在美国常常听到“别给我来中国人那一套”这种说法，借下面这份"告状"为例帮大家
理解一下什么是"中国人那一套"?

Dear Editor:

We read a paper entitled “RNA Polymerase II-associated Protein (RAP) 74
Binds Transcription Factor (TF) IIB and Blocks TFIIB-RAP30 Binding” published
on Vol 271, No. 20, Issue of May 17, pp. 11703-11709, 1996, JBC. We suspect
that the data in Figure 4B and 4C were artificially spelled out. By using
a high resolution screen, it is very clear that there was one imprint line
in the middle of the gel in Figure 4B, and two imprint lines in the gel
in Figure 4C. The background difference can be seen if you adjust the whole
image background. Therefore these two figures were manufactured. We would
like to request your investigation and to ask the authors for explanation.
Based on the case of the scientific misconduct, this paper should be trashed
since such a kind of behavior is prohibited and should be regarded as artificially
manufacturing data (你可以要求调查，但调查结果出来前你不能定论他人造假。
你不能拿你的见解当真理). We understand that sometimes a scientist may merge
two gels into one figure. However, the merged two parts should be separately
demonstrated (你不必说这废话，别人的判断力不需要你来启发). Unfortunately
the authors merged two gels into one to mislead readers (那只是你的怀疑，
可以建议调查，但你的怀疑不一定就是对的). Even worse (你最好用furthermore而
不应用even worse, 因为the BAD尚无定论) the authors used a box to group the
two/three parts together as if all the lanes were from one gel. This is
an obvious scientific misconduct (你只是提出怀疑，尚谈不上什么obvious).

We consider that such a kind of behavior damaged the reputation of the journal
badly (这句话象编委调查完得出结论后说的，你在这里说就是发狠，发泄，幼稚).
We strongly request the journal to trash the paper and at the same time
to report this scientific misconduct case to NIH and the institute of the
authors (还没有任何调查，你就以你的怀疑为标准加以定论，是典型大的中国式思
维。并且你根本不清楚美国的社会组织机制，你把NIH当成中国的中央政府了。方舟
子那篇论文还不一定是拿NIH的资助进行的).

We thank you for your attention to this issue and look forward to hearing
from you.

Sincerely yours,

Yun Rao, Ph. D., Professor;

School of Life Sciences,