欢迎! 登陆 注册

高级搜索

Part XXIV: The U. S. President Case (5408 查看)

April 28, 2013 03:16PM
【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 XXIV)


Xin Ge, Ph. D.

Columbia, SC, USA


【Summary】On Nov. 2, 2012, four days before Nature’s announcement of Fang’s receiving John Maddox Prize, Fang published an article in Xinhua Daily Telegraph, entitled “Washington Was Also an Infertility Patient.” On the same day, I wrote my 4th open letter to Mr. Xie Guoji, the editor-in-chief of Xinhua Daily Telegraph, exposing Fang’s plagiarism and ignorance in the article. On Nov. 30, 2012, 24 days after receiving the John Maddox Prize, Fang published another article in the same newspaper, entitled “Jefferson and Hemings.” On the same day, I wrote my 5th open letter to Mr. Xie Guoji, exposing Fang’s plagiarism and ignorance in the article. The whole story is retold here.

【Content】

Fang’s Plagiarism History: The U. S. President Case

The Background Story
Washington was also an Infertility Patient
1. An Old Thief’s Old Trick
2. A Scifool Writer’s Stupidity
Jefferson and Hemings
1. A Fake U. S. Historian
2. A Fake Molecular Geneticist
Concluding Remarks
A Complete Comparison between Fang’s Washington was also an Infertility Patient and Dr. Amory’s George Washington’s infertility
A Complete Comparison Between Fang’s Jefferson and Hemings and the related articles on Wikipedia
Notes


Fang’s Plagiarism History: The U. S. President Case



Major characters
From left: The U. S. Presidents George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, Dr. John K. Amory, and Wikipedia, the victims; Fang Zhouzi, the thief.



The publishers of Fang’s fraudulent articles
From left: Dr. Li Congjun (李从军), the president of Xinhua News Agency which owns Xinhua Daily Telegraph; Mr. Xie Guoji (解国记), the president and editor-in-chief of Xinhua Daily Telegraph; Mr. Fang Lixin (方立新), the deputy editor-in-chief of Xinhua Daily Telegraph.


The Background Story

On Oct. 3, 2011, Fang announced that his column in China Youth Daily, which was started in 2004, was terminated, and he was not sure what he was going to do next[1]. The termination of the alliance between Fang and China Youth Daily was hailed as one of the most significant events in anti-Fang history and movement, and I immediately started to recount the evil and criminal deeds Fang had done in or with that newspaper[2]. On Oct. 14, 2011, Fang published an article in Xinhua Daily Telegraph, entitled “Jefferson’s Fossils,” and announced on the next day that he started a new column in the newspaper[3]. Since then, Fang has published more than 50 articles in Xinhua Daily Telegraph, and more than a quarter of them, including the two I am going to discuss below, are plagiarized from other people or himself. (See Part XV: An Unprecedented Professional Literary Thief).

The fact is, being kicked out of China Youth Daily was only the start of Fang’s collapse. In the next 12 months, Fang would become the most hated and despised person on the internet[4]. In August 2012, Fang had to give up his stronghold, microblog at weibo.com, a subsidiary of SINA Corporation, and retreat to a much less influential microblog at sohu.com[5]. Fang’s self-imposed exile ignited a thunderous celebration on weibo.com, a post by Dr. Xie Youping, a law professor at Fudan University, expressed most people’s feeling vividly:

“What is the biggest failure on microblog? Answer: The biggest failure is that he is scolded by other people every day; the largest failure is that when he leaves, no one asks him to stay; the greatest failure is that when he leaves, everyone celebrates and bids farewell; the ultimate failure is that when he leaves everyone celebrates and prays for his never coming back.”[6]

Under such situation, Fang and his backstage manipulators must have designed a strategy to repackage him, thus came a tandem of global cheating (and anti-cheating) activities in November, 2012: on Oct. 30, 2012, Fang went to the United States with Mr. Sima Nan to “observe” American General Election, a tour sponsored by a secret agency[7]. On Nov. 2, Fang published his Washington Was also an Infertility Patient, pretending as an expert in both medicine and U. S. history. On the same day, Fang’s plagiarism in that article was discovered and exposed[8]. On Nov. 6, Nature announced that Fang was awarded with the inaugural John Maddox Prize[9]. The next day, Nature posted Fang’s award acceptance speech, which was Fang’s very first public English speech in his whole life, and Chinese people finally realized that the pretentious English expert in China for the last dozen years was in fact an English clown[10]. On Nov. 10, Fang, arranged by his followers, visited the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health, and gave informal talks to some Chinese audiences, in Chinese, and then he announced on his microblog that he had given speeches at FDA and NIH, implying that he was the official guest of the U. S. government and delivered invited and formal speeches at these two institutions[11]. Fang’s cheating was exposed about one month later[12]. On Nov. 15, sponsored by Global Times, an extreme left-wing newspaper in China, Fang went to Israel with Mr. Sima Nan, pretending that the trip was sponsored by Israeli government[13]. On Nov. 17, British magazine NewScientist published an interview, “Fraud fighter: 'Faked research is endemic in China',” in which the magazine faked almost all of Fang’s English[14]. On Nov. 30, Fang published his Jefferson and Hemings in Xinhua Daily Telegraph. On the same day, his plagiarism was discovered and exposed[15].

Who are those behind Fang’s repeated cheatings and frauds? Why do they try so hard to support the thief, the evil, the enemy of public? I’ll discuss these issues in a few weeks. For now, let’s just focus on Fang’s plagiarisms committed in the last November.

Washington was also an Infertility Patient

Washington was also an Infertility Patient contains 12 paragraphs, 1,710 Chinese characters, and covers knowledge in gynecology, andrology, U. S. history, and Washington’s biography. Since we have already established the fact that Fang is extremely ignorant, he has absolutely no such knowledge reserves, then we can simply ask the following question: Who was Fang’s victim this time? The answer was easily found by translating some key terms in Fang’s article into English and using them to search the internet: The victim was Dr. John K. Amory, a professor in the Medical School of University of Washington at Seattle, Washington.


The sterilized stealing
Fang’s article in its newspaper format is shown above. The portions highlighted in yellow are those translated from Dr. Amory’s paper. The sentence in the red box is where Fang mentioned Dr. Amory. Fang neither gave the citation, nor acknowledged the fact that he not only borrowed Dr. Amory’s conclusion, but also stole his entire arguments and speculations.


1. An Old Thief’s Old Trick

In March, 2004, Dr. Amory published a paper entitled “George Washington’s infertility: Why was the father of our country never a father?”, proposing that George Washington was infertile as a result of tuberculosis he might have suffered in his early life. Dr. Amory also speculated that the supposed infertility had a decisive influence on Washington’s indifference to military and political powers and his special affection toward Marquis de Lafayette[16]. And Fang’s article was almost entirely based on Dr. Amory’s paper: from the 2nd paragraph all the way to the 11th paragraph. The fact is, Fang not only plagiarized Dr. Amory’s historical narrative, his gynecological and andrological knowledge, but also his speculations. In short, “beyond exact verbal duplication, ……the verbal logic, the development of the argument, and the specific examples,” characteristics of bilingual plagiarism as discussed by Dr. Robert Root-Bernstein of Michigan State University[17], of Fang’s article, were copied from Dr. Amory’s paper. (See the comparison table below for detail.)

Admittedly, Fang did mention Dr. Amory in the article, once, in the 8th paragraph:

“According to the analysis of Professor John Amory of the Research Center for Human Reproduction in the medical school of Washington University in St. Louis, Washington became infertile possibly because he was infected with tuberculosis when he was young.” (Sentence VIII-4)

Fang not only made the sentence sound like he borrowed Dr. Amory’s analytical conclusion only, nothing else, he also mistranslated Dr. Amory’s affiliation, from University of Washington School of Medicine at Seattle, Washington, to the Medical School of Washington University in St. Louis, possibly deliberately to deceive other people. The fact is, on Nov. 14, 2012, 12 days after I exposed his plagiarism in the article, Fang modified his webpage by adding a note mark in the above sentence, and gave a full citation of Dr. Amory’s paper at the end of the article. Fang also corrected several mistakes I pointed out, such as Dr. Amory’s affiliation, and the name of Mrs. Washington’s ex-husband, Custis (Fang’s translation sounds “Kurtetis”), without any acknowledgement. What Fang did was an exact duplication of what he did more than two years earlier: In October 2010, after I reported his plagiarism of Dr. Root-Bernstein in 1995 to Michigan State University, Fang modified his webpage by inserting an attribution[18]. It seems that Fang has never learned his lesson that by so doing, he was actually admitting his plagiarism.


The same old trick by a same old thief
On Nov. 14, 2012, 12 days after I reported to Xinhua Daily Telegraph Fang’s plagiarism in Washington was also an Infertility Patient, Fang modified the webpages of the article on his New Threads and blogs by inserting a citation of Dr. Amory’s paper. Obviously, Fang has no authority to modify the webpage on the newspaper’s website, which can serve as the article’s original form. The red underlines on the left highlight Fang’s modification, the green box highlights the date (Nov. 5, 2012) on which the webpage was created, and the green underline on the right (Page Info) shows the time (Nov. 14, 2012 at 3:29:36 AM) when the last modification to the webpage was made. Please note the title of the article on the webpage is When You Heard That Washington Had A Lot of Illegitimate Children.


2. A Scifool Writer’s Stupidity

Fang’s scifool article was not only a plagiarism, but also a prototype of bad science. And just like his plagiarism was immediately exposed, Fang's bad science was harshly criticized shortly after the publication of the article. On Nov. 25, 2012, Dr. Zhu Guoguang, a physician in Finland, and the Vice Chairman of Pan European Federation of TCM Societies, published an article on his blog, denouncing Fang’s absurdity[19].


Dr. Zhu Guoguang


According to the article, Dr. Zhu sent his correspondence to Xinhua Daily Telegraph a few days after the publication of Fang’s article, but the newspaper never responded, just like they have been refusing to respond to my serial reports. Therefore, it is very clear that the newspaper knowingly permits and supports Fang’s plagiarism and scifooling. Dr. Zhu kindly permitted me to translate his entire article and use it here:

Dear Xinhua Daily Telegraph,

I have always considered Xinhua Daily Telegraph as a very prestigious national newspaper, and because the news comes from the most authoritative source, reading your newspaper has become my daily life.

On November 2, 2012, the 14th page of your newspaper published an article by Fang Zhouzi, entitled Washington was also an infertility patient. I have been conducting research on and clinical treatment of female illness in both China and Europe for more than 40 years, I have also read some Washington’s biographies . After reading Fang’s article, I found it contains many questionable arguments and conclusions. Therefore, I am writing to you to share my thoughts with Mr. Fang and your other interested readers.

The major viewpoint of Fang’s article is this: “Although it is difficult to determine the cause of Washington’s infertility, it is basically confirmed that Washington was an infertility patient.” Mr. Fang based his conclusion on the following two “facts”: first, when they got married, both Mr. and Mrs. Washington “were in their youth,” their “relationship was intimate,” and Mr. Washington had the desire to have his own child; second, Martha had children before her second marriage, and there is no records showing that “Martha’s last pregnancy was complicated by postpartum infection or hemorrhage,” therefore demonstrating she was fertile. It was based on such “evidence,” Mr. Fang drew his “most sensible and reasonable” conclusion: “Washington suffered from male infertility.” However, it seems to me that Mr. Fang’s conclusion is neither sensible nor reasonable.

According to Dewhurst's Textbook of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, (Blackwell Publishing, USA, 2007. p.440), secondary infertility is caused 60% by female factors, 20% by male factors, and 20% by unexplained reasons. Chinese Obstetrics and Gynecology (Le Jie, Editor-in-chief, People’s Health Publishing House, 2000. p.416) basically states the same: “The inhibitory factors for pregnancy can be divided into female, male, and both. According to surveys, the female factors account for 60%, male factors 30%, and the combination of male and female factors 10%.” Clinically, the most common factors should be considered first. Mr. Fang didn’t demonstrate scientifically that Martha didn’t suffer from “secondary infertility.” According to Mr. Fang, any woman who had pregnancy before could continue to give birth, unless her last pregnancy was complicated by postpartum infection or hemorrhage. However, there are many causes for secondary infertility in women who previously had a child, and “postpartum infection or hemorrhage” is only a small fraction of them. Other factors include anovulation and endocrine hormone disorders of hypothalamic - pituitary - ovarian gonadal axis, caused by various external environments or serious infection and other adverse factors; immature development of follicles and luteal insufficiency; tubal obstruction (it is currently believed that many secondary infertility cases are caused by utero film endometriosis, or menstrual blood flowing back). Women who had children before could also suffer immune infertility by generating anti-sperm antibodies or anti-endometrium antibodies. In fact, Mr. Fang even didn’t exclude the possible causes he listed for Martha’s infertility, therefore, he can only use the excuses of “no evidence exists.” This kind of argument is not only unscientific, but also against the basic logic reasoning in modern medicine.

According to a biography of Mrs. Washington, she suffered serious illness at least twice in the 16 months after her marriage to Washington. In January 1760, during her first wedding anniversary, she was infected by measles and bedridden. Three months later, she was seriously sick again. (Helen Bryan. Martha Washington: First Lady of Liberty. John Wiley & Sons, 2002. pp.139-140.) Under such circumstances, how could anyone exclude the possibility that Martha suffered secondary infertility? Furthermore, because of the early death of her ex-husband and two children, Martha was very much terrified of disease.

Like many other people, I admire President Washington deeply, and I have made two trips to his former home Mount Vernon to pay my respect. My first impression of Mr. President Washington was his manful figure and good health. Although infertility would not hurt his greatness in anyway, it is shocking that Xinhua Daily Telegraph, a news medium with Chinese government background, publishes such a frivolous article contempt of ancient people based on rumors and limited knowledge. On the other hand, many infertility cases are caused by scientifically unexplainable reasons, and as clinical physicians we are often unable to make a definite diagnosis. If physicians have limited ability to deal with the problems of their live patients, how could a “science writer” who had no medical training and clinical experience is so confident to assert that a person dead longtime ago suffered a certain illness? Isn’t it really absurd?

I sent this letter to your mail box three weeks ago, but I still have not received your response yet. Therefore, my only option is to publish it on my own blog on Guangming Net. I hope it could caution Chinese official media against publishing such inferior science articles to mislead the public.

Zhu Guoguang, MD
Neo Clinic
Oulu, Finland



Jefferson and Hemings

From Nov. 8 to 14, 2012, Chinese Communist Party held their 18th National Congress in Beijing, and Fang’s column in Xinhua Daily Telegraph was suspended for 3 weeks. On Nov. 30, 2012, the suspension was lifted, and Fang published his Jefferson and Hemings, telling the story of the controversy, and claiming “the conclusion that Jefferson was the father of Hemings' children has been generally accepted.”[20] As mentioned before, on the same day of Fang’s publication, I sent my 5th open letter to Xinhua Daily Telegraph, accusing Fang of plagiarism, more than 5 sixths of the article was translated from Wikipedia without any attribution[15].


The scandalous stealing
Fang’s article in its newspaper format is shown above. The portions highlighted in yellow are those translated from Wikipedia articles. Fang has never acknowledged the fact.


1. A Fake U. S. Historian

Although Fang’s title in the newspaper is “science writer,” the fact is, Jefferson and Hemings, which contains 10 paragraphs and 1,827 Chinese characters, mainly talks about the sex scandal (the title of the article on his blogs is Thomas Jefferson’s Extramarital Affair), only about a quarter of the text talks about the science. The funny thing is, Fang got neither the history nor science right.

According to Fang, it was the “researchers at the University of Leicester of UK” who wanted to test the Y-DNA sequence of Jefferson and Hemings’ descendants. (VI-2). Fang was obviously translating the following sentence from the article “Jefferson–Hemings controversy” on Wikipedia:

“In 1998 Dr. Eugene Foster with researchers at the University of Leicester tested the Y-DNA of male descendants of the Jefferson, Carr and Eston Hemings lines in an attempt to determine whether Thomas Jefferson or one of the Carrs had fathered Sally Hemings' children.”

The fact is, Dr. Eugene Foster was a retired professor of Tufts University[21], and in the famous Nature paper, Jefferson fathered slave’s last child, even though he was the first and corresponding author, he didn’t have any affiliation[22]. Also, besides the “researchers at the University of Leicester of UK,” the paper was also co-authored by researchers from Leiden University and the University of Oxford. And according to New York Times, “Dr. Foster's samples were analyzed by Christopher Tyler-Smith, a population geneticist at the University of Oxford in England.”[21]. So, except for copying Wikipedia, where did Fang get his misinformation?

Also according to Fang, the DNA test proved that Jefferson fathered all of Hemings’ children:

“The conclusion that Jefferson was the father of Hemings' children has been generally accepted.” (IX-3).

Fang’s statement was apparently based on the following sentence in the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article:

“In the 21st century, a consensus has emerged among historians that the total evidence suggests Jefferson's paternity of all of Hemings' children.[1]

However, the above statement was not accurate, according to the reference it cited. The note [1], which was a quote from PBS Frontline’s Jefferson's Blood, says:

"Now, the new scientific evidence has been correlated with the existing documentary record, and a consensus of historians and other experts who have examined the issue agree that the question has largely been answered: Thomas Jefferson fathered at least one of Sally Hemings's children, and quite probably all six."

As a matter of fact, the Nature paper stated clearly that “The simplest and most probable explanations for our molecular findings are that Thomas Jefferson, rather than one of the Carr brothers, was the father of Eston Hemings Jefferson, and that Thomas Woodson was not Thomas Jefferson’s son.”[22]

Indeed, if anything, the DNA test only proved the father/son relationship between Eston Hemings Jefferson and Thomas Jefferson, and nothing else. As a matter of fact, even such conclusion has been criticized by many people, and Dr. Foster admitted repeatedly that the title of the Nature paper, Jefferson fathered slave’s last child, was misleading[23]. Had Fang read a little more than what listed in the Wikipedia article, he should have known that[24].

Even though Fang wrote his article by directly translating the Wikipedia article, he didn’t read the article carefully. According to Fang, Jefferson had a relationship with Hemings for only 13 years:

“However, he obviously lived together with Hemings really well, maintained the relationship for as long as 13 years, even had a son at the age of 65.” (X-3)

It was obviously translated from the following sentence in the Wikipedia article:

“In 1968 the historian Winthrop Jordan noted that Jefferson was at Monticello ‘nine months prior to each birth’ of Hemings' children, during a 13-year period when he was often away for months at a time.”

The fact is, Hemings gave birth to her first son, Thomas Woodson, in 1790, shortly after she returned to the U. S. from France with Jefferson, and she gave birth to her last son, Eston Hemings, in 1808[25]. So, if Fang believed what he wrote before, Jefferson fathered all of Hemings’ children, he should know that the “13-year relationship” statement was wrong. As a matter of fact, the Wikipedia article stated explicitly that Jefferson and Hemings had a long term relationship:

“Jefferson became a widower at age 40 in 1783, and remained so to his death in 1826. He is believed to have had a relationship with Sally Hemings that lasted nearly four decades, until his death, and six children by her.”

The introduction of PBS Frontline’s Jefferson's Blood, which the Wikipedia article quoted, also says:

"More than 20 years after CBS executives were pressured by Jefferson historians to drop plans for a mini-series on Jefferson and Hemings, the network airs Sally Hemings: An American Scandal. Though many quarreled with the portrayal of Hemings as unrealistically modern and heroic, no major historian challenged the series' premise that Hemings and Jefferson had a 38-year relationship that produced children."

In other words, the scifool writer has made a complete fool of himself, historically!

2. A Fake Molecular Geneticist

Fang’s followers might defend Fang this way: Fang is a science writer, not a historian, so it is not a big deal that he has made some historical mistakes. Well, the scifool writer’s scientific mistakes were even more amusing: he apparently didn’t know how the DNA test worked!

In the article, Fang repeatedly says that the Y-DNA (or Y-chromosome) test was to determine the presence or not of a specific sequence called haplogroup T. For example, Fang wrote:

“The researchers … analyzed their DNA sequences of Y chromosomes, and found they all had a special sequence which is rare in European lineages, called haplogroup T, and it can be used as the characteristic sequence of the male members of Jefferson family.” (VII-3)

“The researchers analyzed his Y chromosome, and found he indeed had that piece of special sequence. The researchers also analyzed the Y chromosomes of 3 male descendants from the Carr family who were suspected of fathering Hemings’ children, and the results showed that they share a piece of special sequence, but they don’t have the characteristic sequence of Jefferson family.” (VIII-2 and VIII-3)

Had Fang read the original paper, he would have known that “the researchers” tested 19 loci on Y-chromosome, which cover more than a half of the non-recombinant region of the Y-chromosome, therefore, they were not comparing a specific sequence; rather, they were comparing the pattern of these markers. Also, in the original paper, neither “haplogroup T,” nor its original name, “haplogroup K2,” was mentioned, because the haplogroup type was not “found” by them at the time yet, it was found 9 years later[26].


Y STR Positions along Y Chromosome
The red boxes highlight the two markers used in Dr. Foster’s Nature paper.
(Note: the original image is from the website of the National Institute of Standards and Technology)


As a matter of fact, the characteristic of “haplogroup T” or “haplogroup K2” is only an A/C single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) in marker M70[27], and yet Fang believed that such a single SNP could be used to identify the father/son relationship! What an idiot!

In 2004, when he was debating the GMO issues with Mr. Liu Xianshu, the page editor of Fang’s China Youth Daily column, Fang repeatedly claimed that he was trained specifically in molecular genetics, he had conducted research on molecular genetics for many years, and he had obtained a biology doctorate in the area of molecular genetics[28]. Well, shame on those who “trained” molecular geneticist Fang, and shame on the institution which conferred a doctoral degree upon such an ignorant!

Concluding Remarks

It seems that since the wide publicity of his, as well his wife’s, plagiarism history in early 2011, Fang determined to shift his career from scifool writing to U. S. historical writing. On July 15, 2011, Fang published an article in Xinhua Daily Telegraph, A Blend of Science and Freedom, claiming that Thomas Jefferson not only had a deep love for liberty, but also had an “almost fanatical love” for science[29]. On Oct. 14, 2012, Fang published his first column article in Xinhua Daily Telegraph, Jefferson’s Fossils[30]. The article is full of factual errors that it is very obvious that it was stolen from a desolate, yet identified source[31]. The two plagiarism cases presented here but the extension of Fang’s stealing trend.

It was interesting that four days after the publication of A Blend of Science and Freedom, Fang’s follower and Science contributor Ms. Cindy Hao (Hao Xin) alleged that Fang’s article was plagiarized from The Science of Liberty by Timonthy Ferris[32]. Although Fang denied the allegation, claiming he had not read Ferris’ book, he didn’t confess whom he plagiarized. Instead, he retorted: “Do I have to give the sources of historical literatures in such a short article?”[33] Yes, according to Fang, he doesn’t have to give citations, attributions, and acknowledgements when he writes (translates) popular science articles, while other people have to, otherwise he would for sure bust that “fraud”; now, the scifool writer is a U. S. historian, so even in his historical writings, he doesn’t have to “give the source of historical literatures” in any of his “short articles.”

In other words, Fang is exempt from any laws or rules, because he is the lord of laws and rules. So, what are Fang’s Laws and rules?

In July 2003, Fang lectured Professor Liu Bing on the difference between translation and plagiarism:

“If [your article] is a translation, [you] not only should note the source, [you] should also use quotation marks to quote the portion of your translation. Use entire paragraphs as [your] own writing, it is the same as plagiarism.”[34]

Two months later, Fang taught Academician Wu Rukang on the difference between citation and plagiarism:

“Even if [you] noted the sources of your data, but [you] didn’t use [your] own language to do the proper rewriting, paraphrasing, or didn’t use quotation marks to quote the words you copied directly, then it is the same as plagiarism.”[35]

In February 2007, Fang, posing as a world-renowned fraud fighter, told the entire “China Youth” “how to avoid academic misconduct”:

“Many people have two misunderstandings about plagiarism: The first one is, thinking that only plagiarizing other people’s points of view (including experimental data and results) is plagiarism, and plagiarizing other people’s wordings is not plagiarism.……The second one is, thinking that as long as the source is noted, you can copy other people’s wordings directly.”

Has anyone ever seen such a shameless organism?

There are two more things worth commenting. First, although Fang is accused of plagiarism constantly, he keeps stealing. The only explanation for such a phenomenon is that he could not write on his own. In other words, Fang has to steal to write. Second, although Xinhua Daily Telegraph has been notified Fang’s plagiarism and scifooling for many times, they keep publishing Fang’s stolen and fraudulent articles. There are two plausible explanations for this phenomenon, one is that Fang is one of them, or they are the same as Fang, they both live on stealing. The other explanation is that they have no other choices: Fang's column in their newspaper was assigned by their supreme boss(es), therefore he is out of their control. I will show you which explanation is closer to truth later.


【Please read the PDF file for the complete comparisons.】


Notes

[1] Fang’s original Chinese: “由于栏目调整,从这个月开始,我在中国青年报冰点周刊的专栏‘一言堂’就停了,结束了我与中青报长达7年的合作(从2004年12月4月刊出第一篇‘一言堂’《‘永动机’重现江湖》开始),以后是换别的报刊继续写这类科普小品文,还是暂时把精力集中于写书(现在手头上拖了三本书还没完成),还没有定。”(See: 2011-10-301:04).

[2] Yi Ming. The Termination of the Evil Alliance between Fang Zhouzi and China Youth Daily. (亦明:《方舟子与〈中国青年报〉邪恶同盟的终结》).

[3] Fang’s original Chinese: “本月起我在 《中国青年报》的科普专栏‘一言堂’取消,改在《新华每日电讯•草地周刊》开专栏‘科海方舟’,该专栏第一篇:1796年7月,托马斯•杰斐逊收到了约翰•斯图尔特上校送来的几个化石。那是工人们在弗吉尼亚的一个山洞挖掘用来制作炸药的硝石时挖出来的……《杰斐逊的化石》[t.cn])。” (See: 2011-10-15 02:54).

[4] The statement is based on a lot of votes, microblog posts, and responses to Fang’s postings. (See: 《新浪微博上关于方舟子的投票》; 《方菊花革命(Fangolution)》. Also see: Yi Ming. The Top Ten News of Fang Zhouzi in 2012: (1) Notorious Everywhere, Credit Bankrupted. (亦明:《方舟子2012年十大要闻•臭了大街,信用破产》).

[5] On Aug. 13, 2012, Fang announced that he would not renew his microblog at weibo.com, citing the reasons that a microblogger scolded and cursed his wife and daughter using the most vicious language, but the management refused to punish the microblogger; instead, the management fined Fang for cursing back. (Fang’s original Chinese: “新浪以‘举报者非当事人为由’拒绝处理对不加V以最恶毒的语言谩骂、诅咒我女儿的举报,却接受‘子默默曰’举报我对不加V谩骂我妻子、女儿的反击,判定我违规。难怪不加V敢扬言她有后台,没人敢处理她。从今日起,我停止在新浪的更新。大家去搜狐微博找我。” See: 2012-8-13 03:10). Note : Fang played such trick several times before, the purpose was to pressure the management of weibo.com to punish his enemies. Because of Fang’s background, the management had to meet Fang demands and invite him to come back. However, they haven’t complied with Fang’s threatening since Aug. 13, 2012. Also, It was Fang and his vicious followers who attacked the microblogger, a female writer, first.

[6] Xie’s original Chinese: “微博上做人最失败的表现是什么?答:最失败的表现是天天有人骂;最最失败的表现是离开的时候没有人留;最最最失败的表现是离开的时候大家都在庆祝和欢送,最最最最失败的表现是大家一边庆祝一边祈祷他永远不要再回来。。。” (See: 2012-8-13 15:50). Note: Fang later published two articles on the New Threads to attack Professor Xie for his supposed academic misconduct. (See: 非公知准五毛:《复旦大学法学院谢佑平教授的成功之道:一稿多发与合作发表》, XYS20120823; 《再揭露复旦大学法学院谢佑平教授的学术不端行为:一稿多发与侵夺他人成果》, XYS20120914).

[7] To my knowledge, neither Fang nor Sima Nan revealed their sponsors, although it was obviously not a private trip.

[8] Yi Ming. The Old Thief Is Still Stealing: The 4th Open Letter to Mr. Xie Guoji, The Editor-in-Chief of Xinhua Daily Telegraph. Sent out via email and posted online on Nov. 2, 2012. (亦明:《方老偷,还在偷──给《新华每日电讯》总编辑解国记先生的第四封公开信》).

[9] Nature Editorial. John Maddox prize. Nov. 6, 2012.

[10] Fang’s English speech immediately became an internet joke and many people considered it as “inspirational,” meaning since even an American Ph. D. could speak such broken English, no one should feel ashamed of his/her own, because it would be less likely worse than Fang’s. Fang issued several messages to save his face, saying the British people understood his English, the people from Sense about Science even told him “the audience were touched by your words” (See: 2012-11-09); he was interviewed by two foreign journalists and they understood his English (See: 2012-11-09); he had given speeches at FAD and NIH (See: 2012-11-10); and an old American republican lady praised his English on the election day (See: 2012-11-11).

[11] See: 2012-11-10, 2012-11-11, 2012-11-11, 2012-11-11, 2012-11-12.

[12] Yi Ming. The Truth about Fang Zhouzi’s Speech at FDA. December 18, 2012. (亦明:《方舟子在美国FDA做讲演的真相》). Yi Ming. Further Explanation on The Truth about Fang Zhouzi’s Speech at FDA. January 20, 2013. (亦明:《关于“方舟子在美国FDA做讲演的真相”的进一步说明》). Note: I have also received a reply from NIH, saying Fang’s talk was informal and arranged by personal associated with NIH Chinese Students and Scholars Association, “An official invitation to come and speak was never sent to Dr. Fang.”

[13] On Nov. 15, 2012, Fang showed off his “special entry permit” to Israel, issued by Israeli Embassy in China (See: 2012-11-15). On the next day, he showed off again, saying he held the “special entry permit” issued by Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs (See: 2012-11-16). On Nov. 27, 2012, Fang posted two messages saying the trip was financially sponsored by Israeli government (See: 2012-11-27 and 2012-11-27). As a matter of fact, the website of the Globe Times had revealed the secret all along.

[14] White, J. 2012. Fraud fighter: 'Faked research is endemic in China'. NewScientists 2891: 29.Note: The fact that Fang’s English in the interview was almost completely faked, or prettified, is self-evident. Just read and listen Fang’s John Maddox Prize acceptance speech and compare it with the interview’s text. The speech: “I am truely honored to receive John Maddox Prize. Science in China faces great challenge from superstition, pseudo-science, anti-science and scientific misconduct. There are more and more Chinese people realize this is a big problem and are standing up for science. I consider this award as an acknowledgement for our efforts from international science community and I deeply appreciate it. Thank you.” (See: 2012-11-06 22:28:13:) The video clip of the speech: John Maddox奖_方舟子老师英语获奖感言.

[15] Yi Ming. Xinhua Daily Telegraph Is Still Acting like a Thief Cave and Black Shop: The 5th Open Letter to Mr. Xie Guoji, The Editor-in-Chief of Xinhua Daily Telegraph. Sent out via email and posted online on November 30, 2012. (亦明:《〈新华每日电讯〉继续充当贼窟黑店──给〈新华每日电讯〉的第五封公开信》).

[16] Amory, JK. 2004. George Washington’s infertility: Why was the father of our country never a father? Fertility and Sterility 81:495-499.

[17] Root-Bernstein, R. 2011. An Open Letter to Shi-Min Fang from Dr. Robert Root-Bernstein.

[18] Xin Ge. A Brief History of Fang Zhouzi’s Plagiarism of MSU Professor Dr. Root-Bernstein.

[19] Zhu Guoguang. An Open Letter to the Editor of Xinhua Daily Telegraph on Washington was also an Infertility Patient. Posted on www.gmw.cn on Nov. 25, 2012. (祝国光:《就〈新华每日电讯〉〈华盛顿是不育症患者〉一文给编辑部公开信》).

[20] 方舟子:《杰斐逊和赫明斯

[21] Smith, D. and Wade, N. DNA Test Finds Evidence Of Jefferson Child by Slave. The New York Times, November 1, 1998.

[22] Foster, EA., et al. 1998. Jefferson fathered slave's last child. Nature 396:27-28.

[23] Foster, EA., et al. 1999. The Thomas Jefferson paternity case. Nature 397:32; Marshall, E. 1999. Which Jefferson Was the Father? Science 283:153-155; Wade, N. Defenders of Jefferson Renew Attack on DNA Data Linking Him to Slave Child. The New York Times, January 7, 1999.

[24] ibid. Also: Foster, EA. In Jefferson-Hemings Tie, a Family's Pride; Tenable Conclusions. The New York Times, November 9, 1998; Abbey DM. 1999. The Thomas Jefferson paternity case. Nature 397:32; Davis, G. 1999. The Thomas Jefferson paternity case. Nature 397:32.

[25] Wikipedia: Eston Hemings.

[26] King TE., et al. 2007. Thomas Jefferson's Y chromosome belongs to a rare European lineage. Am J Phys Anthropol. 132(4):584-9.

[27] Semino, O., et al. 2000. The genetic legacy of Paleolithic Homo sapiens sapiens in extant Europeans: a Y chromosome perspective. Science 290:1155-1159; Y Chromosome Consortium. 2002. A nomenclature system for the tree of human Y-chromosomal binary haplogroups. Genome Res. 12:339-348.

[28] Fang’s original Chinese: “我虽然不从事转基因技术的开发,但是我受过分子遗传学的专业训练,曾经做过多年的分子遗传学方面的前沿研究。转基因技术不过是分子遗传学的具体应用,因此我看得懂这方面的论文,也一直关注这个领域的进展,与明显没有受过生物学训练的沈树相比,那是专得不能再专了。” (Fang Zhouzi. How to look upon GM technology? A reply to Shen Shu’s Questioning “Don’t be scared, we’re not transforming your genes.” China Youth Daily, Dec. 29, 2004. 方舟子:《如何看待转基因技术?——答沈树〈质疑《别怕,不是要转你的基因》〉》,2004年12月29日《中国青年报》). “我不知道刘县书如此自称是什么意思,是说自己本科读过生物或曾经自学过生物,所以就可以训斥一位分子遗传学方向的生物学博士在遗传学问题上不专业?” (Fang Zhouzi. Reply to China Youth Daily Reporter Liu Xianshu’s Criticism. XYS20050120. 方舟子:《答〈中国青年报〉记者刘县书的批评》, XYS20050120).

[29] 方舟子:《新“三人行”:德先生赛先生,还有李先生

[30] 方舟子:《杰斐逊的化石

[31] For example, Fang wrote that Tomas Jefferson received the Megalonyx fossils in July 1796 (most likely in April, 1796), and he took his Vice Presidency of the United States on March 4, 1796 (actually in 1797). He also wrote that in January 1803, Jefferson wrote a secret letter to the Congress for 25 million dollars for the Louisiana Purchase (actually Jefferson was requesting $2,500 for the Lewis and Clark Expedition.) Fang even thought Meriwether Lewis was a famous explorer before the expedition.

[32] Hao Xin. It Is Not Good That Fang Zhouzi Writes His Articles This Way. July 19, 2011. (郝炘:《方舟子这样写文章不好》).

[33] Fang’s original Chinese: “退一步说,即使我这篇文章的一些史实参考了Ferris的书,但并没有直接或间接引用,难道在一篇报纸短评中也必须注明历史文献出处?” (Fang Zhouzi. A Reply to Hao Xin’s It Is Not Good That Fang Zhouzi Writes His Articles This Way. XYS20110720. 方舟子:《答郝炘〈方舟子这样写文章不好〉》, XYS20110720).

[34] Fang’s original Chinese: “如果是翻译,不仅应该说明出处,而且应该把翻译的部分用引号括起来。把整段整段的翻译当成自己的创作,与抄袭无异。” Fang Zhouzi. How could you assemble an article with translations. XYS20030724. 方舟子:《岂能拿翻译凑文章》).

[35] Fang’s original Chinese: “即使注明了资料出处,而没有对引用资料的部分用自己的语言做恰当的改写、复述,对照抄部分没有用引号括起来表明是引言,那么同样构成抄袭。” (Fang Zhouzi. An Academician Acted Like Wang Mingming also. XYS20030921. 方舟子:《科学院院士也当“王铭铭”》).

[36] Fang’s original Chinese: “许多人对剽窃的认识存在两个误区。第一个误区是,认为只有剽窃他人的观点(包括实验数据、结果)才算剽窃,而照抄别人的语句则不算剽窃。……第 二个误区是,只要注明了文献出处,就可以直接照抄他人的语句。” (Fang Zhouzi. How to avoid academic misconduct. China Youth Daily, Feb. 14, 2007. 方舟子:《如何避免学术不端行为》,2007年2月14日《中国青年报》).



被编辑2次。最后被亦明编辑于08/04/2013 02:58PM。
附件:
打开 | 下载 - Shamelessness shouldn\'t be anyone\'s Nature XXIV.pdf (1.71 MB)
主题 发布者 已发表

Shamelessness Shouldn’t Be Anyone’s Nature ──An Open Letter to Nature (Part XXII) (5001 查看) 附件

亦明 April 14, 2013 03:16PM

Part XXIII: The Bt Corn Case (4449 查看) 附件

亦明 April 21, 2013 05:29PM

Part XXIV: The U. S. President Case (5408 查看) 附件

亦明 April 28, 2013 03:16PM

Part XXV: The Michigan State University Case (2291 查看) 附件

亦明 May 19, 2013 10:47AM

Part XXVI: David Cyranoski’s “Brawl in Beijing” Is a Fraudulent and Malicious News Report (3938 查看)

亦明 July 28, 2013 03:36PM

Part XXVII: Albert Yuan’s Nomination Is Filled with Lies and Malice (3787 查看)

亦明 July 28, 2013 04:55PM

Part XXVIII: Who Is Albert Yuan the Nominator? (4403 查看) 附件

亦明 August 04, 2013 02:49PM

Part XXIX: Why Did Albert Yuan Nominate Fang by Lying? (3254 查看) 附件

亦明 August 12, 2013 12:36PM

Part XXX: Why Was Albert Yuan Invited to Nominate Fang? (9046 查看) 附件

亦明 August 20, 2013 04:28PM

Part XXXI: Fangangsters (I): Yu Guangyuan, the God Father (7237 查看) 附件

亦明 September 25, 2013 08:01PM



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.