◇◇新语丝(www.xys.org)(xys3.dxiong.com)(www.xysforum.org)(xys2.dropin.org)◇◇   张励才造假让徐州医学院蒙羞   ——五评徐州医学院申博造假事件   作者:魏公平   在徐州医学院的申博申请书和其他材料中,徐州医学院反复强调了他们骄傲 的麻醉学。他们说:“在50年的办学历程中,徐州医学院形成了'以临床医学为 基础,以麻醉学为特色'的办学方向。徐州医学院麻醉学专业在全国具有很大的 知名度和影响力,可以说,全国麻醉学的亮点在江苏;江苏麻醉学的亮点在徐医。 麻醉没有博士授予权,就无法使江苏在华东六省尚无麻醉学博士学位授予点的情 况下,抢占发展先机。这不仅严重制约了徐州医学院麻醉学科的发展,同时也严 重影响江苏麻醉在全国领先的地位。”   如果说“全国麻醉学的亮点在江苏;江苏麻醉学的亮点在徐医”的话,那末, “徐医的亮点在张励才”。张励才是徐医的骄傲,是徐医的旗帜!   我们在《一评江苏省申博中的严重造假事件》中指出,我国著名学术打假网 站《新语丝》早在2008年4月26日就发表了Anes的文章,揭露了徐州医学院的旗 帜性人物张励才严重造假的事情。   《新语丝》的文章引起了人们的关注,2008年6月4日,《新语丝》又发表署 名大路(从下面叙述可以看出,他是一个内行专家)的文章,叙述了这一事情的 进一步发展情况。文章说:   “看了Acnes于4月26日发表的《中国医科大学张励才等人两篇弄虚作假论文》 一文后,本人出于职业敏感和好奇,下载了两篇文章的全文进行解剖。   本人从事镇痛和药物依赖的行为学方面的研究多年,可以负责任地说,葛志 军的两篇文章存在重大造假嫌疑:凡是从事过行为学研究的人都知道,两个独立 的实验,采用大鼠是不可能得出如此类似的数据的!如果把两篇文章的各个图拷 贝后对应放在一起,很多数据点是完全重合的!行为学实验的一个特点就是动物 个体差异巨大。两组大鼠,即使采用热板法单纯测试吗啡,也根本不可能得出如 此类似(个别数据点完全一致)的结果的!   读完两篇全文后,本人分别给Pharmacology和Neuroscience Letters的杂志 主编发了email并附上两篇文章。Pharmacology的副主编第二天给我回了信,全 文如下:   Dear Dr. x:   Thanks for your email expressing concern about similarlities in two papers recently published in Neuroscience Letters (Ge, et al., 413; 233-237, 2007) and Pharmacology (Ge ,et al. 80; 261-268, 2007). Although I am not the Editor that deals with Asian submissions, I will forward this email to my fellow Editors, Drs. Donnerer and Maeyama, at Pharmacology. A quick examination of both papers reveals substantial similarity in several portions of the text, as well as similar-appearing figures, in spite of different experimental protocols. I also note that neither paper refers to the other, in spite of similar methods, materials and topics. Given this and that both papers were likely under review at Pharmacology and Neuroscience Letters at   similar times, it would have been difficult to note these apparent similarlities during review.   I will keep you posted as to what we find.   Please feel free to call me if you would like.   Sincerely;   Melvin Billingsley, PhD   Professor of Pharmacology   Penn State University College of Medicine   我并没有给Billingsley博士打电话。隔了几天后Pharmacology和 Neuroscience Letters的编辑分别都给我回了信,大致内容都差不多, Neuroscience Letters的编辑回信如下:   Dear Dr. X,   In response to your email of 4/26/08, please note that Neuroscience Letters takes allegations of error and/or fraud or falsification very seriously. However, NSL is not in a position to investigate allegations of potential misconduct. Our policy is to refer such allegations to the institution where the work was carried out, for further investigation as appropriate. We have forwarded the allegation to the institution that was listed as the corresponding author's address on the Neuroscience Letters article. After that institution has studied this matter,and has let us know about the   outcome, Neuroscience Letters will take appropriate action.   We are enclosing the email text that we have sent to the responsible authorities at the institution where the work was performed.   Kind regards,   Peter Geraghty   Peter Geraghty   Journal Manager   Elsevier Inc.   因为两个杂志本身无法对学术不端和学术造假行为进行彻查,因为根据杂志 的政策,两个杂志分别给论文的通讯作者单位寄去了如下信件,要求作者所在大 学对此进行彻查。两个杂志所发的信件类似,下面是Neuroscience Letters杂志 给中国医科大学去函的内容:   Dear Sir/Madam,   I am writing to you, in my capacity as Editor of Neuroscience Letters, after having received an email which alleges that apparently identical results were published twice by one of your faculty members, Dr.Li-Cai Zhang and represented as coming from different experiments in Neuroscience Letters ( 413: 233-237, 2007) and in another journal, Pharmacology (80:261-268, 2007 ). The corresponding author of the Neuroscience Letters paper is Li-Cai Zhang, of the Department of Anaesthesiology, Affiliated Hospital of the First Medical College. A   copy of the allegation is enclosed.   Neuroscience Letters is not in a position to determine whether the allegations that have been made are true or not, and if true, whether they are, or are not, the result of error, fraud, or falsification. I would note that, although it is not possible to make a definitive statement without examination of the original source results, on perusal of the published results, it appears that while they are represented as coming from different experiments, they appear very similar and possibly identical.   Neuroscience Letters takes allegations of error and/or fraud or falsification very seriously. Our policy is to refer such allegations to the institution where the work was carried out, for further investigation as appropriate. Since your institution was listed as the corresponding author's address on the Neuroscience Letters article, and since Dr. Li-Cai Zhang is currently a member of your faculty, we are referring this matter to you. After your institution has studied   this matter, we would appreciate hearing the outcome so that, if appropriate, Neuroscience Letters can take appropriate action.   Thank you for your attention to this.   Sincerely,   Stephen Waxman, MD,PhD”   大路在文章中说:“不仅仅是杂志的编辑,任何一个视力正常的人都能够看 出两篇文章尽管是完全独立的实验,但是实验结果惊人的类似(甚至相同)。出 于可以理解的原因,杂志无法对此查处,但并不表明造假者可以因此而有恃无恐、 逍遥法外。   ……我们看到了太多这样的例子,作者单位出于“家丑不可外扬”的考虑, 往往会对造假者进行包庇。那为什么我们还要揭露呢?是科学的良心!科学容不 得造假!不要认为Pharmacology和Neuroscience Letters这种小杂志,发表点垃 圾文章无伤大雅。这照样可以造成国际影响!设想一下,如果国外的研究小组读 了你的文章而无法重复你的实验   (这几乎是一定的,能够重复出来才叫邪门呢),他们的坏印象不仅仅是你, 而可能是整个中国的科研人员。”(以上文字引自《对葛志军有关Accnes的<答复> 一文的评论》,见《新语丝》2008年6月4日)   张励才论文造假的事情,Anes看的很清楚,大路看的很清楚,方舟子先生看 的很清楚,发表了张励才文章的两个杂志的编辑部也看的很清楚。我把张励才的 文章向几位从事医学和生物学研究的朋友讲述了,没等我讲完,他们都说:“这 绝对是造假,试验中不可能出现这样的事情。”事实上,任何一个有良心的学术 工作者,对这种事情,都看的很清楚。   徐州医学院的领导们的智商不会是零,难道你们真的看不出张励才在造假! 难道你们真的让张励才这位“麻醉大师”的“麻醉术”给麻醉了?!   发表张励才文章的两个杂志的编辑部,要求作者所在大学,对张励才的论文 造假行为进行彻查,徐州医学院却装聋作哑,对此根本不做处理。   你们纵容了张励才的昨天的造假行为,今天,张励才带领着他的麻醉学术团 队和徐州医学院的其他学术带头人,在申博申请书中,制造了一起更严重的造假 事件!   张励才是徐州医学院的旗帜,张励才让徐州医学院蒙羞。   ***********************************   下面是几句并非题外的话:   徐州医学院的申博申请书是一份典型的学术造假的标本。如果徐州医学院依 靠这份申请书最终申博成功,那末这份申博申请书中的各种各样的造假伎俩必将 为全国教育界所熟知,并且必将为许多人使用并进一步“创造性发展”。如果这 样的话,整个中国教育界今后的申博(指申请博士点和博士单位)工作和其他各 项与评审有关的工作,必将陷入一片混乱。整个中国的高等教育事业,必将受到 毁灭性的打击。   注:一位网友退思在《新语丝》上对我们系列评论的题目提出了建议,这一 建议是正确的,我们对文章的标题做了修改。   预告:我们将在近期内连续发表二十余篇系列文章,系统评论江苏省申博中 出现的徐州医学院严重造假事件。 (XYS20090407) ◇◇新语丝(www.xys.org)(xys3.dxiong.com)(www.xysforum.org)(xys2.dropin.org)◇◇