美国科学杂志2001年调查方舟子抄袭内幕曝光

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

散仙谷 http://www.webjb.org/webjb/sanxian/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

送交者: 搬运工 于 2006-12-16 03:54:14

引用 ******@scidev.net>:

肖老师：
您好。您好。

> 我是美国《科学》杂志特约记者XX，同时也是从《自然》杂志发展而来的英国公益
性在线科技杂志科学与发展网络（Scidev.Net）(http://www.scidev.net）中国协调员，
后者主要致力于发展中国家的科学传播。我也为Nature Medicine, Nature Biotechnology等《自然》系列期刊写稿。
得悉昨天方舟子损害您名誉的案子的上诉案开庭。同时，支持方舟子的一些人士正在发
起筹备一个基金支持他应诉，所以，有一些问题要请教您，希望得到您的答复。如果可能
的话，麻烦您提供一下您律师的联系方式。非常感谢您的帮助。

1．在一审中，被告方认为您向法庭出具的同济医学院出具的全职工作证明不充分，而NY U的Policies and Procedures for Appointment, Promotion and Tenure at the School of Medicine（http://www.med.nyu.edu/faa/docs/revision.doc）也提出：“Clinical Associate Professor The rank of Clinical Associate Professor of (specific discipline) should be granted to those members of the full-time faculty who have served as Assistant Professors at NYU or elsewhere, who demonstrate clinical excellence in their specialty and fulfill important service or teaching responsibilities at the School and its affiliated hospitals.”这一点您如何看呢？在昨天上诉案中，您和您的代理人又提供了一些新的证据吗？
2．在一审前后，一直有一些评论，认为学术争议不应该由法庭介入，您如何看待这个问题？在一篇署名为您的文章中，您提到要为学术界被方舟子/新语丝打击的人出气，不论这篇文章是否出自您，我都想请教一下，您是否觉得面对像“新语丝”这样的指控，学术界被指控者应该积极站出来维护自己的权益呢？
3．您作为与方舟子有过诉讼经历的知名科学家，如何看待这个“中国科学与学术诚信基
金会”募捐资助和支持方舟子/新语丝的官司呢？
4．您曾经说过，方舟子/新语丝的引人瞩目，部分上是因为官方在惩治不端行为上确实
缺乏力度。的确，如果对比韩国，我们到现在都没有对陈进汉芯造假案件进行刑事处理。
那么，最近科技部设立了科学诚信办公室，颁布了有关条例，您觉得这是否可以标志着
新语丝等该结束它们的工作了？
>
谢谢您的帮助。祝您身体健康。
>
科学杂志特约记者
XX
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
科学杂志
XX记者:

你好. 最近太忙,迟复为歉.
我一般不接受采访.我对你在Scidev.Net上关于我的报道也有看法.鉴于我和<科学>杂志和Sc
idev.Net有过来往,我已回答了你的所有问题,但是在寄给你之前,我想请你先回答一个小问题,借以了解你作为<科学>杂志特约记者的公平公正程度:
方舟子的文章(2001年10月4号南方周末)是否抄袭SCIENCE杂志2001年9月Greene的论文? (SCIENCE:2001年9月293卷，2105-2108页)

谢谢.请鉴谅我的小心谨慎.

肖传国
11月26号
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~（大约是11月29号下午，科学记者从英国打来电话采访，我不好意思拒绝，除基本按下面4个问题回答外，还详细提供了有关证据，包括NYU 院长证明，等等，以及方市民为什么要诬陷我—报复。）

答复问题1:
关于我在NYU的任职情况,你的英文水平应无理解问题,若仍有问题,请让你的<科
学>美国同行帮你看一下整个网页,或直接与NYU联系核实Clinical Associate
Prof.是全职还是兼职. 纽约大学院长证明信,NYU的offer letter, 任职证明等新证据已给法院,方的代理人说是伪证:-),建议你找方舟子要此伪证.

答复问题2:请看一下新语丝立此存照肖传国专辑的文章标题,看看哪是\"学术争议\":
http://www.xys.org/dajia/xiaochuanguo.html,
重点读一下其中这篇<院士候选人肖传国其人其事>
http://www.xys.org/xys/ebooks/others/science/dajia6/xiaochuanguo34.txt
然后,请你帮我回答你提的问题.

答复问题3:
物以类聚,人以群分.我乐观其成,这些钱能鼓励方舟子进入司法程序而不是躲避,所以对最终
通过司法途径彻底揭露方舟子的危害,并反过来教育那些捐钱者很有帮助.

答复问题4:
我从没说过这些话.另外,是否该结束与我无关.我个人认为新语丝应该继续,但方舟子应该把
新语丝网站从美国搬到南太平洋哪个无人岛上,这样就可以完全避开所有国家的法律,避开任
何诉讼.

肖传国

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
下面是我看了发表在SCIENCE上的报道后,写给那位记者的信

科学杂志:
XX记者:

我看了你们写的发表在12月1号的关于有关我的报道.非常遗憾.
这是一篇带有明显偏见的报道.

我相信你在对我进行了长时间的电话采访后, 有两点应该非常清楚: 1;方舟子对我的主要不实指控是什么, 这也是你的书面采访问题可以明显证明的(附后),.例如方舟子对我的主要指控之一是在中国美国均任全职却同时参选科学院院士,我向你提供了有关证据包括纽约大学医学院兼职教授任职证明,并同时请你的美国同事直接核实NYU网站的规定,显然,你和你的科学杂志同事已经完全明白方舟子这一主要指控完全是诬陷, 但你们却在报道中完全略去了你们原本最感兴趣的主要指控. 同时,我已对你澄清所谓”自称,自吹自擂,国际公认”等等完全与我无关,完全是方舟子先蓄意捏造再进行攻击,这些法院均已查明, 我也向你说明:所谓肖氏反射弧只是媒体和外科学教科书编辑的美誉,我从没在任何情况下用过肖氏反射弧这个名词,更谈不上自称发明了国际公认的肖氏反射弧”, 等等. 但你在文中竟然仍然把方舟子造的谣强加于我，.令人愤慨.
2, 方对我的所谓打假其实是报复我在2001年向科学杂志主编反映其抄袭科学杂志Greene的论文,这件事你们科学杂志主编和编辑Jeff都非常清楚, 我信守承诺至今未对第3方透露,
但当科学杂志发表你这片文章时, 当你们只要扫一眼方舟子在新语丝对我的完全与学术无关的全方位攻击时,任何智力正常的人都不难判断其Motive. 你们对方市民这么一个明显道德败坏的人为什么没有起码的正义感?

其实, 当年,你们科学杂志开始调查方舟子抄袭案时,居然采用将方舟子抄袭而成发表在南方周末的中文文章翻译成英文, 再与原作者的英文进行比较, 最后得出”方没有原文照抄Greene的英文(nor directly copied the language in the Science paper),”的荒唐结论, 已是荒唐透顶,(按你们的作法和逻辑,北大王铭铭何错之有?!!!你们如果把王的著作翻成英文,那英文绝对与其国外导师那本书的英文不一样!!! )我对你们本不抱希望,这次本不愿接受你的采访,所以设立了一个先决条件:请你谈谈你对方舟子抄袭科学文章的个人看法.后来鉴于你从英国来电, 不好意思拒绝. 现在看来实在是浪费时间.
好在我已将此抄袭问题提交法院,是非对错自有公论,自在人心.如果你们继续自毁<科学>精神, 我为科学杂志惋惜.

肖传国
12月2号
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Prof. Xiao:

Thank you for your note and the interest in the Science article, but some of your points are not exactly the accurate situation. It is true that we have a very long interview and I have recorded most contents of the interview to my colleagues, but as I have stressed to you, the article is written about three libel cases and one recent move on the funds that supports Fang, so we cannot offer too much space to your part.

In fact, my interviews of others, such as Guo Zhengyi and He Zuoxiu, have all surpassed one hour, but due to our limited space, we only recorded one sentence from Guo and nothing from He.

As for whether we have not mentioned Fang\'s accusation of your taking two positions and your evidence-based refutation, I could tell you that before the interview, the part involving you and Fang\'s case has been written without mentioning the accusation on dual positions, perhaps mainly because of the limited space.

As for your claim that our article has been biased, I am afraid we could not agree. We have tried our best to seek opinions of different sides. For example, my telephone costs to try to reach Ding of Xi\'an Fanyi School has been recorded up to 10 pounds (London local phone plus a cheap card), but unfortunately, Ding would not give me the chance to explain. Some staffs of him said he was busy in school, some said he travelled out for business, while some said he was in holiday. Finally, we could not list his comments. This is not our fault. Based on the same effort, we have not recorded your claimed charge against Fang in the US federation court in NY State, as we cannot find this case.

As for whether the article Fang wrote from Science in 2001 was a plagiarism, Science has made an investigation and Xiong Lei of Xinhua Agency was in the investigation team, so the decision was apparently not based on a wrong procedure -- first translating Fang\'s article into English and then compare it with the original English -- Xiong has good English and Chinese and knowledge of ethics, so she could have decided whether it was a plagiarism.

I hope my explanation could help you find out some facts about our work, but if you are still unsatisfactory, you might write a letter to the editor for a complain. You can submit a letter online at http://www.submit2science.org/ws/begin.asp.

Anyway, I believe the intermediary court of Wuhan will give a right ruling, and as a science journalist, I hope to have chance to seek your suggestions on academic issues in the future.

Thank you once again for your interest.

Best wishes,

XX
Dec 3, 2006

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
科学杂志
XX记者:

感谢你的回复.
我仅陈述事实,你同意与否与我无关,但与你作为记者的良心和职业道德有关.
我不会写信给SCINECE:他们在我这儿已无信用,作为证明,我翻出5年前science编辑Jeffrey Mervis关于方是民抄袭调查的email.转发给你参考.(当时有许多人举报,我是其中之一,但我与Science的原始通信记录可能存在NYU办公室, 这封EMAIL是JEFF 给另一举报人 Dr.XX的)

同时,非常非常感谢你澄清了一个重要事实:Jeff所说的\"independent sourse\"就是熊蕾!我一直怀疑当年是她做的手脚欺骗了科学杂志,包庇了方是民的抄袭.果然不出所料.好一个\"independent\"!

最后, 你说:Xiong has good English and Chinese and knowledge of ethics, so she could have decided whether it was a plagiarism.我完全同意. 现在, 我改一下主语: You have good English and Chinese and knowledge of ethics, so you could have decided whether it was a plagiarism.同时，最后一次问一下你: 你认为方舟子是不是抄袭？（不是让你代表science回答，只是拷问一下你个人作为一个记者和读书人的良心）

肖传国
12月3号
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
下面是2001年大家举报方舟子抄袭时，Science 对其他举报者的统一答复。 我因与Science 有约定， 不对第三方公开双方通信，所以，仅披露美国东部某博士转给我的Science EMAIL
From: Jeffrey Mervis <jmervis@aaas.org>
To: ******@***.edu
Subject: re: Fang letter
Date: Tue30 Oct 2001 14:10:09 -0500
Dear Dr. XX

The editor has asked me to reply to your concern about the article by Shimin Fang that appeared in Southern Weekend. We at Science have spend a good deal of time looking into the question of whether his article plagiarizes the manuscript that appeared in the 14 September issue of Science by Greene et al. Although I do not read or speak Chinese, I have had access to an English version of Fang\'s article, translated by an independent source.

We believe that Fang\'s article would not be considered acceptable journalism in the United States. He did not give the names of the researchers who carried out the research or the journal in which it was published, nor did he include quotes from other scientists. All these aspects would be essential for a journalistic article in a US publication.

However, a charge of plagiarism would be difficult to uphold since Fang did say the work was performed by researchers at Princeton University, and--unless the translation I have is wrong--he neither implied that the work was his own by witing in the first person nor directly copied the language in the Science paper.

As you point out, the issue is an important one. And we certainly appreciate queries like yours that require us to examine our practices.

I hope that this clarifies our view of the matter. Again, thank you for sharing your concerns with us.

Respectfully,

Jeffrey Mervis
Deputy news editor
Science magazine