| 查看: 1615 | 回复: 11 | |||
| 当前主题已经存档。 | |||
| 当前只显示满足指定条件的回帖，点击这里查看本话题的所有回帖 | |||
deanxiao木虫 (著名写手)
|
[交流]
[转帖]《自然》六月一日发表社论 ：找中国的丑闻
|
||
|
《自然》六月一日发表社论 ：找中国的丑闻 《自然》六月一日发表社论 ：找中国的丑闻 正当中国的科研扩张的时候，谁在注意捏造的结果？就是有必要的程序和有经验的专家委员会，调查研究不端总是带有很多困难。而中国，既无程序、也无有经验的委员会。如果这个国家在它成为重要的科学力量之时，要抓住不端的问题，必须改变这些现状。 中国研究机关有调查不端的结构，但是因为没有公开讨论和独立媒体的监督，研究者对这些结构没有信心。互联网上的快速和公开讨论，有填补空白的潜力，但是也有危险（见《自然》2006年441卷 392到393页）。它可以很容易地堕落成为一个危险的游戏，无控制的指控和反指控，而对了解实际不端毫无帮助。 去年南韩黄禹蜀的情况充分证明了互联网发现科学丑闻的力量。网上门户讨论黄论文中可疑的图像和资料，最终导致国立汉城大学进行调查，揭露了黄造假。互联网贴指控陈进数字芯片造假，也助于上海交通大学上月将他开除。 对于中国和韩国这种没有适当调查不端指控体制的国家，互联网可以特别重要的作用。这不是说有体制国家完全能掌握这个问题，但是它们至少已经有一些必需的机构和程序来处理它。 中国社会“爱面子”的文化也使全面地公开向不端进攻难以想象。也没有有效的机制保护指控者。 在这种气氛下，由圣跌哥单独一个研究者操作的中文网站新语丝，对科学不端的监控起了显著的作用。但是，这个安排有很大的问题。 。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。 。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。 。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。 解决这个问题唯一的真正答案，要比连上互联网复杂的多。这需要中国研究机关建立独立的办公室，就象美国科学基金会的总检察办公室，或者美国卫生部的研究道德办公室。为了让这样的体制能够有效的运行，必须保护告密者。它也需要新一代的科学家经过教育知道什么使正当的科学行为。它也需要保证调查允许任何被告证明他们无辜的机会。 中国科学界，和全社会，正在挣扎着适应这些必需条件。为了多个原因（科学进步仅仅是其中一个），政府最优先需要解决这些问题。 中国是一个害怕别人揭丑的国家，《自然》这个在全世界有影响的学术刊物让全世界的学着再次认识了中国的科研。中国人在国外杂志的投稿将会很困难，而且即使发表了，可信度会很差。 |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
一志愿 江南大学 085602 化工专硕 338分求调剂
已经有8人回复
-
304求调剂（085602，过四级，一志愿985）
已经有15人回复
-
工科求调剂
已经有15人回复
-
求调剂
已经有5人回复
-
277求调剂
已经有3人回复
-
化学0703-一志愿211-338分求调剂
已经有4人回复
-
266分，一志愿电气工程，本科材料，求材料专业调剂
已经有8人回复
-
材料调剂
已经有3人回复
-
22408 总分320，一篇论文二作，两个国三，求调剂
已经有4人回复
-
313求调剂
已经有5人回复
zhoum034
金虫 (小有名气)
- 应助: 0 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 1421.5
- 散金: 10
- 红花: 1
- 帖子: 293
- 在线: 28.2小时
- 虫号: 380034
- 注册: 2007-05-23
- 专业: 电化学分析
4楼2007-06-02 12:03:29
deanxiao
木虫 (著名写手)
- 应助: 1 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 4075.3
- 帖子: 1366
- 在线: 83.6小时
- 虫号: 368007
- 注册: 2007-05-11
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 化学环境污染与健康
|
原文！！《nature》 Finding fraud in China Top of pageAbstractAs 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. There are no effective provisions to protect whistleblowers, so it is hard to believe that anyone observing misconduct would summon the courage to report it. 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. |
2楼2007-06-02 11:32:44
3楼2007-06-02 11:50:18
5楼2007-06-02 12:08:34
