s discovery, an antibacterial peptide called pheromonicin (Ph-SA) does not exist. And the whole controversy arose from this magical email.

Dr. Zhao’s allegation was based on the assumption that the vector Dr. Qiu used, pSELECT-1, commercialized by Promega Corporation, was not suitable for in vivo protein expression. According to Zhao:

“At the time NTC gave me Qiu’s paper and other relevant data, I was conducting a research on the expression of protein in prokaryotic cells, and it didn’t work well. Because Qiu’s method described in the paper was relatively easy, so I wanted to give his expression vector a try. After I contacted Promega, I found out that the vector was recommended for gene mutagenesis and in vitro transcription.……There are many vectors for protein expression, and pSELECT-1 can be used for the expression after modification. However, its expression efficiency is a question. And just such a question unveiled the mystery of Qiu Xiaoqing’s ‘Specific Missile.’”[15]

Many circumstantial evidences indicate that it was very likely this Dr. Zhao was the person who gave the co-authors’ letter to Fang, who published it on the New Threads; as for his and his partners’ motives, Dr. Qiu thought it was retaliation[16].

Act III: Qiu Xiaoqing: The defendant

On Jan. 19, 2006, Dr. Qiu’s self-defense was published on the New Threads, in which, Dr. Qiu refuted NTC and Dr. Zhao’s three major allegations: Ph-SA doesn’t have specificity; Ph-SA doesn’t exist; the six co-authors had no knowledge of the Nature Biotechnology paper before Dr. Zhao translated the paper into Chinese.

According to NTC’s Open Letter, the Tibet Pharmaceuticals, Inc. provided test results showing the bactericidal function of the preparation was not from Ph-SA, but from residual streptomycin which was used during the preparation of Ph-SA. And this information was used by Dr. Zhao as evidence supporting his allegation that Ph-SA doesn’t exist. However, Dr. Qiu pointed out the fact that in 2004, the Tibet Pharmaceuticals, Inc. manufactured for NTC dozens of grams of Ph-SA, which was used by National Chengdu Center for Safety Evaluation of Drugs to evaluate its safety in animals[17]. The strange thing is, Dr. Zhao Lijun published a total of six articles on New Threads between Jan. 14 and April 20, 2006, using his real name, but he never responded to Dr. Qiu’s this piece of refutation directly.

According to a news report, Mr. Zuo had claimed that he didn’t conduct technical work in Dr. Qiu’s lab, his involvement was merely for equipment and material purchasing. However, Dr. Qiu showed a video clip to reporters in which Mr. Zuo was isolating Ph-SA[18].

As to six co-authors’ claim that they were not aware of the content in the Nature Biotechnology paper before its publication, Dr. Qiu said he has a 40-minutes movie which was made by NTC in January, 2003, in which, both Zhang Shuhua and NTC’s president talked about the theory and experimental results of Ph-SA.

So, by Jan. 20, 2006, with the publication of Qiu’s defense and the investigation results by news media such as Southern Weekend and Tianfu Morning News, the secret nature of this so called “China’s Hwang Woo-suk Incidence” had been basically disclosed: There was absolutely nothing to support the allegations made by Mr. Zuo et al., NTC, and Dr. Zhao Lijun. It was more like a business dispute, and the accusers tried to use New Threads to destroy Dr. Qiu’s reputation, and even his career.


Lynching in Public
Dr. Qiu Xiaoqing was accused, attacked, humiliated, and shamed in new media and on the internet before a due process even offered to him.


Then came the fraud fighter Fang.

Act IV: Fang Zhouzi: The Quaternity

1. The Prosecutor and Detective

On Jan. 25, 2006, Fang published an article entitled “Sichuan University Professor Qiu Xiaoqing’s Paper Contains Multiple Fabrications” in Beijing Science and Technology News, the newspaper which had been sued at least three times the year before and would be sued one more time in 2006, all for defamation, and all involving Fang, directly or indirectly[19]. In his article, Fang, based on his comparison between the data presented in Qiu’s Nature Biotechnology paper and those in the Pharmaceutical Study Report by National Sichuan Antibiotic Industrial Institute, alleged Qiu tampered with the experimental results in multiple places, hence “Nature Biotechnology should retract Dr. Qiu’s paper,” Fang wrote[20].

The thing is, if Fang’s findings were solid and believable, why didn’t he write to Nature Biotechnology directly? Why did he use news media and the internet as a battle ground for academic disputes? As a matter of fact, Fang would publish an article entitled “News Media Shouldn’t Interfere with Academic Disputes” two years later[21]. Furthermore, till today, neither Fang, nor any other parties involved in the case, has made that mysterious Pharmaceutical Study Report public, so most people, even professionals, won’t know exactly what Fang was talking about in his article, let alone the general newspaper and webpage readers. On the other hand, the New Threads has published the test reports by the Tibet Pharmaceuticals, Inc.[22], so why not the more critical Pharmaceutical Study Report?

The answer to the above question came in about two years later. On Dec. 12, 2007, a person identified himself as deadfish238 posted an article on the Book Forum at sina.com, the title was “For How Long Will Zhang Shuhua and Fang Zhouzi’s Lies Fool Us?” The article not only provided detailed refutations to Fang’s allegations, but also provided a link to the entire report (which has expired). According to the author of the article, both the abstract on the first page and the conclusion on the last page of the report contained the following words:

“The test results showed that engineered anti-Staphylococcus aureus peptide Ph-SA had strong bactericidal effects both in vivo and in vitro. (1) The anti-bacterial characteristics of Ph-SA in vitro were that it showed strong bactericidal effect against Staphylococcus aureus, especially against methicillin/oxacillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) strain, its activity was 1.5 folds stronger than that of vancomycin. The susceptibility rates to Ph-SA by MRSA was the highest, 77% (≥16mg/L); by methicillin/oxacillin resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis (MRSE) strain was 40%; by Enterococcus was only 30%.”[23]

Since Fang’s allegations against Dr. Qiu were completely based on this report, it seems understandable why Fang dares not to publish the report.

It will be too complicated and lengthy to analyze in detail all the allegations made by Fang, and even impossible, due to the absence of the report. But the following example seems more than enough to show how ridiculous and irresponsible Fang’s allegations were. According to Fang, the figure 3c in Qiu’s paper contained four sets of fluorescent staining photographs, and they were labeled as pre-treatment, 1, 4, 5 hour post-treatment, respectively. But according to the figure 2c in the report, they were labeled as 2, 3, 4, and 5 hours post-treatment. And this discrepancy was one of the evidences used by Fang to accuse Dr. Qiu of fabrication[24]. However, according to the article by deadfish238, neither Zhang Shuhua’s lab, nor the institute she worked for, had a fluorescence microscope or technical personals to conduct such experiments, but Dr. Qiu’s lab had both. So, it was very likely that Zhang borrowed Qiu’s data to make up her report, and the discrepancy was caused by Zhang’s inexperience in the area, or simply a secretarial error[25].


The figure 3c of Dr. Qiu’s Nature Biotechnology paper
Fang accuses Dr. Qiu of tampering the labels.


2. The Court and the Judge

The questions are: why did Fang always believe that Dr. Qiu was at fault whenever he found a discrepancy between Qiu’s paper and Zhang’s report? Why would he assume that Qiu’s paper was completely based on Zhang’s experiment? The only reasonable answer to the questions I can think of is this: Fang tried intentionally to fix Dr. Qiu as “China’s Hwang Woo-suk,” no matter what the fact was. And that’s why he dared not to send his discovery to Nature Biotechnology; that’s why he dared not to make Zhang’s report public. In other words, Fang knew he was making false accusations, and he knew the only way he could win the evil battle was using the internet and the popular news media as the battle grounds and weapons.

Fang’s true intention was unveiled even more clearly19 months later. In August, 2007, Dr. Qiu published another paper in Nature Biotechnology, “Small Antibody Mimetics Comprising Two Complementarity-determining Regions and a Framework Region for Tumor Targeting.” It seemed Fang didn’t received any complaint letters against Dr. Qiu this time, and Fang could not find anything suspicious in Dr. Qiu’s paper himself, so he turned his eyes to the official website of the hospital where Qiu works. And he did find something he liked. According to Fang, a webpage, which has expired, said Dr. Andrew Marshall, the Editor in Chief of Nature Biotechnology, praised Dr. Qiu’s work with something like “this is Chinese people’s original innovation and invention surpassing the world level.” So Fang sent an email to Dr. Andrew Marshall to verify the news. Fang then published Dr. Andrew Marshall’s reply in an article entitled Comments on Qiu Xiaoqing’s “Surpassing the World Level” New Discovery:

“Dear Dr Fang, No I did not make those comments. The paper reports an interesting antibody mimetic. As with any paper, the significance of the findings awaits reproduction of the findings by other groups.”[26]

Also, in the same paper, Fang cursed resentfully:

“I have compared the original data used in Qiu Xiaoqing’s fake paper, and found a few places were tampered and fabricated, therefore, I dare to assert that Qiu Xiaoqing’s previous paper was a fraud, Qiu Xiaoqing cannot wash off the record of fraud even if he publishes 100 more papers.”[27]

Yes, Fang would like to bother Dr. Andrew Marshall with a piece of internet news, but he won’t bother himself by sending his allegations to the journal which published the alleged fake paper. Why?

On Feb. 22, 2006, Fang published an article in Beijing Science and Technology News to attack Dr. Qiu: “Sichuan University Professor Qiu Xiaoqing Case Has More Frauds.” What more frauds did Fang find? Nothing. All he had was “reasoning”: Since Qiu sued Zhang Shuhua and Ou Zhenrong, and he didn’t respond to Fang’s allegations, so there must be more frauds. The most interesting part was the last paragraph of the article:

“The truth or false of academic work cannot be decided in court, it should be decided through academic discussion and criticism. It is an extremely odious approach to silence his critics by threatening with a lawsuit when a person’s academic achievement is questioned. Although the approach has been used repeatedly, and the fakers are usually protected by local courts domestically, such cases are rare internationally. Most judgments of such cases are unjust, and they have tarnished the reputation of judicial branch in academia. The Supreme Court should make some judicial interpretations which request the courts don’t accept the reputation cases related to academic matter.”[28]

Yes, according to Fang, neither academic journals nor courts of law could decide the academic disputes, and the only such place is his New Threads, or his columns in Chinese newspapers, and the only person with such ability is Fang Zhouzi, the renowned Dr. Lard[29].

The fact is, it is Fang who has been threatening his critics constantly with lawsuits in the last dozen years or so. As mentioned before, in 2003, journal Exploration and Free Views published 3 articles criticizing Fang, with mountains of evidence. However, Fang not only rejected the journal’s offer of publishing his self-defense articles, not only threatened the journal with a lawsuit, he also demanded that the editor of the 3 articles be punished, the author’s identity be revealed, and he himself be compensated, pecuniaryrily[30].

Let’s take a look at another case of Fang’s “threatening with a lawsuit.” On February 15, 2011, Ms. Cao Minghua, a well-known writer based in California, posted one of her articles online, revealing the inside story of the investigation on one of Fang’s many plagiarism cases by his alma mater, Michigan State University. On the next day, Fang issued his threat:

“Cao claimed that she will submit her article to China’s news media for publication. If any newspaper or magazine dares to publish Cao Minghua’s rumorous article, I’ll sue them and Cao Minghua.”[31]

As a matter of fact, among various threats Fang has issued, a lawsuit seems a lot less frightening than others. Look at this one: On Dec. 29, 2011, Fang threatened anyone who dares to discuss his wife’s plagiarism case:

“I don’t fight with pigs, I kill them. Those pigs who are still trying to push my wife with their snouts after I issued a stern warning deserve even more being killed. Even though it will cost my whole life to kill these pigs, even though my whole body will be spattered in their blood.”[32]

So you know, Fang believes he can do anything he wants, and others can only do things allowed by him, otherwise, they would be accused of “superstiction, pseudosciemce, anti-sciemce, and sciemtific misconduct.” He is the Lord of Laws.

The epilogue: Double Jeopardy

On April 17, 2006, after more than two months of investigation, Sichuan University held a press conference, announcing the exoneration of Dr. Qiu Xiaoqing on all allegations made in the original letter to Nature Biotechnology by the six co-authors[33].

As mentioned above, Dr. Qiu sued the two people from National Sichuan Antibiotic Industrial Institute in February, 2006. Dr. Qiu won the case in both primary and secondary courts[34]. The primary court judges made their judgment on Feb. 15, 2007, ordering the defendants publically apologize to Dr. Qiu. On March 7, 2006, Fang posted on his forum the following:

“I have read the first trial judgment, and I laughed to death. The judgment was as long as 29 pages, talking about the questions about laws and philosophy of science, the former was plagiarized from legal textbooks, the latter was plagiarized from the scientific intellectuals. Its final conclusion was that science is a developing process, therefore no one has the right to criticize others for pseudoscience or academic frauds, so if you do, you’ll violate other people’s right of reputation. This judge also has a superb logic: Since you had accused a person of fraud before the lawsuit, then you should had already identified his fraud. Therefore, if you request the court to find an agency to do the identification during the hearing process, it is like you were asking the court to make a judgment first and look for evidence later, it doesn’t make sense!”[35]

Has anyone noticed Fang’s illiteracy in law? No, I am not talking about Fang’s mocking at or attacking on the judges, which Fang does routinely, and Chinese people have already got used to it. The important revelation in the paragraph is that Fang believes that it is okay to make an allegation first, and look for evidence to back up the allegation later. In fact, in many instances, Fang even skips the latter step. The characteristic of Fang’s so called “fraud busting” is, he makes an accusation against a person, and that person is supposed to prove his innocence. If he doesn’t do it, he is guilt (remember the “last strategy” statement?) If he does it, but has failed to prove his innocence, he is guilty. If he does it and has succeeded in doing it, Fang will make new allegations, most likely based on that person’s previous self-defense. The cycle will continue forever, or until the accused is exhausted. That’s exactly how Fang did in Dr. Qiu’s case: After the initial three allegations made by the co-authors, or that Dr. Zhao Lijun, were refuted, Fang made new allegations. After his allegations were proven invalid, he would block Dr. Qiu’s message, and then accuse him of spreading rumors[36].

Yes, according to Fang, instead of protecting people from double jeopardy, the law should promote double jeopardy, no, it should be triple, quadruple, multiple jeopardy, until he could convict any people he wants. That’s exactly why Fang was so upset about the primary judgment in Qiu’s lawsuit, and exactly why he has been attacking the chief judge so frenziedly[37].

In summary, Qiu Xiaoqing’s case has clearly and unequivocally demonstrated the nature of Fang’s so called “fraud busting” or, in Nature’s words, “standing up for science,” which is, building his own fame, or even his living, on the other people’s ruins. He has no slightest respect to other people’s reputation, career, dignity, or living, and he has no slightest respect to the conventional academic tradition or legal system. He doesn’t care about truth at all. All he cares about is his fame. As such, Fang’s New Threads has become the most infamous crematoria for destroying Chinese scholars, and it acts like a magnet attracting the most despicable, vicious, and evil scourings, because only through this website and its “webmaster,” their evilness could be released and expressed, and in the name of “standing up for science.”

Notes

[1] The Chinese title of Fang’s article was:《清华大学医学院院长助理刘辉教授如此伪造论文发表记录》. Dozens of Chinese media, including CCTV and Xinhua News Agency, reported the news. For international reports, see: Mooney, P. Chinese Medical School Fires Assistant Dean Who Was Accused of Plagiarism. The Chronicle of Higher Education. March 29, 2006; Anonymous. Fantasy Reference List Leads to the Sack. Nature 440, 728-729 (6 April 2006); Anonymous. Bogus Background. Science 312, 193 (14 April 2006).

[2] Original Chinese: “当时我并不知道我被当成了‘中国科学院生物物理所教授’。……我是在上 完最后一节课、离开河大前夕,到生命科学院的办公大楼接受校刊的采访时,才注意到大门门口立着的报告会海报上,把我的身份写成了‘中国科学院生物物理所教 授’。当时我已没有当众澄清的机会。我在离开开封的途中曾向士刚提及此事,他也觉得奇怪,开玩笑说我让生物物理所沾了光。”(Fang Zhouzi. About Professor Fang Zhouzi of Biophysics Institute, Chinese Academy of Sciences《关于“中国科学院生物物理所方舟子教授”》).

[3] Fang Zhouzi. How Could You Demand a Golden Stage for Your Returning to Homeland? (《归国岂待黄金台》); How Much Is the Average Income of American Business School Professors? (《美国商学院全职教授平均工资究竟多高?》). Both articles were published on June 13, 2002, on the New Threads.

[4] The original Chinese in He Shigang’s CV: “1994-1997年 哈佛医学院 /霍华德.休斯医学研究院,研究员.” Note: In China’s academic position ranking system, “研究员” is the highest title in the research track, equivalent to professor in teaching track.

[5] Original Chinese: “北大生科院兼职的问题一波三折。开始饶毅竭力邀请,说十年影响一千个中国最好的学生等,所以同意了。事实上在他和北大签协议之前,他就要我的答复,说他需要知道他能做想做的事才会答应北大。” (He Shigang. No Longer To Be Hired 《不再待聘》. Posted by He on his blog on July 13, 2008.)

[6]《四川大学海归教授丘小庆在〈自然〉杂志造假蒙人六位被骗者要求Nature Biotechnology撤消共同署名和共同作者权》). In both Chinese and English.

[7] The first person who said the owners of Sichuan NTC Holding Limited were farmers was Dr. Zhao Lijun, the scientific advisor of Prophet Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., a company formed in May, 2004, in New York. In his first article published on the New Threads under his real name on Jan. 19, 2006, Zhao repeatedly called the owners of NTC “farmer entrepreneurs” (农民企业家), described them as “silly” (傻乎乎的), and “illiterate” (目不识丁的). (See: Zhao Lijun. Qiu Xiaoqing Fabricated the Paper: Whether the Pharmaceutical Study Report Was Quoted out of Context? 《丘小庆论文作假:药效检验报告是否被断章取义?》). However, according to an article published on the New Threads two days later, most of the owners of NTC were ex-officials of the government. (See: Chang Xianghui. Ask Zhao Lijun and Hexini Madawei: Does NTC Really Belong to Brother Farmers? 《问赵利军、荷西妮马大伟:新泰克真的是农民兄弟吗?》).Zhao responded to Chang’s questioning with only the following sentence: “The funny thing is, there is a Chang Xianghui ‘Ask Zhao Lijun and Hexini Madawei: Does NTC really belong to farmer brothers?’ He even posted the owner’s educational background. Hey, your IQ might not be much higher than those ‘farmer entrepreneurs.’” (“好笑的是,有位常相辉‘问赵利军、荷西妮马大伟:新泰克真的是农民兄弟吗?’,还把那几位的学历全贴了出来.哎,你的智商可能不比那帮‘农民企业家’高多少。”) (See: Zhao Lijun. What if Qiu Xiaoqing Didn’t Fabricate? 《如果丘小庆没有造假?》, which was published on Jan. 25, 2006, on the New Threads.)

[8] Anonymous. An Oversea-Returnee Professor at Sichuan University Involved in an Academic Fraud. Chengdu Economic Daily, Jan. 15, 2006. ( 《四川大学一名海归教授卷入学术造假风波》, 2006年1月15日《成都商报》). Li Rui. Sichuan University Professor Accused of China’s Hwang Woo-suk, Company Involved Responds. Tianfu Morning News, Jan. 20, 2006. (《川大教授被指中国黄禹锡 涉事公司作出回应》, 2006年1月20日).

[9] Zhang Shuhua, Yuan Jing, Ou Zhenrong, Qiu Xiaoqing, and Li Youping. The Antibacterial Effect of an Engineered Polypeptide against Staphylococcus aureus. Sichuan Journal of Physiological Sciences. 26,169. (December 2004). (张淑华、李靖、欧真蓉、邱晓庆、李幼平:《抗金黄色葡萄球菌工程多肽体内外抗菌作用研究》,《四川生理科学杂志》2004; 26,169.)

[10] The Chinese name of the conference was “第六届全国感染性疾病及抗微生物化疗学术会议上”, the title of Zhang Shuhua and Ou Zhenrong’s paper was “The in vivo and in vitro Pharmacodynamics of the Engineered anti-Staphylococcus aureus Polypeptide (PH-SA)” (《抗金黄色葡萄球菌工程多肽(PH-SA)体内、外药效学实验》). Note: the above information is derived from The First Trial Judgment of Qiu Xiaoqing Case by Chengdu Wuhou District Court, issued on Feb. 15, 2007. (《丘小庆案一审判决书》).

[11] The Chinese titles were《是医学革命还是科技欺诈——关于四川大学丘小庆教授在《自然》杂志发表的论文及专利发明的真伪事件致全国新闻媒体的公开信》and《丘小庆就是中国的黄禹锡 看四川大学如何“与世界接轨”》, respectively. According to businessprofiles.com, Prophet Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. was formed in May, 2004, and headquartered in a condo in Jefferson Valley, New York. Prophet has the right to develop Dr. Qiu’s discovery in the United States.

[12] Original Chinese: “2005年8月16日由美国Prophet公司出面正式向《自然•生物技术》杂志提出撤销署名的请求。” See: Zhu Hongjun, et al. Who Manufactured “China’s Hwang Woo-suk” Incidence? Southern Weekend, Jan. 19, 2006. (朱红军、马小六、饶德宏:《谁制造了“中国黄禹锡”事件?》,《南方周末》2006年1月19日).

[13] Gong Yidong and Eliot Marshall. Doubts Over New Antibiotic Land Co-Authors in Court. Science 311, 937 (17 February 2006).

[14] The original Chinese: “从纯学术角度出发,一切都是为了科学研究”. (Li Rui. Sichuan University Professor Accused of China’s Hwang Woo-suk, Company Involved Responds. Tianfu Morning News, Jan. 20, 2006. 《川大教授被指中国黄禹锡 涉事公司作出回应》, 2006年1月20日). Also, according to the Science report[13], Zhao Lijun was “a biochemist now at the University of North Carolina, Greensboro,” and claimed that “he has no financial stake in this project.” Zhao’s connections to the Prophet and his credentials were questioned many times on the forum of the New Threads, but Fang has never published these posts in “the Newly Arrived.”

[15] Zhao’s original Chinese: “当新泰克公司把丘小庆的论文及相关资料给我的时候,我当时正在一种蛋白质的原核细胞表达工作,而且很不顺利,由于看到丘小庆的论文中所用的纯化方法 比较简单,所以也想试一下他所用的表达载体 pSELECT-1。经与PROMEGA公司联系,发现该载体是推荐用于基因突变和体外转录等。……用于蛋白质表达的载体很多,pSELECT-1 经过改建后可以用来做表达,但是,表达的效果是一个疑问。就是这样的疑问,揭开了丘小庆的‘特异导弹’的神秘面纱。” (Zhao Lijun. Qiu Xiaoqing’s Paper Was Fabricated: Reply to Hexini Madawei. 《丘小庆论文造假——答“荷西妮马大伟”》, published on Jan. 14, 2006, on the New Threads).

[16] According to the Science report[13], Dr. Zhao admitted that “he helped translate the critics’ letter,” but he claimed “that a colleague in China subsequently released the text to New Threads.” However, neither Mr. Zuo nor Ms. Zhang Shuhua knew who sent their letter to the New Threads. According to Mr. Zuo, what he did was sending the Chinese letter to Prophet. “至于揭假帖子是怎么出现在网站上的,左俊勇说,他只是把中文信寄给了拥有PH-SA产权的美国PRPHET公司,并没有寄给新语丝网站”. (Yang Zaiwen. Accused of Fraud, Sichuan University Professor Sues. Chengdu Economic Daily, Feb. 10, 2006. (杨在文:《被指学术造假 川大教授正式起诉》,2006年2月10日《成都商报》). Also, NTC paid Sichuan University only 710,000 licensing fee, the remaining 1.29 million has never been paid off. (Anonymous. I Guess NTC Was for Retaliation. Tianfu Morning News, April 18, 2006. (《我猜测新泰克是为报复》, 2006年4月18日《天府早报》). In July or August, 2006, Zhao Lijun became one of the first 355 persons who signed Fang’s fraudulently manipulated Open Letter of Intellectuals at Home and Abroad about the Case of Dr. Xiao Chuanguo vs. Fang Zhouzi. (《海内外知识分子关于肖传国诉方舟子案的公开信》). For the fraudulent nature of the Open Letter, see Yi Ming. The Feud between Drs. Fang Zhouzi and Xiao Chuanguo, Chapter 4 (《方舟子陷害肖传国始末》).

[17] Qiu Xiaoqing. Whether I Fabricated or Zuo Junyong’s Complaint Letter Fabricated? 《也谈谈是我“造假”还是左俊勇等人的控告信造假》. According to Science report[13], the Tibet Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was a partner of NTC.

[18] Li Rui. Sichuan University Professor Accused of China’s Hwang Woo-suk, Company Involved Responds. Tianfu Morning News, Jan. 20, 2006. (《川大教授被指中国黄禹锡 涉事公司作出回应》, 2006年1月20日).

[19] The Chinese title of Fang’s article was《四川大学教授丘小庆的论文多处有假》, which appeared on the New Threads the same day. Fang had a weekly column in Beijing Science and Technology News from October, 2004 to August, 2006. In March, 2005, the newspaper was sued in Sichuan by Mr. Chen Jianmin, a TCM doctor, for defamation. The newspaper lost in both primary and secondary courts and was fined for 10,000 RMB. Fang was the backstage manipulator of the defamation, but he was not named in the lawsuit. After the lower court decision, Fang published an article entitled “The Old Fasting TCM Doctor Won the Lawsuit, So What?” (《“绝食老中医”胜诉又能怎样?》) in the newspaper on July 27, 2006. In August, 2005, Fang and the newspaper were sued in Xi’an by Xi'an Translation College and its president, Mr. Ding Zuyi, for defamation. The defendants lost in both primary and secondary courts and were fined for 160,000 RMB. On April 28, 2007, the same day he received the final Appeal ruling, Fang posted “A List of China’s Judges Who Have Perverted the Law” (“中国枉法法官名单”), sentencing the six judges involved in the case as the Judges Who Have Perverted the Law. So far, Fang has not paid the fine yet. In October, 2005, Fang and the newspaper were sued in Wuhan by Dr. Xiao Chuanguo for defamation. The case was heard in 2006, but a ruling has not been issued yet. (Xiao filed two lawsuits against Fang and other parties at the time, he won the other case.) In May, 2006, Fang and the newspaper were sued in Beijing by Ms. Zeng Yuchang and her son for defamation. The defendants lost in both primary and secondary courts and were fined for 2,000 RMB each, plus the legal fees. They were also ordered to apologize to the plaintiff publically. Fang has neither paid the fine nor apologized yet.

[20] Fang’s original Chinese: “据此,《自然•生物技术》应该撤销丘小庆的论文。” Note: This article represents Fang’s stance on this case for the first time.

[21] The Chinese title of Fang’s article was 《媒体不应干预学术争论》, published on July 18, 2008, on the New Threads. The reason behind Fang’s prohibition of news media from publishing “academic disputes” was that after Wenchuan earthquake, many people expressed their concern about hydropower development in the southeast China, and Fang’s pro-hydropower position and voice was in minority, so he tried to terminate the debate.

[22] On April 18, 2006, the day after Sichuan University exonerated Dr. Qiu Xiaoqing, NTC issued a statement (《新泰克公司关于四川大学就丘小庆论文真伪调查结果的声明》), and announced that they would make the test reports by the Tibet Pharmaceuticals public. Between April 18 and April 25, 2006, the New Threads published 7 such reports: 西藏药业公司对丘小庆论文真伪的药学验证报告(之一)、西藏药业公司对丘小庆论文真伪的药学验证报告(之二)、西藏药业公司对丘小庆论文真伪的药学验证报告(之三)、西藏药业公司对丘小庆论文真伪的药学验证报告(之四)、西藏药业公司对丘小庆论文真伪的药学验证报告(之五)、西藏药业公司对丘小庆论文真伪的药学验证报告(之六)、西藏药业公司对丘小庆论文真伪的药学验证报告(之七)。

[23] Original Chinese: “该报告第一页的摘要和最后一页的结论居然都是:‘试验结果表明:抗金黄色葡萄球菌工程多肽(Ph-SA)体内外均呈现出很强的抗菌作用。(1)Ph-SA 体外抗菌特点是对金黄色葡萄球菌呈现强抗菌作用,尤其对耐甲氧西林/苯唑西林金葡球菌(MRSA) 菌株的抗菌活力比万古霉素强1.5倍。Ph-SA对MRSA的敏感率最高,为77%(≥16mg/L),对耐甲氧西林/苯唑西林表皮葡球菌(MRSE) 的敏感率为40%;对肠球菌的敏感率仅为30%’” (deadfish238.《张淑华和方舟子的谎言还要蒙骗大家多久?》).

[24] Fang’s original Chinese: “论文图3c,显示的是用PMC处理细菌后,不同时间段荧光染色的四张照片,时间段分别为:处理前,处理1小时,4小时,5小时。这四张照片与试验报告的图2c完全相同,然后对应的时间段却不同(分别为处理2小时,3小时,4小时,5小时)。……从这些例子即可以看出,与试验报告相比,丘小庆的论文对实验数据做了多处的加工、篡改,这同样是造假行为。”

[25] Original Chinese: “据查实,川抗所张淑华实验室里从来就没有这些仪器,也无此等专业技术人员;而丘所在实验室和学校却拥有这些仪器,他的技术员张杰从事的专业就是电镜和荧光显微镜技术。丘除了在他的文章中发表这些结果之外,还曾经多次向记者展示过这些结果的原始数据。因此我们推测真相应该是:当初张淑华为了增添她报告的‘分量’,将丘的结果列在了自己的报告里面。” (deadfish238.《张淑华和方舟子的谎言还要蒙骗大家多久?》). Fang never responded to the article. Also, according to Science report[13], Qiu said “the March 2003 report was largely ‘irrelevant’ to his paper.”

[26]《评丘小庆“超越世界水平”的新发现》, published on August 30, 2007, on the New Threads.

[27] ibid. Original Chinese: “我比较过丘小庆的造假论文所用的原始数据,发现有几处窜改、捏造,所以我敢断言丘小庆的前一篇论文就是造假,丘小庆再发一百篇论文也洗刷不了他的造假前科。” Also, on April 17, 2006, Fang wrote: “I dare to assert with 100% confidence that Qiu Xiaoqing’s paper was fabricated.” (“我敢百分之百地断定丘小庆的论文有假”). (See: Fang Zhouzi. Comments on the News Release by Sichuan University on Qiu Xiaoqing Case《方舟子评四川大学丘小庆论文事件新闻发布会的新闻通稿》).

[28] Fang’s original Chinese: “学术的真假不可能在法庭上解决,而应该通过学术讨论、学术批评来辨析。一旦自己的学术成果受到质疑,就想要通过打官司来威胁恐吓、堵住批评者的嘴,是一种极其恶劣的做法,虽然在国内屡见不鲜而且造假者往往能获得本地法院的袒护,但是在国际上似乎罕有先例。这类官司的判决绝大部分都是不公正的,败坏了司法机关在科学界的名声。最高法院应该做出司法解释,要求法院不要受理与学术真假有关的名誉权案件。” (方舟子:《四川大学教授丘小庆事件还有假》,2006年2月22日《北京科技报》).

[29] ibid. In the article, Fang wrote: “It’s not that I look down the Court of Sichuan, in fact, I don’t think there is any court which is able to determine the true and false of this case.” (“不是我瞧不起四川的法院,事实上,我不认为有哪个法院能够判断这个事件的真假。”)

[30] Fang Zhouzi. Refutation to the Serial Defamatory Articles Published in Exploration and Free Views《驳斥〈探索与争鸣〉杂志上的系列诽谤文章》, published on June 9, 2003, on the New Threads. For detail about the story, see Yi Ming. The Wild Crane Case (《 打架斗士方舟子之野鹤篇》).

[31] Fang issued multiple threats to media and Ms. Cao Minghua on his blog, the translation was based on the threat appeared on the New Threads on Feb. 16, 2011: “曹明华声称她将把造谣文章投给国内报刊发表。如果哪家报刊敢发表曹明华的造谣文章,我就起诉该报刊和曹明华。” (Fang Zhouzi. Cao Minghua Spreads Rumors That One of My Articles Was Convicted as Plagiarism by the Authority of Michigan State University《曹明华造谣说我的一篇文章被密歇根州立大学校方认定剽窃》).

[32] Fang’s original Chinese: “我不和猪打架,我杀猪。在我发出严厉警告后,还想拱我妻子、砸我妻子饭碗的猪更该杀,即使花一生的时间杀,即使被血溅一身。” (See Fang’s microblog: [weibo.com]).

[33] Anonymous. Sichuan University Professor Qiu Xiaoqing Exonerated of Fraud Allegations. Yangzi Evening News, April 18, 2006. (《川大教授“造假疑案”出结果 丘小庆被证明无辜》, 2006年4月18日《扬子晚报》).

[34] Chengdu Wuhou District Court. The First Trial Judgment of Qiu Xiaoing Case. Issued on Feb. 15, 2007. (《丘小庆案一审判决书》). Liu Chuanjian. The Final Decision on Appeal: Huaxi Hospital Professor Qiu Xiaoqing’s Reputation Was Infringed. Sichuan Daily, Dec. 17, 2009. (刘传建:《二审判决:华西医院丘小庆教授诉名誉侵权成立》,2009年12月17日《四川日报》).

[35] Fang’s original Chinese: “看了丘小庆案的初审判决书,把我笑死[,]长达29页,大谈法学、科学哲学问题,前者是从法律教科书抄的,后者是从反科学文化人那里抄来的,最后的结论是科学是发展的,因此谁都无权说人在搞伪科学、学术造假,所以说人搞伪科学、学术造假就是侵犯了其名誉权。该法官还有一个高超的逻辑:你既然在诉讼之前说人学术造假,就应该是已经认定了其造假,因此再在诉讼过程中要求法院找有关机构做是否造假的鉴定,就跟法院先做判决再找证据一样,没有意义!” (Link: [www.xys.org]). Fang developed the post into an article the next day, March 8, 2007, and he claimed: “This judgment is a declaration of China’s court’s open support to pseudoscience, academic fraud, and opposition to exposing pseudoscience and academic fraud! The pseudoscientists and academic fakers, you are blessed!” (“这份判决书是中国法庭公然支持伪科学、学术造假,反对揭露伪科学、学术造假的宣言书!搞伪科学、学术造假的人有福了!” (Fang Zhouzi. Chengdu Wuhou District Court Openly Prohibits People from Opposing to Pseudoscience and Academic Fraud《成都武侯区法院公然禁止人们反对伪科学和学术造假》).

[36] In April, 2006, Dr. Qiu told at least two times to reporters that Fang won’t publish his or other people’s refutation to Fang’s allegations. According to Yangzi Evening News, Dr. Qiu said “Such a thing is impossible to occur in the United States. Fang’s website even won’t publish my responses.” (Anonymous. Sichuan University Professor Qiu Xiaoqing Exonerated of Fraud Allegations. Yangzi Evening News, April 18, 2006. (《川大教授“造假疑案”出结果 丘小庆被证明无辜》, 2006年4月18日《扬子晚报》). According to Tianfu Morning News, Dr. Qiu said “My mailbox has two emails, both came from oversea scholars. They sent letters to the New Threads on this matter, but Fang Zhouzi published none of them. Therefore, I doubt the justice of the website.” (Anonymous. I Guess NTC Was for Retaliation. Tianfu Morning News, April 18, 2006. 《我猜测新泰克是为报复》, 2006年4月18日《天府早报》). On the same day, Fang published his Sichuan University Professor Qiu Xiaoqing Fabricated Data and Fabricates Rumors on his New Threads, accusing Dr. Qiu of spreading rumors. (《四川大学教授丘小庆既造假又造谣》).

[37] Fang published at least six articles on the New Threads attacking the chief judge of Qiu’s case, Mr. Chen Kegang. Fang also published an article in Beijing Science and Technology News on May 14, 2007, accusing judge Chen Kegang, but without mentioning his name, of plagiarism. (Fang Zhouzi. Even Court Judgment Was Plagiarized 《居然连法院判决书也是抄来的》).



被编辑3次。最后被亦明编辑于05/05/2014 08:39AM。
附件:
打开 | 下载 - Shamelessness shouldn\'t be anyone\'s Nature IX.pdf (784.3 KB)
主题 发布者 已发表

Shamelessness Shouldn’t Be Anyone’s Nature ──An Open Letter to Nature (Part I) (6552 查看) 附件

亦明 November 09, 2012 08:46AM

Part II: Shameless “standing-up” (3951 查看) 附件

亦明 November 09, 2012 12:05PM

Part III: Shameless make-up (4370 查看) 附件

亦明 November 11, 2012 10:06PM

Part IV: Fact distortion and mess-up (3518 查看) 附件

亦明 November 13, 2012 11:57PM

Part V: Shameless, fraudulent, and malicious fighter (5095 查看) 附件

亦明 November 18, 2012 12:10PM

Part VI: A fake scientist’s fight against science (4174 查看) 附件

亦明 November 23, 2012 06:28AM

Part VII: A fraudulent fighter’s fight for fraud (4002 查看) 附件

亦明 November 28, 2012 09:46AM

Part VIII: A fighting dog for commercial and political forces (3486 查看) 附件

亦明 December 03, 2012 05:21PM

Part IX: An evil villain's fight for his career (3956 查看) 附件

亦明 December 09, 2012 05:36PM

Part X: A congenital liar has Nature as his amplifier (3467 查看) 附件

亦明 December 16, 2012 11:51AM

Part XI: Fang’s Law (4825 查看) 附件

亦明 January 29, 2013 12:16AM

Part XII: Fang’s Law-II (4701 查看) 附件

亦明 February 04, 2013 10:40AM

Part XIII: A Thief Couple (4559 查看) 附件

亦明 February 10, 2013 06:14PM

Part XIV: A 24K Pure Evil (4544 查看) 附件

亦明 February 17, 2013 07:28PM

Part XV: An Unprecedented Professional Literary Thief (4623 查看) 附件

亦明 February 24, 2013 08:00PM

Part XVI: The Science Case (2718 查看) 附件

亦明 March 03, 2013 07:31PM

Part XVII: The Nature-Science Case (3196 查看) 附件

亦明 March 10, 2013 06:41PM

Part XVIII: The Harvard Case (I) (3194 查看) 附件

亦明 March 17, 2013 06:36PM

Part XIX: The Harvard Case (II) (4345 查看) 附件

亦明 March 24, 2013 02:40PM

Part XX: The Longevity Case (6934 查看) 附件

亦明 March 31, 2013 03:55PM

Part XXI: The Naked Mole-Rat Case (10793 查看) 附件

亦明 April 07, 2013 06:05PM



对不起,只有注册用户才能发帖。

登陆

2250s.com does not represent or guarantee the truthfulness, accuracy, or reliability of any of communications posted by users.

This forum powered by Phorum.