郭磊先生在科学网指控哈佛包庇造假，就像一块石头扔进了水池，溅起了些许水花，立刻就平静了。一旦这几篇相关的博文退缩到视野以外，事件也就像从未发生过。 曾经沧海，自信早已洞察这案子的预后，却对三件事感到意外：一是科学网编辑的胸怀，让读者饱了眼福；二是居然有王志明老师插手，而且卓有成效；三是难得有Dr. James Whitfield做了客观公正的评论。现在事件应该已成为历史，在被完全忘记之前，本人想对Dr Whitfield的评论略说几句。因为他的评论不长，为了方便，全文转贴如下（粗体为本人所加）： PPR哈佛PKD：Comment on the Harvard story from Dr. James Whitfield Personal comment from Dr. James Whitfield: Thank you for sending me this sad story of a person being unable to repeat a laboratory's important experiments. A person from my lab also once went to work in another lab and could not repeat their important published data, but unlike Dr Guo, he wisely left without making trouble. Surely this could, indeed should, should, now be resolved by doing exactly what Dr Chen has done. He appears to have found no or only a very low level of WTPC-2 in the cilia of his MDCK cells. This could mean that these cells don't concentrate normal PC2 in the cilium and that the PC2 that does get there eventually is a non-specific secondary intrusion and that some mutant PCs do somehow get in albeit slowly. But this seems to mean that the PC2 is not a normal cilial component. Thus, the key fact from Dr Chen is that there is a problem here which must be resolved for the sake of those of us who have written about the calcium-mediated mechanodriven signaling from the kidney cell cilium. I am surprised that apparently the Harvard people did not take a little time and effort to defuse this problem by carefully arranging an independently monitored set of experiments to verify or definitively refute Dr Guo's potentially serious observations. Dr. James Whitfield Researcher Emeritus of the National Research Council of Canada http://www.sciencenet.cn/blog/user_content.aspx?id=224077 Dr Whitfield首先指出，郭先生因为不能重复实验结果就声张质疑的做法不明智，聪明人的做法是不露声色悄悄离开。也就是说对这种事不可大惊小怪，声张起来对大家都没好处。 其次，Dr Whitfield认为哈佛人如果能令人信服地证明实验结果可以重复，将是对郭先生最有力的反击。言外之意，不理不睬好失面子。 沉默是金，我相信这事也就这样不了了之，不会再有下文了。作为举报者，能听到Dr Whitfield这两句公道话自然已经是非常幸运，应该心满意足；而尚未卷入麻烦的清白科研人员则要牢记Dr Whitfield的金玉良言：别少见多怪，是非只为多开口！ 上次说过： 造假不要紧，剽窃是祸根。附一条刚刚看到的新闻，看看人家造假的功底：买通科学家签署论文刊登在有声望的医学杂志上（所以说如今科学家名声不好并非血口喷人），还为造假专门创办专业杂志！如今事情败露了，但那些科学家们被处理了吗？那些造假论文撤回了吗？ Doctors signed Merck's Vioxx studies Milanda Rout April 09, 2009 Article from: The Australian SCIENTISTS were allegedly recruited by a pharmaceutical giant to put their names on research done by the drug company to promote the safety of its anti-arthritis drug Vioxx. The Federal Court has heard that Merck Co prepared and gathered doctors and academics to write the company's own research on Vioxx, which was then published in prestigious medical journals as independent studies. The drug company also allegedly produced an entire journal -- called The Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine -- and passed it off as an independent peer review publication. These claims were put by lawyers acting for Graeme Peterson, who is suing Merck Co and its Australian subsidiary Merck, Sharpe and Dohme for compensation. The 58-year-old -- along with more than 1000 other Australians -- claim Vioxx caused their heart attack or stroke. The drug was launched in 1999 and at its height of popularity was used by 80 million people worldwide because it did not cause stomach problems, as did traditional anti-inflammatory drugs. It was voluntarily withdrawn from sale in 2004 after concerns were raised that it caused heart attacks and strokes and a clinical trial testing these potential side-effects was aborted for safety reasons. Merck last year settled thousands of lawsuits in the US over the effects of Vioxx for $US4.85billion ($7.14 billion) but made no admission of guilt. Counsel acting for Mr Peterson, Julian Burnside, told the court this week the drug company sought out and recruited scientists, academics and doctors to put their name to Merck's own research. He said medical journal expert George Jelinek would testify that the articles were designed to reassure the medical profession about the safety of Vioxx. The trial, before judge Chris Jessup, continues. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25311725-5013404,00.html
诗曰：造假不要紧，剽窃是祸根；岂止我一个，还有后来人。 此前曽在国外名校举报过学术造假，在网上説起过国外传统是对造假教授百般包庇，却基本上没人相信。在郭磊先生的《发生在哈佛医学院的一起严重学术造假》（ http://www.sciencenet.cn/m/user_content.aspx?id=221513 ）一文后本人留过言，也拜读了各位大侠的评论，觉得有几句话不得不説。 学术和科研本来是人类对知识和文明的追求，到了求职不易的今天，却已演变为谋生的手段，学术造假也就应运而生。大家耳熟能详的一项Nature调查显示，科研人员中有有三分之一承认有过某种程度的弄虚作假或剽窃。所以其实科研不当行为国内国外一般同，并非中国独创。 美国科研诚信办公室（ORI）对科研不当行为的定义是： Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. (a) Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them. (b) Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record. (c) Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit. (d) Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion. （ http://ori.dhhs.gov/misconduct/definition_misconduct.shtml ） 在捏造（fabrication）、篡改数据（falsification）和剽窃（plagiarism）这三项行为中，剽窃（包括重复发表而不加说明的自我剽窃）最愚蠢：白纸黑字，在众目睽睽之下，如何抵赖？造假行家则明白，正如发扬中医要从娃娃起，挽救京剧要从小学生起，而学术造假则必须从伪造原始数据起。既然造假，就不必客气，不造则已，要造就要造得圆满彻底。 有读者在郭教授博客的留言中説： 如果你有确凿的证据，证明哈佛的相关研究人员确有造假的嫌疑，就应该为了科学与之斗争。哪怕来自各方面的压力有多么的大 。 话虽不错，只是不现实。首先，举报剽窃相对容易，如果是举报捏造或篡改数据，接触原始实验记录是关键，却往往又是几乎不可能。其次，即使有了如山铁证，对付学生或下层科研人员自然是手到擒来，如果对方是知名教授，那么举报无疑是飞蛾扑火，地狱无门自来投。这事说来话长，待我以后慢慢开导大家。 应该说，ORI对科研不当行为的定义已经对造假者十分仁慈，网开三面，尤其是定义的第四条，科研不当行为不包括诚实的错误或观点的分歧，常常被造假者和造假者的上司用来掩盖造假丑闻。要证明别人刻意造假谈何容易！ 在国外较多见的是不重复实验，只要第一次试验有可用或较 理想的结果，即使不能肯定结果是否真实，能写就写，怕因第二次实验不能重复而坏了好事。曾经有人建议重复试验，却被老板一句话噎死：难道连你自己做的实验都不相信？ 按ORI条文，这当然不算不端行为。所以很多人有过这样的体验，如果严格依照一篇论文的步骤重复实验，即使那篇文章发表在一家一流杂志，得出同样实验结果的概率不高。通常的做法是把那篇论文丢到一边，虽然怀疑该论文的真实性，但不会去刨根问底，弄个水落石出。 就郭教授所叙述的证据，如果同一实验室无法重复已发表结果，一般来说，发表的论文显然有问题。在这种情况下，真正的科学家会找出原因主动改正论文中的错误，一般混饭的也就是装聋作哑。要人家承认是造假或是错误，那是强人所难。如果没有实验的原始记录证明的确是捏造或篡改了数据，那么只能怀疑，而不可以正式指控别人造假。按说向上司汇报这种怀疑是为实验室好，是否应该汇报则要看上司的为人，不可自取灭亡。 以下引用的这段话足已说明科研诚信办公室并不能解决实际问题，向他们告状只是病急乱投医： According to a July 2005 report by the Associated Press, allegations of misconduct by researchers in the United States reached record highs in 2004, with the department of Health and Human Services receiving 274 complaints -- the most the department has received in one year since the federal government first established a program to deal with scientific misconduct in 1989. However, because of staff and funding shortfalls, the federal Office of Research Integrity closed only 23 of those complaints, with just eight individuals found guilty. （ http://www.naturalnews.com/019353.html ） 应该明白，如果没有过硬的证据，有几人敢向ORI投诉而为自己惹大麻烦？ 有人留言建议郭教授找媒体，找编辑，或通过法律途径，应该说，这些在国外都不可行，为什么却不是三言两语可以说得明白，这些只有在亲身体验后才会如梦初醒。至于在博客上造势，那只是不得已而为之，让丑事见见光而已，对事件的解决毫无影响。因为虽然科学网上往来无白丁，留言大多出自教授学者，可是在事件中这些人不过是一群乌合之众。 有人相信同行评议，事实上如果事件已到了需要确定谁是谁非的地步，同行评议往往对举报人是个灾难。因为一是调查的范围只能是翻翻原始记录确定是否发生过捏造或篡改数据，而不是裁判学术观点的分歧，需要的是正直而不一定是小范围的专家；二是如今科学家名声不好，人品可疑，在是非场合不愿退避三舍，而是自告奋勇，勇往直前前来蹚浑水的，多是些利害相关的是非之人。 最欣赏的是郭教授自己的一则留言： 此文原有一个引言最近网上热议李连达院士课题组造假一事。在这场声讨李连达院士课题组造假的全民大运动中，我发现其中很多的文章充满了对国内现行学术打假制度缺失或执行不 力的指责，以及对浙大校长的批评。他们每每行文，必称如在美国遇到此类事情，会如何如何。我读了以后，总觉得此类评论，像作者们坐井观天梦呓般之臆语，很 是苍白无力得有点可笑。最近我在哈佛医学院揭露了一起学术造假，因而不幸亲历了美国调查和处理学术造假的过程。现将情况简介如下。希望大家能通过此文，多 少明白我国当今在科学技术方面，特别是科研造假技术方面，和美国等发达国家的真实差距所在。国内造假后进们，实应好好学习，努力提高科研造假技术。千万不 要再像李连达课题组一样低水平造假，以致被洋大人们轻易揭露，使我国科技界脸面尽失 。 努力提高科研造假技术，不使我国科技界脸面尽失，这真是神来之笔！于是借来做了本文的标题。
标签: 造假
