欢迎! 登陆 注册

高级搜索

Part X: A congenital liar has Nature as his amplifier (3466 查看)

December 16, 2012 11:51AM
【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 X)


Xin Ge, Ph. D.

Columbia, SC, USA



A congenital liar has Nature as his amplifier

Nature, the amplifier

On May 25, 2006, Nature published Mr. David Cyranoski’s 2-pages special report, Named and Shamed. I found more than a dozen factual errors in the report, the most outrageous ones are located in the following two paragraphs:

“In all three cases, a popular Chinese-language website known as New Threads (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 Chen’s company which supposedly re-labelled foreign chips.”[1]


The “three cases,” according to the report, involved Dr. Liu Hui of Tsinghua University, which I discussed in the previous part of my letter to Nature (Part IX); academician Wei Yuquan of Sichuan University, which I will discuss in detail in the next part; and Dr. Chen Jin of Shanghai Jiao Tong University (or “Shanghai’s Xi’an Jiaotong University” according to Mr. David Cyranoski), which is the topic I am going to discuss below.


An erroneous special report by Nature
The red boxes designate the sentences containing factual mistakes, which I will point out one by one.


According to The New York Times, Dr. Chen Jin received his Ph. D. from University of Texas at Austin in 1998, and was hired by Shanghai Jiao Tong University (SJTU) in 2000. In 2003, Dr. Chen, the university, and Chinese government announced that a signal processing chip, named “Hanxin,” for “Chinese Chip,” had been developed by Chen’s team. However, in May, 2006, SJTU announced that Hanxin was a fraud, and Dr. Chen was fired[2]. The New York Times never mentioned Fang’s involvement in the exposure of the scandal. Why?

The fact is, not only Fang wasn’t “the first to post the name of Chen’s company which supposedly re-labelled foreign chips,” not only his website didn’t “play[ed] a key role in fuelling public outcry,” on the contrary, Fang tried his best to suppress the exposure, and he and his website started a smearing campaign against reporters while they were “play[ing] a key role” in unearthing the fraud. No wonder even Fang himself felt necessary to say something about Nature’s rumors when he translated the article into Chinese (see below).

Nature not only spread the lies, he amplified them. For example, an article published in New Scientist in 2007 repeated Nature’s lies by saying:

“All three of the disgraced scientists were accused by fellow researchers on the New Threads website.”[3]

Fang didn’t mention his correction to Nature’s mistake(s) in his correspondence to Nature[4], and he didn’t correct New Scientist’s lie when he translated its article into Chinese, either[5]. The fact is, Fang’s lies, after the certification, spread and amplification by the two British science journals, Nature and New Scientist, returned back to China, and the rumors became some sort of “truth”: before 2008, almost no Chinese people or media considered Fang as a hero who busted Hanxin scandal. However, since 2010, Fang has been repeatedly reported as such[6].

So, what were Fang’s lies? How did he lie?

Fang Zhouzi: the liar

On May 25, 2006, the next day Nature published Named and Shamed online, Fang translated the article, and under the above quoted paragraphs, Fang inserted his explanations:

“What I told the reporter was ‘We were the first one to identify the architecture company which polished and re-labeled Chen's chip.’ Some of the signees of the 120 People Open Letter slandered me that I had defended for Chen Jin, and the reporter asked me whether it was true, then I explained to him what the New Threads had done in the incidence: ‘I never defended Jin Chen. The allegation about Jin Chen was first posted to several popular Internet bulletin boards, including ours (New Threads have a bulletin board that our readers can freely post their comments). I didn't publish this allegation on New Threads until some journalists have identified and contacted the whistleblower, because it is our policy not to publish anonymous allegations. In fact, I help some journalists to investigate and report this case by providing some critical information. I published many articles to support the investigations and disclose some information on our web site. We were the first one to identify the architecture company which polished and re-labeled Chen's chip. And I wrote an article to ask for further investigating this case, finding more people accountable and prosecuting Chen.’”[7]

The fact is, Fang’s explanations are full of lies. In other words, Fang lied to Nature in the first place, and he lied again to Chinese public when he translated Nature’s erroneous article. Let’s examine the lies one by one.

Lie No. 1

It has been universally acknowledged that the whistleblower of Hanxin case was an anonymous person, whose identity was known to news media and government, but he preferred to remain anonymous. That person initially sent letters to Chinese government agencies in December, 2005, then posted his material on the BBS of Tsinghua University on January 17, 2006. The post was re-posted on the internet like crazy, and by 11:26 AM, Jan. 16, 2006, (U. S. PST), it was relayed to the forum of New Threads, the title of the post clearly marked it was a re-post from the forum of Education and Academic on [www.creaders.net][8]. Therefore, Fang’s claim, “The allegation about Jin Chen was first posted to several popular Internet bulletin boards, including ours,” was a lie.

On the other hand, since Fang has repeatedly refused to take responsibilities and blames for what he published in “The Newly Arrived” ─Hoary-Headed Hag Hoax is but one example─, his greed and shamelessness is even more conspicuous when he tries to take credit for posts “freely post[ed]” on the forum of the New Threads─it’s like British government claims credit for something happened in Canada, meanwhile he rejects the blames for something happened at 10 Downing Street.

But what more important than the lie was the subsequent actions taken by Fang after the initial post: he took no actions at all in the following 37 days, until on Feb. 22, 2006, when he published an anonymous person’s letter to him on “The Newly Arrived,” asking SJTU to respond to the public’s outcry[9]. And in those critical 37 days, almost every piece of the dirty secrets involving the scandal had been already dug up by Chinese journalists, without a tiny bit of contribution from Fang and his website. As a matter of fact, four days before Fang shot his first shot, an article in 21st Century Business Herald, No. 3 in its series, revealed that the “(the official investigation team) has basically confirmed that Hanxin-I was a fraud,”[10] and, ironically, Fang’s first shot had that article enclosed. Also, on the very day Fang started taking action against Hanxin case, Southern Metropolis Daily, an influential newspaper based in Guangzhou, published an editorial calling for governmental action, and the article was posted on the forum of the New Threads[11]. So, Fang’s tardy participation in the war against Hanxin was passive and reluctant. In other words, Fang was forced to take a position on the matter, and he did it in a tricky way, by sending a letter to himself.

Lie No. 2

According to Fang, he “didn't publish this allegation on New Threads until some journalists have identified and contacted the whistleblower, because it is our policy not to publish anonymous allegations.” This is another shameless lie, and the Hoary-Headed Hag Hoax is a perfect example demonstrating that Fang DOES “publish anonymous allegations.” (See Part VII of this letter). On the other hand, the “anonymous allegation” against Dr. Chen Jin was verified and reported by sina.com on January 20, 2006[12], a fact even Fang acknowledged a few months later. Although sina.com deleted the news the next day, after Chen Jin’s company, Shanghai Jiao Da HISYS Technology Co. Ltd., issued a statement denying any wrong doings, other networks continued to spread the news[13]. On Jan. 24, 2006, 21st Century Business Herald started its serial reports on the scandal, which, to some extent, eventually forced the government to admit the fraud[14]. Also, on Jan. 27, 2006, Beijing Youth Daily published a lengthy investigation report, justifiably entitled The Complete Investigation on the Hanxin Fraud[15]. So, Fang lied again.

In fact, on the day Fang issued his feeble shot at Hanxin, the above-mentioned Southern Metropolis Daily editorial wrote:

“Since the appearance of the post exposing the fraud of Hanxin-I on the internet, the Chinese netizens who participated in the discussion all expressed their absolute belief in the whistleblower, without exceptions.”[16]

Obviously, the newspaper was wrong, because the famous fraudbuster Fang was the exception─he had doubted the whistleblower for the past 37 days.

Considering Fang’s hastiness and precipitancy in the Hoary-Headed Hag Hoax, in Qiu Xiaoqing case, and in so many other cases, Fang’s “prudence” in Hanxin case clearly showed his partiality toward the fraudulent side.

Lie No. 3

So, what about Fang’s claim that he helped “some journalists to investigate and report this case by providing some critical information”? As far as I know, no published Chinese news reports on the scandal acknowledged Fang’s help, and Fang is so keen on his personal fame that he has busted many new media for their omitting his name in their reports or articles[17], but he busted no one in Hanxin case for their omission of his contribution, so it is almost certain that he was lying, again. The fact is, during the entire month of March, 2006, Fang and his website spent more efforts on attacking journalist Mr. Zuo Zhijian and the newspaper he works for, 21st Century Business Herald, the major player of investigating Hanxin scandal, for supposedly violation of “journalism ethics,” than on busting Hanxin scandal[18]. So, I believe it is Nature’s turn to investigate exactly what kind of “critical information” Fang provided, and, to whom.

Lie No. 4

Fang’s fourth claim, “I published many articles to support the investigations and disclose some information on our web site,” was also a lie. The fact is, from Jan. 16, 2006, when the first article about Hanxin was posted on the forum of New Threads, to Feb. 22, 2006, when Fang published the first article to question Hanxin in “The Newly Arrived” of the New Threads, there were 37 threads talking about Chen Jin or Hanxin on the forum, with a total of 259 posts, many of them were articles published in print media, but Fang not only refused to publish any of them in “The Newly Arrive,” he also refused to participate in the discussion of the matter at all: during the period, he had 40 posts on the forum on the other matters[19]. In fact, the articles Fang published on the New Threads on the scandal were so few (none of them were written by Fang himself before the case was over), and so unimportant that there is still no such a fold on the New threads about Hanxin scandal, which is arguably the largest and most influential academic corruption case in China's history, and comparable in every aspect and extent to Hwang Woo-suk scandal of South Korea, but at the same time, Fang has constructed folders against Drs. Wu Bolin, Liu Huajie, Qiu Xiaoqing, Liu Hui, Wei Yuquan, and many other individuals[20]. So, Fang lied for the fourth time.

Lie No. 5

Fang’s most outrageous lie is this one: “We were the first one to identify the architecture company which polished and re-labeled Chen's chip.” The fact is, on March 7, 2006, 21st Century Business Herald, published an article written by Mr. Zuo Zhijian and Ms. Yang Linhua, both the newspaper and the reporters were being attacked by Fang and his followers on the New Threads at that time, the title was “Hanxin Fraud almost Comes to Light, the Mysterious Engineering Company Shows Up[21]. The article reported the detailed process of discovering and identifying “the architecture company which polished and re-labeled Chen's chip.” Of course, the article didn’t mention Fang’s contribution, and of course, Fang didn’t accuse the newspaper and the reporters of plagiarizing or stealing his glory. As a matter of fact, on May 29, 2006, 4 days after the publication of the Chinese version of Named and Shamed on the New Threads, Mr. Zuo Zhijian wrote an open letter to Fang, accusing him of stealing their work. Mr. Zuo listed the timeline of his discovery:

Around 3 AM, March 6, 2006, found the worker who did the polishing and re-labeling work;

Evening, March 6, posted the story on his blog (the link has expired);

Morning, March 7, story published in newspaper, sina.com posted the article at 9:54 AM;

6:35 PM, March 7 (Beijing Time), a person posted the story on the forum of the New Threads[22].



The track of stealing
At 9:54 AM on Mar. 7, 2006, 21st Century Business Herald’s article, “Hanxin Fraud almost Comes to Light, the Mysterious Engineering Company Shows Up," was posted on sina.com (Left). The article identified the company who conducted polishing work for Chen Jin’s chip, and gave the company’s website address (the red box on top), and partial information on that webpage (the red box at the bottom). At 6:35 PM, a person posted the webpage’s entire information on the forum of the New Threads (Middle). On March 9, Fang published the post in the Newly Arrived (Right), after deleting some paragraphs, and adding the website address (red box) which was exactly the same as originally reported by 21st Century Business Herald.


Mr. Zuo gave Fang two days to clarify the matter, but till today, Fang has not replied to Mr. Zuo yet. According Mr. Zuo’s second letter to Fang, he reported the matter to Nature, but I have seen Nature made only one tiny correction to his erroneous report in the last six years[23]. May I ask you, Nature, why?

Lie No. 6

Fang’s last claim, “I wrote an article to ask for further investigating this case, finding more people accountable and prosecuting Chen,” was also a lie. Yes, Fang indeed wrote an article, “The Legal Responsibility of the Hanxin Fakers Should Be Pursued,” which was published in Beijing Science and Technology News on May 17, 2006, when the case had been already completely over. As a matter of fact, that article is the only one he wrote on the scandal. Therefore, the purpose of the article looked more like to pretend his leadership in the event by stealing Chinese journalists’ hard work in the past 3-4 months, than “ask for further investigating this case.” Fang’s such a purpose was actually revealed in the following half sentence:

“The incidence was initially exposed by an insider on the internet, news media such as sina.com’s Tech channel, Beijing Science and Technology News took the lead to follow-up……”[24]

As mentioned above, sina.com was indeed the first internet news medium which reported the case, but the first report by a print medium was 21st Century Business Herald. Furthermore, the newspaper conducted its own serial investigations on the case. On the other hand, I couldn’t find any articles, anywhere, including the New Threads, on the case published by Beijing Science and Technology News, in which Fang had a column at that time. In fact, Fang’s lie generated strong objections even on his own website. One person wrote:

“Everyone who is familiar with the incidence knows that the contribution of 21st Century Business Herald in exposing Chen Jin-Hanxin fraud is incomparable. Considering that 21st Century Business Herald is a domestic news medium, and Chen Jin-Hanxin used to be the proud son within the system, when most media were forced to remain silent, but 21st Century Business Herald was able to withstand the pressure, continued to publish its serial reports exposing Chen Jin-Hanxin fraud, they did a superb job! They are really commendable!! I believe that most New Threads readers got their information about the case from their articles re-posted here by Yanyang. However, in his ‘The Legal Responsibility of the Hanxin Fakers Should Be Pursued’, Fang didn’t mention 21st Century Business Herald and its contribution at all, which really made me disappointed. Fang, this time you are indeed lack of principles, and too narrow-minded.”[25]

Guess how Fang responded? He wrote:

“What a joke! Why do I have to mention a bad newspaper? The earliest investigations on Chen Jin’s case were conducted by Sina Tech and an IT weekly belonging to Beijing Youth Daily, the most comprehensive and recommendable investigations were conducted by IT Times Weekly and Phoenix Weekly. The so called contribution by 21st Century Business Herald probably was to provide people with some rumors they obtained by using a disputable investigation method.”[26]

Yes, Fang slapped his own face with this post by confirming that Beijing Science and Technology News did neither “the earliest” nor “the most comprehensive and recommendable” investigations. As a matter of fact, on Jan. 5, 2007, Beijing Science and Technology News revealed its annual “China's Top Ten Sci. & Tech. Scams,” which was very much likely manipulated by Fang. You might think Hanxin would be on the top of the top ten. Wrong! It ranked 8th on the list[27]. On the other hand, the serial reports on Chen Jin’s case by 21st Century Business Herald won several journalist awards in China, and no other new media received any awards for their relevant reports, to the best of my knowledge[28]. So Fang lied for the 6th time.

Lie No. 7

Fang’s lie in his only article against Hanxin was not limited to giving false attribution to his employer, and striping the credit from the ones who deserved it the most. In that article, Fang claimed:

“According to a report, on Nov. 2002, Chen Jin, representing VLSI & System Research Center of SJTU, signed a contract with Ensoc Technologies of the United States, commissioned them to do tapeout services. They paid a total of $35,080, then another $500,000, to Ensoc account. I have checked the registration data of this company, the scanned documents downloaded from the local government website show that it was registered by Chen Jin himself on May 22, 2002, in Travis county, Texas, USA, as a sole proprietorial company.”[29]

The fact is, all the above information, from the report he “accorded to,” to Ensoc’s registration, all of them, and much more, had been made public three months ago, on Feb. 18, when 21st Century Business Herald published their 3rd report in the series, which also appeared in the first article Fang “published to support the investigations and disclose some information”[9, 14]. In fact, according to the 8th report of 21st Century Business Herald’s series, Chen Jin paid Ensoc $500,000 between August, 2002, and June, 2003, in three installments, and the $35,080 payment was made on March 5, 2003[14], so you know Fang even didn’t get the facts straight when he was stealing other people’s work.


Shameless serial stealing
On Feb. 22, 2006, Fang stole 21st Century Business Herald’s article “Chen Jin vs. Jin Cehn” by publishing it on the New Threads as an appendix to a letter sent to him by a ghost writer. On May 17, 2006, Fang stole the article again, claiming in his article published in Beijing Science and Technology News that he found the information about Chen Jin’s U. S. company, Ensoc., the information was re-published almost 3 months ago by himself. (The red underlines designate the critical information published in Chen Jin vs. Jin Cehn which is exactly the same as the information Fang claimed he found. The English in purple is my translation of the corresponding Chinese.)



The registration document of Chen Jin’s Ensoc Technologies



Fang Shi-min: The fraudufighliar (fraudulent fighter & liar)

The questions are, why was Fang so benign to Chen Jin’s case? Why did he, at the time of trying to catch “China’s Hwang Woo-suk,” not only miss the big fish, but also do all he could to suppress the outbreak of the scandal?

There are no affirmative answers to these questions, but we do have some clues. The first clue is, both Fang and Chen are native of Fujian province, a place where “faked products are endemic,” so nostalgia, or other secret relationship between the two, might be involved. As a matter of fact, Mr. Zuo Zhijian noticed the similarities between the two in 2006[30]. Although Fang is famous for his callousness, ruthlessness, and heartlessness, there was a precedent in which Fang defended a fraudulent person for no obvious reasons other than hometown relationship[31].

The next clue is Fang’s personality. Fang is extremely sensitive to his territories, and to his own fame. To keep his crown of top science cop in China, Fang literally prohibits other people from busting fraud on their own, and that’s the only reason why he has been attacking Professor Yang Yusheng of China University of Political Science and Law, who has been called “the first people who engages in busting academic fraud on the internet” since 2001[32]. So far, Fang has written dozens of articles attacking Professor Yang, and there are 122 defamatory articles in the “Yang Yusheng Incidence” folder on the New Threads. As a matter of fact, Fang’s hatred to Yang was so intense, that even Yang's friends, such as Professor He Weifang of Peking University, has been attacked repeatedly by Fang[33]. Since Chen Jin’s case was initially exposed outside of and independent on the New Threads, it is very possible that Fang was haunted by his jealousy mentality, and hoping, secretly, the fight against the fraud would be bungled. This clue can explain Fang’s sudden attack on Mr. Zuo Zhijian and 21st Century Business Herald in March, 2006.

The third clue is Fang’s secret tie to the Chinese government. It is no longer a secret that Fang has connections to the high rank officials in Beijing: both his strongest backers, Mr. Yu Guangyuan and Mr. He Zuoxiu, are ex-officials in the Propaganda Department of the CPC Central Committee, and Fang’s wife, Ms. Liu Juhua, is a chief reporter in Xinhua News Agency, the only official news agency in China. As a matter of fact, one member of CPC’s Politburo Standing Committee, the most powerful oligarchy in China, praised Fang Zhouzi for “sharing the sorrow for the party” in November, 2011[34]. On the other hand, Chinese government tried really hard to suppress the news reports on Hanxin scandal, at least initially, and the reporters like Ms. Yang Linhua and Mr. Zuo Zhijian were really risking their career to report their findings by breaking the government ban[35]. So, Fang’s reactive reactions to Hanxin scandal might also have governmental background.

The fourth clue is, Fang has been an “advisory professor” in the Bio-X institute at Shanghai Jiao Tong University since its start in 2005. The strange things about it are, among the 26 visiting & adjunct faculty members, which include Nobel laureates James Watson, Steven Chu, and Jean-Marie Lehn, Fang is the only one without a formal job. Not only that. All the visiting & adjunct faculty members, except for Fang, are professors or research scientists working for an academic or industrial institution. On the other hand, Fang has repeatedly claimed that he doesn’t want to be a professor, because his Ph. D. advisor at Michigan State University, Dr. Z. Burton, told him that a professor was just like a secretary, and it would be a waste of talent if he chose to be a professor[36]. Also, in 2005 when Yunnan University bestowed a visiting professorship on him, he joked about it and almost rejected it bluntly in front the leaders and full audience of students of the university[37]. However, Fang has never denounced his title at SJTU, even though people have been questioning his qualification and laughing at his hypocrisy since 2006. Why this “advisory professor” from SJTU is so important to him? What kind of advice SJTU needs from Fang? What’s the effect of the relationship between him and SJTU had on his attitude to Chen Jin’s case? Why doesn’t Nature conduct your own investigation, and tell the world your findings?


Fang Zhouzi is listed as an Advisory Professor on the official website of Bio-X Institute at SJTU
The Chinese webpages listed 26 visiting & adjunct faculty members, and the English webpages listed 21. Fang is in both lists.


Notes

【All links provided are active as of Dec. 16, 2012.】

[1] Cyranoski D. Named and shamed. Nature 441,392-3; May 25, 2006. (Published online on May 24, 2006.)

[2] Barboza, D. In a Scientist's Fall, China Feels Robbed of Glory. The New York Times, May 15, 2006.

[3] Fisher. R. Fraudbuster. New Scientist 197, 64-65, Nov. 10, 2007. Note: “All three of the disgraced scientists” mentioned in the article were Liu Hui, Jiang Jingan, and Chen Jin. Note: The journal also fabricated an interview with Fang after he received John Maddox Prize. (White, J. Fraud fighter: 'Faked research is endemic in China'. New Scientist Nov. 19, 2012).

[4] Fang, Shi-min. Misconduct: lack of action provokes web accusations. Nature 441, 932; June 22, 2006.

[5] Fang published the Chinese translation of Fisher’s Fraudbuster on the New Threads on Dec. 2, 2007, without any comments. (《新科学家中国专题报道:打假者》, XYS20071202).

[6] On Oct. 18, 2010, an article in People’s Court Daily said: “Many targets of Fang’s fraud fighting are famous professors and senior leaders in national research institutions and universities, among them include Zhu Han incidence, Zhu Suli incidence, Gene Queen Chen Xiaoning incidence, migrant workers polishing Hanxin incidence,……” (“方舟子打假行为很多都直指国家研究部门和高校的著名教授、高级领导。其中比较著名的事件包括:朱涵事件,朱苏力招生事件,基因皇后陈晓宁事件,民工打磨汉芯事件,……”) (Sun Wenying. Anti-pseudoscience fighters Fang Zhouzi and Sima Nan adhor evil as a deadly foe, but they are in lonely situation.孙文鹰:《反伪斗士方舟子与司马南嫉恶如仇却陷孤独境遇》,2010年10月18日《人民法院报》, XYS20101019). On Dec. 18, 2010, an article in Time Weekly said: “In the long fraud busting history, famous cases include Zhu Suli incidence, Gene Queen Chen Xiaoning incidence, migrant workers polishing Hanxin incidence,……” (“在方舟子长长的学术打假史中,比较著名的包括朱苏力招生事件、基因皇后陈晓宁事件、民工打磨汉芯事件、……”). (Wu Xiaolei. Fang Zhouzi: Advocate scientific spirit single-handedly. 吴晓蕾:《方舟子:一己之力昭示的科学精神》,《时代周报》2010年12月9日. XYS20101211). On Jan. 17, 2011, sohu.com introduced Fang with the following words: “Fang Zhouzi, known as fraudbuster. Ph. D. in biochemistry from Michigan State University, USA, the founder of the New Threads website, whistleblower of Hanxin and Tang Jun’s CV frauds.” (“方舟子,号称打假斗士。美国密歇根州立大学生物化学博士,新语丝网站的创建者。汉芯造假、唐骏学历造假等事件的揭露者。”) (sohu.com. Fang Zhouzi: If truth-seeking is a disease, then the society is sick.《方舟子:要说较真有病 那就是这个社会有病》, XYS20110119). In March, 2012, an article in Global Entrepreneur said: “One major figure smashed by Fang was the ex-dean of School of Microcelectronics at Shanghai Jiao Tong University……” (“方所棒杀的一个主角是上海交通大学原微电子学院院长陈进,……”) (Yue Miao. Fang Zhouzi’s true colors.岳淼:《方舟子真面目》,《环球企业家》2012年3月. XYS20120326).

[7] Original Chinese: “我和记者说的是‘我们最先确定了那家为陈进打磨芯片并改换标志的建筑设计公司’(We were the first one to identify the architecture company which polished and re-labeled Chen's chip. )。‘120人公开信’的签署者中有人污蔑我曾经为陈进辩护,记者来问我是否有此事,我于是向他解释了一下新语丝网站在这个事件中的所作所为:……” The English in single quotation marks was Fang’s. (《中国流行指控学术造假,有人担心文革式迫害》, XYS20060525).

[8] Qinzhou Cishi: Dean Chen Jin of School of Microcelectronics at Shanghai Jiao Tong University involves in shocking scandal. (Re-Post. Submitted by loganer From [Education and Academic]). (秦州刺史:《上海交大微电子学院院长陈进爆惊天丑闻(ZT 送交者: loganer 于 [教育与学术])》). Time posted: 2006-1-16, 11:26:42, PST.

[9] Anonymous. On Hanxin Incidence: Demand for response from the administration of Shanghai Jiao Tong University to citizens’ questionings. (《就汉芯事件,要求上海交大管理层答复公民的质疑》, XYS20060222).

[10] Original Chinese: “举报人透露消息说:‘调查组内部已基本确认“汉芯一号”造假属实。’” (Yang Linhua. Investigation on Hanxin-I fraud (III): Chen Jin vs. Jin Chen. 21st Century Business Herald, Feb. 18, 2006.) (杨琳桦:《“汉芯一号”造假案调查之三: 陈进与Jin Chen的对敲游戏》,2006年2月18日《21世纪经济报道》).

[11] Editorial. Hanxin-I incidence needs a crispy and quick handling. Southern Metropolis Daily, Feb. 22, 2006. (南方都市报社论:《汉芯一号事件需要一个明快的处理》,2006年2月22日《南方都市报》)。The article was re-posted on the forum of the New Threads on Feb. 22, 2006, U.S. PST.

[12] [tech.sina.com.cn]. Whistleblower is making 2nd round materials public, Hanxin-I to Hanxin-V all faked. (《举报人将公布第2版资料 汉芯一至五号全造假》). The article clearly stated that sina.com had contacted the whistleblower. Although the original webpage was deleted by sina.com, it had been reposted all over the internet, the forum of the New Threads alone has two copies (see: [www.xys.org], [www.xys.org].)

[13] For example, netease.com published an article on Jan. 23, 2006: Hanxin’s industrial application a fraud, Chunlan Group claims they never used Hanxin since 2003. (《汉芯产业化应用骗局?春兰称从03年至今未使用过》). The original article was deleted, but a copy has been preserved on the internet. On the same day, netease.com also published an article from IT World, Shocking inside story: Hanxin polished by migrant workers? (《触目惊心汉芯黑幕:民工磨出来的?》).

[14] The serial reports are:

1. Yang Linhua. Investigation on the rumors about Hanxin Fraud. 21st Century Business Herald, Jan. 25, 2006. (杨琳桦:《“汉芯一号”造假传闻调查》,2006年2月25日《21世纪经济报道》). Note: the article was posted online on Jan. 24, 2006, by the reporter because she heard the government had issued a ban on reporting the incidence. (See: [hi.baidu.com]).
2. Yang Linhua, Yao Feng, and Li Xiaoyan. Investigation on the Hanxin-I Fraud (II): Meeting the mysterious person at night. 21st Century Business Herald, Jan. 27, 2006. (杨琳桦、姚峰、李晓艳:《“汉芯一号”造假案调查之二:夜会“神秘人”》,2006年2月27日《21世纪经济报道》).
3. Yang Linhua. Investigation on Hanxin-I Fraud (III): Chen Jin vs. Jin Chen. 21st Century Business Herald, Feb. 18, 2006. (杨琳桦:《“汉芯一号”造假案调查之三: 陈进与Jin Chen的对敲游戏》,2006年2月18日《21世纪经济报道》).
4. Yang Linhua. Investigation on the Hanxin-I Fraud (IV): Chen Jin Is Prohibited from Leaving the Country? 21st Century Business Herald, Feb. 25, 2006. (杨琳桦:《“汉芯一号”造假案调查之四 陈进被限制出境?》,2006年2月25日《21世纪经济报道》).
5. Yang Linhua and Zuo Zhijian. Investigation on the Hanxin-I Fraud (V):Who is Chen Jin. 21st Century Business Herald, March 2, 2006. (杨琳桦、左志坚:《"汉芯一号"造假案系列调查之五:陈进私人档案调查》,2006年3月2日《21世纪经济报道》).
6. Zuo Zhijian, Yao Feng, and Yang Linhua. Investigation on the Hanxin-I Fraud (VI):The Six Companies behind Chen Jin. 21st Century Business Herald, March 4, 2006. (左志坚、姚峰、杨琳桦:《汉芯造假调查之六:陈进背后的六家公司》,2006年3月4日《21世纪经济报道》).
7. Zuo Zhijian and Yang Linhua. Investigation on the Hanxin-I Fraud (VII): An Engineering Company ‘s Hanxin Business. 21st Century Business Herald, March 7, 2006. (左志坚、杨琳桦:《 “汉芯造假案”系列调查之七:一个工程公司的汉芯生意》,2006年3月7日《21世纪经济报道》).
8. Zuo Zhijian, Yang Linhua, and Yao Feng. Investigation on the Hanxin-I Fraud (VIII): Hanxin’s Core Members Reveal the Secret Transaction. 21st Century Business Herald, March 9, 2006. (左志坚、杨琳桦、姚峰:《汉芯核心成员爆料:陈进与台湾芯片公司的秘密交易》,2006年3月9日《21世纪经济报道》).
9. Zuo Zhijian, Yang Linhua, and Yao Feng. Investigation on the Hanxin-I Fraud (IX):Chen Jin’s Wealth Game. 21st Century Business Herald, March 13, 2006. (左志坚、杨琳桦、姚峰:《陈进的财富游戏》,2006年3月13日《21世纪经济报道》).
10. Zuo Zhijian and Yang Linhua. Investigation on the Hanxin-I Fraud (X): The Technological Labyrinth of Hanxin-V. 21st Century Business Herald, April 20, 2006. (左志坚、杨琳桦:《“汉芯五号”技术迷宫》,2006年4月20日《21世纪经济报道》).

[15]《“汉芯造假”事件全调查》.

[16] Original Chinese: “而‘汉芯一号’造假举报的帖子出现在网络之后,参与讨论的中国网民,毫无例外一边倒地表示绝对相信举报者。”

[17] On April 12, 2002, Fang published his article on the New Threads, “A thief’s logic: The plagiarism case committed by Li Peng, an intern reporter with China Reading Weekly” (《小偷逻辑——中华读书报实习记者李鹏剽窃案》), accusing the person of plagiarism for using his quotes without mentioning his name. On Jan. 14, 2004, Fang published his article on the New Threads, entitled “How come I became ‘some well-known scholars’? The Bund Pictorial’s plagiarism.” (《我怎么成了“一些知名学者”?——〈外滩画报〉之剽窃》). The reason Fang accused the magazine of plagiarism was because Fang thought his words were quoted in one of their articles as “some well-known scholars believe……,” and Fang’s name didn’t appear in the article.

[18] Between Feb. 22, 2006, when Fang started taking his stance on the Hanxin scandal, and May 12, 2006, when SJTU admitted the fraud of Hanxin, the Newly Arrived of the New Threads published 39 articles containing word“汉芯”(Hanxin), among them, 15 articles were about Hanxin case per se (none of them were written by Fang), 18 discussing “journalism ethics,” including Fang’s personal attacks on reporter Zuo Zhijian, calling him “bad journalist” (“不良记者”), “rogue reporter” (“流氓记者”), “a prototype of a mentally retarded and rogue.” (“弱智加流氓的典型”).

[19] The numbers are obtained by reading the webpages during that period. Currently, the webpages are located from page 3765 to page 3805 on [www.xys.org].

[20] Fang keeps special collections of his “fraud busting” in a big folder called “Put On Record” (“立此存照”), which contains, as of Dec. 15, 2012, 123 sub-folders, most of them are targeting at individuals, who are most likely Fang’s personal enemies.

[21] 左志坚、杨琳桦:《汉芯造假案即将水落石出 神秘工程公司现身》,2006年3月7日《21世纪经济报道》。

[22] floyed. A letter to Fang Zhouzi from the “chief bad journalist” and 21st Century Business Herald reporter Zuo Zhijian. (《首席“不良记者”〈21世纪经济报道〉记者左至坚给方舟子的信》). Note: The letter was originally posted on [www.rainbowplan.org] on May 29, 2006. The webpage has expired. Copies of the letter are preserved on the internet. Also, Mr. Zuo and Ms. Yang’s discovery was posted on the forum of the New Threads by a person called “Hype Dealer” (“牛皮贩子”), at 2:35:22 on March 7, 2006, PST. Fang published an edited version of the post in The Newly Arrived on March 9, 2006 (Anonymous. The migrant worker who polished Hanxin was found? 《打磨汉芯的民工找到了?——上海瀚基建筑装饰工程有限公司打造汉芯》), by deleting the starting line and 3 concluding paragraphs, and adding a webpage link, [www.viptoo.com], which had been revealed already in Mr. Zuo’s report.

[23] Original Chinese: “6月1日已过,方先生向NATURE撒谎的事情,就将反馈到该刊编辑部。” (Zuo Zhijian. The second open letter to Fang Zhouzi《左志坚:再致方舟子的公开信(2006-06-02)》). Besides Mr. Zuo, Fang’s lies have been exposed by other people. On May 27, 2006, a person called himself Mima (“密码”) posted an article on the internet, entitled “From Fighting Fraud to Fabricating Fraud: Is Hanxin Incidence Exposed by Fang Zhouzi?” (《从“打假”到造假:汉芯事件是方舟子揭露的吗?》). On Dec. 3, 2007, a person called himself Baizi Xiucai (“白字秀才”) posted an article on the internet, entitled “The 18th way to write the Chinese character ‘sword’” (《"劍"字的第18種寫法》). Nature did issue a correction to the special report on June 1, 2006, which was about the name of Shanghai Jiao Tong University.

[24] Original Chinese: “这一事件最初于今年一月份有知情者在网上揭露,新浪网科技频道、《北京科技报》等媒体率先跟踪报道,……”。(Fang Zhouzi. The Legal Responsibility of the Hanxin Fakers Should Be Pursued. Beijing Science and Technology News, May 17, 2006. (方舟子:《应追究“汉芯”造假者法律责任》,2006年5月17日《北京科技报》, XYS20060518).

[25] Original Chinese: “熟悉事件进展的人们都知道,对于揭发‘陈进-汉芯’造假,《21世纪经济报道》所做的贡献是无可匹比的。考虑到《21世纪经济报道》是一家国内媒体,而陈进-汉芯几曾是十足的体制内的骄儿,当国内多数媒体被迫禁声时,《21世纪经济报道》能顶住压力、持续推出揭发‘陈进-汉芯’造假的深度系列报道,就事论事,它做得太棒了!太难能可贵了!!相信大多数XYS读者也是从炎阳所转发的《21世纪经济报道》系列报道文章而获得对‘陈进-汉芯’事件的了解的。可舟子在其《应追究‘汉芯’造假者法律责任》一文中,只字不提《21世纪经济报道》及其贡献,这实在让我大掉眼镜。舟子,这次你确实是太失原则、气量太小了!” (Passerby5. A few words I have to speak out about Fang Zhouzi’s ‘The Legal Responsibility of the Hanxin Fakers Should Be Prosecuted’. (路过者5:《就舟子〈应追究“汉芯”造假者法律责任〉一文的几句不得不说的话》, May 19, 2006.) There was at least another person criticized Fang on the matter. (icdos. Fang’s Hanxin article didn’t mention 21st Century Business Herald at all, I think it was too much” (《方舟子这篇汉芯文章只字不提21世纪经济报道,我觉得过分了》).

[26] Original Chinese: “笑话,我为什么非要提一份不良报纸不可?对陈进事件最早做调查的是新浪科技和《北京青年报》下的一份IT周刊,调查做得最充分和最值得称道的是《IT时代周刊》和《凤凰周刊》。《21世纪经济报道》的‘贡献’大概就是用有争议的‘调查’方法提供了一些传闻做大家的谈资。” (《笑话,我为什么非要提一份不良报纸不可?》).

[27] 《2006中国十大科技骗局》,2007年1月5日《北京科技报》。The evidence for Fang’s involvements in the selection of the so called “China's Top Ten Sci. & Tech. Scams” is circumstantial, but compelling. First, Beijing Science and Technology News started the annual event in January, 2005, not long after Fang started his column in the newspaper. Second, many lawsuits against the newspaper also involved Fang (see note 19 of Part IX for detail.) Third, even though Sichuan University had exonerated Dr. Qiu Xiaoqing, the newspaper still ranked that case 3rd in the list, which is a typical behavior of Fang’s: once he has made an allegation against a person, that person is convicted, no matter what.

[28] The serial reports by 21st Century Business Herald won Guangdong Province’s second class journalist award in 2007 (2007广东省新闻奖二等奖); CCTV Economic Channel’s “Cover 2006” award (央视经济频道主办的大型活动《封面2006》9大年度作品); and the best investigative reports in “Youth Journalists Award” (2006年度"青年新闻奖"最佳调查报道大奖) selected by The Capital Youth Journalists Association.

[29] Original Chinese: “据报道,在2002年11月5日陈进代表上海交通大学芯片与系统研究中心和美国Ensoc technologies公司签了一份合同,委托其做流片服务,共计支付35080美元。之后又有50万美元汇到了Ensoc公司的帐户上。我查过这家美 国公司的注册资料,从美国地方政府网站数据库下载的注册表扫描件显示,它是2002年5月22日由陈进本人在美国德州特拉韦斯郡注册的个人所有的公司。像 这样把经费转移到自己注册的个人公司的做法,是否有洗钱的嫌疑,司法部门难道不该介入、追究其法律责任?” (Fang Zhouzi. The Legal Responsibility of the Hanxin Fakers Should Be Pursued. Beijing Science and Technology News, May 17, 2006. (方舟子:《应追究“汉芯”造假者法律责任》,2006年5月17日《北京科技报》).

[30] Zuo’s original Chinese: “不妨比较方是民和陈进的共同点,俩人非常相似。” (in Fang Zhouzi. The bad journalist of 21st Century Business Herald Zuo Zhijian’s day dream《〈21世纪经济报道〉不良记者左志坚的白日梦》, XYS20060529).

[31] In 2000, many people on the New Threads asked Fang to start an attacking campaign against Dr. Chen Zhangliang, then vice president of Peking University, for his alleged whoring, plagiarism, and bad or pseudoscience (extracting DNA from Dinosaur eggs.) Fang resisted the pressure, and wrote an article to defend for Dr. Chen. (Fang Zhouzi. Why I Don’t Put Chen Zhangliang on Record?《为什么不把陈章良立此存照?》, XYS20001217). Fang’s explanations were so farfetched that anybody can see Fang was just looking for excuses, but no one knew why for sure. Since they both were born and grew up in Fujian province, people thought that was the most likely reason. According to my analysis, Chen’s pro-transgenic food stance might be more important to Fang’s attitude. (Yi Ming. Scifool writer Fang Zhouzi. Chapter 10. 《科唬作家方舟子》).

[32] Li Yanchun. Yang Yusheng, the First Person Who Engages in Busting Academic Fraud on the Internet. Beijing Youth Daily, June 21, 2001. (李彦春:《网上学术打假第一人杨玉圣:我是第一个吃苍蝇的》,2001年6月21日《北京青年报》).

[33] Fang admitted, although he didn’t realize it, his attack on Professor He Weifang was because his association with Professor Yang Yusheng. In one of his articles attacking Professor Yang, Fang wrote, “By the way, I want to ask Peking University Law School Professor He Weifang, who is joining hand with Yang Yusheng to fight fraud and construct academic norms, a person hasn’t published a professional academic paper, engaged in full-time academic criticism unrelated to his profession, but he has been promoted to professor and the head of research institute, what kind of academic norm it is? ” (“我同时顺便也要问一下正在与杨玉圣联合打假、建设‘学术规范’的北京大学法学院教授贺卫方:一个人8年来没有发表过一篇专业学术论文,专职从事与其专业研究无关的‘学术批评’,却能评上教授、当上研究中心主任,这是什么样的‘学术规范’?”) (Fang Zhouzi. Ask Again: What Kind of Academic Achievements Did Yang Yusheng Rely upon to Head the American Political and Law Research Center? 《再问杨玉圣靠什么学术成果当美国政治与法律研究中心主任?》, published on Jan. 2, 2006). Since then, Fang has accused Prof. He of various crimes, including American spy. (Oiwan Lam. China: WikiLeaks Misreading Leads to Online ‘Spy' Hunt. Global Voices. Sept. 14, 2011.)

[34] The news was revealed by Professor Zhang Ming of Renmin University of China. The original post has been deleted by sina.com, but the screen image of the post is preserved on the internet.

[35] On Jan. 24, 2006, reporter Yang Linhua posted online the first report of the famous series by saying: “Two days ago, I met Little Zheng, and knew that National Business Daily was forbidden from reporting Hanxin fraud. At noon the next day, Oriental Morning Post received the notice from the Propaganda Department, no reports on the event were allowed. Afternoon, First Financial Daily received the notice. So far, all financial and economic news media are banned. This morning, I got news from sohu.com that they had received the notice from the Propaganda Department of the CPC Central Committee in Beijing which prohibits any transmission of the reports or articles about Hanxin fraud from other media. So, it is not strange at all that our articles could not be found on sina.com. I decide to post it online.” (“两天前,遇到小郑,知道《每日经济新闻》已经禁止报道汉芯涉嫌造假一事。第二天中午,《东方早报》接到宣传部通知,禁止报道此事。下午,《第一财经日报》接到通知。至此,上海系财经报道全部封杀。今天一早,从搜狐处获得消息,其已收到北京宣传部的通知,禁止转载任何其他媒体关于汉芯涉嫌造假一事的调查和文章。所以,从新浪上找不到我们《21世纪经济报道》的相关文章,也不奇怪。我决定把它贴出来。”) (Yang Linhua. Preface to Investigation on the rumors about Hanxin Fraud.)

[36] Original Chinese: “在日常交谈中,他有时劝我不要去当教授,因为他认为现在的教授和当秘书也差不多,整天写基金申请要钱。干脆说吧,他认为如果我去当教授,纯粹大材小用!我的导师对我现在从事的这些工作非常赞赏,恭维我是中国科学的良心。” Note: Fang posted the post on August 28, 2001, but he deleted the post later. The post has been preserved on the internet, however. (See: JT. Talking about Fang’s “Smartest” and “Very suitable for scientific research” 《也谈方舟子“最聪明”“非常适合作科研”》, Oct. 4, 2001.)

[37] The university was so humiliated by Fang’s action that they issued a statement saying the professorship was asked for by Fang’s friend Sima Nan. For detail of the incidence, see: Yi Ming. Fang Zhouzi and Nu River incidence (亦明:《方舟子与“怒江争坝”事件》).



被编辑3次。最后被亦明编辑于08/05/2013 07:14AM。
附件:
打开 | 下载 - Shamelessness shouldn\'t be anyone\'s Nature X.pdf (726 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 (3466 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 (4700 查看) 附件

亦明 February 04, 2013 10:40AM

Part XIII: A Thief Couple (4558 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) (4344 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.