亦明剥壳(亦明)- 中国学术评价网
 
全球60名中国学者要求《自然》杂志调查方舟子 (4209 查看)
发布: 亦明
日期: July 06, 2013 09:29AM

全球60名中国学者联署公开信:

《自然》杂志及相关机构和评委应该调查John Maddox Prize得主方舟子



注:此公开信正式文本及相关证据已于2013年6月28日和7月1日分别送至收信人在英国伦敦和牛津的工作地址。



英国John Maddox Prize的组织者及赞助者:

《自然》杂志
Sense About Science托拉斯
Kohn 基金会

暨该奖诸位评委:

Lady Maddox,《自然》杂志前主编John Maddox爵士遗孀
Dr. Philip Campbell,《自然》杂志现任主编
Dr. Colin Blakemore,牛津大学教授,英国皇家学会会员
Ms. Tracey Brown,Sense About Science托拉斯执行主任


《自然》杂志2012年11月8日社论宣布,首届以《自然》杂志前主编Sir John Royden Maddox命名的John Maddox Prize被授予美国绿卡持有人、现定居中国的方是民(方舟子)先生。您们是这个奖项的主办方或赞助人,亦是该奖的评委。我们认为,您们的这个决定是错误的。

众所周知,《自然》杂志是一份在国际学术界享有崇高威望和广泛影响的科学杂志;因此,以该杂志前主编冠名、由该杂志遴选、赞助的John Maddox Prize及其获得者也理应与之相般配。但是,方舟子根本不具有这样的资格。事实是,方舟子在中国学界乃至整个中国社会是臭名昭著的剽窃惯犯、科学骗子、网络打手:

第一,据诸多学者查证,迄今发现的方舟子抄袭剽窃案例超过百起,盗版图片将近两千幅。其抄袭、盗版数量之多、后果之严重,中外罕见。实际上,方舟子抄袭剽窃的对象遍及全球,从他在美国密歇根州立大学的教授,到《自然》杂志的撰稿人,方舟子无所不偷。

第二,方舟子利用其在美国注册的新语丝网站,以“学术打假”为名,对大批中国学者通过网络恐怖主义手段进行诬陷和迫害。最典型的事例就是方舟子一伙对泌尿外科专家肖传国教授的疯狂攻击。事实是,肖传国教授揭发方舟子抄袭剽窃在前,方舟子对肖传国进行恶意报复在后。并且,方舟子利用其妻子担任新华社主任记者的关系,在中国主流媒体上颠倒黑白,对肖教授进行大规模诬蔑、诽谤。去年九月,上千人联署公开信,呼吁中国政府调查惩处方舟子危害社会,阻挠破坏中国科技医疗事业

第三,2011年4月,方舟子妻子刘菊花硕士学位论文抄袭案大爆发,方舟子为了阻止消息的传播和扩散,曾多次对社会和个人发出种种恐吓和威胁。比如,2011年12月29日,他扬言说: “我不和猪打架,我杀猪。在我发出严厉警告后,还想拱我妻子、砸我妻子饭碗的猪更该杀,即使花一生的时间杀,即使被血溅一身”。

第四,方舟子是目前中国大陆最受人诟病的公众人物之一。一项有两万六千人参加的投票显示:对方舟子持正面或者中性看法的人,不足5%;绝大多数人认为他是一个“网络骗子”、“网络乞丐”、“网络打手”;另一项有两万五千多人参加的投票表明:90%的人认为方舟子是“新浪微博上造谣、诽谤、构陷他人最多的”人;还有一项有五万多人参加的投票表明,82%的人认为方舟子是“真正的骗子”。

根据以上事实,以及大量其他事实,我们认为,《自然》杂志以“捍卫科学”为由将首届John Maddox Prize颁发给方舟子,既有悖事实,也是对科学精神和诚信原则的背弃和践踏。不仅如此,它还是对中国学者乃至全体中国人民的侮辱和冒犯。我们强烈要求《自然》杂志,以及另外两家英国机构和四名评委,重新核对相关事实,即对方舟子展开调查,并且根据调查结果,对你们的决定做出相应的调整。

实际上,你们的调查完全可以由最简单的方式入手,那就是要求方舟子公开答复以下十个问题:

1. 你能否向我们提供你所一再宣称的自2000年以来的上千个打假案例清单?

2. 你能否向我们提供你据以否认上百个抄袭剽窃、上千个盗版侵权指控的定义和法规?

3. 你是否认为你有权──不需要承担任何法律责任──杀死任何指控你妻子抄袭的人?如果答案是肯定的话,请问为什么用羊角锤砸你却是犯罪?

4. 请问是不是肖传国在2001年举报你抄袭剽窃在先,你在2005年指控肖传国造假在后?如果是的话,这是否构成恶意报复和利益冲突?

5. 你是否曾在2005年撰写──并且在新语丝上化名发表──诽谤肖传国的系列文章?

6. 你是否曾在2009年策划、组织、并且实施了在媒体和网络全方位围剿肖氏手术的行动?

7. 你是否曾以“打假”为名,报复过其他私敌?

8. 中国公众强烈要求你的私人律师彭剑公布由他一手控制的“科技打假资金”和“方舟子人身安全保障资金”的账目,你是否支持这个要求?如果不支持,请问为什么?

9. 你是否愿意透露那个在21世纪初雇佣你的那家美国生物信息或生物技术公司的名称,以及你为他们提供什么服务?如果不愿意,请问为什么?

10. 在过去五年或者十年间,你是否在美国拥有固定的居住地址?如果没有,你是根据什么获得并且保持你的美国永久居民身份的?

实际上,有成百上千个类似的问题等待着你们的提出,也等待着方舟子的回答。除了“不愿意”之外,我们想象不出你们有任何其他理由拒绝向方舟子提出这些问题;而除了“隐瞒真相”之外,我们也想象不出方舟子有任何理由拒绝回答这些问题。事实是,方舟子屡屡宣称自己患有“道德洁癖”和“真相洁癖”,因此,要求方舟子回答上述问题,相当于以举手之劳而解除他的长期病患,你们何乐而不为?

从另一个角度来讲,即使你们,《自然》杂志以及另外两家英国机构和四名评委,真的对自己的声誉在所不惜,对方舟子的病痛麻木不仁,你们也负有无可推卸的责任和义务,向中国人民和世界科学界做出如下解释:

你们奖励和推销方舟子,到底是基于什么理由、出于什么目的?


我们等待着你们的回复,我们更期盼着你们的调查结果!

2013年6月20日

签名人(以姓氏拼音字母排序)(略)




The John Maddox Prize Organizer, Sponsors, and Judges Should Investigate

Your Inaugural Winner Fang Shi-min



An Open Letter Signed by 60 Chinese Scholars around the Globe


Delivered in person to the recipients in the United Kingdom on June 28 and July 1, 2013.



June 20, 2013



To: the organizer and the sponsors of the John Maddox Prize

Journal Nature
Sense About Science Trust
The Kohn Foundation

and the judges of the John Maddox Prize

Lady Maddox
Dr. Philip Campbell, Editor-in-Chief of Nature
Dr. Colin Blakemore, Professor of the University of Oxford
Ms. Tracey Brown, Director of Sense About Science


Dear All:

According to a Nature editorial[1], the inaugural John Maddox Prize was given to Mr. Fang Shi-min (Shi-min Fang, or Fang Zhouzi) for supposedly “promot[ing] sound science and evidence on a matter of public interest.” It is our belief that your decision was based on misinformation, false evidence, and wrong perception, and we consider awarding the prize to Fang an insult to Chinese people in general, and to Chinese scholars in particular. The fact is, Mr. Fang is known to most Chinese people as anything but a science hero - he is a repeatedly convicted plagiarist, and a generally acknowledged internet thug and swindler:

First, according to studies by many Chinese scholars[2], Fang has committed plagiarism in more than one hundred individual cases in his published articles, and has pirated about two thousand artistic and scientific images in his books. Both the quantity and the frequency of Fang’s theft, as well as the length of his history of stealing, are unprecedented in China, and probably in the entire world as well. The fact is, Fang has plagiarized scholars from all over the world, including a professor of his alma mater, and the contributors to Nature[3].

Second, for the last 13 years, Fang has been prosecuting many Chinese scholars using cyber-terrorism tactics in the name of “academic fraud busting.” It has been well documented and demonstrated[4] that there are only two purposes of Fang’s so called “fraud busting”: his personal gain (monetary and reputational), and/or his enemies’ personal and professional loss. For example, Fang’s framing and defamation of Dr. Xiao Chuanguo, a world-renowned urologist, was initiated purely from personal hatred: it was Dr. Xiao who reported Fang’s plagiarism case to Science magazine in 2001, and it was Fang who framed and slandered Dr. Xiao in September 2005 when he found out Dr. Xiao’s true identity. It was Dr. Xiao who sued Fang in October 2005, and it was Fang who was convicted of defamation by a China court in July 2006. It was Dr. Xiao who announced in August 2009 that the court had enforced the judgment by taking away more than 40,000 RMB from the bank account of Fang’s wife, and it was Fang who immediately plotted, organized, and implemented a comprehensive and global retaliatory campaign by attacking the surgical procedure invented by Dr. Xiao. Last September, more than a thousand Chinese people signed a petition asking the Chinese government to investigate Fang’s crimes[5] against Chinese society and his damage to the development of science, technology, and medicine in China.

Third, since April 2011, Fang has been threatening the entire Chinese society and many individuals in order to prevent the discussion and spread of the news about his wife’s plagiarism, committed in 2002 in her Master’s degree thesis. For example, Fang said that he would spend the rest of his life to kill those who tried to “break my wife’s rice bowl.”[6] Of course, Fang and his wife share the same rice bowl: since 2002, they have been living in the state-subsidized house allocated to Liu Juhua, who used the plagiarized thesis to get her Master’s degree, and then used that ill-gotten degree to obtain her job in Xinhua News Agency, the only state-run news agency in China.

Lastly, Fang is currently one of the most despised persons in China. According to a vote participated in by more than 25,000 people, nearly 90% of the voters believed that Fang is the person who spread the most rumors and slandered and framed the most people on weibo.com, Chinese version of Twitter. Another vote taken by more than 26,000 people showed that less than 5% of voters held a positive or neutral opinion of him; the majority of voters believed Fang to be an internet swindler, an extortionist, and a thug. Yet another vote taken by more than 50,000 people showed that 82% of voters believed that Fang is “the real swindler.”[7]

It is based upon the above facts, as well as upon mountains of additional facts[8], that we believe you have made a serious mistake by awarding Fang the John Maddox Prize. Your decision sends to the world a pernicious message which reflects values that are just the opposite of what you, and the John Maddox Prize, are supposed to stand up for: evidence-based claims and integrity-based scholarship. Therefore, we strongly urge you to re-do your fact checking, namely, to investigate Fang Shi-min. As a matter of fact, your investigation could be initiated simply by asking Fang to answer, publicly, the following 10 questions:

1. Could you please provide us with a list of the more than one thousand fraud cases that you claim you have busted since 2000?

2. Could you please provide us with the definition and the law code based on which you have denied the more than one hundred plagiarism allegations and nearly two thousand copyright infringement charges?

3. Do you think you have the right to kill anyone simply because he or she believes that your wife has committed plagiarism? If the answer is yes, please explain why hammering you is a crime?

4. Is it a fact that Dr. Xiao Chuanguo reported your plagiarism in 2001, and that you accused Dr. Xiao of fraud in 2005? If so, do you think your action constitutes malicious retaliation and conflict of interest?

5. Did you write a series of defamatory articles against Dr. Xiao and publish them under a fake name on your New Threads in 2005?

6. Did you plot, organize, and personally participate in the smear campaign against Xiao’s Procedure in 2009?

7. Besides Dr. Xiao, have you ever attacked any other personal enemies of yours in the name of “fraud busting”?

8. Are you willing to support the public demand[9] for disclosing the expenditure of your two funds, the Anti-Fraud Fund, and Fang Zhouzi’s Personal Security Fund, both of which have solicited donations, illegally, from the general public in China, and are both controlled solely by your private lawyer and personal friend Mr. Peng Jian? If not, why?

9. Are you willing to reveal the identity of the American bio-information or bio-tech company that hired you in the early 2000s, and the nature of the employment? If not, why?

10. Have you had a permanent residence in the United States in the past five or ten years? If not, on what ground you have kept your permanent resident status of an alien in the United States?

The fact is, there are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of questions like the above to be asked by you, and more importantly, to be answered by Fang. We do not see any reasons why you should not ask Fang these simple and straightforward questions, except for unwillingness; and we could not think of any excuses that Fang can use to refuse to answer these questions, except for hiding the truth. The fact is, Fang has claimed repeatedly that he suffers from an obsession with truth and moral cleanliness[10], therefore, by asking Fang to answer these questions, you are virtually doing the John Maddox Prize winner a huge favor. We do not believe that you are unwilling to seek the truth, nor do we believe that you are willing to let the persistent suffering of your chosen awardee continue.

On the other hand, regardless of your willingness or unwillingness, and considering all of your honor, pride, prestige, reputation, integrity, civility, nobility, and dignity, we deem, and you should concur, that it is your legitimate responsibility and ethical obligation to respond to the outcries against your wrongful decision[11], and explain to the Chinese people, as well as to the scientific community of the world:

For exactly what reason and purpose do you award and promote such a person as Fang Shi-min?


We are looking forward to your reply, and we are waiting for your investigation result.


Sincerely,

Signed by 60 Chinese scholars in alphabetical order:

(Omitted)


Notes

[1] Nature Editorial. 2012. John Maddox prize. Nature 491,160.

[2] Ge Xin. Shamelessness Shouldn’t Be Anyone’s Nature ──An Open Letter to Nature, Parts XV to XXV (See: [www.2250s.com]); Yi Ming. Chronicle and Demonstration of Fang Zhouzi’s Plagiarism and Copyright Infringement. (亦明:《方舟子抄袭剽窃年谱》, [www.2250s.com]).

[3] Ge Xin. Shamelessness Shouldn’t Be Anyone’s Nature ──An Open Letter to Nature, Part XXV (Fang’s Plagiarism History: The Michigan State University Case. see: [www.2250s.com]); Ge Xin. Shamelessness Shouldn’t Be Anyone’s Nature ──An Open Letter to Nature, Part XVII (Fang’s Plagiarism History: The Nature-Science Case. See: [www.2250s.com]).

[4] Yi Ming. The Feud between Drs. Fang Zhouzi and Xiao Chuanguo. (《方舟子陷害肖传国始末》, [www.2250s.com]).

[5] Wang, et al. An Appeal to the Chinese Government for Investigating and Prosecuting Fang Zhouzi’s Crime of Harming the Society, and Obstructing and Damaging China’s Science, Technology, and Medicine. (《呼吁中国政府调查惩处方舟子危害社会,阻挠破坏中国科技医疗事业》, [www.2250s.com]).

[6] Fang’s original Chinese: “我不和猪打架,我杀猪。在我发出严厉警告后,还想拱我妻子、砸我妻子饭碗的猪更该杀,即使花一生的时间杀,即使被血溅一身。” (See: Fang’s microblog on Dec. 29, 2011: [weibo.com]).

[7] Link: [vote.weibo.com]; [vote.weibo.com]; [vote.weibo.com].

[8] Please see the website of China Academic Integrity Review (Chinese: [www.2250s.com], English: [www.2250s.com]). Or, just Google Fang’s name, in either Chinese or English.

[9] Li, Y. Anti-fraud activist accused of fraud. Global Times, March 23, 2012. (See: [www.globaltimes.cn]). More Chinese references are available upon request.

[10] For example, in June 2007, Fang claimed that he had an obsession with truth (“我又对事实的真相有洁癖”) (see: [www.xys.org]); in September 2009, Fang told a reporter that he had an obsession with truth (“我觉得我的性格中有理想主义和英雄主义的倾向,对事实真相有洁癖”) (see: [www.xys.org]); in July 2010, Fang said that he had an obsession with truth and moral cleanliness (“在诚信方面,就是应该有一个道德洁癖,” “我是一个有着真相洁癖的人”) (see: [www.xys.org], [www.xys.org]).

[11] Since the announcement of the award on Nov. 7, 2012, Mr. Li Jianmang of Netherlands, Drs. Liao Junlin and Ge Xin of the United States have written letters to Nature, publicly and privately, expressing their objections to the award. (See: LI Jianmang: About your Editorial on John Maddox prize, [www.2250s.com]; Liao Junlin: Fang Shi-min, a Perfect Insult to Sir John Royden Maddox, [www.2250s.com]; Ge Xin: Shamelessness Shouldn’t Be Anyone’s Nature ──An Open Letter to Nature, [www.2250s.com]). We are also aware that Dr. Robert Root-Bernstein of the Michigan State University has written to Nature to express his disappointment. Nature has yet to respond to any of these comments publicly. Instead, they blocked the commenting function of their editorial webpage (see: [www.nature.com]).


The screen images of the official letter delivered to the John Maddox Prize Organizer, Sponsors, and Judges



The screen images of the book by Ge Xin: Shamelessness Shouldn’t Be Anyone’s Nature ──An Open Letter to Nature



VOTE: WHO SPREADS THE MOST RUMORS AND SLANDERS AND FRAMES THE MOST PEOPLE ON WEIBO.COM?
[vote.weibo.com]



VOTE: WHAT’S FANG ZHOUZI’S REAL JOB?
[vote.weibo.com]



VOTE: LET’S FIND THE REAL SWINDLER!
[vote.weibo.com]



THE DATABASE OF FANG's PLAGIARISM
[www.2250s.com]
  

选项: 回复引用


主题 发布者 已发表
全球60名中国学者要求《自然》杂志调查方舟子 (4209 查看) 亦明 07/06/2013 09:29AM


对不起,只有注册用户才能发帖。
2250s.com does not represent or guarantee the truthfulness, accuracy, or reliability of any of communications posted by users.

This forum powered by Phorum.