英国《新科学家》专访：打假斗士：“科研造假在中国泛滥”

　　方舟子告诉我们他如何在中国冒着生命危险和诽谤诉讼揭露科研不端行为刚刚让他获得首届马多克斯奖

　　《新科学家》2012年11月17日

　　Jon White采访

　　问：你刚刚获得首届马多克斯奖表彰你冒着威胁持续不断地揭露中国科研不端行为。感觉如何？

　　答：我很激动并深感荣幸。有很多人支持我、和我并肩作战，因此我认为这个奖励是对我们所有努力的认可，而不只是我的。

　　问：是什么促使你开始挑战发生在中国的伪科学说法？

　　答：1998年，在美国学习8年之后，我首次回到中国，很震惊地看到中国充斥着伪科学、迷信和科研不端。

　　问：当时你决定要采取什么行动？

　　答：1994年我还是密歇根州立大学的一名研究生的时候我创立了一个叫新语丝的中文网站，作为分享中国经典著作和文学作品的平台。自2000年起，我开始在这一网站发表文章与科研不端和造假作战。新语丝最终变成了与发生在中国科学界的伪科学、不端行为、造假和腐败战斗的一艘旗舰。

　　问：那在中国是一个大问题吗？

　　答：我们揭露的案例大部分是剽窃、夸大学术履历和论文造假，这些在中国泛滥成灾。

　　问：告诉我一些例子。

　　答：一个典型的案例是核酸“营养”骗局——这些保健品宣称能让疲劳者、孕妇和老年人充满活力。它涉及到十几个中国生化学家，这是我们首次获得国内外媒体的广泛报道。新语丝已揭露了一千多起科研造假。

　　问：为什么科研造假在中国问题这么大？

　　答：这是这些因素错综复杂的相互作用的结果：极权体制，缺乏言论、出版和学术研究自由，试图让包括科学和教育在内的所有东西都商业化的极端资本主义，传统文化，缺乏科学精神，爱面子的文化，等等。它也是因为没有一个可信的官方渠道来报道、调查和惩罚学术不端行为。造假者不必担心他们有一天会被抓住和受处罚。

　　问：你面临的最坏的情形是怎样的？

　　答：我被起诉了十几次。因为中国司法系统非常腐败，并非总是根据证据做出判决，因此并不意外的是我输掉了一些诽谤诉讼，虽然我没做错什么。在其中的一起诉讼中，武汉地方法院判决我赔偿4万元人民币，并把款从我妻子的银行帐号划走。我还侥幸躲过了一次辣椒水和锤子的袭击。

　　问：这值得吗？

　　答：是的。我完全理解我面临的危险并愿意去承受。最让我不安的是我的妻子和幼小的女儿也要忍受辱骂和人身攻击。

　　Fraud fighter: 'Faked research is endemic in China'

　　Shi-min Fang tells us how risking his life and libel writs to expose scientific misconduct in his native China has just won him the inaugural Maddox prize

　　17 November 2012 | NewScientist | 29

　　You've just won the inaugural Maddox prize,awarded for your continuing work exposing scientific misconduct in China despite the threats you face. How does that feel?

　　I am thrilled and honoured. There are many people who are supporting me and fighting with me, so I consider this award as an acknowledgement of all our efforts, not just mine.

　　What prompted you to start challenging dubious pseudoscientific claims in China?

　　In 1998, after eight years studying in the US, I returned to China and was shocked to see it was deluged with pseudosciences, superstitions and scientific misconduct.

　　What action did you decide to take?

　　I had created a Chinese website called New Threads in 1994 when I was a graduate student at Michigan State University as a forum for sharing Chinese classics and literature. From 2000, I started to publish articles on the site fight in scientific misconduct and fraud. Eventually New Threads became a flagship for those fighting pseudoscience, misconduct, fraud and corruption among the Chinese science community.

　　Are dubious claims a big problem in China?

　　The majority of cases exposed are plagiarism, the exaggeration of academic credentials and faked research papers, which are endemic in China.

　　Tell me about some of them.

　　A typical case was the nucleic acid "nutrition" scheme – supplements promoted to boost energy levels in the tired, pregnant and old. It involved more than a dozen Chinese biochemists and was the first that brought wide media coverage, both domestically and internationally. New Threads has exposed more than 1000 cases of scientific fraud.

　　Why is science fraud such a problem in China?

　　It is the result of interactions between totalitarianism, the lack of freedom of speech,press and academic research, extreme capitalismthat tries to commercialise everything including science and education, traditional culture, the lack of scientific spirit, the culture of saving-face and so on. It's also because there is not a credible official channel to report, investigate and punish academic misconduct. The cheaters don't have to worry they will someday be caught and punished.

　　What have been the worst moments?

　　I have been sued more than 10 times. Because the Chinese legal system is very corrupt and a ruling is not always made according to the evidence, it is not surprising that I have lost some libel cases even though I did nothing wrong. In one of these, a local court at Wuhan ordered me to pay 40,000 yuan in compensation and transferred the money from my wife's account. I have also narrowly escaped from an attack with pepper spray and a hammer.

　　Has it been worth it?

　　Yes. I fully understand the risk I am facing and am willing to take it. What troubles me most is that my wife and my young daughter also have to endure vituperation and personal attacks.

　　Interview by Jon White