主题：【讨论】方舟子和中国科学与学术诚信基金会 -- 老班长

To:

Dr. Kim A. Wilcox, Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs

E-mail: [email protected]

Dr. Karen Klomparens, Dean of Graduate School

Email: [email protected]

Thomas D. Sharkey, Chairperson of Department of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology

[email protected]

CC:

ROBERT ROOT-BERNSTEIN, Professor of Physiology

[email protected]

Justin Harris, Editor in Chief of The State News

[email protected]

Dear Doctors.,

Shimin Fang (aka Fang Zhouzi), a Ph. D. student in the department of Biochemistry at Michigan State University, during 1990 to 1995, has been a controversial figure in China for about 10 years. On the one hand, he is called “China’s Fraud Buster” by some leading western journals, on the other hand, many Chinese scholars have found his so called “fraud busting” activity is nothing but a path to get fame, monetary profit, and to avenge personal enemies. One such example has been well documented in one of my books (in Chinese), The Feud between Drs. Fang Zhouzi and Xiao Chuanguo, which will be published in China soon.

In this letter, I’d like to bring your attention to another aspect of Dr. Fang, his plagiarism activity. Dr. Fang has been accused of plagiarism for many times in China, the earliest incidence was reported to Science magazine by Dr. Xiao Chuanguo in 2001 (thus the feud started). However, while doing research on Dr. Fang, I have discovered an even earlier case of his plagiarism.

In 1995, Fang wrote an essay in Chinese and published it on the internet and kept it in the “Fang Zhouzi’s Collected Poetry and Essays” on his website. That essay was almost a word-for-word translation of Dr. R. Root-Bernstein’s paper, but Fang never acknowledged that fact. According to MSU Graduate School’s Guidelines for Integrity in Research and Creative Activities, plagiarism is defined as “appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.” (see: http://grad.msu.edu/publications/docs/integrityresearch.pdf). I’m presenting to you evidence to demonstrate that Dr. Fang did commit an act of plagiarism while he was a student of your school. (see attachment 1.)

Please note that stealing other people’s articles is a constant and habitual behavior of Fang’s. I have attached two papers to this email to illustrate this point. The articles were written by Dr. Liu Huajia of Beijing University, and Dr. Liao Junlin of University of Iowa, in 2006 and 2009, respectively, which give detailed accounts of two separate cases. (see attachments 2-3.) These cases are examples that Dr. Fang writes his Chinese articles, which is his only income source in China, by directly translate an English articles.

It is well known that reputation is the life of any academic institutions, and integrity is at the core of reputation. Obviously, the reputation of MSU is tarnished by what Dr. Fang has been doing, at least to many Chinese oversea scholars it is so, that’s why I write to you.

I can be contacted by email, or you can call me at XXX-XXX-XXXX.

Thanks for your attention.

Sincerely yours,

Xin Ge, Ph. D.

XXXXXX

Columbia, SC XXXXX

List of attachments:

1. Xin Ge. China's Science Cop Plagiarized His Professor While a PH.D. Student at MSU. A manuscript to be submitted.

2. Huajie Liu. Shimin Fang’s scheme of “transportation”. Social Sciences Forum. July of 2006. (in Chinese)

3. Junlin Liao. Dr. Shi-min Fang Plagiarizes Against Articles Exposing Plagiarism. Unpublished communication. (in English)

4. Fang’s original paper, What Is Science.

已向《科学》投稿，并且抄送《自然》、《纽约时报》。

China's Science Cop Plagiarized His Professor While a PH.D. Student at MSU

Fang Shimin (aka Fang Zhouzi) is a well known figure in the world of academia. Science magazine and Nature journals have several times reported his fraud busting, whistleblowing activities in China. Science magazine alone has given him the titles of “China’s science misconduct watchdog”, “China’s Fraud Buster”, “Chinese Whistleblower”. [1-4] These articles have been widely circulated in China, and Fang himself has been using them to promote his personal agenda.

Unfortunately, Science magazine has failed to present a fuller picture of Dr. Fang’s efforts. One of Fang’s primary whistleblowing areas is exposing other Chinese scholars’ plagiarism. However, many of these cases have been found to be groundless. At the same time, Fang himself has been found to have committed acts of plagiarism on multiple occasions. The first such case has been traced back to 2001, when Dr. Xiao Chuanguo, whose recent fight against Fang has attracted worldwide attention, reported to Science magazine that Fang did a verbatim translation of a Science paper, and then published it as his own writing.

Here, I would like to draw your attention to another case of Fang\\\\\\'s plagiarism. In this case, Dr. Fang deliberately plagiarized a paper by one of his professors at Michigan State University (MSU) in 1995 while he was a graduate student there.

On May 16, 1995, while studying in the department of biochemistry at MSU as a Ph. D. student, Fang wrote an essay on philosophy of science (in Chinese), entitled “What Is Science”. The essay was published on the internet shortly after being written, and has been archived ever since on Fang’s own website New Threads in “Fang Zhouzi’s Collected Poetry and Essays”.[5] The theme of the essay is about how to determine whether a theory is scientific. According to Fang, a scientific theory must comply with all four sets of criteria, i.e. logical, empirical, sociological, and historical criteria. Each criterion consists of 2 to 4 sub-standards. In the essay, Fang did not cite a single reference, and he did not mention any other author’s names. It appears that the whole content of that writing belongs to Fang himself.

The fact is, 11 years earlier, in 1984, Dr. Robert Root-Bernstein, a professor at MSU, published a paper titled “On Defining a Scientific Theory: Creationism Considered”, in a book, Science and Creationism.[6] In that paper, Dr. Root-Bernstein on the philosophy of science and summarized four sets of criteria which define a scientific theory. After comparing Dr. Root-Bernstein’s paper with that of Fang’s, it is clear that Fang’s What Is Science was based on Dr. Root-Bernstein’s On Defining a Scientific Theory: Creationism Considered. Here are the comparisons:

Dr. Root-Bernstein wrote:

“There are four primary logical criteria for a theory. It must be (1.a) a simple unifying idea that postulates nothing unnecessary (‘Occam’s Razor’); (1.b) Logically consistent internally; (1.c) logically falsifiable (i. e., cases must exist in which the theory could be imagined to be invalid); (1.d) clearly limited by explicitly stated boundary conditions so that it is clear whether or not any particular data are or are not relevant to the verification or falsification of the theory.”

Fang wrote:

“Logically, a theory must be 1) in accordance with ‘Occam’s Razor’, i. e. simple, without unnecessary details, without lots of postulates and conditions which could be used as excuses for a failure; 2) logically consistent internally. You could not first say that animals were created first, human being later, then you say human beings first, animals later; 3) falsifiable. It should not be always correct, under any circumstances, without any modifications; 4) with clearly defined application boundaries, so that it is only applicable to certain area under certain conditions, not to every area under the sky.”【在逻辑上，它必须是：1）符合‘奥卡姆剃刀’的原则，即必须是简明而非繁琐的，而不是包含一大堆假设和条件，为以后的失败留好了退路；2）本身是自恰[洽]的，不能一会说先造动物再造人，一会又说先造人再造动物；3）可被否证的，不能在任何条件下都永远正确、不能有任何的修正；4）有清楚界定的应用范畴，只在一定的条件、领域能适用，而不是对世间万事万物，无所不能，无所不包。】

Dr. Root-Bernstein wrote：

“Three empirical criteria are of primary importance as well. A theory must (2.a) be empirically testable itself or lead to predictions or retrodictions that are testable; (2.b) actually make verified predictions and/or retrodictions; (2.c) concern reproducible results; (2.d) provide criteria for the interpretation of data as facts, artifacts, anomalies, or as irrelevant.”

Fang wrote:

“Empirically, a theory must 1) have a testable predictions, rather than only be a fantasy; 2) actually have had verified predictions, that is, a scientific theory should not only have been falsified, but have never been verified, otherwise, the theory is useless; 3) have reproducible results. It should not be an one shot deal, or be the only store in town, only yourself could get that result, other people could not duplicate it, and in that case, you would blame these people not as skillful as you are; 4) provide criteria for the interpretation of data as facts, artifacts, anomalies, or as irrelevant, or as systematic errors, or as random errors, they all should be classified and separated clearly, rather than interpreted based upon you own wish.”【在经验上，它必须：1）有可被检验的预测，而不是只是一套美丽的空想；2）在实际上已有了被证实的预测，也就是说，一个科学理论不能只被否证，而从未被证实，否则这样的理论是无效的；3）结果可被重复，而不是一锤子买卖，或者是只此一家别无分店，只有你一个人作得出那个结果，别的研究者重复不出来，还要怪别人功夫不如你。4）对于辨别数据的真实与否有一定的标准，什么是正常现象，什么是异常现象，什么是系统误差，什么是偶然误差，都要划分得清清楚楚，而不是根据自己的需要对结果随意解释。】

Dr. Root-Bernstein wrote：

“Sociological criteria also exist for determining the validity of a theory. A theory must (3.a) resolve recognized problems, paradoxes, and/or anomalies, irresolvable on the basis of preexisting scientific theories; (3.b) pose a new set of scientific problems upon which scientists may work; (3.c) posit a ‘paradigm’ or problem-solving model by which these new problems may be expected to be resolved; (3.d) provide definitions of concepts or operations beneficial to the problem-solving abilities of other scientists.”

Fang wrote:“Sociologically, a theory must 1) be able to resolve recognized problems. If it could not do that, then it has no reason for its existence; 2) pose a new set of scientific problems, and propose models for scientists solving these problems, i. e. not only it should have explanations, but also could provide predictions. Otherwise, it is useless; 3) provide definitions of concepts which must be operable, not like the fake concepts such as ‘Qigong field’, ‘Nature-human responsiveness’, which are not beneficial to the problem-solving abilities of other scientists.” 【在社会学上，它必须：1）能解决已知的问题，如果连这也办不到，这种理论就毫无存在的必要；2）提出科学家们可以进一步研究的新问题和解决这些问题的模型，也就是说，它不光要有解释，还要有预测，否则也没什么用处；3）提供概念的定义，而且必须是切实可行的，不是象“气功场”、“天人感应”之类子虚乌有、对解决问题没有任何帮助的伪概念。】

Dr. Root-Bernstein wrote：

“Finally, there is a fourth set of theory criteria as well: historical ones. A theory must (4.a) meet or surpass all of the criteria set by its predecessors or demonstrate that any abandoned criteria are artifactual; (4.b) be able to accrue the epistemological status acquired by previous theories through their history of testing—or, put another way, be able to explain all of the data gathered under previous relevant theories in terms either of fact or artifact (no anomalies allowed); (4.c) be consistent with all preexisting ancillary theories that already have established scientific validity.”

Fang wrote:

“Historically, a theory must 1) interpret all the data which has been already interpreted by old theories, i. e. you should not pick out only the data which is beneficial to you, and ignore the unbeneficial one. If you do, the theory is not as good as the old ones. The theories claiming how accurate fortune-telling is, how effective prayers are, use the following customary tactics: they exaggerate the successful incidences and hide the countless failed cases; 2) be consistent with all preexisting ancillary theories that already have established scientific validity. For example, if ‘Scientific Creationism’ wants to replace an old theory like evolution, it not only should explain the data which has been explained very well by latter, it should also not ignore the other sciences which are consistent with evolution theory, such as the other branches of modern biology, astronomy, geology, physics, chemistry. By the same token, if someone claims ‘Qigong Science’ is the most advanced science, then that theory not only should be consistent with the research results of modern medicine, it also should not be conflict with other parallel subjects such as physics, chemistry, and biology.”【在历史上，它必须：1）解释已被旧理论解释的所有的数据，也就是说，你不能只挑对自己有力的数据作解释，而无视对己不利的数据，否则就还不如旧理论；那些宣扬算命多准、祷告多有效的，其惯用伎俩就是挑出成功的巧合大肆宣染，而隐瞒了无数失败的例子；2）跟其它有效的平行理论相互兼容，而不能无视其它理论的存在。比如，“科学的神创论”如果要取代进化论这种“旧”理论，就不仅要解释已被进化论很好地解释了的所有的数据，而且不能不理睬与进化论相容得非常好的现代生物学的其它学科以及天文学、地质学、物理学、化学等的成果。同样，有人声称“气功科学”是最尖端的科学，那么它不仅要包容现代医学的研究成果，还必须与物理学、化学、生物学等等平行学科不互相抵触。】

In summary, Fang’s essay contains 1462 Chinese characters, among them, 777, or 53%, were derived from Dr. Root-Bernstein’s paper, directly or indirectly. Fang copied all four sets of criteria, in the same sequence as they appeared in the original paper. Fang also copied 13 of 15 sub-standards presented by Dr. Root-Bernstein, also in the same order. Some sentences of Fang’s Chinese writing are verbatim translations of Dr. Root-Bernstein’s paper. The dissimilarities between the two articles are caused mainly by the following reasons: 1. Fang’s ignorance of certain area, such as Thomas Kuhn’s “paradigm” theory, and Karl Popper’s falsifiability theory; 2. Fang’s misunderstanding of Dr. Root-Bernstein’s writing, such as the first sub-standard of set 4; and 3. Fang’s own extension or interpretation of Dr. Root-Bernstein’s writing.

Whether or not Fang’s above writing constitutes plagiarism by western standards, it is indeed an academic crime according to most Chinese people’s, and even Chinese laws. Mostly ironically, even by Fang’s own definition, his act is precisely plagiarism.

On March 23, 2010, when responding to yet another accusation of him using direct translations as his original writing, Fang states:

“It is commonly accepted that an article which was translated directly from the English original is an act of plagiarism. I have been regarded by others as an ‘academic fraud-fighter’, exposing others\\\\\\' plagiarism all the time, if I have also committed an act of plagiarism, like those whom I have exposed, I should be then included in the group of the most despicable creatures.”[7]

Well, in the eyes of many Chinese scholars, Fang is indeed such a person.

By Xin Ge, Ph.D.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Columbia, SC XXXXX

References

1. Hepeng J, Xin H. China’s Fraud Buster Hit by Libel Judgments; Defenders Rally Round. Science. 2006 Dec 1;314:1366-1367.

2. Hao Xin. Assailants Attack China\\\\\\'s Science Watchdog. (see:http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/08/assailants-attack-chinas-science.html)

3. Hao Xin. Urologist Arrested for Attacks on Chinese Whistleblowers. (see:http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/09/urologist-arrested-for-attacks.html)

4. Hao Xin. Doctor Sentenced in Beijing for Attack on Critics. (see:http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/10/doctor-sentenced-in-beijing-for.html)

5. 《方舟子诗文集》, (see: http://www.xys.org/fang/doc/science/science.txt)

6. Root-Bernstein, R.. On defining a scientific theory: Creationism considered. In A. Montagu (Ed.), Science and creationism (pp. 64–93). New York: Oxford University Press. 1984.

7. The original wording is: “‘直接是英语文章翻过来的’却公认是抄袭。我被人称为‘学术打假人士’，整天揭发别人抄袭，如果自己也干抄袭的勾当，这样的 ‘人’是该被分到最卑劣的一群里头去的。”。 (see: http://www.xys.org/forum/db/6/133/167.html)

对所有学人的呼吁书：老鼠过街，人人喊打，不仅要喊，而且要打

老鼠过街，人人喊打，不仅要喊，而且要打

揭露方舟子及其团伙的丑恶嘴脸和险恶用心，已经成了当务之急。但是，揭露不能仅限于嘴头，要有实际行动。那么，应该采取哪些实际行动呢？那就是把你所知道的事实，以及你的想法，都说出来，并且告诉全世界所有的人，不管他们愿不愿意听。拿起你的电话，打开你的电脑：

第一，给科技部、卫生部、以及所有相关的政府部门写信；第二，华中科技大学党委、校长写信；第三，写短评，向中国媒体投稿；第四，向光明网投稿，篇幅可以很长；第五，给西方媒体，特别是那些报道过方舟子以及肖、方案子的西方媒体写信；第六，到各大网站开博客，发表文章，转载文章；第七，到大论坛发贴。

注意：给政府部门和传统媒体写信，一定要用实名，但是可以注明不希望实名被披露。

诚然，一块砖瓦，成就不了摩天大厦；一棵树木，成就不了茂密的森林；一把铁锤，砸不烂万恶的巴士底狱；一枝秃笔，写不成人类历史的辉煌。但是，假如这一块砖、一棵树、一把锤、一枝笔变成了千千万万，难道还有什么样的事情干不成吗？

在《方舟子恶斗肖传国始末》中，我曾说过这样一句话：“与新语丝团伙生活在同一个时代，是一种不幸；与这些人同属一个族类，是一种耻辱。”（321页）

让我们把这种不幸和耻辱当作激发我们行动起来的动力，来铲除这种不幸和耻辱的根源。如果您还在对自己要不要出手而犹豫不决，那么，就想一想这个问题：几十年后，你能不能自豪地对自己的孙子说出这样的话：当年，我为除掉中国社会的一颗毒瘤，我出过一把力气！