Recent events show China needs to clean up its scientific act

chiangmax

7 Q1 A- }% z/ K7 S) S+ L

; @( j9 S$ t2 w3 @: J4 F5 d! M7 U) s( eChinese ethics
" ]2 v3 B+ `( G7 T/ P6 V3 IScientists behaving badly
3 Q3 D5 v! Q% d; g! x" ]# aRecent events show China needs to clean up its scientific act
1 V- R) o2 V: a# |* A& \5 bhttp://www.economist.com/node/17 ... mp;CFTOKEN=94750164- w& q7 n, J' t2 K/ s$ q" D- E
1 p% C; T( i2 ^; |) F3 {3 u4 H
Oct 7th 2010 | Beijing8 g) b' j  R! k( f" \6 ~
: v& C+ T8 D" c1 V0 `! j' O
DISPUTES about science in Western countries can sometimes be heated. Seldom, though, do they descend into fisticuffs. But this is what seems to have happened in China on August 29th. That day Fang Shimin, a well-known scientific blogger and self-proclaimed “science cop”, was attacked in the street by a gang. Nor was this the first such incident. In June Fang Xuanchang (no relation), a science journalist on Caijing magazine, was on the receiving end of similar treatment.
" J% H& x3 J3 l& s1 [+ p% j  m1 z3 v+ Y$ p* [7 D
So far, it might be thought by smug Westerners, so depressing. But then there was a twist in the tale. One of the objects of the two Fangs’ criticisms, Xiao Chuanguo, a urologist at Huazhong University of Science and Technology in Wuhan, was arrested and charged with organising the assaults. Even more extraordinary (or perhaps not, considering that he had been detained for seven days without access to a lawyer), he confessed his guilt on television, on September 28th.9 i; q: L8 ~- {/ V9 G) P7 t
/ S" Z$ @2 }8 ?7 A9 y
Virtue, then, has prevailed. And Chinese science has taken a step towards the standards of civilised discourse that Westerners like to think prevail in their own countries. Maybe. For the more you dig into this strange tale, the more illuminating it is of the need for Chinese science to clean up its act.4 @5 c6 c* N* v+ B
& B6 `0 y6 J  d4 B
Fang Shimin claims that Xin Yu Si (New Threads), the website he runs, posts about 100 allegations of scientific fraud a year, and he has become a folk hero as a result. China has no proper procedures for dealing with such fraud and Dr Fang believes that, in the absence of such official channels, a platform of the sort his website provides is indispensable to the fight against misconduct in science.( H" K6 T- b7 r" p
) w  T1 B* M7 `! S: }, T. r; X
Some of the accusations undoubtedly stand up and shine a light on the often-murky business of Chinese science. Many, however, are anonymous and lack specifics, making it difficult for those accused to mount a rebuttal even when they are innocent. Indeed, New Threads reminds some of those with longer memories of the hysteria of the Cultural Revolution, when anybody could post any accusation on da zi bao (big-character posters), and countless lives were ruined as a consequence. Not surprisingly, Dr Fang has many enemies.
/ z* p4 a2 l: v0 M' f0 Y7 U! i: a% e) g, _7 [
9 ~/ V$ `. q. D0 x
Threadbare?: A0 @" k/ v+ G6 [

" u. |" _: t; S, _8 E6 eThe bad blood between him and Dr Xiao in particular goes back to New Threads’ foundation in 2000. Almost immediately Dr Xiao, writing under the pseudonym of Hun Jiao Shou (Confused Professor), began criticising Dr Fang for the way New Threads went about its business. In 2001 Dr Xiao wrote to Science accusing Dr Fang of plagiarism. Dr Fang had written an article that drew on a paper in Science without, Dr Xiao felt, proper acknowledgment of the original researcher. Science’s editors, however, disagreed after they had looked into the matter.8 a, u0 U" h4 |8 g1 j$ o3 A9 z

1 [* J  M/ P. {In 2005, after several bitter exchanges, Dr Fang managed to identify the Confused Professor as Dr Xiao. Around the same time, Dr Xiao applied to be elected to the Chinese Academy of Engineering. Dr Fang got hold of a copy of Dr Xiao’s application and made several allegations in New Threads, in newspapers and on television. He said that Dr Xiao held full-time positions in America as well as China, thus showing insufficient loyalty to his Chinese institution, and also that he included conference abstracts as well as proper, peer-reviewed papers in his publication list—though neither of these is a mortal sin.1 u% m6 Y. l; I
: ?  \# ]& ~1 j$ E
More seriously, Dr Fang alleged that Dr Xiao had exaggerated the efficacy of a potentially revolutionary surgical procedure he had invented. This operation is intended to restore bladder function to people with spina bifida, a congenital defect that causes nerve damage and a loss of sensation and muscle function below the waist. Dr Xiao’s response was to take Dr Fang to court for libel—frequently. He won two cases, lost two, and several others remain undecided. Then, last autumn, Science News, a Chinese-language magazine of which Fang Xuanchang was then executive editor, devoted two issues to articles questioning the safety and efficacy of the Xiao procedure—using as a source Fang Shimin’s lawyer Peng Jian, a man with no scientific or medical background.5 ?% B9 n7 f  Y6 @9 C3 @# c# u

; K( S! c7 W! h6 J0 gMeanwhile, similar accusations were posted under the pseudonym xysergroup (xys are the initials of Xin Yu Si) on two patient-support websites in America, SpinaBifidaConnection and CareCure, apparently trying to warn patients away from clinical trials based on Dr Xiao’s procedure that are being undertaken in the United States. These accusations were odd because an independent pilot study of the technique, whose results were published formally in the August issue of the Journal of Urology, but which have been common knowledge since 2008, suggests most of the patients involved have indeed experienced improvements in bladder function.7 Y: c3 m$ r) x3 }
5 e. K3 N& u' \( S, |+ J) f; i
If this were a lone spat, it would hardly matter. But it seems symptomatic of something wider. In 2006, for example, 120 Chinese scientists, many working in the United States, wrote to the country’s science-policy officials warning of the risks of unfounded allegations and anonymous personal attacks. They called for the establishment of independent expert committees to investigate claims of scientific misconduct. In particular, they argued, investigations should be carried out in confidence and innocence should be presumed until guilt was proven.
2 F7 P: V8 B8 J4 ^
' q1 y; N/ U) [9 J- A7 [, MUnfortunately, nothing has yet happened. No one, then, comes out looking good. What started as an attempt to lighten a dark corner of Chinese life has turned into something that looks suspiciously like a witch-hunt. The upshot is that Chinese science needs to get its house in order. Measured by the number of published papers, China is the second most productive scientific nation on Earth. Incidents like this, though, call into question how trustworthy that productivity is. And that is not a trivial matter. If China does not have honest science, its development will be impeded. Considering how many of the men who run China are engineers, it is surprising this message has not yet got through." t" x$ N4 M2 Z: x' }

  n2 c. @, o, y5 B, I+ M) CScience and Technology

chiangmax

以下是读者评论
3 c7 e% O  a2 o; `0 d% IInkshadow wrote:
1 O+ }+ x3 L5 d, W# ~( Y2 vOct 7th 2010 5:46 GMT
4 \  Z% y4 h' G* L' ?
! y' S1 u# i' U6 m, `6 c, U5 E" bOnce again,I feel deeply disappointed about The Economist's article and its author. First, As mentioned in the article,China has no particular offcial organisations to deal with such scientific fruads,you have to rely on scientists' consciousness and folk organasations.Without these platforms'(like Xin Yu Si) obeservation and supervision,driving by filthy lucre,the situation of scientific fraud in China may getting increasingly severe.
% W7 s; [# A' Z' R# u- n7 l1 W) S
, I+ q; o. _, x: {0 cSecond,there is a fundamental difference between Xin Yu Si(New Threads) and da zi bao. Most allegations of scientific fraud posted on New Threads are based on facts, and only based on facts, you could reveal indecent scientists' misconducts(like New Threads has done before and what it is doing now).While anybody could post any accusation as they like on da zi bao, most of the accusations were unreasonable,fabricated and senseless.Now you can see one of the countless differences bewteen the two.There is no link between them.unless you want to archieve your ulterior goals so you deliberately distort it(yes ,shame on you The Economist).1 @6 \7 O/ ^/ w  F7 V
" X! W8 ^, n* `" }# j
Third, as far as I know,there is no single successful case of Dr Xiao’s surgery.more worse, Dr Xiao’s procedure could lead patients to disable.Why this has not been mentioned in the article?shame on you The Economist again.
, g; Q' C& H0 l# m2 n" O" u. {Recommend (53)2 @# M! d! P; [7 ?9 C, ~
Permalink
+ R" q7 ^, F, G% eReport abuse
9 z# _$ y) F) j" R3 `hooahhooah wrote:
) v# t7 Y0 p; K0 `, @/ h1 U( m0 hOct 7th 2010 7:48 GMT
7 O! A7 p9 X0 r% N9 f5 T+ v) S' t6 c3 Q1 n6 C
In your second paragraph, you wrote:" @; Q0 K- n/ k  b. }! O& P8 A
“…
. \% l" Q/ u+ }& SEven more extraordinary (or perhaps not, considering that he had been detained for seven days without access to a lawyer), he confessed his guilt on television, on September 28th….”
. I& j) [8 @9 s' Q! d5 ~
0 N4 b) K$ f7 G4 t2 e" ?) f1 RThe ‘without access to a lawyer’ words would too easily be misinterpreted as ‘denied access’ for western audience. Beside, can you backup your source of information that Xiao was indeed ‘without access to a lawyer’?
. f4 w% Z7 J- y& L: J
- X/ L7 T8 r: G7 z' ~Your neglected to report identities of the arrested ‘gang’ (one of them is Xiao’s relative), gathered evidences by the cops and earlier confessions by the ‘gang’, is no doubt undermining the severity of the crime and perhaps even misleading readers into not knowing that Xiao has confessed that he is the mastermind who paid 100,000rmb for the violent attacks.
0 i; O% x$ q4 {$ s. h& _9 ^( m! k3 U8 }( S1 B9 W
Your trying to draw parallels of New Threads blog to ‘da zi bao (big-character posters)’ is absolutely inappropriate. Perhaps, as you have written: “…longer memories of the hysteria of the Cultural Revolution…”, without real research, it maybe appropriate for you to disqualify yourself for the comparison.( W9 x, t( }: U

" R0 M" j& m# F" E  M3 `I don’t know if the name of Phil Disley on the corner of the comic, is the author of this article. If it is, it should be commended for the creative graphic. As one of your loyal readers with high opinion of your magazine in the past, I must tell you I am very disappointed with the journalistic essence of this article.( y9 ?, Z( u0 D! {- Q

1 ]6 `$ f- A8 b3 vThis report, it seems to be a collection of bits and pieces of words from all the other English media, at best, is a well done chop-suey.
# n& x9 O% S! R  _" M0 z4 @Recommend (36)  h4 u3 ^* `6 E/ b$ R
Permalink+ H' R% L4 E) X1 y' O: g" f# o' O6 i: A
Report abuse" N6 }/ K6 `! C: _) N
cul de castor wrote:' U/ |) P( Q1 ^, M
Oct 7th 2010 7:49 GMT
- k  E' L+ ]- p) w2 m5 ]2 F$ ^' R/ ]! B# F. M4 q2 `+ z+ n
You may not be surprised to learn that, during an interview at a local scientific manuscript editing company, I was offered a large sum of money to "ghost write" articles for Chinese scientists so that they may be locally promoted. The payment sum depended on article length, journal impact, and timeliness. The potential employer basically told me something to the effect, "You have good ideas, just write them down, give them to me, and I will pay you money." The agent even factored in the business for me; citing China's population, the percentage of medics and scientists and that each would need ~10 papers/year. How's that for working "in the black"?$ x8 o( Y4 N7 L: n2 `+ q
Recommend (32), v# [7 \, d9 V, P# z6 S% W
Permalink6 z4 k' [0 z5 O4 {3 Z' w3 c* n
Report abuse/ ]9 O9 |3 P* n' u: B. c$ h# o
xysgroup wrote:
, p% a& S! A% P+ cOct 7th 2010 8:21 GMT% G* {  I) a# O/ ?7 U# V

, @0 I1 w4 ^1 QThose accusations we made on SpinaBifidaConnection and CareCure websites were not at all odd." c. D- B' T3 F3 i. g0 Y

9 I- ^8 I) Z) W' Y1. Beaumont hospital who conducted the pilot study in the US provided false information in order to lure patients to their clinic trials. Beaumont hospital, in their responses to patients' inquiries that were posted by the patients on those websites, lied that the procedure is "now standard of care" in China and is "done everyday in hospitals in China", and suggested patients to go to China for the surgery.8 W5 ~( Q/ f$ H# e- E
4 j, h- w% u, C1 \6 u
We provided our evident on SpinaBifidaConnection and CareCure to expose those lies, so that potential patients could not be cheated and hurt.. u! _# O, j" a) O

2 R/ i4 n  b* Q( J2. You mentioned the publication and the "common knowledge" regrading Beaumont's results, but you ignored that the results were seriously questioned by Editorial Comments published on the same issue, including:
, u7 l( E. A8 O9 ^# o  g6 F0 Z% c, O% S! r8 _. s+ p
"the results of the study by Peters et al are the first to challenge the excellent, previously published results of nerve rerouting that showed up to 85% success"9 I6 o# p  z7 G- n" a. h  W

) L; x  l- V' W5 D# e"the clinical benefit of the procedure is not at all similar to previous (Dr. Xiao's) reports"
* e& ?+ Q. `" @( c% O  @0 Y% `1 p; O  Y. }# n0 j
"The fact ... is troubling in light of the report of 87% success with 110 children with spina bifida presented by Xiao"9 O  R4 }) C& o0 b
4 R! _0 A8 e9 D9 ~8 b, ?3 a
"Xiao reported that more than 87% of 110 patients gained sensation and continence within 1 year. In comparison, the current patients undergoing the identical procedure with the help of Xiao himself only showed a modest improvement"2 X) M9 `6 O1 C: j/ u* F
! v0 u; T5 f/ T
"Unless the innovators provide a sound argument and data for the validity of the procedure, there is a great danger of its improper and rapid adaptation by patients and the medical community at large") y! a7 o1 B, X" Q% m8 ~

$ [/ [' c& s; B6 n$ H7 _We provided those information on SpinaBifidaConnection and CareCure, so that potential patients could understand what the procedure really is.. n3 ]7 {: I5 z( u* ~$ ^
Recommend (32), L8 b: H/ \& z5 y7 w4 b
Permalink
/ J0 x3 _0 Z$ y% X1 G/ j* V( r$ t) WReport abuse* \. I$ V& m! ~# j( P: p8 g7 D; q
RedHab wrote:
% \# x& A, m" O2 H& y! D' ^Oct 7th 2010 9:55 GMT
- K2 J5 J; P1 ]7 @
! h/ @- _' n0 C! b8 `6 Z+ _Western scientists can behave just as badly - witness the 2001 personal attacks by the environmentalists and Scientific American magazine against Bjorn Lomborg and his Skeptical Environmentalist book for questioning their gospel.. E) P2 g5 k+ O$ p
Recommend (18)
" W7 a# `2 j/ A! KPermalink9 `/ e- I+ J+ N7 V
Report abuse
* K2 T" A5 a4 `) R( C, R/ u: xmtangent wrote:
. ^1 b  P5 ?7 m6 T4 `) TOct 7th 2010 11:03 GMT7 }, t& u' Y& `* a8 Z
' n+ j! S- \( z) o: H) L, _
This is not just a science problem; it is a window into Chinese culture, business, politics, & law in general.3 D9 \6 d0 g+ Q4 x$ s+ b9 s
Of course, the rest of the world isn't perfect, but by my western standards, This Chinese situation seems like a disaster.
) P- x1 j- q4 P0 n- E$ l# vRecommend (30)
3 J  i# H  a" I; wPermalink
  n. O7 `2 L2 f6 A$ V) cReport abuse- r9 e- Q5 E  {8 Q( @( V; F
FirstAdvisor wrote:# F$ O' D/ v0 P8 c
Oct 7th 2010 11:28 GMT
4 E" O. [7 @+ N! S, y9 `5 \8 R5 T( o3 A+ n# `
Based on the description of The Economist, the present situation for scientists in China is exactly the same as that for doctors in Western nations, especially the USA and Canada. There is no government organization that oversees the occupation. Doctors have their own organization which is their only authority, and governments have no power over them. It is legally impossible for a patient to have a doctor charged, arrested, and tried for committing a crime; all allegations against doctors can only be heard by the doctors' own internal association, never by the criminal courts of the dept. of justice of a nation.8 c* A! v/ a3 t$ h4 `0 h! c
- C+ k6 G( K4 _. U
So I fail to see what The Economist is making a fuss about. If the present system is good enough for doctors in the Western world, I don't grasp why it isn't good enough for scientists in China.
9 b" d7 U) P/ M2 e1 K# F0 ~; SRecommend (17)! m7 n* q& x' A4 S# o
Permalink
# }0 \) B! r" U! G  t' W% ^( `Report abuse. s- T( N* b1 ^" Q+ X, p
BWGIA wrote:$ o8 l) r3 T: N/ v  V
Oct 8th 2010 12:11 GMT" Q; Q: `% o$ _/ o

  F- J+ H" m1 C" L+ G6 M) vI think it's worth noting that abstracts of posters and presentations given at conferences are perfectly acceptable as "publications", and are sometimes cited in published papers.
- ]+ `0 d$ E5 _- BRecommend (13)! w8 Z9 b" X( ?8 h0 W" {; A% `
Permalink
6 C! i* X3 \) B' }Report abuse
5 Y: n6 w- |* l3 f6 zFirstAdvisor wrote:
: k4 T$ s3 [; H1 O" P. k. ?Oct 8th 2010 1:24 GMT2 f% C# h& f6 T2 a: \) g
$ X7 I, ^& L4 T$ d+ `( Z, ^
There is a hugely superior report on these subjects in today's edition website of the New York Times, 'Rampant Fraud Threat to China's Brisk Ascent.'5 ~% ]! f$ J* Y/ I$ Y" Z8 N
Recommend (19)
/ @& [* b5 X# D1 T* ]! ]Permalink# k/ L; p* m$ Q- d. A
Report abuse
/ z. N' u" e1 Y- }2 p) v; n5 anewphilo wrote:3 B* Z+ k- K) s# _' Z1 G
Oct 8th 2010 2:15 GMT( e3 X" _# a6 e  g' G& F# H2 S
. d+ q* H7 W' ]  w5 W0 l+ K
So, the Chinese scientists gave the West what it needed to succeed: the compass and the gun powder.
& F3 S9 K4 k" h9 \In kind, the West gave the Chinese scientists what they needed to succeed: the copy & paste document editing features
* c0 ]/ e# ?2 a9 ^' N0 m! LRecommend (19)$ g4 m. \0 _& C3 {
Permalink9 A6 C, C% V; _. o+ p/ Y
Report abuse* o4 W; Q8 m) q5 s
convection wrote:6 o) U* a* h$ O  c( `
Oct 8th 2010 2:37 GMT# F& k1 k2 ?8 G& j2 n

2 @' H- r, S6 RAs a chinese scientist and as a visiting scholar in USA,I totally agree with what Inkshaddow pointed out." E* z1 z8 h# q+ [! j% i5 A
This article lacks insights and give confusing message.* X5 G" n$ n9 a+ [$ p
The author,apparently,hadn't done his homework well.Itis especially dispointing when I expect the voice from the trust worthy institute like Economist , should have helped expose and spread the information about the truth.To doing so in china, it means potential or real risk like Fang siming and Fang xuanchang had been attacked by gangs hired by Dr. Xiao.
8 w4 G3 Q9 ?! J5 z8 K% D- b4 d
" ?# o  X, T. z# f  k! yThat is really a shame on the author,what you did is just like a tourist gave an amature report on whaty don't understand.0 U0 j0 x7 ~" M3 b
Recommend (19)
8 h8 R, U9 u0 Y$ Q/ z# I/ l4 sPermalink' C' H3 y/ R: `
Report abuse
% o5 W3 d, a, r+ u+ u9 `yauhooi2010 wrote:# i: u3 e( t! O3 W" @! O6 k
Oct 8th 2010 3:11 GMT
& o0 }6 `2 ]( Y
" T2 n5 ~" }$ `+ P/ S  }7 j% P2 R9 BI preferred this article, dealing with the *same* subject, from the NY Times: http://nyti.ms/bwVQpR
5 ]! Q7 m8 a% g/ Y2 ?( F3 iRecommend (11)
1 Z! T' X. a! ]2 `4 pPermalink; W% h5 M! v8 L* J% B9 V: U
Report abuse
1 _' f, h( E! K9 ?* eyauhooi2010 wrote:" u& r' P% ^* X0 T
Oct 8th 2010 3:21 GMT& C, B; M) B# ^' r& g. z; @
/ L& v  k* s5 _% `
FirstAdvisor: Yes, agreed. In fact, I read that article before reading the Economist one and it sets out the issues so much clearer.
( X* r' V. L. s3 ~6 Z" h6 I) }Recommend (13)
" T" _0 h# E: y' |: u# C+ S- uPermalink! Y% i; @8 C% w8 ^( y) Z& N( W
Report abuse1 ~2 M, d* R$ x, X8 K$ J
PainFree wrote:
' P0 L8 i6 M' c" LOct 8th 2010 3:43 GMT" C  G3 s) d% C8 u3 a8 u% T2 s
, N0 z, i7 `, I3 R6 h( i4 R
I totally agree with the author of this article. Science misconduct should be handled strictly by specially appointed committee just like here in the U.S. Any evidence of research/science misconduct should be reported to the committee to initiate a formal investigation. The whole process has to be done confidentially. Dr. Xiao initiated his studies in the U.S. with financial support from NIH. His surgical procedure has been proven effective in at least some patients. A multicenter clinical trial is currently being carried out to further evaluate the efficacy and potential risks of the procedure. If Dr. Xiao is suspected of plagiarism or any other forms of research misconduct, then a proper route is to report to NIH because NIH has sponsored Dr. Xie's research and is still supporting research related to his procedure.
1 [# \8 J! G  m3 ZRecommend (21)0 U2 {0 E) M* z' I' ~( [
Permalink
1 R( |9 E' y7 _; r8 }Report abuse0 j5 p  g3 F+ c4 u" [
PainFree wrote:1 Z5 O) o  y9 m1 \
Oct 8th 2010 4:06 GMT
+ i' K9 p) @( ]1 L) k
0 o, g! c+ h/ W  o+ s. Y# }3 ~XYS group: To say that "Beaumont hospital who conducted the pilot study in the US provided false information in order to lure patients to their clinic trials." is a serious accusation against the PI and the hospital.
; M( ]& b! v  [, nRecommend (16)
' O0 c9 c9 c, J. y+ R0 ^0 UPermalink
4 z$ V7 C7 [- n% AReport abuse
' T  |$ ]) y7 W9 u( j! F* sxysgroup wrote:
) }5 }5 b0 u1 z) _; I( WOct 8th 2010 5:00 GMT
! n) i( o1 w) Y
; d5 H: ^: z5 u) g5 STo PainFree:) k+ F0 ~+ H) M3 L. U2 Z
3 ?/ o3 u1 r& q: s6 p
It is really a serious accusation, with evidence:6 [1 {% c& s+ I. Z. j, ?9 j
http://webcache.googleuserconten ... sld4U63UJ:spinab...
1 s) J7 C8 c' a  @2 S0 vhttp://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/sho ... 21&postcount=44
- S- I: x' ^) t- q: A2 Q& P" `0 whttp://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=6743851747&topic=6088$ j- f# q) d4 _, y
http://ronandmelissa.com/wp/?p=52
5 N1 U. l7 l7 H0 Z& [# m& r. w2 e- ?4 `6 R7 \: W3 P
We have reported it to the Human Investigation Committee of the hospital, but received no response. Then, what do you expect us to do?
3 U# F+ f# B$ ~" R) Q. W$ g! T8 l  V
We also laid a serious accusation against Dr. Xiao that he fabricated his official document testifying the "85% success rate" of his procedure:1 @; e3 G( Q# k' H# c; q1 X
http://xysblogs.org/wp-content/blogs/107/uploads/xpletter.html#l4+ Y" f+ y7 A" j" M" h4 d8 |
But the Office of Research Integrity of China has never initiate a single investigation since it came into existence in Jan. 2007. And it is beyond the jurisdiction of the ORI of the US. Again, what do you expect us to do?) m" U1 \  A* D) \% X6 e# t0 G
Recommend (11); y% B) L! l; n% f  v: o
Permalink# a& p) Y: @- [# Q7 }6 T8 p
Report abuse" O  i, h& O* T
convection wrote:: p) f. T! {3 N) R7 m* ]
Oct 8th 2010 5:06 GMT6 t# P; f' S1 B7 F2 O
# O, ^* h$ E& @, N2 s
Painfree: I presume you don't know the fact that a official,specially appointed organization to investigate the accusation is just what has been wished by Fang and his supporters. Why there is no such investigation to be run by a public organization is,maybe, too complicated to explain to you if you don't understand the situation in china. But, pls believe this is also why Fang and his friedns are really heroes ,though they don't want to be and shouldn't be asked to do such sacrific just for revealing the truth. Repeated, that is why the author should be blamed for. To publish this article, he should know what you mayby don't know.
, v2 Q& S8 f- K1 ORecommend (10)
& @/ N3 ~! }; P: N8 hPermalink3 @4 T# V2 G* W! w& z/ g( Z: r; Z& b
Report abuse1 W8 M! M' i+ f( O, J2 C; Z2 B) e) e
PainFree wrote:# m' n$ M9 S( j7 {' X& g
Oct 8th 2010 5:31 GMT8 H) M( y, g) b
. C/ c! M# C* K/ _6 f5 w
XYS Group: Thanks for posting the links regarding your accusation against Beaumont Hospital. From the letter itself, it does not tell us at all that Beaumont Hospital intentionally lied about the this study and tried to "lure" patients to this clinical trial. As a matter of fact, this is a standard letter from a PI who explained in detail about this surgery including the benefit, potential risks, and the cost. And yes, he did say this procedure is being carried out in a large scale in China-but he was not lying. Over 500 cases a year is a large number-and most importantly this statement made by the doctor was based on his best understanding and interpretation. If he wanted to lie, he did not have to mention the risks, right?
6 q$ T. Q* L0 k1 m" ERecommend (12)) \7 C+ x9 g7 A1 u2 T/ B
Permalink( h( Q+ J9 s# O1 G& x+ U
Report abuse; {  w: C- ?  b6 b2 {* ]
PainFree wrote:1 \6 f: b$ }9 e9 g  ]/ v
Oct 8th 2010 5:45 GMT
' ^4 m9 m( i: B1 [9 X: ?7 ?; J4 p0 {
I just read the open letters in support of Dr. Xiao and showing confidence in the surgical procedures from 34 distinguished clinical doctors, Ph.Ds. scientists, Chairs, and directors from programs like Harvard, Columbia, and Stanford. Should I question about their credibility? I know the letter is real because I happen to know one of those 34 people on the letter. I have no problem with XYS or Dr. Fang himself. My question is while the clinical trial is going on, and everyone agree that this procedure shows some promsing results, why cannot let them finish this peer-reviewed studies. This procedure has backup from preclinical studies and have been reviwed by experts from both China and USA for funding supports. I am sure there are merits in the procedure and the studies otherwise it would not get funded in the first place.
9 d' j5 O9 K! Z( VRecommend (13)
' x; U; Q0 z, F! y$ b1 m  ~Permalink
4 E+ b4 u4 u) ^" d+ v/ ], S  mReport abuse9 U8 T3 W1 j+ M0 o
sunny_hui wrote:
$ ~) t/ k4 z' S; v# W% TOct 8th 2010 6:05 GMT
9 j: C1 z' a+ F  x; V: N# m- H
4 ]/ o; }* _3 Hsome disappointed.....

chiangmax

英媒：中国科学家道德表现有待提高
; X/ j6 p; G6 N2010-10-10 08:01 环球网
# A& f! a% t. k; n3 I2 T0 b- V/ }6 I/ ]4 m  q9 @$ B
英国《经济学家》10月7日文章，原题：中国科学家表现糟糕在西方国家，关于学术的争议有时非常激烈，但他们极少会因此拳脚相加。可8月29日，中国的科学博客作者方舟子在街上遭袭。同年6月，财经杂志的记者方玄昌也遭到相似的袭击。此后，方舟子、方玄昌批评对象之一的武汉华中科技大学泌尿科医生肖传国被逮捕，9月28日，他在电视上承认了他的罪行。$ v6 F$ D% a# t: ^- Q+ @4 q0 e* W

0 C  _# t/ Q4 I7 I  i1 i% j道德，最终获胜了。中国学术已经向文明对话的标准迈进了一步，而这种标准在西方人看来在自己国家已普遍存在。你越深究这件怪事，越会发现中国科学界整肃科学家行为的需要有多迫切。( K0 p2 Y! @6 ?! O' h# r- ]
% {6 Y3 N" W* [6 n7 Z, s
方舟子的网站“新语丝”一年会贴出100篇左右揭露学术欺诈的文章。中国在处理此类的欺诈上没有适当的程序，因此他认为自己的网站平台对于反对学术不端行为是必不可少的。尽管许多控诉是匿名的，也没有真凭实据，被指控的人即使无辜也无法反驳，但这确实给中国学术界点亮了一盏灯。$ k& Q9 Q) z4 W
5 @% z1 t" h4 r8 b1 z/ G
方舟子与肖传国的恶交可追溯到2000年“新语丝”设立之初。肖传国以“昏教授”的笔名攻击新语丝的运行方式。此后两人有过数次激烈的交锋和互相指责，包括2001年，肖传国举报方舟子剽窃一篇科学文章；2005年，肖申报了中国科学工程院院士，方舟子搜集材料指责其学术诚实及忠诚感不够；此外，方舟子称肖传国夸大了他发明的一项新型手术的疗效，并认为其安全性和疗效都有待检查。等等。
+ f# ~1 t, _: r0 E# k8 N, V$ E! m) s0 X( ~) M! q, f# [7 c/ A
如果这只是一次独立的口角，它很难说明什么问题。可是，它与更广阔的背景相关联。例如，2006年，120个中国科学家，其中很多在美国工作，写信给国家制定科学政策的官员，控诉那些毫无根据和匿名的人身攻击给他们带来的危害。他们不仅要求成立独立的专家委员会来调查学术不端行为，而且认为调查应该私下进行，在罪行被证明前应对当事人做无罪假设。$ W' W+ {* T: @% y: o+ }, z
9 O* s; k! y1 r1 o, A
可惜，这事没有什么进展，也没有任何一个人站出来。从发表文章的数量上来看，中国是地球上第二大生产科学的国家。而这样的事件使人不得不质疑这种高效背后的可靠性。没有诚实的学术，中国的发展将受到阻碍。（李亮译）

张也行

哎 中国的学术啊！

jiandong2001

一言难尽的事情！