英国《自然》社论 2010年10月21日

（羽矢翻译）

　　中国需要对更广泛的科研失败采取行动，而不只是简单地谴责一个孤立案件

　　星期天，中国泌尿医生肖传国组织殴打两位批评者一案开庭审理。星期一前，北京那家地方法院的法官判处他入狱5个半月，其他涉案人员则获相同或较短刑期。受害人之一是自任的科学监督者、用笔名方舟子在其新语丝网站调查不端行为的方是民。他说，这个惩罚太轻了。不过，这个判决已经使肖传国在中国成为“不受欢迎的人”。

　　袭击使用了锤子、钢管和辣椒水（见《自然》：中国科研人员的批评者遭到袭击）。肖的支持者辩称，涉及方是民的这次事件发生前，两人曾有过长久争吵。中国的科技部门谴责肖的犯罪行为是正确的，但是，这些机构不应当借此案例而从更广泛的科技界的失败上转移视线。

　　宣判后，科技部在网站上发表声明指出，肖传国“行为十分恶劣，自身道德修养严重缺失，应予强烈谴责”。科技部不想与肖扯上关系，煞费苦心地否认肖所声称的在科技部项目中担任的首席科学家身份。中国科学家和工程师的最大非政府组织、中国科学技术协会也同样对判决结果表示欢迎。与此同时，范围广大、不断恶化的中国科技界的失败则仍然基本未受关注，尽管科技界的失败为这场丑剧的发生提供了肥沃的土壤。

　　缺乏监督和规范意味着中国的虚假简历和科研不端在四处泛滥。对此放任不管则导致使人无法辨清什么是可接受的、什么是不可接受的科研行为，特别是对年轻的研究人员来说。举报学术不端的渠道是存在的，但是，惧怕身份泄露和怀疑举报效果迫使很多人发起非官方、经常是匿名的抨击。对事实和申辩的理性调查让位于尖刻的言辞和畏惧。

　　此事件会影响广泛。因肖传国发明的意在恢复脊柱裂或脊髓损伤患者大小便功能的外科手术据称不起作用，超过250名患者正威胁起诉有关医院或肖传国本人。这项手术遭到了批评。批评者说，此手术应当被视作试验性的（见K. M. Peters等人发表的美国试验结果论文）。另一些人则支持此手术。上个月，有31名科学家（其中22名来自美国）在主要讨论最新脊柱疗法的 CareCure网站发布一份支持肖传国的信件。信件由很多做肖氏手术的医生签署。信里要求考虑肖的“科学和人道贡献”。肖被定罪后，他的技术能得到公正的审判吗？【译注：此段所指肖氏手术的“批评者”和支持肖传国信件的发起者（K. M. Peters等）是同一组人】

　　中国政府官员经常允诺要处理科研不端行为。这次，他们不仅应当只惩罚挥舞铁锤的恶棍，更应当采取进一步措施，建立科技监督体制，以正确监督欺诈和剽窃、核实有理有据的指控、起诉诽谤者、保护揭发者。科学家们的事业、患者们的健康、以及这个国家的科技未来，现在是危如累卵。

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7318/full/467884a.html

A hammer blow to national ethics

Nature 467, 884 (21 October 2010) doi:10.1038/467884a

Published online 20 October 2010

China needs to act on broader science failures, not simply condemn an isolated case.

The trial of Chinese urologist Xiao Chuanguo for organizing beatings of two of his critics started on a Sunday. By Monday, the Beijing district judge had handed him a five-and-a-half- month sentence, and lesser or equal terms to other men involved. One of the victims, Fang Shimin, a self-styled science watchdog who investigates misconduct claims under the name Fang Zhouzi on his New Threads website, says the penalty is too light. But the judgment has already made Xiao persona non grata in China.

The attacks involved a hammer, steel rods and pepper spray (see Nature 467, 511; 2010). Xiao's supporters argue that the incident involving Fang Shimin followed a long-standing feud between the two men. The Chinese scientific establishment is right to condemn Xiao for his crime, but the authorities should not use this case to divert attention from wider failings in the research community.

The science ministry issued an online statement after the verdict, saying that Xiao “should be condemned for his vicious misconduct and lack of integrity”. The ministry wants nothing to do with Xiao, taking pains to disavow claims that he was chief scientist on a ministry-sponsored science project. The China Association for Science and Technology (CAST), the country's largest non-governmental organization of scientists and engineers, likewise welcomed the judgment. Meanwhile, the widespread and debilitating failures in China's scientific community go on largely uncontested, even though they have created fertile ground for this ugly episode.

Lack of monitoring and regulation in China means false CVs and scientific misconduct are rife there. The laxity can lead to a blurring of the lines between what is considered acceptable and unacceptable scientific behaviour, especially among young researchers. Channels of complaint about misconduct exist, but fear of identification and doubts over effectiveness drive many to launch unofficial, often anonymous attacks. Reasoned examination of facts and allegations gives way to vitriol and fear.

The impacts can be widespread. More than 250 patients in China are now threatening to sue hospitals, or Xiao directly, because they claim a surgical procedure he pioneered — which aims to restore bladder and bowel function in patients with spina bifida or spinal-cord injuries — doesn't work. The procedure has its critics, who say it should be considered experimental (K. M. Peters et al. J. Urol. 184, 702–708; 2010). But others back it, and last month 31 scientists (including 22 from the United States) posted a letter of support on the CareCure Community website, which is largely devoted to discussions of cutting-edge spinal therapies. The letter, signed by many who use Xiao's method, asks that his “scientific and humanitarian contributions to the world” are considered. With Xiao's conviction, will his technique get a fair trial?

Chinese government officials often promise to deal with scientific misconduct. This time they should do more than just punish hammer-wielding thugs and take steps to create a system that properly monitors fraud and plagiarism, checks reasonable allegations, prosecutes libellous ones and protects whistleblowers. The careers of scientists, the health of patients and the scientific future of the nation are at stake.