23/06/06

China: readers respond to misconduct coverage

Whistle-blowing: unfair persecution or free speech? Copyright: NSF

We encourage you to republish this article online and in print, it’s free under our creative commons attribution license, but please follow some simple guidelines:

You have to credit our authors.
You have to credit SciDev.Net — where possible include our logo with a link back to the original article.
You can simply run the first few lines of the article and then add: “Read the full article on SciDev.Net” containing a link back to the original article.
If you want to also take images published in this story you will need to confirm with the original source if you're licensed to use them.
The easiest way to get the article on your site is to embed the code below.

For more information view our media page and republishing guidelines.

The full article is available here as HTML.

Press Ctrl-C to copy

<div class="article-wrap">
<div id="article-introduction">
<h1>China: readers respond to misconduct coverage</h1>
<h4></h4>
</div>
<br />
<br />

<div id="article-body">
<p><P>Three letters in Nature this week (22 June) respond to the journal’s coverage of allegations of misconduct among Chinese scientists. </P><br />
<P>Shi-min Fang, webmaster of the New Threads website that posts accusations of scientific misconduct, says it is “ridiculous” to compare free speech on the Internet with the kind of persecution common during China’s Cultural Revolution of the 1960s.</P><br />
<P>Regarding a letter which was sent to the Chinese government (see <a  href="/News/index.cfm?fuseaction=readnews&itemid=2829&language=1" target=_self rel="noopener noreferrer">China ‘must act on rising claims of scientific fraud’</A>), Fang says it is “ironic that 120 Chinese-American scientists and self-appointed human-rights advocates have signed an open letter appealing to the Chinese government to suppress media and public opinions”.</P><br />
<P>Zheng Huang from the University of Colorado in the United States also objects to the comparison and says it is the motivation of those condemning the New Threads website that needs to be questioned.</P><br />
<P>Both agree that China should establish an official channel to investigate allegations of misconduct. </P><br />
<P>Ushma Savla Neill, editor of the US-based Journal of Clinical Investigation, describes problems in dealing with the National Natural Science Foundation of China during an investigation of alleged fabricated data.</P><br />
<P>She says that by taking no responsibility for research misconduct, the foundation — which funded the study in question — both tolerates and endorses misconduct.</P><br />
<P><a  href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7096/full/441932a.html" target="_blank" onclick="pageTracker._trackPageview('/tracking/external/'+this.href);" rel="noopener noreferrer">Link to letter by Shi-min Fang</A></P><br />
<P><a  href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7096/full/441932b.html" target="_blank" onclick="pageTracker._trackPageview('/tracking/external/'+this.href);" rel="noopener noreferrer">Link to letter by Zheng Huang</A> </P><a  href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7096/full/441932c.html" target="_blank" onclick="pageTracker._trackPageview('/tracking/external/'+this.href);" rel="noopener noreferrer">Link to letter by Ushma Savla Neill</A><BR><BR></p>

</div>
<div class="quick-links-wrapper">
<h3>You might also like</h3>
[related-articles]
</div>
<p>This article was originally published on <a href="https://www.scidev.net" target="_blank">SciDev.Net</a>. Read the <a href="https://www.scidev.net/global/opinions/china-readers-respond-to-misconduct-coverage/" target="_blank">original article</a>.</p>
<script type="text/javascript">
(function(e,t,n,r,i,s,o){e["GoogleAnalyticsObject"]=i;e[i]=e[i]||function(){(e[i].q=e[i].q||[]).push(arguments)},e[i].l=1*new Date;s=t.createElement(n),o=t.getElementsByTagName(n)[0];s.async=1;s.src=r;o.parentNode.insertBefore(s,o)})(window,document,"script","//www.google-analytics.com/ga.js","ga");var _gaq=_gaq||[];var _gaq=_gaq||[];_gaq.push(["_setAccount","UA-3223906-8"],["_trackEvent","article interaction","republished","https://www.scidev.net/global/opinions/china-readers-respond-to-misconduct-coverage/",null,true])
</script>
</div>

Three letters in Nature this week (22 June) respond to the journal’s coverage of allegations of misconduct among Chinese scientists.

Shi-min Fang, webmaster of the New Threads website that posts accusations of scientific misconduct, says it is “ridiculous” to compare free speech on the Internet with the kind of persecution common during China’s Cultural Revolution of the 1960s.

Regarding a letter which was sent to the Chinese government (see China ‘must act on rising claims of scientific fraud’), Fang says it is “ironic that 120 Chinese-American scientists and self-appointed human-rights advocates have signed an open letter appealing to the Chinese government to suppress media and public opinions”.

Zheng Huang from the University of Colorado in the United States also objects to the comparison and says it is the motivation of those condemning the New Threads website that needs to be questioned.

Both agree that China should establish an official channel to investigate allegations of misconduct.

Ushma Savla Neill, editor of the US-based Journal of Clinical Investigation, describes problems in dealing with the National Natural Science Foundation of China during an investigation of alleged fabricated data.

She says that by taking no responsibility for research misconduct, the foundation — which funded the study in question — both tolerates and endorses misconduct.

Link to letter by Shi-min Fang

Link to letter by Zheng Huang

Link to letter by Ushma Savla Neill