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!