Home > News content

方舟子如何科学地解决抄袭难题:10年前向《科学》举报方舟子纪实

via:肖传国教授博客     time:2011/4/5 13:41:59     readed:1616

10年前,我已应邀成为“哑铃教授”3年,每年往返中美5-6趟,对国内同仁之辛苦深有体会,对方舟子身在美国对国内同仁们抓住一点不及其余非常反感,多有批评,见http://bbs.sciencenet.cn/home.php?mod=space&uid=385748&do=blog&id=364135

当时正值希望工程出事,不再接受个人捐款助学,我和几十位学人商量决定成立助学网站捐款【即虹桥科教论坛】,当时除了钱是真的,捐款人都是用的网名,但被方舟子污蔑为骗子骗钱网站。我则是在餐馆端盘子的骗子。

导致向《科学》举报方舟子起因于他恶意污蔑一位国内学界前辈抄袭。该前辈为科学院的《科学进展》投了篇介绍神经科学新进展的文章,也就是一高级科普。清楚的注明了所引文献的作者杂志。《科学进展》发表时,将该文列为综述,方舟子不依不饶,硬说是抄袭,还到处举报。我批评他不能胡乱毁人清誉,有人批评他:你刚发表在南方周末的文章还不是全文翻译的,你还没注明出处。他竟然弱智骗子一阵乱骂赵纪军教授(现任职大连理工)将他的方舟子的文章与科学的文章逐段并列比较,方舟子仍然大骂并叫嚣:有本事向科学去举报哇!(科学杂志刚刚发表了一篇熊蕾吹嘘方舟子的文章)我和几位教授学者看了一下,抄袭实在太明显了,你要举报就举报吧,由我当的带头大哥,科学的主编主要和我直接联系、沟通。

然后,科学杂志经过“调查”,产生了哪封广为流传的 "not acceptable"回复。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 &ltjmervis@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

我问Jeff是如何调查的,被告知是科学在北京的记者将方舟子在南方周末的文章请人翻译成英文,再将此回锅英译文寄回科学杂志,科学杂志将Greene的原文和方舟子文章的回锅英译文对比后,得出:nor directly copied the language in the Science paper.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

所以:所有翻译家们,请马上都变成作家:-)谁敢说你抄袭,让他把你翻译的书再翻译回去!看有没有copy the luanguage directly:-))))下面我附上和贾鹤鹏、熊蕾的通信作为佐证,请注意红色字体的句子。

熊蕾:

这是美国科学杂志记者贾鹤鹏【注:后承包科学新闻,自任主编,伙同方玄昌连续五期污蔑诽谤我和我的老师裘法祖院士】给我的信件中关于你的内容: 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.

据此,我在看到你的[邹成鲁:对剽窃者应当曝光]一文后,公开批评质问了你: 那你为什么欺骗科学杂志,遮盖方舟子的抄袭剽窃? 同样作为坚定正直的共产党人的后代,同样作为文革后的首届研究生,我为你的行为感到可耻.你亵渎了你我的前辈.。

前两天,再次收到科学记者来信,关于你的内容如下:“有关方舟子和《科学》文章的事情,我后来向熊蕾老师核实,她没有参与任何具体的处理,是我搞错了,实际情况是《科学》杂志在调查中雇用的中立的、完全不知情的翻译公司。熊蕾参与这件事,这也是我的道听途说,并不准确。想来那个“涉嫌违背操守”的大帽子,也可以摘掉了。我要为这件事情向她道歉,如果您的指责是建立在我提供的错误信息的基础上,我也要向您道歉了。”

可是,我根本不再信任这位“科学”记者。实话实说,我也不相信你。如果你2001年的确完全没有参与、策划、指导对方是民抄袭一案的调查,请你以共产党员的名义确认一下,我马上诚恳向你道歉。如果你不是共产党员,请以您父亲的名义,我所尊敬的老共产党员之一,确认一下。

现在,我要继续公开批评质问你了:

方是民抄袭科学杂志的文章白纸黑字摆在那儿,我完全同意科学记者对你的评价:你中英文俱佳,深晓学术道德,完全能判断方是民是否抄袭(Xiong has good English and Chinese and knowledge of ethics, so she could have decided whether it was a plagiarism.),但你在“无奇不有”一文里弯弯绕了半天为方是民抄袭遮遮掩掩,那你写这篇“斩钉截铁掷地有声”的[邹成鲁:对剽窃者应当曝光]干什么?算什么?我半年前就公开声明过:如果邹成鲁院士与何祚庥院士一致认为方舟子不是抄袭,我无条件接受并立马向全国人民道歉并永远退出学术界。可惜,一直到邹先生逝世,他们也没敢说:-)你能不能痛快点?你,别扯别人,认为方舟子剽窃抄袭没有?Yes, or No? 非常简单。如果你不敢,不愿作出判断,我建议你删掉[邹成鲁:对剽窃者应当曝光]一文,免得别人用鲁迅和毛主席都喜欢的那句话来形容你。我也建议你不要用“方舟子是否剽窃科学自有科学杂志来管”来搪塞,否则新语丝就得关门方舟子就没饭吃了:-)至于方舟子最近发表在《经济观察报》上的抄袭文章《现代药物是怎么开发出来的》,我就不麻烦你了.^&^。

为友之道,可以至死不渝:管他杀人放火,男盗女猖,,剽窃抄袭,穷途末路,都"总是支持",两肋插刀。这也可算一种为人境界。但是不要戴着科学的帽子。不要打着道德的招牌。

肖传国2006.11

本文原文地址: http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_6bc79f2f0100rum8.html

China IT News APP

Download China IT News APP

Please rate this news

The average score will be displayed after you score.

Post comment

Do not see clearly? Click for a new code.

User comments