Bring in facts: The photos of published scientific papers are not taken temporarily, but accumulated one by one in many years of experiments. Selected one by one when writing the article. Misuse of one picture is possible, and misuse of dozens of pictures is impossible except for fraud. Even if it is misused, if there are more than ten, such a laboratory should be closed. According to a generally reliable person: During the 2020 investigation, the students in the investigated laboratory clearly admitted to fraud. Later, the “picture misuse” justification appeared. I am afraid that it is not only the vast number of scientific and technological personnel who care about the health of China’s science and technology, but also the parties involved. 2. Punishment cases: similar to the misuse of pictures, the Shanghai Institutes for Biological Sciences of the Chinese Academy of Sciences has been severely dealt with, and the researcher involved resigned. At that time, a young researcher of the Institute of Neurology published a paper in the American “Journal of Neuroscience” in which one picture was reused for two pictures and was discovered. The researcher claimed that the picture was misused, and there is another picture in the laboratory. This picture is the control of the experiment, not the result of the experiment, it may be the lightest kind of “misuse”. At the request of Pu Muming, director of the Institute of Neurology, the Shanghai Institute of Biological Sciences organized an investigation and the Institute of Neurology asked the researcher to leave the institute. This researcher seemed to have gone to teach at Tongji University, which was led by Pei Gang at the time. 3. Answer the question: Whether there is an appropriate punishment depends on whether the warlock (or the person who has transformed into the warlock) leads the investigation or the people who care about the future of Chinese science and dare to be responsible for the development of science in China. This question is now clearly before the Shanghai Institutes of Biological Sciences of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Ethics Committee of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (with/without), and (any unit that is willing to take a seat)… On the morning of 4.10: Regarding the academic and scientific research environment and policies, I and other ordinary people have little access to information and naturally cannot interject. We only look at the facts to make sense. We support Professor Rao. It is Professor Rao who showed the facts and showed courage. Speaking out. Since there is a refutation of Professor Rao, please tell the facts and the reason for the refutation. Here is a supplement to the Han Chunyu incident of Hebei University of Science and Technology: On May 2, 2016, Han Chunyu, as the corresponding author, published a paper “NgAgo-gDNA-Oriented Gene Editing Technology” in “Nature Biotechnology”. On August 8, 2016, researchers from Australia, Spain and other countries stated that the experiment cannot be repeated. Some other scientists stated that they had repeated part of Han Chunyu’s experiment, but further confirmation was needed. On October 10, 2016, 13 well-known research scholars in China disclosed their real-name results that they “replicated” Han Chunyu’s experimental method. On August 3, 2017, Han Chunyu’s team withdrew the paper. On the evening of August 31, 2018, Hebei University of Science and Technology announced the investigation and processing results of Han Chunyu’s team’s retracted paper: no subjective fraud in Han Chunyu’s team was found. The retracted paper no longer has the basis for re-publishing. The relevant parties have cancelled the honorary title obtained by Han Chunyu in accordance with the regulations, terminated the scientific research project undertaken by Han Chunyu’s team, recovered scientific research funding, and retracted the school received by Han Chunyu’s team. Scientific research performance rewards. Although the survey results of Hebei University of Science and Technology left room for Han Chunyu, “no subjective fraud in Han Chunyu’s team was found”, the honorary title was also cancelled, especially the termination of scientific research projects undertaken and the recovery of funds are definitely for researchers. Punish powerfully. So, this time: the time to test these people has come: seven countries, thirty universities, and 44 scientists have repeatedly and seriously questioned the same article. In China, will it be seriously investigated and dealt with strictly? Reading the original text, Mr. Rao revealed his courage to fight in indignation and helplessness. Indignant mockery: The false proofs of the pictures under everyone’s eyes have been resolved into “picture misuse” by people who are academically inexperienced in the world and who can play tricks in the country. Little bureaucrats who don’t understand science have a lot of power and think that they can openly claim that scientific experiments do not need to be repeated. I’ve lived for too long, and I haven’t seen seven countries, thirty universities, and forty-four scientists repeatedly questioned the same article. Struggle: This kind of danger is harmful to China and the Chinese people. It is only good for turning China’s noble science into a villain of low-level interest. The time to test these people has come: 44 scientists in seven countries, over thirty universities, and 44 scientists have seriously questioned the same article again and again. Will it be seriously investigated and dealt with strictly in China? I hope that Chinese scientific research articles have been repeatedly questioned by “seven countries, thirty universities, and forty-four scientists”. Moreover, a detailed list of scientists from various countries who criticized Yang Hui is listed. Support Professor Rao! Praise for Professor Rao’s courage!


By zhiwo

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Notify of
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
6 months ago

2021 is in danger of becoming China’s first year without scientific research fraud. This kind of danger is harmful to China and the Chinese people. It only helps to turn China’s noble science into a villain of low-level interest. Some people pretend to suggest that academic criticism can only be conducted in English academic journals, and there should be no Chinese articles. In fact, the majority (but not 100%) of this kind of people hope that most people in China do not read English, and only English criticism can slip past. The time to test these people is here: Seven countries, more than 30 universities, and more than a hundred scientists have repeatedly and seriously questioned the same article. Will it be seriously investigated and dealt with in China? The answer is very uncertain. In the first year, it was announced that China was free from fraud, and the joke came again, although it may be a black joke. After solving people like Rao Yi, the Chinese academic circle may really have no fraud. Can’t solve the problem, and can’t solve the person who found the problem? It is suggested that in the future, some key subjects of counterfeiting will publish all Chinese periodicals, and everyone will be their own, and I will be happy with the picture. what? Have foreign institutions questioned? These unscrupulous reactionary organizations want to rely on public opinion to get stuck in the neck of Chinese science. We have checked it ourselves and the articles are all innocent. Where is the fraud?

6 months ago

Thanks to the friends in the comment area for pointing out that the melon I ate is a grievance between Yang Hui and Fu Xiangdong, and the complete melon is attached. Professor Fu Xiangdong from the Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine at the University of California, San Diego, real-namely reported to Yang Hui, a star professor born in the 1980s at the Shanghai Institute of Neurology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, for academic plagiarism and fraud. Report letter online: Dear leaders of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Ministry of Science and Technology, and National Foundation of China: I am Fu Xiangdong. I am currently working at the University of California, San Diego as a professor in the Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine. I write a real-name report to Yang Hui, a researcher at the Institute of Neurology of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, for plagiarism and suspected fraud and other academic ethical misconducts. At the same time, I hope to use this incident to implore the national science and technology management to pay attention to and value the increasingly prominent and serious scientific integrity and academic ethics of the current domestic academic community. Problems in order to maintain the reputation of the Chinese scientific community. The reason for the event: In the past ten years, our team has been committed to analyzing the function and mechanism of PTBP1, a key factor in cell fate determination, in neurogenesis and neuron development. In 2013, it was the first to report that PTBP1 mediated gene regulatory network can be used. Efficiently transdifferentiate non-neuronal cells into neurons (see Cell 152:82-86, 2013); at the same time, we are also exploring the application of PTBP1 regulated transdifferentiated neurons in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases. After more than 9 years of unremitting efforts (including 6 years of experimental work and supplementary experimental work in the process of reviewing the manuscript in the past 3 years), we have successfully achieved a one-time injection of anti-PTBP1 in a mouse model of Parkinson’s syndrome. Factors can reconstruct the substantia nigra striatum circuit in Parkinson’s syndrome and completely eliminate the symptoms of Parkinson’s syndrome (see “Nature” on June 25th this year, and submitted on November 12th, 2018). On June 14, 2018, by the special invitation of Director Pu Muming, I reported our unpublished research results on the treatment of Parkinson’s syndrome at the Institute of Neurology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, and introduced the scientific ideas and scientific ideas of this research in detail. All experimental design and research results; at the same time, I also shared a collaborative research work that successfully applied the anti-PTBP1 factor to the treatment of retinal diseases. Yang Hui and more than 100 researchers from the Institute of Neurology participated in my academic report. After the report, Yang Hui and several researchers had dinner with me. During the dinner, Yang Hui asked me many questions about the details of the experiment. What I didn’t expect was that after Yang Hui fully understood our research ideas and successful experimental results, he immediately changed to another experimental technique to knock down PTBP1, repeated our research work, and obtained similar experimental results. After just 6 months, they submitted their paper and finally published it in this year’s “Cell” magazine (launched on April 8th, published on April 30th). What’s even more incredible is that after Yang Hui’s paper was published, the Institute of Neuroscience, led by Director Pu Muming, also held a press conference, declaring that this work was an “original discovery” and a “major breakthrough” of their research. I don’t know how to participate on that day. What should the fellows and graduate students of the Institute of Neurosciences who have passed my academic report think about this? And Yang Hui himself shamelessly declared in the WeChat circle of friends that this is his most satisfying and fulfilling job so far! Plagiarized. There is a sense of accomplishment at work? It is really disgusting and unbelievable! After learning that Yang Hui’s “Cell” paper will be published online, I immediately contacted Director Pu Muming and pointed out that this paper had plagiarized what I had reported in the nerves and had not yet been published. Although he chose a slightly different brain area to knock down PTBP1, the fact of plagiarism is clear at a glance. Director Pu Muming replied that if the situation is true, Yang Hui’s behavior is a scientific misconduct and should be investigated and dealt with seriously; but he also claimed that Yang Hui’s work may be based on the papers published in our laboratory in 2013, which belong to the so-called “Gray area”. Yang Hui also immediately stated that their research work began on May 17-18, 2018, “coincidentally” before I went to the nerves to make a report (June 14, 2018). But in fact, I have evidence that Yang Hui didn’t even know what PTBP1 was before I went to the Nerve Institute for academic report. This fully shows that “research work began on May 17-18, 2018” is a complete lie. Immediately, I asked Director Pu Muming to ask Yang Hui to provide the time and evidence for ordering PTBP1 related DNA primers. This should be the first step to start the experiment. However, no reply has been received from them so far. Why can’t such simple evidence come out? Doesn’t it prove his lies and plagiarism? If he continues to fabricate false evidence, the nature of the incident will deteriorate from plagiarism to fraud. The scientific data problem of the paper: After Yang Hui’s “Cell” paper was published online in April, many experts in the field of neurobiology immediately raised a series of questions about the quality and reliability of the data, pointing out that the paper did not have conclusive evidence It proves that the cell migration necessary to induce newly generated neuronal cells, the asymptotic cell morphology and gene expression transformation, and the newly acquired neuro-electrophysiological characteristics, etc. In layman’s terms, because there is no support from a series of experimental data on the process of cell transdifferentiation, it is difficult to say that their conclusions are true and reliable, and it cannot be ruled out that the positive results they see are due to common laboratory illusions. After reading their paper, I believe that most of the so-called evidence supporting their conclusions is likely to be due to the leaky expression of GFAF-Cre in endogenous neurons, which is a well-known phenomenon in the field. Neurobiologists all know that the phenotypes of animal models of induced diseases usually have large differences and instabilities. Take our research as an example. Before cell reprogramming, a stable animal model of the disease phenotype needs to be established, and then the cells are induced to transdifferentiate. At the same time, close observation and real-time tracking are performed, and a group of animals is left for up to 2 Yearly observe and analyze all positive and negative results in order to get a true and reliable conclusion. For this reason, it took us a full 9 years to complete this research work after several iterations and repeated verifications using multiple methods. In contrast, Yang Hui’s team completed the project launch to the writing of the paper in just six months. It is reported that they submitted their research paper to Nature in early 2019, but they were rejected due to lack of sufficient experimental evidence to support the conclusion of the paper. Although this work was finally published in Cell, it does not mean that their data is true and reliable. How can they obtain animal experiment data in such a short time? Inferring from time, they don’t even have enough time to repeat animal experiments. The only explanation is that they are very likely to purposefully select experimental data that is beneficial to them, and even the possibility of falsifying experimental data cannot be ruled out. This reminds me of Yang Hui’s research paper on “Efficient Insertion Gene Mutation Method” published in the postdoctoral period (see Cell 154: 1370-1379, 2013), which was widely questioned by scientists in the field, and was jointly reported by more than 20 independent laboratories. The results of his experiments cannot be repeated (see Genome Biology 20:171, 2019 for details). Regarding the doubts of other scientists, Yang Hui has no reasonable explanation except for arguing that he is better than others and emphasizing that the experimental conditions are slightly different. So far we have never seen experimental evidence that he repeats his own results. Here we can’t help asking whether Yang Hui has been a hero since ancient times, or has he always been a cheater who is accustomed to plagiarism and even suspected of fraud? In terms of this PTBP1 related “Cell” paper work, when did their research work? Start? How did the data get? Wait for a series of questions. I think an independent investigation committee composed of neuroscientists should be established to conduct a serious investigation, because this incident has exceeded what Director Pu Muming pointed out. “Gray area” issues in scientific research.

6 months ago

Professor Rao Yi is a contemporary Lu Xun. Although the existence of people like Rao Yi will touch the cheese of some people and harm the interests of some vested interest groups, China needs people like Rao Yi. This is beneficial to the development of China as a whole and to the Chinese people. Reform has entered the deep water zone. The current era is the era when the scholar is in power, so it depends on whether there is such a determination. The anti-corruption struggle in the academic field will inevitably be accompanied by some people’s counterattack. Reform will inevitably be accompanied by labor pains and requires the courage to cure the poison.

6 months ago

Regarding this question, I still want to say a few words. Although my father’s generation is already in the academic world, I also like to do research and enjoy the happiness brought by the desire to fill knowledge. The current problem in the academic world is not a China’s problem at all. It is a global problem, and the current problems are not new after 2000, they also existed before. Before I completely decided to study a Ph.D., my father recalled his experience of Ph.D. under the hands of a certain big cow in 1991. He said at that time his supervisor said: “Ph.D. students are slaves and have to be slapped with a whip.” Students received a lot of allowances, enough to support their families, but it was a common practice at the time for doctoral students to work hard to hone their level of scientific research on the big projects of their mentors. I did not devote myself to the cause of natural sciences like my father did. The reason is that since I was a child, I have witnessed the complete powerlessness of natural sciences in the face of social structure. If I want to better promote the development of natural science research, I must make inclination corrections to the social structure. . So I chose to engage in social sciences. From the perspective of social sciences, especially from the perspective of countries (especially in comparison with Soviet Russia) and communism (considering the national conditions of China and the Soviet Union), the scientific research hypothesis is a product of very special conditions. Say light but not light, say heavy or not. Why is scientific research fraudulent? The answer is simple, because 40 years after the reform, the scientific research needs are not driven by defense needs like the Soviet Union, nor driven by economic interests like the United States, but purely driven by administrative instructions: the Soviet Union needs to build a huge number of intercontinental missiles. , The huge surface and underwater nuclear-powered ship formations need to build 100 million-ton equivalent thermonuclear bombs, need to build supersonic heavy bombers, need to build Mars and Moon programs, and need to produce tens of millions of chemical bombs, tens of thousands of tons. Biological weapons, in short, need to use all their ingenuity in order to have the ability to completely destroy the earth (the ability to destroy is the basis of hegemony). And what is China’s national conditions after the reopening? All cutting-edge defense equipment has been introduced, and the defense industry has basically taken shape. The gap with the United States and the Soviet Union has remained constant and has a tendency to shrink. However, further development is restricted by the economic foundation and population quality. If I take a few data, then the problem is easy to understand. The equivalent defense budget of contemporary Russia is 180 billion international dollars, China is 550 billion international dollars, and the United States is 750 billion international dollars. In other words, if China’s per capita defense budget reaches Russia’s level (that is, a severely shrinking Soviet standard), China’s total defense budget will reach 1800 billion international yuan, which is exactly twice that of the United States and more than 300 billion. If China’s per capita defense budget reaches the level of the Soviet Union, China’s defense budget will reach a totally unsightly 3600 billion international yuan, which will be five times that of the United States. But can China afford this resource provided by the Soviet Union? China cannot afford it in the past, it cannot afford it now, and it will not afford it for many years to come, because China’s per capita economic output is far from reaching the baseline that supports the demand-driven defense of defense. Why mention this? Because scientific research pays attention to satisfying novelty, originality, and theoretical standards, it is always a matter of very few people to break through the frontiers of theory. Most people in the academic world still rely on applied research and engineering practice. If based on the Soviet per capita standard, China’s annual military expenditure will reach the scale of 7-10 trillion yuan (2020 currency value) for the people of the whole country to eat chaff + when pants, then the academic circle does not need to fake it, because everyone can eat it. Big fat to the defense project. National defense projects do not need novelty, originality, or theory. As long as they can be developed, or can be continuously improved after they are developed, they can be cross-cut. Due to the existence of the golden standard of national experiments and actual combat tests, there is no way to create fakes. Since the national defense drive cannot be realized at present, then try the economic benefit drive? Sorry, no way. The Japanese proposed a paradigm of industrial transfer in the 1930s, called the geese pattern, which refers to a phenomenon in which technology gradually spreads from technological highlands to technological depressions. Of course, from the perspective of the history of international relations, within the scope of East Asia, the United States is an absolute technological highland, Japan is a relatively technological highland, the emerging economies of East Asia are technological hills, China is technological plains and hills, and North Korea is what it means. Technology depression. When a country tries to export technology to obtain excess profits, it will inevitably encounter market barriers established by the absolute high ground of technology (that is, the technology center in the international society). To break market barriers, it is impossible to rely on the so-called fair market competition, but to rely on absolute violence. When some people in China criticized the Soviet Union/Russia as an afterthought for “suffering from the international community”, they probably didn’t think about the difference between China’s current experience and the Soviet Union’s experience between 1945 and 1949? Moreover, China’s current geopolitical situation is much worse than that of the Soviet Union in the pre-Cold War period. The Soviet Union can at least use economic exchanges and instigate national liberation movements to extend its tentacles to all corners of the world. In addition, there is a group of satellite nations. China’s lead project has reached the limit of the influence of the Chinese empire (Chinese character cultural circle). How can it compare with the Soviet Union? So take the old road of defense-driven? Sorry, there is no economic foundation. Then to maintain the higher education-scientific research complex, the model will inevitably find a balance between the two limits of defense-driven and market-driven, and many more restrictions must be added: 1. The international image of China’s restrained power must not be undermined (the Soviet Union does not need ) This determines that China cannot expand its military at will, but can only passively follow up its military expansion, and even has to take the initiative to disarm when others expand its military. 2. It cannot destroy China’s international image as a responsible power (the Soviet Union does not need it). This determines that China cannot preemptively develop. Weapons for destroying the world can neither be obsessed with constant-star hydrogen bombs like the possession of a Russian player P, or keen to intensify toxic metal elements in nuclear bombs, nor can it be as simple as eating canteens to develop biological weapons like the United States. 3. Money cannot be spent. It’s better to bring your own dry food and use your love to generate electricity. 4. There are fewer bones and carrots, and the winner takes all, so everyone has to grab it, and the upper-level management is free. Therefore, the hardest hit by academic fraud is the four heavens of biochemical and environmental materials. The reason is that you can see the specific details of the above answer. The National Natural Science Foundation of China is not very supportive. Why do universities and research institutes value it so much? Have you ever heard that people who build airplanes, tanks, nuclear bombs, warships, dig bunkers, hit satellites, and engage in electric power are doing academic fraud everywhere? If it was true, it would have been knocked on the head by a military representative with a pistol a long time ago. A large number of universities attach great importance to the national nature, and the per capita funding level is not as high as the total tea fee that scholars in certain industries meet and chat. There is no academic fraud, no end of the project, no income, do you guys from Tiankeng major drink northwest wind? ? From Mr. Rao’s point of view, the problem lies here. Because it is impossible for everyone in Tiankeng to drink Northwest Wind (Rao himself is also on the list), and the academic development model driven by national defense needs or economic benefits cannot be realized, and it is impossible to break the military barriers and allow the national defense industry to circle. Foreign universities can also eat the fat of the national defense budget. Rao’s point of view, in the 1990s, green peppers were discussed every day, and it was nothing new. As for why there is no major change, the reason is the above. To solve these problems, we must wait for the vent of history to get twice the result with half the effort.

6 months ago

Regarding the academic controversy recently accused by Professor Rao of Academician Yang, what is your opinion? Is it a misuse of pictures or academic misconduct? I can only answer like this. The same report will also produce discrepancies under different conditions. Scientific research is a precise science, and the slightest difference is a thousand miles away. Therefore, Academician Yang’s paper has caused controversy, and it is reasonable for some people to question it. However, we must also note that even if the data is clear, the same data is interpreted in different ways and the conclusions produced will be different. The point is what is the identity of the interpreter? In what way? The misuse and deliberate misconduct caused by the negligence of the thesis are difficult to analyze, and it is difficult to draw a clear conclusion in vain. To explain things that cannot be verified in good faith, it is better to look at things from a more positive perspective than to treat them with a heart-warming attitude, such as trust in Academician Yang’s academic morality. Peer review, in the final analysis, is carried out by academic colleagues. A well-known scholar with a high reputation and many students will inevitably gain a greater advantage. This is not a deliberate formation of a party and a private school clique, but a natural network that gradually accumulates because of academic achievements and teaching achievements. Of course, we cannot deny that due to the relationship between the reviewers and the positions of the committee members, the results will tend to be inclined. However, it is also an emotional and irresponsible performance to criticize loudly because of this. What’s more, if the committee members and the academician are interpreted in a negative direction, and based on this, it is believed that the behavior of others is correct, then using the same logic, can I accuse Professor Rao of personal grievances with Academician Yang? How about retaliating or even framing it? You see, all people and things can be easily distorted if judged by the relationship of position. Regarding the recent controversy of Academician Yang, my thoughts are consistent. We should not be limited to a certain point of view to judge or-whether in favor or refutation. We must have a long-term perspective, and we must raise our position, and adopt a greater boldness and a more comprehensive perspective to be objective and without emotional understanding. All in all, you asked me whether this is “academic misconduct” or “picture misuse”. My answer is—the two are two-sided discourses, which are interpretations of the same thing in different directions. In short, academic The two concepts of misuse and misuse of pictures are actually the same. The difference between the two depends only on the perspective of the speaker. -Humphrey Appleby, academician of the Royal Academy of Sciences.

6 months ago

Structural problems cannot be solved by one or two people. Have you noticed that there are structural problems in many fields in our country? It ranges from the education of children to the Chinese football industry. Take football as an example. Does Chinese football lack a few naturalized players and world-famous coaches? What is missing is the surname of the chairman of the Football Association is Yang or Chen? Of course not. What is lacking is for more and more children to receive professional football training. What is lacking is a whole set of systemic industrial chain of football from preschool education to youth training to employment to transfer to retirement. Let’s take another example of education. Since the 1990s, the burden has been reduced, and now all the household belongings of the parents have been reduced. It is not a school district housing in Beijing. It is normal to raise a child of 300,000 a year. Can this be solved by canceling the make-up class? Can this be solved by stipulating that the child goes to bed early? Of course not. Only by letting children get a decent career whether they graduate from a vocational high school or a university in the future, and work diligently in the front line to protect their own class for a lifetime, only in this way can the problem of educational involution be solved. The same is true for scientific research. I believe that many people have more say in what kind of life the front-line researchers are living, and what kind of pressure and squeeze they experience. Can this be solved by dealing with one or two early birds? Impossible, it’s impossible to think with your toes. Take corruption, for example. During the Ming Dynasty, Zhu Yuanzhang couldn’t stop corrupt officials from skinning and cheating. Is there a more powerful method than this? Structural problems are unstoppable.

6 months ago

In the domestic scientific research community, especially in colleges and universities, papers are too important: teacher evaluation of professional titles, topic group evaluations, and school rankings, papers all occupy a very large proportion. This seems unreasonable, but there is no way, because everyone has a consensus: SCI reviewers sound more objective and fair than the “review team”. After all, anyone can review the paper, no There will be a lot of room for operation like the review conclusions of some “review meetings”. This is like the college entrance examination. The college entrance examination is not the most perfect way to select talents, but it is also the fairest way. If you return to the recommendation system, ordinary people may never have their days. Dear”…In the college entrance examination, there are routines for doing questions, and those who master the routines can get high scores, but he may not have mastered the true connotation of knowledge of various subjects, but he has memorized various types of problem-solving skills.” The small town is the author”… Very similarly, many paper contributors have mastered the journal review routines, and then follow these routines to “touch up” their articles ~ but what is the research content in these articles? use? The answer is: useless…This is also true in the patents applied for. I once applied for 6 inventions in a year, but I deeply know that those contents are just my dreams before going to bed. Do you want engineering applications? Don’t tease me… But it perfectly meets the requirements of novelty and innovation of invention patents~ I used to be a Ph.D. brother in the laboratory, with an average annual output of 5 SCI papers, and he traded his set of control algorithms for one. Acceptance notice, but everyone of us knows: that set of control algorithms can’t be applied in engineering at all… But everyone treats him as an uncle, and the whole research team points to him ascended to heaven~ This is the current environment, funny and magical. Very helpless… what can you do? You can only do this…

6 months ago

I was studying for a master degree abroad, and the dean personally talked about cheating the first thing the school started. Then the thing that impressed me the most was that I was judged to be plagiarism, because there was a computational chemistry experiment that I didn’t know how to do, so I went to read my senior’s experiment report, and then I understood how to do it, because I was a classmate I have been judged to be plagiarized, so I dare not copy. I wrote all the formulas from the beginning to the end, but I used my senior’s ideas, methods, and data processing with my own. The results are different, but that The teacher saw it, and then the first time I emailed to ask why my report was so similar to the senior’s (he still remembered it after a year), I said I would not ask him anymore, he asked me if I read it His report, I said no. Later I asked if there was any. Later I admitted it, but still felt that I was wronged. Then the teacher asked me to do the experiment again and told me that I had to write my own lab report homework, and I could write whatever I thought, but I couldn’t write. Other people’s ideas. Later in his class, he explained very simple questions to me patiently. After I finished speaking, I felt like a stupid pig, but he still explained very patiently, and I thought he was a very good teacher. Since then, I felt that I was not confident in myself, why I always read other people’s reports. In fact, I just wrote what I thought. The teacher will correct you if there is a problem, so I have never seen others since then. Things, just write your own thoughts. Now I am very grateful to him. In fact, as long as you admit that there are no serious consequences, everyone will make mistakes. The important thing is attitude.

6 months ago

Believe it or not, anyway, if I believe it, I don’t want you to think, I want me to think. When you deeply understand the above two sentences, you will feel that you are omnipotent. As for the simple matter of no scientific research fraud, it can be done easily. Not only unprecedented, but also unprecedented. One of my former colleague’s most frequent sayings was: I blinded myself and you wouldn’t exist! You see how easy it is to make a person disappear. Lu Xun once said: Actually, there is no fraud in the world. When there are more people, there is no fraud. Everyone looked at each other and smiled. It turns out that you are also a fellow. So the world is in harmony. Oh, I also made a fake for Lu Xun’s words. Rao Yi was naive. We must see that most of the time, people have ism in their mouths and business in their hearts. In this era, scientific research is mostly business. How much is a paper worth? How to maximize benefits? This is the essence of business. As for true and false, WHO CARE? As for unprecedented expectations. I think I can wash and sleep. “They are willing to do everything except repeat the experiment.” This shows that the people involved are still working hard to protect against fraud. Are they willing to do everything? This shows that there has been progress, at least the cost of those frauds has been increased, although this cost may still be passed on. But everyone is afraid of trouble. Maybe you won’t use the picture directly next time. This is progress and deserves encouragement.

6 months ago

Among other things, the atmosphere of undergraduates is not very good. Falsification of scientific research in our universities is endless. It is only common for undergraduates to buy patents, buy papers, and even falsify the data of graduation design papers. Our majors are the first and second. They are the kind of people with full intellectual education points, relying on each. A kind of patent paper, what is the use of the kind of thing that is bought at a glance for scientific research? Just look at the people around you and you can get a glimpse of the leopard. The academic atmosphere of undergraduates is like this. What about when these people become the mainstays of the so-called academic world? I think it is still a problem of the school mechanism. The more important it is to study, the more difficult it is to read. Our society advocates reading. Going to university and doing scientific research can be mentioned to a high position. This has led many universities to use scientific research to consider students, especially Many people are obviously not suitable for graduation thesis for scientific research, but they have to do it for graduation. If you don’t fake it, how do you let them graduate? Will the fraudulent trend rise over time, and it can’t be said that they are at fault. Everyone has their own ideas. The development direction, but in the society that advocates reading and the school respects thesis, they have no choice but to make this move. Therefore, the root of China’s failure in scientific research is that it places too much emphasis on reading. The book-based society has become a book-based society. The seniority ranking is based on reading, and the scientific research field has become a vanity fair. Scientific research is originally for scientific research itself, which represents human beings. Curious about the unknown world. Only with an innocent scientific attitude forever can we do well in scientific research, not for fame and fortune. It’s really sad that a career like scientific research that can affect the future destiny of the Chinese nation has become a career for making money.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x