| 查看: 564 | 回复: 7 | |||
| 当前主题已经存档。 | |||
johnzhl01铁杆木虫 (著名写手)
|
[交流]
英国《自然》社论：发现中国的造假行为
|
||
|
社论：发现中国的造假行为 中国科研正在发展，谁去监督虚假结果？ 英国《自然》2006年6月1日 （方舟子译） 对科研不端行为的调查总是困难重重，即使具备了必要的程序和有经验的专 家委员会也是如此。在中国，并不具备这样的条件。在该国成为科技强国之时， 如果要控制科研不端问题，这一情形必须改变。 中国科研机构的确有调查不端指控的框架，但是在缺乏公开的讨论和独立的 新闻监督的情况下，很少有科研人员对它们有太大的信心。互联网上迅速、公开 的信息交流有可能填补这一空白，但是它也带有风险（见《自然》441, 392-393; 2006）。它会很容易地变味，成为一场不受管制的指控和反指控的危险游戏，无 助于搞清楚实际的不端行为。 去年，在名誉扫地的韩国克隆技术先驱黄禹锡事件中，互联网充分地显示了 识别科学造假的威力。网上对黄的论文中可疑图片和数据的讨论最终导致首尔大 学进行调查，暴露了黄的造假。互联网上指控陈进伪造数字处理芯片的张贴，促 成了上个月上海交通大学将其开除。 在像中国和韩国这样的没有调查不端指控的恰当体制的国家，互联网能够发 挥特别重要的作用。这并不是说在那些具备这种体制的国家就完全没有问题了， 但是至少它们已发展出了处理它所必要的某些机构和程序。 中国的确存在负责评判科研不端指控的机构，在表面上这一体制似乎在发挥 作用——但是并无证据表明它真有成效。中国缺乏独立的媒体来报道这类事件。 这个国家的幅员辽阔和各地不去认真执行北京制定的政策，让事态更为糟糕。 此外，在中国社会文化中对“留情面”的重视，也使得像西方社会那样对不 端行为进行全面的公开抨击的做法，在中国几乎是不可想象的。中国没有有效的 规定来保护揭发人，因此难以让人相信那些见到不端行为的人会鼓起勇气向当局 报告。 正是在这种氛围中，新语丝，这个由住在圣地亚哥的一名研究者一个人管理 的中文网站，在监督科研行为方面扮演了重要的角色。不过，这种情形是很成问 题的。 在中国近代史上，当局经常滥用自下而上的指控以迫害政府的敌人。这在文 化大革命中更是如此，当时只要贴一张大字报说某个人是一个“资产阶级分子” 就能够毁掉他们的生活。无辜者有被心怀嫉妒的对手或被政府打成“伪科学家” 的危险，这使得中国不端现象更为混乱。 解决这个问题的唯一真正的办法，要比接通互联网复杂得多。它要求在中国 科研机构中建立独立的办公室，类似于美国国家科研基金的监察长办公室，或美 国卫生部的科研诚实办公室。只有向揭发者提供保护，这个体制才能有效地运作。 它也要求对新一代的科学家进行教育，教育他们什么是正当的科研行为。它要求 在调查过程中确保任何被指控的人有机会证明自己的清白。 除了在科学界，中国整个社会也正在力求达到这些要求。出于各种各样的原 因——渴望科学进步只是其中的一个——解决这些问题应该成为政府的首要任务。 Editorial Nature 441, 549-550 (1 June 2006) | doi:10.1038/441549b; Published online 31 May 2006 Finding fraud in China As Chinese research expands, who is looking out for faked results? The investigation of research misconduct is always fraught with difficulty, even if the necessary protocols and experienced expert committees are fully in place. In China, they are not. If the nation is to get to grips with the problem of misconduct as it becomes a substantial scientific power, that situation has to change. Chinese research agencies do have structures for investigating misconduct allegations, but in the absence of open discussion and independent press scrutiny, few researchers have much faith in them. The rapid and open exchange of information over the Internet has some potential to fill the void, but it also carries risks (see Nature 441, 392–393; 2006). It could readily break down into a dangerous game of unregulated accusation and counter-accusation, shedding no light on actual misconduct. The power of the Internet in identifying scientific fraud was amply demonstrated last year in the case of Woo Suk Hwang, the discredited South Korean cloning researcher. Online portals discussed suspicious images and data in Hwang's papers, ultimately leading Seoul National University to pursue an investigation that exposed Hwang's fabrications. And Internet postings of allegations that Jin Chen faked digital-processing chips contributed to his dismissal from Shanghai Jiaotong University last month. The Internet can play a particularly important role in countries such as China and South Korea that do not have adequate systems for investigating misconduct allegations. That isn't to say that countries with systems in place are totally on top of the problem, but at least they have developed some of the institutions and protocols needed to handle it. Organizations charged with assessing allegations of scientific misconduct do exist in China, and on paper the system appears functional — but there is no evidence that it really works. China lacks an independent press to report on such matters. The very size of the country and subsequent disparate implementation of policies set in Beijing make matters worse. In addition, the cultural importance of 'saving face' in Chinese society makes the full-frontal public attacks that tend to characterize Western misconduct allegations almost unthinkable. There are no effective provisions to protect whistleblowers, so it is hard to believe that anyone who observes misconduct would summon the courage to report it to the authorities. It is in this climate that New Threads, a Chinese-language Internet site run by a single researcher based in San Diego, has come to play a significant role in the monitoring of scientific conduct. This arrangement is deeply problematic, however. In China's recent history, 'bottom up' accusations have often been abused by the authorities to persecute perceived enemies of the state. This was especially true during the Cultural Revolution, when simply pasting a poster on the wall calling someone a 'bourgeois' could destroy their livelihood. The threat of innocent people being branded as 'pseudoscientists', either by a jealous rival or by the state, further clouds the misconduct picture in China. The only real solution to this problem is a great deal more complex than hooking up to an Internet connection. It requires the establishment of independent offices in Chinese research agencies, rather like the inspector general's office at the US National Science Foundation, or the Office of Research Integrity at the US health department. The system can only operate effectively if it offers protection to whistleblowers. It also requires a new generation of scientists to be educated in what constitutes proper scientific conduct. And it needs to ensure that investigations give anyone accused the opportunity to demonstrate their innocence. China is struggling to come to terms with these kinds of requirements in society at large, as well as within the scientific community. For a multiplicity of reasons — of which the desire for scientific progress is just one — addressing them ought to be the government's greatest priority. |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
第4年了，马上40了，可能我与国基确实无缘吧。。。
已经有12人回复
-
2026年申博药学专业
已经有1人回复
-
药物学论文润色/翻译怎么收费?
已经有58人回复
-
26在职申博—生物与医药—抗体/ADC药物方向，江浙沪，有项目，可带资。
已经有1人回复
-
288分求调剂
已经有0人回复
-
一志愿苏州大学 生物技术与工程（086001） 初试323分，求调剂
已经有0人回复
-
三年实验室工作经历，一志愿华中农业大学微生物，总分288求调剂
已经有2人回复
-
药学专硕申博
已经有3人回复
-
070700求调剂
已经有1人回复
-
求调剂总分327
已经有0人回复
» 本主题相关商家推荐: (我也要在这里推广)
 |
2楼2006-08-10 08:31:18
3楼2006-08-10 10:18:33
4楼2006-08-10 15:49:00
0.5
 |
5楼2006-08-14 11:39:25
6楼2006-08-14 12:10:58
7楼2006-08-14 14:09:03
0.25
 |
8楼2006-08-14 14:19:22
