中国人民大学书报资料中心
《科技管理》编辑部，你们好！

中国科学院《科学对社会的影响》2004年第2期发表了我的重要文章《中国科学技术、经济和社会的高速健康发展呼唤向传统科学技术基本理论提出挑战的科技创新成果》〔简略版，约1万字〕后，《人民网》、《中国科技信息网》、《新浪网》、《搜狐网》等三十多家网站全文转载或摘要介绍。
http://www.chinainfo.gov.cn/data/200408/1_20040824_87030.html

此后2004年8月27日《光明日报》发表了针对这篇文章对我的采访报道文章“呼唤挑战性的科技创新成果”∶
http://www.gmw.cn/01gmrb/2004-08/27/content_88076.htm

我必须特别感谢你们发行量较大的《科技管理》2004年第9期N1p16-24全文转载这篇重要文章。

在此之后，人民日报出版社2005年12月出版的《中国当代思想宝库》〔中国管理科学研究院常务副院长卢继传主编〕在第九篇《科学学》下收录了该篇文章的修订版〔681-687页〕，充实了我的原稿中部分非常重要的内容。

我高兴地告诉你们，一个即将出版的更大型的科技论文集决定收录上述文章的补充修订版〔约1.6万字〕，再次增加了一些重要内容。

前天，一位学界友人向我提供pdf文件的该篇重要文章发表在美国《科学》杂志〔312卷，2006年6月9日，1464-1466页〕《科学不当行为》专栏中，副标题为“一系列科学不当行为案件可能迫使中国科学界的领导大扫除或关注自己力求追求更加创新社会的呼喊的结果”。

为了负责起见，现在向你们提供我翻译的该篇文章的中英文对照稿，前边附有我的“译者”的话，其中表明由我承担翻译提供中英文对照稿的责任。
注∶你们也可以将我写的“译者的话”删除，或另外编写你们的编者按。

请你们懂英文的同志审核一下我的中译文，避免任何严重译误。

译文提供给你们考虑是否适合发表或在适当的专栏上网。

你们可以将该篇文章中英文对照稿提供给其它新闻媒介的朋友们。

致意
陈一文

Scandals Shake Chinese Science
科学丑闻震撼中国科学界

www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 312 9 JUNE 2006 p1464-1466
原文见∶http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/312/5779/1464

作者∶好心〔音译，Hao Xin〕；中译者∶陈一文顾问

译者的话∶一位学界友人向我提供pdf文件的该篇重要文章发表在美国《科学》杂志〔312卷，2006年6月9日，1464-1466页〕《科学不当行为》专栏中，副标题为“一系列科学不当行为案件可能迫使中国科学界的领导大扫除或关注自己力求追求更加创新社会的呼喊的结果”。译者认为，中国科学技术学术界存在着一系列严重的深层的综合性复杂问题，不能简单归结为行为不当问题，更不能认为通过集中力量解决不当行为问题中国科学技术领域存在的更加深层的综合性复杂问题就能够获得解决。尽管如此，译者认为该篇文章揭示了中国科学技术学术界中确实存在的许多问题，同时提出了许多具体的建议。为便于关心中国科学技术健康发展的更多中国读者有机会阅读该篇文章，译者将该文试译出来。为便于读者检验译文的准确性，避免误导，同时附上英文原文。对于译者为此目的未经《科学》杂志同意自主决定翻译发表该篇文章的中英对照译文，希望《科学》杂志予以谅解，不要列入不当行为予以控告。任何读者如果发现中译文有误，请与译者联系∶cheniwan@263.net 

Scandals Shake Chinese Science

科学丑闻震撼中国科学界

 

www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 312 9 JUNE 2006 p1464-1466

原文见∶http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/312/5779/1464

 

作者∶好心〔音译，Hao Xin〕；中译者∶陈一文顾问

 

译者的话∶一位学界友人向我提供pdf文件的该篇重要文章发表在美国《科学》杂志〔312卷，2006年6月9日，1464-1466页〕《科学不当行为》专栏中，副标题为“一系列科学不当行为案件可能迫使中国科学界的领导大扫除或关注自己力求追求更加创新社会的呼喊的结果”。译者认为，中国科学技术学术界存在着一系列严重的深层的综合性复杂问题，不能简单归结为行为不当问题，更不能认为通过集中力量解决不当行为问题中国科学技术领域存在的更加深层的综合性复杂问题就能够获得解决。尽管如此，译者认为该篇文章揭示了中国科学技术学术界中确实存在的许多问题，同时提出了许多具体的建议。为便于关心中国科学技术健康发展的更多中国读者有机会阅读该篇文章，译者将该文试译出来。为便于读者检验译文的准确性，避免误导，同时附上英文原文。对于译者为此目的未经《科学》杂志同意自主决定翻译发表该篇文章的中英对照译文，希望《科学》杂志予以谅解，不要列入不当行为予以控告。任何读者如果发现中译文有误，请与译者联系∶cheniwan@263.net

 

For more than a decade, the Chinese government has been heaping money and prestige on its academic community in a bid to gain ground in a global technological race. In this scientific Wild East, an unprecedented number of researchers stand accused of cheating—from fudging résumés to fabricating data—to gain fame or plum positions. Buffeted by scandals and an urgent appeal for action from expatriate scientists, top scientific leaders now acknowledge the need for change in a system notorious for its high expectations and scant oversight. “Too many incentives have blurred the reasons for doing science in some people’s minds,” Lu Yongxiang, president of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), told Science. “We need to improve our evaluation and assessment system to establish a better culture

for R&D innovation.” 

       十多年来，中国政府将大量的资金与威望投到中国的学术界以期在全球技术竞赛中占据地位。在此科学领域“大西部”开发中，空前数量的研究者被指责进行欺骗—从捏造简历到伪造数据—到骗取有声望或有利可图的职位。受到这些丑闻的轰击与国外学者紧急要求采取行动的推动，科学界最高领导现在承认必须对期望过高而对欠缺疏忽有余已经声名狼藉的科学体系实施改变。中国科学院路涌祥院长告诉《科学》杂志，“太多的激励在某些人的头脑中把从事科学的理由弄得模糊不清”。“我们需要改进我们的评价与评估体制以便为研究开发创造一个更好的文化氛围。

 

The central government is taking the first tentative swipes at what will amount to a Herculean task. For starters, the Ministry of Education (MOE), which funds and oversees the nation’s universities, last month issued ethics guidelines and formed a panel to police conduct in the social sciences. “Though it is difficult to ascertain the number of misconduct cases, the negative impact of these cases should not be underestimated,” says MOE spokesperson Wang Xuming. CAS, adds Lu, “will do its best to improve oversight. Monitoring by society is also needed.” Xu Guanhua, minister of science and technology, told 

Chinese reporters in March that “if academic corruption exists, then we will investigate every single case, thoroughly.” That pledge notwithstanding, the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST), with one of the largest portfolios, has not yet revealed how it plans to crack down on misconduct.

中央政府已经采取开始性的试探性步骤，将发展为赫拉克勒斯的巨大任务。作为开始，负责向中国大学提供经费并监督其使用的教育部〔MOE〕，2006年5月发布了道德规范指导方针，并组成一个充当警察监督社会科学的委员会。教育部发言人王旭明说，“尽管很难确切知道不当行为案件的数量，不能低估它们的负面影响”。科学院路涌祥院长补充，“将做出最大的努力改进这些失察。同时需要社会监督。”科技部徐冠华部长2006年3月份对中国新闻记者说，“如果学术腐败存在，我们将对每一件进行充分的调查。”尽管这个承诺尚没有实施，承担最大职责之一的科技部〔MOST〕尚没有透露其准备如何整治不当行为的计划。

 

Part of the challenge, observers say, is that science in China is acutely susceptible to influence peddling. Only a small percentage of R&D funding is awarded after Western-style peer review. Success often depends more on how well a scientist cultivates support from grant managers and politicians than on the quality of research. In a milieu of unhealthy relationships, some question whether the government has the resolve to police the scientific community strictly. “Many leaders shield misconduct; this is a serious problem,” says Chen-lu Tsou, a biophysicist at CAS’s Institute of Biophysics. Adds Liu Jixing, a retired physicist, without fundamental changes, we won’t be able to buck the trend of academic corruption.”

    观察家说，这些挑战之一，是科学在中国太容易受到有势力的利益的影响。研究开发经费中仅有相当小比例依照西方式的专家审查后予以决定。取得经费是否成功，与有关研究的质量相比，更多取决于有关科学家能够有效开拓持有经费批准权的经理与政客。在不健康的关系网环境中，有些人对于政府是否应当担当警察严格监督科学界很有疑问。中国科学院生物物理研究所的生物物理学家陈陆仇〔音译〕说，“许多领导人掩盖不当行为，这是一个严重的问题”。退休物理学家刘季行〔音译〕进一步说，“不实施根本性的改变，我们将无法扭转学术腐败的趋势。”

 

Running to the ministries

跑步〔跑部〕

 

When the late paramount leader Deng Xiaoping pronounced in late 1988 that “science and technology is the primary productive force,” it was like firing a starting gun. Since then, China has steadily ratcheted up the emphasis on R&D and innovation, setting goals such as creating 100 world-class universities in the 21st century and having science and technology contribute to 60% of the economy by 2020. The central government’s R&D appropriation has tripled in 10 years, from $3 billion in 1996 to $9 billion in 2006, with further increases planned for the next 15 years (Science, 17 March, p. 1548).

1988年，中国已故重要的领导人邓小平宣布“科学技术是第一生产力”时，当时像发射一记发令枪。从那时以来，中国越来越强调研究开发与创新，设置了在21世纪建立100家世界级的大学，以及到2020年科学技术对于中国经济的贡献率要达到60%。中央政府对于科学技术研究开发的拨款十年期间增加了两倍，从1996年的30亿美元增加到2006年的90亿美元，并且计划在今后十年期间进一步增加〔《科学》杂志，3月17日，第1548页〕。

 

The infusion of new money, critics say, accentuated the shortcomings of a research funding system tailored to a planned economy and driven by top-down political decisions. One exception is the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC), which sponsors basic research and since its founding in 1986 has used Western style peer review to administer grants. But its 2006 budget, $425 million, amounts to less than 5% of the central government’s R&D spending. MOST will distribute around $1.7 billion this year, mostly for applied research at universities, CAS institutes, and occasionally, companies. The ministry relies on experts to choose and evaluate projects. “On the face of it, the process looks pretty good. But in reality, a small circle of stakeholders have already predecided where the money will go,” asserts Tang Anguo, director of East China Normal University’s Institute of Higher Education Research in Shanghai. MOST declined repeated requests for an interview. Tang and others claim that although MOST says it relies on expert opinion in choosing which proposals to fund, grant managers can veto the

advice of scientific experts, often citing political reasons for doing so. Compounding the potential for abuse, in the name of streamlining, MOST has slashed its in-house staff and now routinely borrows grant managers from universities, says Liu. This creates a group of scientists-cummanagers with potential conflicts of interest.

       评论家们说，增加新的经费将强化为计划经济设计并受到自上而下政治性决定驱动的过去研究支持资金体制的缺点。国家科学基金会〔NSFC〕则是一个例外，它资助基础性研究，并且自1986年创立以来一直采用西方方式的专家审查对经费的批准实施管理实施。但是它的2006年预算只有4.25亿美元，少于中国政府研究开发拔款总额的5%。2006年期间，中国科技部将分配大约170亿美元的资金，大部分用于大学、中科院的应用研究项目，以及偶尔对企业的项目给予资助。科技部依赖于专家对有关项目进行选择与评价。在上海从事高等教育研究的华东师范大学汤安国〔音译〕主任断言，“从表面看，这个过程看来不错。但在现实中，一小圈利益控制者已经事先决定有关的资金的分配对象。”科技部多次拒绝就此进行采访的要求。汤主任以及其它人声称，尽管科技部讲他们选择进行资助的项目建议书时依赖于专家的意见，但是掌握经费批准权的管理人能够否定科学专家的建议，并往往引证政治上的理由这样做。刘先生讲，致使这种滥用权力的前景更加复杂化，在精简机构的名义下，科技部猛砍其内部工作人员数量，变为目前作为例行公事地借用大学的经费审核经理。这造成了一批构成利益冲突的科学家—管理人于一身的状况。

 

MOST research managers wield significant power. Universities have long been engaged in pao bu qian jin, a pun satirizing the practice of “running to ministries to get money.” Professors’ incomes are often tied to how much grant funding they bring in; they may take up to 40% as commission, according to grant-management documents of several universities. Last year, MOST issued a directive forbidding the use of grant money as rewards, but it is not clear whether it will stop the linkage of salaries to grants. 

    科技部的研究经理们掌握着重大的权力。很长期间以来许多大学热衷于“跑步前进”，这是一句讽刺性的双关语，真实含义为“跑部钱进”。“教授们”的收入往往与他们能够获得多少资助拨款挂钩；依据数家大学的资助基金管理文件，某些大学的教授个人以佣金的形式得到他们所获得的资助基金的40%。去年，科技部发出一项指示，禁止挪用资助基金的钱作为个人的奖励，但是不清楚是否终止工资与资助基金挂钩。

In return for their largess, managers demand quick results to demonstrate zheng ji, or administrative achievements, to higher-ups. “If you don’t give them results in 3 to 5 years, your project is terminated,” grumbles Wang Yiqiu, a former vice president of Beijing University. And results are often measured in numbers. Tallies of citation-indexed papers, by individual and by institution, have become a national obsession. Nanjing University was the first to use the number of papers published in journals covered by the Science Citation Index (SCI) to evaluate faculty members in the early 1980s, and the practice has spread widely. (The Institute of Scientific and Technical Information of China publishes annual statistics ranking universities by the number of papers and by citation rates.) To earn a master’s degree, students at many universities must be first author of at least one SCI paper, and Ph.D. students need two. Many institutions hand out cash rewards—hundreds of dollars, scaled by the journal’s reputation—for publishing an SCI paper (Science, 23 February 2001, p. 1477). The combination of pressure and incentives has nurtured an environment that’s rife with simultaneous or serial duplicate manuscript submissions, self-plagiarized cookie-cutter papers, individual and institutional honorary authorship, and outright plagiarism, says Ouyang Zhongcan, director of CAS’s Institute of Theoretical Physics.

作为对他们的赏赐的回报，资助资金管理人要求迅速的结果以便向他们的上司表现他们的政绩，或行政管理成就。北京大学前副校长王亦秋〔音译〕抱怨，“如果你不能在3至5年内给他们结果，你的项目就会被终止。”结果又往往以数字计量。引用索引的数量，既考核个人又考核研究机构，成为一种全国性的困扰。80年代，南京大学成为以科学引用指数〔SCI〕涵盖的刊物中发表论文的数量评价系科的第一家，这种评价方式现在已经广泛采用。〔中国科学技术信息研究所每年公布以发表的论文数与SCI比率为衡量指标的大学顺序。〕为了取得硕士学位，许多大学要求学生必须成为SCI选择的至少一篇论文的第一作者，取得博士学位则至少需要两篇。许多研究机构对于发表SCI选择的论文给予现金形式的奖励—数百美元，以刊登其论文刊物的声誉为准〔《科学》杂志，2001年2月23日，P.1477〕。中科院理论物理研究所欧阳忠灿〔音译〕说，压力与奖励结合在一起养育了导致下述情况越来越普遍的一种环境∶同时提交或重复提交手稿；自我剽窃与许多信息拼凑出来的论文；个人与研究机构给予的名义上的作者身份；以及完全剽窃。

 

Not surprisingly, quality suffers. According to CAS, although China ranked ninth in the world in 2004 in the total number of science and technology publications, it ranked only 124th in terms of the average number of citations per paper. Former CAS president Zhou Guangzhao has long criticized an overemphasis on SCI papers, arguing that it discourages long-term or risky work. The problem, says Ouyang, is that no one seems to be listening to Zhou. Higher political attention to a lab or a project raises the likelihood of securing ample funding. For example, in early 2000, biologist Cheng Jing gave a talk to the State Council, China’s cabinet, about the importance and applications of biochips, catching the interest of then–Prime Minister Zhu Rongji. The following September, Cheng founded a company, Capital Biochip Corp., with more than $30 million from the State Development Planning Commission

(Science, 15 December 2000, p. 2061). Ministries also chipped in non-peer-reviewed support, validating a popular saying among Chinese scientists: “Big grants, no review; small grants, big review.”

       丝毫不奇怪这必然造成质量下降。根据中科院，尽管中国2004年在所发表的科学技术论文在世界上居第9位，依照平均每篇文章的引用数而言，中国在世界上居第124位。中科院前院长周光召已经很长时间批评这种过分强调SCI选用论文的情况，争辩这样做阻碍长期的以及有风险的研究项目。问题是，据欧阳讲，看来没有人听周光召的话。吸引政治高层对于某个实验室或研究项目的关注，提高获得充足资金基金的可能性。举例来说，2000年初，生物学家程晶〔音译〕向国务院发表了一个关于应用生物芯片重要性的讲话，引起了当时国务院总理朱镕基的兴趣。次年9月，在获得国家发展改革规划委员会提供的3000万美元基础上，程晶建立了首都生物芯片公司〔《科学》杂志2000年12月15日，p.2061〕。有关的部提供了未经专家审查的支持，确认了中国科学家中相当普遍的一种说法∶“巨额的赞助基金，没有审查；小额的赞助基金，巨量的审查”。

 

The advantage of showing off political connections was not lost on another researcher, Chen Jin, who claimed to have designed China’s first homegrown digital signal processor chips. The former dean of Shanghai Jiao Tong University (SJTU) had a picture hanging outside his office of Prime Minister Wen Jiabao on a visit when Chen’s star was rising. Other photos on the lab’s Web site trumpeted visits of a former vice premier, a former MOE minister, a current vice minister of MOST, and a vice mayor of Shanghai. Chen was fired last month, after an inquiry concluded that his chips were faked (Science, 19 May, p. 987).

宣称设计了中国第一个国产数学信号处理芯片的另一位研究者陈进〔音译〕也没有失去炫耀其政治关系的优势。上海交通大学〔SJTU〕的这位前院长，在其办公室外挂着一张相片∶陈进成为上升的新星时温家宝总理对他们的访问。实验室的网站上刊登着炫耀其它要人来访的相片，包括一位前副总理、一位前教育部长、科技部的一位现任副市长，以及上海市副市长。在一项调查做出他的芯片是假的结论〔《科学》，2006年5月19日〕之后，陈进上个月已被解职。

 

The chip scandal illustrates many shortcomings of the system. When questions surfaced about the chips’ authenticity, SJTU, fearing a blow to its own reputation, asked higher authorities to step in, sources close to the investigation told Science. They say two inquiries were carried out: first by the Shanghai government, then by MOST. The first investigation, they say, was inconclusive partly because city officials were looking for but did not receive clear instructions from the central government on whether to punish or spare Chen. As the Chinese media continued to scrutinize the case, the main sponsor of the research, MOST, launched a second inquiry that laid the blame at Chen’s feet.

该芯片丑闻举例说明了体制的许多短处。据接近该项调查的人士告诉《科学》刊物，关于芯片真伪的问题浮出来后，上海交通大学担心打击大学的信誉，曾经要求更高层涉入。他们说，进行了两次调查∶第一次由上海市政府进行，然后由科技部进行。第一次调查，他们说，没有做出结论，因为市政府的官员寻求但是没有得到中央政府关于是否处分陈进还是宽容他的清楚指示。由于中国的新闻媒介继续细究这个案件，该项研究的主要赞助者科技部，发起了最后怪罪于陈进的第二次调查。

 

Some question whether the experts who evaluated Chen’s inventions—and lauded the design as a “landmark” in China’s chip-development history at the 2003 unveiling—should also bear responsibility. Politicians basked in Chen’s glory when he was on the rise: Shanghai officials had organized news conferences to announce his inventions. And SJTU President Xie Shengwu eagerly took dignitaries on tours of Chen’s lab. All of them are silent now. “Chen may not be as culpable as he is made out to be; he may very well be just the fall guy” for the system, veteran chip designer Alex Lee suggests. Lee worked in Silicon Valley for 20 years and was recruited in 2003 by Chen’s second in command to teach at SJTU’s school of microelectronics. Lee says that there are standard benchmarks for evaluating chips and wonders how experts could have been so easily fooled in the first place. He does acknowledge that “exaggerations” are widespread in academia.

但是，还提出这样的问题，对陈进的发明进行评价的那些专家—他们同时称赞陈进的设计为中国国产芯片发展史上2003年的里程碑—是否也应当承担责任。政客们在陈进成为一颗上升的新星时洋洋得意∶上海市的官员组织了新闻发布会宣告他的发明。上海交通大学谢绳武校长热心地带领显要人物访问陈进的实验室。他们现在全部沉默不语。经验丰富的〔美籍华人〕芯片设计者Alex李认为，“陈进的罪过可能没有现在说的那样严重；他很可能只是一个需要承担责任的失败者”。李先生在美国硅谷工作过20年，2003年被聘为陈的副手，在上海交通大学微电子学院讲课。李先生说，对芯片进行评价有标准的基准规范，他不明白进行评价的那些专家怎么可能从最初地就那么容易受骗上当。他也承认“夸大”在学术界中普遍存在。

War of words

论战

 

Chen’s case is one of several recent high-profile misconduct sagas roiling academia. In March, Qinghua University in Beijing fired an assistant dean of its medical school for falsifying work experience and achievements in his résumé (Science, 14 April, p. 193). A month later, Sichuan University in Chengdu absolved biophysicist Qiu Xiaoqing of a data-falsification charge (Science, 28 April, p. 511), although questions about the research persist. Recently aired allegations against other scientists are unresolved.

     陈进的案件是激怒学术界数项突出的行为不当传奇案件之一。今年3月，北京清华大学解除了其医学院的系主任助理的职务，原因是在简历中伪造了自己的工作经历与成就〔《科学》杂志，2006年4月14日，p.193〕。仅一个月之后，根据一项伪造数据的控告，成都四川大学免除了生物物理学家邱晓清〔音译〕的职务〔《科学》杂志，2006年4月28日，p.511〕，尽管对于该项研究的问题依然存在。最近报道的针对其它的科学家的断言则没有结果。

 

Concerned by the flurry of allegations and the government’s reluctance to mount inquiries, 120 Chinese scientists, most of whom are based in the United States, called on MOST, MOE, CAS, and NSFC in a letter last month to “establish a fair, open and formal system for dealing with allegations of scientific misconduct and other issues related to integrity of research.” They urged the institutions not to leave the pursuit of misconduct cases to the media (Science, 19 May, p. 987).

出自于对许多指控引起的骚动以及对于政府开展调查方面表现出的犹豫的关心，120名中国科学家，大部分就职在美国，2006年5月发表了一封公开信，呼吁中国科技部、教育部、中科院，以及国家科学基金委员会“建立一个公平、公开和正式的体制，以处理对于科学不当行为与研究诚实性相关的其它问题的指控”。他们催促研究机构不要将追击不当行为案件的责任完全留给新闻界〔《科学》杂志，2006年5月19日，p.987〕。

 

The letter unleashed a torrent of frustration and anger. A handful of prominent voices welcomed it. The letter “raises a very good issue,” says Tsou. Others claim that the authors’ prescription—a new system for addressing misconduct allegations—is naïve. Disciplinary rules exist, they say; the problem is that the rules are rarely applied. (An exception is NSFC. It established specific rules in 2005 for investigating alleged fraud in grant proposals and has prosecuted about three dozen cases so far.

Punishment ranges up to indefinite debarment.)

    这封信释放出一连串受挫的尴尬与愤怒。少数重要人士的意见表示欢迎。仇先生认为这封信“提出了一个非常好的问题”。其它人认为该信作者开出的药方—建立一个处理不当行为控告的新体制—过于天真。纪律方面的规则早已存在，他们说；问题是很少实际应用这些纪律规则。〔国家科学基金委员会是一个例外。2005年，对于调查项目建议书批准中被控告的欺骗开展调查确立了具体的规则，到目前为止处理了30多项控告案件。涉及的惩罚包不定期排除。〕

 

Anonymous postings on New Threads, a popular Chinese Web site for airing misconduct allegations, accused the authors of being out of touch with realities in their homeland. Supporters of New Threads argue that official institutions can’t do the job, so vigilante justice is needed. Letter drafter Xin-Yuan Fu, an immunologist at Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis, believes that the Web site’s popularity stems from the lack of an independent press in China. “People do not trust official media and look for alternative sources,” he says. Many allegations posted are anonymous, and some are unfounded. Fu reiterates the open letter’s recommendation that China establish a “rule of law” to safeguard research integrity. 

新语丝是中国公开揭露不当行为控告的一个较普及的网站，该网站上的匿名发贴指责公开信的作者们脱离祖国的现实。新语丝的支持者争辩官方的机构无法做这项工作，因此需要义务警员主持正义。公开信的起草者傅辛元〔音义，英文为Xin-yuan Fu〕，为印地安那波里斯的印地安那大学医学院的一位免疫学家，认为新语丝之所以成为这样普及，是因为中国缺乏独立的新闻媒介。他说，“人们不相信官方的新闻媒介，因而寻求其它的新闻来源”。许多控告贴子匿名，有些是没有理由的。傅先生重申公开信建议中国建立保障研究诚实的“法规”。

 

Despite the mixed reaction, the open letter has reignited a debate about whether China’s research system is in need of an overhaul. People may argue over whether the letter’s suggestions can solve the problem of scientific misconduct, but they should keep in mind the common goal of a healthy academic environment, says Yi Rao, a neurobiologist at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago and a letter signatory. A “proper mechanism for handling misconduct allegations is a part of that environment,” he says. “Officials need to show that they are more interested in building research infrastructure than controlling funds.” 

尽管导致不同的反应，公开信再次点燃了中国的研究体制是否需要一次全面检查的辩论。芝加哥西北大学费恩伯格医学院神经生物学家，公开信的签署者之一饶易〔音译，Yi Rao〕认为，人们可能争论公开信提出的建议是否能够解决科学不当行为的问题，但是他们应当不能忘记健康的学术环境的共同目标。他说，一个“对不当行为控告进行处理的适当机制是那样一个环境的组成部分之一”。“官员应当表明他们对建造研究基础设施更为关心，而非控制基金”。

 

The government seems to be coming around to that message. Two days after the open letter, MOE issued guidelines on “strengthening academic ethics.” And late last month, it announced the formation of a committee on discipline in the social sciences; in March, more than 100 social scientists had signed an open letter calling on colleagues to behave themselves and urging the government to establish rules for combating “academic misconduct and corruption” in their field. The panel will formulate rules for universities on how to handle allegations. It’s unclear whether new rules will produce the desired results. As He Zuoxiu, a CAS physicist, notes, “the handling of misconduct cases is a matter of policy, not of mechanism”—and to date, the government has shown little appetite for cracking down. But the time may be ripe for a change. In March, Chinese Communist Party General Secretary Hu Jintao called on the country to establish a “socialist outlook on honor and dishonor” by learning “eight honors and eight shames.” One of the honors is honesty.

政府看来正在接近这个信息。公开信发表后两天，教育部发布了“强化学术道德规范”的指导方针。上个月〔2006年5月〕，它宣布组成一个关于社会科学纪律的委员会；3月份，100多位科学家签署了一封公开信，呼吁学术界同事行为要端正，同时催促政府建立抗击他们学术领域中的“学术不当行为与腐败”。教育部成立的委员会将编制大学应当如何处理不当行为控告的规则。如中科院物理学家何祚庥指出的那样，“处理不当行为案件是政策问题，不是机制问题”—而到今天为止政府表明出彻底解决这个问题的兴趣不大。但是，现在做出改变的时间可能已经成熟。2006年3月份，中国共产党总书记胡锦涛号召通过学习“八荣八耻”建立“对荣誉与耻辱的社会主义观”。八荣之一就是诚实。

–HAO XIN

作者∶好心〔音译，Hao Xin〕

附录∶

Crime Scene Investigation: How to Handle Misconduct

犯罪现场调查∶如何处理不当行为

 

Chinese scientists aren’t the only ones who may find misconduct investigations a murky business (see main text): Confusion is the norm in much of the world, according to experts who are trying to raise global standards.

       中国科学家并非是可能发现不当行为调查是一项相当阴暗的事〔参看正文内容〕∶依据努力提供全球标准的专家的意见，世界许多地方的规范含混不清。

 

Most countries have taken an “ad hoc approach” to probing misconduct allegations, says Chris Pascal, director of the Office of Research Integrity (ORI), the overseer of investigations at biomedical labs and other facilities funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. A common experience, he says, is that officials “get an allegation and then try to figure out how to deal with it.” Without guidelines, “you don’t know what to do first, and you may end up violating legal norms.” The mistakes that often follow make it hard to reach a fair decision.

克里斯·帕斯卡尔〔Chris Pascal〕说，大部分国家采取了一种“特别的步骤”来探查不当行为控告。他是美国健康与人性服务部提供资助的“研究诚实办公室”〔Office of Research Integrity – ORI〕主任，专门监督对生物医学实验室和其它设施进行的调查。一种较为普遍的经验是，他讲，官员“收到一项指控，然后就试图弄清楚如何处理该项控告”。缺乏指导方针的情况下，“你不知道首先应当做什么，造成你最终可能涉及违反法律规范”。后续的错误往往造成难于达成一项公平的决定。

 

To help dispel some of the fog, Pascal and ORI consultant Nicholas Steneck, a historian at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, are leading a global effort to foster clear standards of conduct and encourage nations to adopt coherent policies. It’s critical, Steneck says, to create transparent systems and educate scientists and their bosses so that everyone understands where the community should draw the line. This week, ORI and the European Science Foundation (ESF)—a nongovernmental organization—announced that they will get the international ball rolling by cosponsoring the first “World Conference on Research Integrity,” scheduled for September 2007 in Lisbon, Portugal. 

为了帮助驱散某些云雾，帕斯卡尔以及“研究诚实办公室”的咨询顾问尼古拉斯·斯泰纳克〔Nicholas Steneck〕，安阿伯地方的密芝根大学一位历史学家，领导着培育行为正当的清楚的标准的全球努力，鼓励各国采用一致的政策。斯泰纳克说，建立透明的体制以及教育科学家与他们的上司使所有人理论学术界应当在那里划出一条界线非常关键。本周，“研究诚实办公室”以及欧洲科学基金会〔European Science Foundation - ESF〕-- 一家非政府组织 –将宣布，通过合办举行第一届“研究诚实世界会议”他们启动该领域的国际事业。

 

Interest in the project is surging, Pascal says, because of publicity over the South Korean stem cell research fraud, as well as recent news of misconduct allegations in China (Science, 19 May, p. 987), Japan (Science, 3 February, p. 595), and Norway (Science, 27 January, p. 448). “People used to fall asleep when I talked about educating scientists” on research integrity, Steneck says. Now they’re paying attention—and, critically, offering support. ESF adviser Anthony Mayer says the Lisbon conference got a boost from joining a new initiative proposed by Japan to compare national policies around the world, supported by the Paris-based Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The European Union and others are on board.

对该项目的兴趣迅猛发展，帕斯卡尔说，因为关于韩国干细胞研究欺诈的公开揭露；以及其它几个国家最近有关不当行为控告的最新消息∶中国〔《科学》杂志，2006年5月19日，p.987〕；日本〔《科学》杂志，2006年2月3日，p.595〕与挪威〔《科学》杂志，2006年1月27日，p.448〕。“过去，当我谈论”在研究诚实问题上要“对科学家的教育的话题，人们往往睡觉”。现在他们给予关注，并且，更关键性的，提供支持。欧洲科学基金委员会顾问安瑟尼·麦耶〔Anthony Mayer〕说，在葡萄牙里斯本举行的会议获得极大的推动，日本提出项新的主动性的建议，对世界不同国家有关的政策进行一次比较。该提案获得在巴黎的国际经济合作与发展组织的支持。欧盟与其它组织也支持这个提案。

 

Models of how to deal with scientific misconduct come in all shapes and sizes, Mayer says. One approach is to leave decisions to employers. The United States and the United Kingdom, for example, rely primarily on universities and research institutions for the first level of misconduct review, but the United States also has a national definition of misconduct and clear procedures for investigations, independent oversight, and appeals. The U.K. in March created a national Research Integrity Office that intends to establish guidelines and give advice. Elsewhere in Europe, Denmark has what may be the most centralized system, in which a judge oversees inquiries in all fields of science; other countries follow a variety of policies.

麦耶说，已经有多种形式和规模的如何处理科学不当行为的模型。一种途径是将最后的决定权留给有关单位的职员自己决定。美国和英国作为例子，主要依赖于大学与研究机构进行第一层次的不当行为审查，但是美国也有不当行为的国家定义以及进行调查、处理独立的疏忽，以及上诉的清楚的程序规定。2006年3月，英国创立了国家研究诚实办公室，以便由它建立指导方针并提供咨询意见。在欧洲其它地方，丹麦可能有最为中央集权的体制，由一名法官监督所有科学领域中的询查要求；其它国家则采取不同的政策。

 

Organizers of the Lisbon conference say they are loath to create international rules. “We don’t want people filling out more forms on the lab bench,” says Mayer. One goal of the confab, he says, is to get people talking about practices that may spur cheating—such as using postdocs as “research slaves” or setting rigid productivity targets. That message is likely to resonate with rank-and-file scientists. 

     据麦耶讲，葡萄牙里斯本会议的组织者说，他们对建立国际规则不太情愿。“我们不要人们在实验室的工作台上填写更多的表格”。会谈的一个目标，他说，是促使人们讨论对付欺骗的实践—例如使用博士后学生作为“研奴”〔译注∶从事研究工作的奴隶〕或设定刚硬的生产目标。这项信息可能会引起“职位等级与档案”科学家的共鸣〔译注∶依照我的理解，指某些只有职位与档案上业绩记录，自己基本上不从事任何实际研究工作的“科学家”〕。

–ELIOT MARSHALL

作者∶伊里奥特·马绍尔