欢迎! 登陆 注册

高级搜索

Part XII: Fang’s Law-II (4700 查看)

February 04, 2013 10:40AM
【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 XII)


Xin Ge, Ph. D.

Columbia, SC, USA


【I apologize for the lengthiness of this letter, but I don’t think I have other options. Fang’s evilness and shamelessness are hidden in details, and they can only be revealed by detailed analysis. Therefore, if you are seeking for truth, read on; otherwise, stop here.】

Fang’s Law-II

One of the most important consequences of Wei Yuquan incidence was the outcry in Chinese science community. On May 8, 2006, an open letter signed by 120 Chinese scholars, mainly biologists based in the United States, was released to global news media, and the news was later reported by leading science news outlets such as Science magazine and journal Nature[1]. The basic idea of the open letter was urging Chinese government to take over the responsibility of handling scientific misconduct cases from Fang’s website, and treat the misconduct allegations in accordance with the rule of law, i.e. “innocent until proven guilty.”

The letter was drafted by Dr. Fu Xinyuan, an immunologist at Indiana University. As expected by everyone who knows Fang well, Dr. Fu immediately became public enemy No. 1 on the New Threads. On May 10, 2006, one day after the open letter was posted on the forum of the New Threads, Fang commented:

“If you take a look at the special collection of Chang Zhijie in the ‘Put On Record,’ You’ll know why Fu Xinyuan, the initiator [of the open letter], had such an idea.”[2]

One day later, Fang posted a longer comment, in which he wrote:

“The initiator of the open letter, Fu Xinyuan, is an adjunct professor at Tsinghua University, a person having a foot in both China and America camps. He has been accused of misusing research fund, and he is also the boss of Chang Zhijie, a teacher in the Department of Biology at Tsinghua University who had falsified his resume, so Fu is directly responsible for the hiring, protection, and promotion of Chang Zhijie. (Please see ‘Put On Record – The resume incidence in the Department of Biology at Tsinghua University’).”[3]

So, who is Chang Zhijie and what did he do? What was the allegation against Dr. Fu Xinyuan?


Major characters: Chang Zhijie, Fu Xinyuan, Fang Zhouzi


Chang Zhijie: Guilty even Proven Innocent

The story about Dr. Chang Zhijie goes back to Dec. 15, 2003, when Fang published an article on his “fraud busting column” at sohu.com. The title of the article by itself was an allegation: Chang Zhijie, an Associate Professor in the Department of Biological Sciences and Biotechnology at Tsinghua University, Fabricated Papers in Batches. Here is the first paragraph of the article:

“An e-friend wrote to me, saying that he could not find the five papers, which were published between 1997 and 1999, listed on the webpage of Chang Zhijie, an associate professor in the department of biological sciences and biotechnology at Tsinghua University. He asked me to take a look. After looking it up, I found that the problem was even worse than what was reported. Chang Zhijie fabricated as many as 7 papers, and his fabricating technique was rather clumsy, very easy to be laid bare. However, he obviously relied upon this fabricated publication record to get his associate professor job at Tsinghua University.”[4]

Fang’s allegation was based on the fact that he could not find the 7 J BMR publications, which were listed on Chang’s webpage, on the website of Journal of Bone and Mineral Research. And the reason Fang laughed at Chang’s “fabricating technique” was because he could find Chang’s following publication in Journal of Biological Chemistry:

Xingming Shi, Xiangli Yang, Di Chen, Zhijie Chang, and Xu Cao. Smad1 interacts with homeodomain DNA binding proteins in BMP signaling. J. B. C. Vol. 274, No. 19, 13711-13717, 1999.

however, Fang could not find the following publication in J BMR.:

Zhijie Chang, Xingming Shi, Xiangli Yang, Di Chen, and Xu Cao. Smad1 interacts with homeodomain DNA binding proteins in BMP signaling. J BMR. Vol 23, No.5 p241, 1998.

So, Fang reasoned:

“The title and the authors of the [J BMR.] paper are identical to that real JBC paper, with only one difference: Chang changed his position from the least important penultimate one to the most important one. ……Obviously, when Chang Zhijie was doing his post-doc research abroad, he published only one paper, in which he was the penultimate author. It was impossible for him to fill in an associate professor position at Tsinghua University based on this single publication, so he fabricated a pretty publication list, and then he was hired.”[5]

On December 19, 2003, Dr. Chang sent Fang a message, claiming that all the allegations made by Fang were “serious mistakes.” Chang did admit, however, there were some typos on the webpage. Specifically, Chang says that the 7 so called fabricated publications are real, and they are conference abstracts of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research. Also, Chang says that he had been an associate professor at Northwest Agricultural University since 1990, and in 1998, he was transferred to Tsinghua at the same rank[6].

So, in four days, it was demonstrated that Fang’s allegation against Dr. Chang was completely baseless, or, based on his incapability and ignorance. However, Fang insisted, right after receiving Dr. Chang’s response, that his allegation was still valid, because, according to Fang, Chang made the typos on purpose to “mislead readers to believe that these publications are papers, instead of conference abstracts.”[7]

The fact is, before Fang made his allegation on December 15, 2003, Dr. Chang had published more than 40 papers, including 4 English papers, two of them in highly regarded Chinese Science Bulletin. Three months before Fang’s allegation, Dr. Chang published a full-length paper in JBC. One month after Fang’s allegation, Dr. Chang published two more full-length papers, one in Molecular and Cellular Biology, one in Molecular Cell. Another month later, Dr. Chang published yet another paper in FEBS Letters[8]. Since Dr. Chang must have known these papers’ publication or their acceptance by the journals at the time Fang made his malicious allegation against him, but he didn’t list these publications on his webpage, it seems Dr. Chang had no intention to mislead anybody. Therefore, Fang’s reasoning, which was the foundation of his allegation, was baseless also. However, till today, Fang has not apologized to Dr. Chang yet. As a matter of fact, Dr. Chang Zhijie is still regarded by Fang and his followers as a typical example of academic fraud[9].

Fu Xinyuan: Guilty by Association

The reason Fang tried to connect Dr. Chang to Dr. Fu was that, Dr. Fu, as an adjunct professor, had a lab at Tsinghua University, and the lab was managed by Dr. Chang when Dr. Fu was not present. According to Fang’s logic, if Dr. Chang is a faker, and Dr. Fu is the faker’s boss, then the boss must be also a faker, or at least, he must be a bad guy. As a consequence, the open letter drafted by that bad guy must contain an evil purpose. That’s why Fang repeatedly mentioned Dr. Chang after the publication of the open letter.

So, how about the allegation that Dr. Fu misused research fund?

On Dec. 18, 2003, three days after starting his attack on Dr. Chang Zhijie, Fang published on the New Threads an article by a person under a fake name but obviously a Tsinghua insider. In the article, it says that Dr. Fu got a lot of money from China, and he gave the money to Dr. Chang to flounder. So, Fu was irresponsible to Chinese taxpayers[10]. Six days later, Fang published another article by the same person, the title of the article was Fu Xinyuan Is Responsible for Chang Zhijie’s Problem, accusing Dr. Fu of taking more than ten million Yuan but producing nothing in return[11].

Under continuous attack, Dr. Fu responded by writing a lengthy report on their progress at Tsinghua University. He detailed how and where the 10 million Yuan were spent, and what scientific discoveries they had made. In the report, Fu wrote:

“One major progress we made completely and independently in Tsinghua, was a discovery about a novel mechanism in regulation of TGF-b-Smad signaling. This work was achieved by Professor Chang Zhijie and our students in Tsinghua (abstract listed below).

“This paper will be soon published in Mol. & Cell. Biol. (MCB, Vol.24, No.2 Jan 2004 issue), a leading Journal in molecular biology field. This is Tsinghua's first MCB paper. I think that every one who has studied molecular biology, should know the impact of MCB. Generally, you have to have functional and mechanistic studies to get papers in MCB.”

“In summary, every scientist can judge our progress with his/her honesty and the above information. But for me, I have all the reasons to be proud and optimistic about our work in Tsinghua. In any standard, it is a sound start for a laboratory that started essentially from ‘ground zero’ and has only three years of age.”[12]


After Dr. Fu’s report, even though the attack on him continued, but none of them was about his misusing research fund[13]. However, according to Fang’s law, once you have been accused by the New Threads, you are guilty forever. So the anonymous allegation made in 2003 was used by Fang in 2006 to discredit Dr. Fu.

More Attacks

Fang knew very well that he could not completely destroy Dr. Fu’s creditability by simply associating him with academic fraud and implying he was involved in a fraud. So he played other tricks.

First, Fang started editing “Netizens’ comments” on the open letter, which is always the most definite signal to his followers that a new smear campaign has just begun. Here are some comments Fang collected:

“It seems that this Professor Fu is unwilling to remain out of the limelight. If anyone has free time, please send the great stories about him published here before to the 120 signees, then see whether any of them withdraw their signature. If none of them does, then let’s open our eyes wide watching them, we won’t worry about having no materials on the New Threads anymore.”[14]

“Someone says that Fu Xinyuan is the founder of Human Rights in China. How could it be true? How could a person who even wants to stripe public’s right to free speech and media’s right to supervision fight for human rights? Selling dogmeat as mutton, this person is really shameless!”[15]

“Rao Yi and Shi Yigong, you are so foolish that you follow the garbage like Fu Xinyuan and Cheng Jing to sign the letter.”[16]

“Fu Xin-Yuan wrote a laughable letter to the readers of XYS and behaved like a clown in a circus show. It was very clear that the open letter he initiated is intended to express his personal distaste of XYS. In his initial draft, he was completely supportive of the Wei side in the Wei-Si event without even knowing all the facts. That’s why a lot of the signers did not agree to have their names in there in the first several drafts as far as I know. Now Fu changed his tone to say that he is more concerned with the human rights of the accused and that he is with everybody else in against scientific misconducts. Fu still appears to think that he can fool the readers and that everybody else is so gullible that they will believe whatever he says. I am ashamed by the behavior of some of my colleagues working in the US. Some of them benefited tremendously from the largeness of the Chinese government by virtue of their scientific misconducts, i.e., taking jobs demanding full time commitment knowing that they cannot do it. And Fu himself is one of those.”[17]


Fang’s another trick was writing and publishing articles under a pseudonym to attack Dr. Fu. Yes, Fang does publish his own articles on his own website under pseudonyms. As a matter of fact, Fang has many,─ many people believe Fang has dozens ─ pseudonyms on the New Threads, and it appears that each pseudonym has its own function. For example, the web ID USTC3 was used mainly to flatter himself, and lure donations from his followers[18]; “Resolute Counterattack” (坚决反击) was used to scare off the lawyers who were hired by Dr. Xiao Chuanguo to sue him and his followers[19]; and “Sailing in Water” (水中划) was used initially to frame and defame Dr. Xiao Chuanguo in 2005[20], but in 2006 it was used to do the same to Dr. Fu.

On May 11, 2006, Fang, under the name of “Sailing in Water,” posted on the forum of the New Threads an article, An Incongruous Open Letter, in which he laughed at the open letter signees, saying they were so stupid that they even didn’t know to whom their letter should be addressed to: if they were targeting at Chinese media, the letter should be addressed to the Propaganda Department of the CPC Central Committee; if the letter was aimed at the New Threads, then instead of appealing to Chinese government, it should appeal to the President of the United States, George W. Bush[21].

On May 14, 2006, Fang posted another article by “Sailing in Water,” Singing a Folk Song to Whom: Comment on Professor Fu Xinyuan’s Vulnerable Groups Theory, saying that the purpose of the open letter was asking CPC to protect these fraudulent (vulnerable) scientists, and that Dr. Fu drafted the letter because he was hurt by the New Threads before:

“As a human rights defender and a scientist, no one else other than Professor Fu has more personal knowledge of the harm that free speech can cause to the vulnerable people. According to my memory, it is not the first time that Professor Fu himself has turned from a mighty person to one of the weaker people and has been beaten up on the forum of the New Threads.

“Professor Fu’s majordomo in his Tsinghua lab, Associate Professor Chang Zhijie who was a suspect of falsifying his resume,… Professor Fu was a suspect of wasting national fund,… all happened like yesterday.”[22]


On May 24, Fang published his third article on the open letter under the name of “Sailing in Water,” The Historical Background of Fu Xinyuan’s Open Letter, in which, Fang listed 6 backgrounds, the first two were:

“1. The fight over the research resources in the mainland China by the Chinese scientists with foreign citizenship, in the name of helping China’s science, has already started. The fight is getting increasingly fierce as research funding in foreign countries has been shrinking in recent years, and the investment in science in China is increasing at a speed making people jealous.

“2. The Chinese scientists with foreign citizenship are forming one after another interest alliances with native big scientists and politicians in the mainland China, and collect money with any legal means they could think of.”[23]


On May 25, 2006, Fang published his fourth article on the open letter under the name of “Sailing in Water,” The Consequence Analysis of Fu Xinyuan’s Open Letter, making yet another attempt to link Dr. Fu to Dr. Chang:

“If I was Fu, I would first find out whether majordomo Chang was clean. If he was, I’ll openly criticize Fang and the New Threads. If that’s the case, Fu will for sure have many fans, and receive much stronger support. If Chang was not clean, but Fu still does what he did, thinking himself smart, then the consequence can only be described as stupid.”[24]

On May 26, 2006, one day after Nature published its special report,Named and Shamed, Fang published his fifth article on the open letter under the name of “Sailing in Water,” Eyebrows Raised and Sword Unsheathed: Some Thoughts after Reading Journal Nature. What were Fang’s thoughts? Of course he praised Nature:

“I’ve just read the article about Fu Xinyuan’s open letter in Nature, and have some thoughts:

“1. It deserves its fame, the traditional mainstream medium for the first time openly, comprehensively, and truthfully reported the real intention of Fu Xinyuan’s 120 people open letter. It could be seen that the reporter had made a great effort, it is really respectable.……”[25]


In short, from May 11 to June 4, 2006, Fang published 7 articles attacking Fu Xinyuan and the open letter, and all of them were under the pseudonym “Sailing in Water.” Although Fang, obviously trying to hide his true identity, deliberately wrote these articles in ambiguous styles, he purpose was very clear: to alienate Fu from the readers of the New Threads by depicting him as a bootlicker of Chinese government, a corrupted person, a fake human rights advocate, and a person who opposes people’s right to freedom of speech[26]. On June 18, 2006, Fang established a fold in the “Put On Record,” the label on the outside of the fold is “120 People Open Letter Incidence: against Cultural Revolution or against Fraud Busting?”, but inside the webpage, the label is: “Fu Xinyuan’s 120 People Open Letter Incidence.”[27] That’s how much Fang hated Dr. Fu Xinyuan.

Freedom of speech   

On June 22, 2006, Nature published Fang’s correspondence to its Named and Shamed, entitled “Misconduct: Lack of Action Provokes Web Accusations.” In the letter, Fang accused the 120 open letter signees of “appealing to the Chinese government to suppress media and public opinions: they still need to learn what free speech and human rights mean,” and claimed that he was for the establishment of an official channel to handle misconduct cases all along. However, Fang declared, “before this channel exists, and to make sure it functions properly after it is established, free press and free speech are indispensable.”[28] In other words, Fang wants to keep his “job” permanently.

The thing is, as American scholar Stanley Fish stated, “there is no such thing as free speech.” As every other human right, the right to the freedom of speech has certain limitations. For example, In the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, passed in 1789, it says:

“The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law.”

John Stuart Mill, a strong advocate for “the fullest liberty of professing and discussing,” recognized "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."[29] In fact, the right to freedom of speech Fang demands for is exactly the lawless one, and his intention is nothing but to harm other people.

The fact is, it is Fang and his gangsters who have been trying to “suppress media and public opinions.” As mentioned in Part VII of this letter, in 2003, a journal, Exploration and Free Views, published 3 articles analyzing and criticizing Fang. Even though the journal offered Fang the opportunity for rebuttal, Fang rejected the offer. Instead, he sued the journal in order to “suppress” the series.

As mentioned in Part VIII and Part X of this letter, Fang maintains a “List of China’s Bad Journalists” on his website, and so far there are 93 journalists on the list. So, what kind crimes these bad journalists have committed? The answer is, their only crimes were that they had reported the facts which Fang wanted to hide, or they had expressed their opinions which Fang hated.

There are more such examples.

In February, 2011, Fang heard Ms. Cao Minghua, a well-known writer based in California, wrote a report revealing the investigation by Michigan State University, Fang’s alma mater, on Fang’s plagiarism case. Fang immediately issued a threat: If any newspaper or magazine dares to publish Cao’s article, he would sue them and Ms. Cao[30].

In March, 2011, Fang heard that newspaper Legal Weekly was going to publish a comprehensive report on his dirty secret, he immediately asked his lawyer, Mr. Peng Jian, to send a threatening letter to Legal Daily, the owner of Legal Weekly, to stop the publication[31].

In April, 2011, after Legal Weekly reported the news that Ms. Liu Juhua, Fang’s wife, had committed plagiarism in her Master’s thesis, Fang issued another threat to Legal Daily: if they don’t fire Mr. Guo Guosong, the executive editor in chief of Legal Weekly, he would pursue or investigate the leaders of Legal Daily. Not only that. Fang warned other news media not to hire Mr. Guo[32].

As a matter of fact, Fang not only tries to suppress public opinions himself, he also instigates and encourages his followers to do the same. On February, 2012, Shenzhen TV started broadcasting a serial program, Uncover the Secret of Fang Zhouzi. Fang was so scared of the broadcasting that he immediately posted the name of the TV station’s director on his microblog and asked for the name of the program’s host. As a result, the TV station received so many phone called from Fang’s followers that their daily work were severely interrupted. In the end, they decided to terminate the program. Fang won[33].


A blatant intimidation
On Feb. 25, 2012, Fang posted this message on his microblog: “What’s the name of this Shenzhen TV host, who does false advertising for the child-maiming Xiao’s Procedure? We should let every evil helper in the media to pay his/her price.”[34]


As mentioned in the previous part of this letter, Southern Weekend published a lengthy article discussing “Fang’s Law” in June, 2012. Apparently influenced by Fang’s repeated retaliations, some of his followers went to the office building of the newspaper to protest by tearing up the newspaper. Fang approved the behavior by posting the video clip on his microblog[35].


Fang’s Schutzstaffel protests against the publication of article revealing Fang’s dirty secret


Fang not only tries to limit media’s right to the freedom of speech, he also tries to interfere with China’s legal system. As mentioned in Part VIII and Part IX of this letter, Fang maintains a “List of China’s Judges Who Have Perverted the Law” on his website, and so far there are 17 judges on the list. What’s their common crime? They have made adjudication against Fang[36].

According to Fang’s letter to Nature, “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'. ”[28] The fact is, Fang is more evil and vicious than any dictators in human history, Adolf Hitler included; and the New Threads is more violent and frightening than any repressive and oppressive regimes in human history, medieval inquisition included. The only difference is, fortunately, Fang does not, as yet, have the power of Adolf Hitler, and the New Threads does not, and never will, have the power of medieval inquisition[37].

Notes

[1] Hao Xin. 2006. Government Crackdown, Please. Science 312:987. Cyranoski D. 2006. Named and shamed. Nature 441:392-3.

[2] Fang’s original Chinese: “发起人傅新元,去立此存照在常智杰专辑看看就知道为何会有这样在论调” (See: [www.xys.org]).

[3] Fang’s complete comment was:

“Many of the ‘120 Chinese scientists’ have joined U. S. citizenship, so they should not call themselves ‘Chinese scientists.’ Among them, one is a teacher in business school (Jinfeng Yue, Department of Management and Marketing, Jennings A. Jones College of Business, Middle Tennessee State University), one is a venture capital businessman (Jin Wang, Managing Partner, Manhattan Capital Group, LLC.), one is a lawyer (Wei-ning Yang, Esq, Partner, Hogan & Hartson LLP). None of them is scientist, so it is cheating [to call themselves scientists]. The initiator of the open letter, Fu Xinyuan, is an adjunct professor at Tsinghua University, a person having a foot in both China and U. S. camps. He has been accused of misusing research fund, and he is also the boss of Chang Zhijie, a teacher in the Department of Biology at Tsinghua University who had falsified his resume, so Fu is directly responsible fo the hiring, protection, and promotion of Chang Zhijie. (Please see ‘Put On Record – The resume incidence in the Department of Biology at Tsinghua University’). There are also a few people among the signees who are not clean. Who can believe that these people, who are the suspects of engaging, supporting, and protecting misconduct, would really be ‘against any kind of scientific misconduct’? I have repeatedly asked for the establishment of an official channel to deal with academic misconduct, but I despise those who use this as an excuse for their opposition to the supervision over academic misconduct by public opinion, which in fact is hoping to take a laissez faire attitude toward academic misconduct. Supervision by public opinion is needed when the official channel is absent. It is also needed when the channel exists. Scientific research has no need to, and should not, be frightened by supervision by public opinion. Those who are afraid of public opinion, even oppose freedom of speech, and ask government to suppress free speech, must have something to hide. How pitiful these 120 ‘old American,’ they even don’t understand what freedom of speech means.”

The original Chinese: “这‘120位中国科学家’,相当一部分已加入美国国籍,不应该再自称‘中国科学家’。其中有一位是商学院教师(美国中田纳西州立大学杰宁•琼斯商学院管理与市场系岳劲峰),一位是风险投资商(曼哈顿资本集团合伙人王进),一位是律师(Wei-ning Yang, Esq, Partner, Hogan & Hartson LLP),都不是什么科学家或信中说的‘科技工作者’,这是造假。公开信的发起人傅新元是脚踏中美两只船的清华大学兼职教授,曾被指控滥用中国科研基金,又是伪造履历的清华大学生物系教师常智杰的老板,对引进、包庇、提拔常智杰负有直接的责任(参见‘立此存照•清华大学生物系履历事件’)。签名者中也有几个人本身不太干净。有谁会相信这种本身就有从事、支持、包庇不端行为之嫌的人会真正‘反对任何形式的学术不端行为’?我也一再呼吁中国应该建立规范的渠道处理学术不端行为,但是我鄙视有人以此为借口来反对对学术不端行为进行舆论监督,这实际上是希望对学术不端行为听之任之。在没有规范渠道的时候,需要舆论监督,即使有了规范渠道,也需要舆论监督。科学研究没有必要也不应该害怕舆论监督。”(See: [www.xys.org]). Fang later added the following two sentences to the comment: “那些害怕舆论监督,乃至反对言论自由,要求官方‘制止’言论者,必定心里有鬼。可怜这120个‘老美国’,居然连言论自由是什么都不懂。” (See: 《众人评“120位中国科学家关于科学研究诚信的公开信”》).

[4] Fang’s original Chinese: “有一位网友写信给我,说他没能找到清华大学生物科学与技术系副教授常智杰在其网页上列举的5篇1997-1999年间发表的论文,要求我查证。我查了一下,发现问题要比他反映的严重得多。常智杰捏造的论文数多达7篇,捏造的手法颇为拙劣,非常容易戳穿,然而,他显然是靠这个捏造的论文发表纪录而获得清华大学副教授的职务的。” Fang Zhouzi. Chang Zhijie, an Associate Professor in the Department of Biological Sciences and Biotechnology at Tsinghua University, Fabricated Papers in Batches. XYS20031216. (方舟子:《清华大学生物科学与技术系常智杰副教授成批捏造论文》,XYS20031216).

[5] Fang’s original Chinese: “该论文的标题和作者和那篇真实的JBC论文完全相同,只有一点不同:常智杰把自己的位置从最不重要的倒数第二作者换成了最重要的第一作者!……显然,常智杰在国外做博士后期间,只发表了一篇为倒数第二作者的论文,凭这一篇是不可能在清华大学找到副教授职位的,于是捏造出了一份漂亮的论文发表纪录,顺利被录用。” Fang Zhouzi. Chang Zhijie, an Associate Professor in the Department of Biological Sciences and Biotechnology at Tsinghua University, Fabricated Papers in Batches. XYS20031216. (方舟子:《清华大学生物科学与技术系常智杰副教授成批捏造论文》,XYS20031216).

[6] Chang’s response to Fang: “方舟子先生:你撰写的关于我‘成批捏造论文’的文章,除了有打印错误外,所讲事实和推论均是严重的错误。1.我英文网页中有关刊名及页码标识打印错误已更正。请在原网站查阅。所指7篇你无法查证的publication均有出处,其为ASBMR会议论文摘要。2.你推论我捏造论文是极其错误的。3.我于1990年在西北农业大学就提升为副教授了。你推断我以捏造论文成为清华大学副教授的结论亦是极其错误的。4.希望你能立即取消你的那些文章。常智杰2003-12-19” See: A Letter from Associate Professor Chang Zhijie of the Department of Biology at Tsinghua University and Fang Zhouzi’s Response. XYS20031219. (《清华大学生物系副教授常智杰的来函及方舟子的答复》, XYS20031219).

Chang’s typos in the 7 J BMR citations are shown below. The citations highlighted in yellow are the ones originaly listed on Chang’s webpage, which are followed by the corresponding corrected citations.

Zhijie Chang, Xingming Shi, Xiangli Yang, Di Chen, and Xu Cao. Smad1 interacts with homeodomain DNA binding proteins in BMP signaling. J BMR. Vol 23, No.5 p241, 1998.
Zhijie Chang, Xingming Shi, Xiangli Yang, Di Chen, and Xu Cao. Smad1 interacts with homeodomain DNA binding proteins in BMP signaling. BONE adjoined with J BMR Vol. 23, No.5 S241, 1998.

Shi, X. M., Chang, Z. J., Blair, H., McDonald, J. M., and Cao, X. The molecular mechanism of bone loss in glucocorticoid therapy. J BMR. Vol 23, No.5 p603, 1998.
X. M. Shi, Z. J. Chang, H.C. Blair, J. M. McDonald, and X. Cao The molecular mechanism of bone loss in glucocorticoid therapy. BONE adjoined with J BMR Vol. 23, No.5 S603, 1998.

X. Yang, Z. J. Chang, X. Shi, and X. Cao. Amino terminal domain of Smad1 interacting with Hoxc-8 is sufficient to induce bone cell differentiation.J BMR. Vol 23, No.5 p149, 1998.
X. Yang, Z. J. Chang, X. Shi, and X. Cao. Amino terminal domain of Smad1 interacting with Hoxc-8 is sufficient to induce bone cell differentiation. BONE adjoined with J BMR Vol. 23, No.5 S149, 1998.

P. L. Chang, X. Zhao, Z. J. Chang, X. Cao, H. Blair, O. M. Faye-Petersen, A. B. Tilden. Age-dependent differences in glucocorticoid response of human osteblast differentiation.J BMR. Vol 23, No.5 p400, 1998.
P. L. Chang, X. Zhao, Z. J. Chang, X. Cao, H. Blair, O. M. Faye-Petersen, A. B. Tilden. Age-dependent differences in glucocorticoid response of human osteoblast differentiation. BONE adjoined with J BMR Vol. 23, No.5 S400, 1998.

Brian D. Bennett, Xu Cao, Zhijie Chang and Keith A. Hruska. Calreticulin overexpression inhibits store depletion induced potentiation of osteoclast Ca2+ sensing. J BMR. Vol 23, No.5 p222, 1998.
Brian D. Bennett, Xu Cao, Zhijie Chang and Keith A. Hruska. Calreticulin overexpression inhibits store depletion induced potentiation of osteoclast Ca2+ sensing. BONE adjoined with J BMR Vol. 23, No.5 S222, 1998.

Zhijie Chang, Xu Cao, S. Dedhar, S. L. Teitlbaum, F. P. Ross, and K. A. Hruska. Calreticulin expression determines the response of avb3 to 1a,25(OH)2D3. J BMR. Vol 12, No.5 p331, 1997.
Z.J. Chang, X.Cao, S. Dedhar, S. L. Teitlbaum, F. P. Ross, and K. A. Hruska. Calreticulin expression determines the response of α,βto 1α,25(OH)2D3. J BMR. Vol. 12, Supplement 1 S331, 1997.

Xingming Shi, Zhijie Chang, H. C. Blair, J. M. McDonald and Xu Cao. Glucocorticoids induce adipogenesis of stromal cells by transcriptionally activating PPARg2. J BMR. Vol 12, No.5 p454, 1997.
X.M. Shi, Z.J. Chang, H. C. Blair, J. M. McDonald and X. Cao. Glucocorticoids induce adipogenesis of stromal cells by transcriptionally activating PPAR2. J BMR. Supplement 1 Vol. 12, No.5 S454, 1997.

[7] Fang’s original Chinese: “刊名、页码都写错,甚至连‘增刊’也不注,恐怕不能算是‘打印错误’,而是想让读者误以为那是论文,而非会议摘要”. See: A Letter from Associate Professor Chang Zhijie of the Department of Biology at Tsinghua University and Fang Zhouzi’s Response. XYS20031219. (《清华大学生物系副教授常智杰的来函及方舟子的答复》, XYS20031219). “‘有点常识的人’都知道,如果文章是刊登在杂志增刊上的,那么在引用时要写明是suppl.(增刊),页码前面也要加上S,而常智杰不仅未这么标注,甚至还标上了正刊的期数No.12, No.23,这难道不是想让读者误以为那是发表在正刊上的论文吗?”Fang Zhouzi. This Is How the Associate Professor of Tsinghua University Fabricated His Papers. XYS20031220. (方舟子:《清华副教授的论文是这么捏造出来的》, XYS20031220).

[8] The eight English publications by Dr. Chang Zhijie are:

Huai Qiu, Zhiyong Ju and Zhijie Chang. A survey of cattle production in China. World Animal Review. 1993; 76(3):12-18.

Lin Guiting, Zhang Zhiwen, Zang Tong, Xin Dianqi, Chang Zhijie, Guo Yinglu*. Interaction of hTCF4 by Yeast Two-hybrid. Chinese Science Bulletin. 2000 Nov.; 45(21):1973-1976.

Ye Xiongjun, Zhang Zhiwen, Zhang Xinjun, Lin Guiting, Xiong Shiqin, Jin Guihua, Han Liang, Huang Shisi, Chen Peila, Ai Junkui, Xin Dianqi, Guo Yinglu, and Chang Zhijie*. Functional interaction of TCF4 with ATF5 to regulate the Wnt signaling pathway. Chinese Science Bulletin. 2003 Jul; 48(7):668-670.

Gong K, Lin GT, Zhang ZW, Chang ZJ, Na YQ. Wnt/Frizzled signaling pathway in renal carcinoma. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi (Chinese Medical Journal). 2003 Jul; 83(14):1270-3.

Shiqin Xiong, Qiuhui Zhao, Zhili Rong, Guanrong Huang, Yiling Huang, Peila Chen, Shuping Zhang, Li Liu, and Zhijie Chang*. hSef inhibits PC12 cell differentiation by interfering with Ras-Mitogen-activated MAPK signaling. J. Biol. Chem. Vol. 278, No.50, 50273-50282, 2003. (Epub 2003 Sep 4.)

Linyu Li, Hong Xin, Xialian Xu, Mei Huang, Xinjun Zhang, Yue Chen, Shuping Zhang, Xin-Yuan Fu* and Zhijie Chang*. CHIP mediates degradation of Smad proteins and potentially regulates Smad-induced transcription. Mol. Cell. Biol. Vol. 24, No. 2, p856-864, 2004.

Keiko Tamai, Xin Zeng, Chunming Liu, Xinjun Zhang, Yuko Harada, Zhijie Chang, and Xi He. A mechanism for Wnt co-receptor activation. Molecular Cell Vol. 13, 149-156, Jan. 16, 2004.

Yuanjiang Zhang, Tieshi Li, Ling Fu, Changming Yu, Yinghua Li, Xialian Xu, Yinyin Wang, Hongxiu Ning, Shuping Zhang, Wei Chen, Lorne A Babiuk, and Zhijie Chang*. Silencing SARS-CoV Spike protein expression in cultured cells by RNA interference. FEBS Letters Vol. 560, 1-3 pp141-146, 2004.

[9] On March 21, 2009, CCTV broadcasted a program, Investigation on Paper Fabrication Incidence at Zhejiang University, in which, Chang’s case was listed as an example of academic fraud. (《浙江大学论文造假事件调查》). On Nov. 28, 2010, Fang replied to a question on his microblog. The question was: Are there any people who were fired only because of academic fraud? Fang’s answer: “You cannot say there are none. Sometimes wonder does occur, for example, Tsinghua’s Liu Hui was fire. However, most likely they are not hurt, or even promoted. For example, Tsinghua’s Chang Zhijie. (Original Chinese: “也不能说没有,偶尔也有奇迹发生,比如清华的刘辉就被开了。更多的是没事甚至高升,比如同样是清华的常智杰。//@肖宏:仅仅因为学术造假就被开除的,在中国有吗?”(See: [weibo.com]).

[10] Original Chinese: “常智杰拿的钱完全是依赖于傅新元,因为他是傅的大管家,常这几年没有东西出来,就是傅对清华的工作不够认真敬业。……傅是清华的正式教授……在国内拿了很多的钱,交给了这个常智杰副教授来折腾,这是傅的不负责任,怎么对得起国内纳税人的钱呢?” Dajia. Chang Zhijie and Fu Xinyuan: a Tsinghua Show. XYS20031218. (达加:《常智杰与傅新元:清华作秀》,XYS20031218).

[11] Original Chinese: “想想常智杰问题出现的初始原因──拿了上千万的钱而不出活。我觉得国内有关给经费的单位把关把的还是不错的,据说钱是冲着傅新元去的, 因为常智杰拿的钱完全是依赖于傅新元, 因为他是傅的大管家,傅新元拿了钱而不出活又给怎样交待?”Dajia. Fu Xinyuan Is Responsible for Chang Zhijie’s Problem. XYS20031224.(达加:《常智杰的问题傅新元有责任:国内目前的通病》, XYS20031224).

[12] Fu Xinyuan. Our Progress in Tsinghua University. XYS20031226. (in both Chinese and English.)

[13] For example, Dr. Fu Xinyuan was the target in the following articles published on New Threads:

Bushezheshuo. Associate Professor Chang and Related Personnel: Please Clarify Some Questions. XYS20031227. (捕蛇者不说:《请常副教授和有关人士澄清几个问题》,XYS20031227).

Zhenhua. Fu Xinyuan Helps Chang Zhijie: The More He Does, The Worse It Gets. XYS20031231. (振华:《傅新元帮常智杰:越抹越黑》,XYS20031231).

Shenyan. Please Advise, Professor Fu Xinyuan: Whether 3 Million RMB Equivalent to State-up Fund in U. S. Universities? XYS20040104. (慎言:《请教傅新元教授:三百万人民币是否相当美国大学的启动基金》, XYS20040104).

[14] Original Chinese: “这个傅教授有点不甘寂寞呀??哪位有闲工夫,把新语丝上曾经登过的有关该教授的伟大事迹发给那120位看看,然后看看有没有人出来撤销签名??如果没有,大家睁大眼睛看着这120位,以后新语丝的内容估计不用愁了。” See: Netizens’ Comments on the 120 Chinese Scientists’ Open Letter on Research Integrity in China. XYS20060511. (《众人评“120位中国科学家关于科学研究诚信的公开信”》, XYS20060511).

[15] Original Chinese: “有人说傅新元是中国人权创始人。有可能吗?连公众的言论自由权和媒体的舆论监督权都要剥夺,怎么可能是人权的呢? 挂羊头卖狗肉,这人简直太无耻了!” See: Netizens’ Comments on the 120 Chinese Scientists’ Open Letter on Research Integrity in China. XYS20060511. (《众人评“120位中国科学家关于科学研究诚信的公开信”》, XYS20060511).

[16] Original Chinese: “饶毅,施一公糊涂呀,跟着傅新元,程京这些垃圾发签名信”See: Netizens’ Comments on the 120 Chinese Scientists’ Open Letter on Research Integrity in China. XYS20060511. (《众人评“120位中国科学家关于科学研究诚信的公开信”》, XYS20060511).

[17] Original was English by a person named Clown. See: Netizens’ Comments on the 120 Chinese Scientists’ Open Letter on Research Integrity in China II. XYS20060514. (《众人评“120位中国科学家关于科学研究诚信的公开信”(二)》, XYS20060514).

[18] The evidence that Fang was behind web ID USTC3 was very strong. In April, 2009, a person showed evidence on the forum of the New Threads that USTC3 and Fang was tightly connected, Fang immediately deleted the post. The web ID has been inactive since May, 2010, after its connection to Fang was well known.

[19] For the demonstration that Fang was behind “Resolute Counterattack” (坚决反击), see The Feud between Drs. Fang Zhouzi and Xiao Chuanguo, pp.108-109. (《方舟子恶斗肖传国始末》).

[20] For the demonstration that Fang was behind “Sailing in Water” (水中划), see The Feud between Drs. Fang Zhouzi and Xiao Chuanguo, pp.36-41. (《方舟子恶斗肖传国始末》).

[21] Original Chinese: “如果120位教授们真的想要制止新语丝网站的话,下一封信的开头,应该这样对口专业地署名:亲爱的布什总统先生: 作为科技工作者,我们十分关切国内近来多起有关学术研究不端的指控事件。我们愿意针对科学研究诚信的重要问题表示如下观点....” Sailing in Water. An Incongruous Open Letter. (水中划:《一封牛头不对马嘴的公开信》, May 11, 2006, Forum of the New Threads).

[22] Original Chinese: “身为人权卫士和科研人员,也许没有人比傅教授更能切身体会到言论自由对弱势人物所造成的的危害性了.在我的记忆中,傅教授自己不幸由强势人物变成新语丝论坛上的弱势群体之一而被群殴的事,这已经不是第一次了. 傅教授在清华实验室的大管事常志杰副教授涉嫌伪造简历的事....傅教授涉嫌浪费国家经费的指控....一切仿佛就在眼前. 匿名的指控者逞一时口舌之快,对被指控人可能由此引起的心灵的创伤,是不会去关心的.” Sailing in Water. Singing a Folk Song to Whom: Comment on Professor Fu Xinyuan’s Vulnerable Groups Theory. (水中划:《唱只删歌给谁听: 评傅新元教授的弱势群体论》, May 14, 2006, Forum of the New Threads).

[23] Original Chinese: “1. 外籍华人科学家以帮助中国科学为名,实质上对大陆的科研资源的争夺仗已经打响.这种争夺,近年在国外科研经费萎缩,而中国对科学投资让人眼红迅速增加的情况下,日趋激烈. 2. 外籍华人科学家正在和大陆本土的强势科学家或政客结成一个又一个的利益同盟,以各种合法的手段敛财.” See: Sailing in Water. The Historical Background of Fu Xinyuan’s Open Letter. XYS20060524. (水中划:《傅新元公开信出笼的时代背景》, XYS20060524).

[24] Original Chinese: “如果我是傅,我就先搞清楚常大主管有没有问题,如果没有,就公开批评方和新语丝,这样傅的拥戴者一定会很多,得到的支持要强大的多。如果常主管有问题,傅还出面这样蛮干,自以为得计,结果只能用愚蠢两字来解释。” See: Sailing in Water. The Consequence Analysis of Fu Xinyuan’s Open Letter. XYS20060525. (水中划:《傅新元的公开信后果分析》, XYS20060525).

[25] Original Chinese: “刚读到“自然”杂志发表的有关傅新元公开信的文章,有感如下:1。不愧是老牌杂志,传统最强势媒体第一次公开全面真实地报道了此次傅新元120人公开信的意图。看得出来,记者作了很大努力,让人尊敬。” See: Sailing in Water. Eyebrows Raised and Sword Unsheathed: Some Thoughts after Reading Journal Nature. XYS20060526. (水中划:《扬眉剑出鞘——读〈自然〉杂志有感》, XYS20060526).

[26] Fang’s other two articles on the open letter were:

Sailing in Water. Fu Xinyuan’s Open Letter Shows That the Experts Are Running out of Tricks to Monopolize the Speech Right in the Internet Era. XYS20060527. (水中划:《从傅新元的公开信看互联网时代专家垄断公共话语权的黔驴技穷》, XYS20060527).

Sailing in Water. The Second Consequence Analysis of Fu Xinyuan’s Open Letter. XYS20060604. (水中划:《再析傅新元公开信的一些后果》, XYS20060604).

[27] Original Chinese:“120人公开信事件:反‘文革’还是反‘打假’?” and “傅新元120人公开信事件”.

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

[29] Mill, John Stuart. On liberty. Longman, Green, Longman, Roberts & Green, London, UK. 1864. p.22.

[30] Fang’s original Chinese: “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。” See: Fang Zhouzi. Cao Minghua Spreads Rumor Saying That Michigan State University Found One of My Articles Plagiarism. XYS20110216. (方舟子:《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》, XYS20110216).

[31] The threatening letter was published by Legal Weekly on March 30, 2011, along with the investigation report, A Comprehensive Investigation on the Alleged Plagiarism Committed by Fang Zhouzi. (《方舟子涉嫌抄袭总调查》).

[32] Fang’s original Chinese: “我揭露造假11年,经手一千余起案件,没有一起出于私心。现在为妻子名誉,就私报公仇一回,在这里撂一句狠话:如果以后郭国松还留在《法治周末》,我就追究法制日报社的领导。如果郭国松去了别的媒体,我就追究那家媒体的领导。哪位媒体领导认为郭国松是合格媒体人且自己一生清白,大可收留他。” (See: [weibo.com]).

[33] Uncover the Secret of Fang Zhouzi was first broadcasted on Feb. 23, 2012, and stopped four days later, due to Fang’s interference. On Feb. 29, Fang declared victory: “It is said that because having received countless complaints, Shenzhen TV was forced to terminate Xiao Chuanguo’s commercials.” (Original Chinese: “据称由于接到无数投诉,深圳电视台被迫中断肖传国广告片”).

The video clips of the program already broadcasted are available online: Episode 1: Xiao’s Procedure (《肖氏反射弧从未被叫停》); Episode 2: Liu Juhua (《刘菊花》); Episode 3: A Consulting Scientist in A Bioinformatics Company (《"生物信息公司咨询科学家"》); Episode 4: Patients healed by Xiao’s Procedure (《肖氏手术治愈者愿接受40万悬赏》); Episode 5: The Use of the Fraud Fund (《打假基金使用》); Episode 6: Xiao’s Procedure is only for Incontinence (《梅骅:肖氏反射弧只针对大小便失禁》).

[34] Fang’s original Chinese: “这个为残害儿童的肖传国手术做虚假广告的深圳电视台主持人叫什么?应该让这些助纣为虐的媒体人都付出一点代价。” (See: [weibo.com]).

[35] See: [weibo.com].

[36] So far, Fang has lost at least 3 libel lawsuits: In July, 2006, Jianghan District Court in Wuhan ordered Fang to pay Xiao Chuanguo 30,000 RMB for mental solatium, and publicly apologize to Dr. Xiao. (See: the adjudication). In Feb, 2007, the upper court upheld the original judgment. (See: the adjudication). In Nov., 2006, Changan District Court in Xi’an ordered Fang, together with Beijing Science and Technology News, to pay Ding Zuyi and Xi'an Translation College 160,000 RMB, and publicly apologize to them. (See: the adjudication). The upper court upheld the original judgment in April, 2007. (See: the adjudication). In Nov., 2006, Beijing Second Intermediate People's Court ordered Fang to pay Zeng Yuchang and Liu Xiaohua 20,000 RMB, and publicly apologize to them. (See: the adjudication). In July, 2007, the upper court changed fine to 2,000 RMB. (See: the adjudication). So far, Fang has neither paid the fines, nor apologized to any person yet.

[37] On Dec. 1, 2005, Xiaoshu (Chen Min), a well-known commentator with Southern Weekend, published an article in New Express Daily, the title was Why Do I Take a Clear-cut Stand against Fang Zhouzi (《我为什么旗帜鲜明地反对方舟子》), in which he pointed out that what Fang did was just like Joseph McCarthy, and warned that Fang was leaning to fascists.



被编辑3次。最后被亦明编辑于08/05/2013 07:15AM。
附件:
打开 | 下载 - Shamelessness shouldn\'t be anyone\'s Nature XII.pdf (694.3 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 (4700 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.