fdff
不得了！方舟子事件上自然杂志了
北京发生的闹剧：对中国研究人员受到人身攻击的批评
David Cyranoski
译自自然杂志： 29 September 2010 | Nature 467, 511 (2010) |
在中国科学可以是一个粗糙的游戏。8月29日北京，方舟子在他从茶馆在回家的路上被殴打：他被两名男子追赶，抓住，用锤子击打 。方舟子曾是生物化学家 – 他在过去十多年里创立运行了一个网站，以揭露科学骗子。
“我相信他们计划杀死我，” 方舟子说。 “唯一让我闭嘴的方法就是杀我。”他逃脱了，只有轻微的割伤和瘀伤。今年六月，方玄昌，一个曾经报导中国科学腐败的新闻记者，也曾被两名男子用钢棒殴打，严重致伤。
9月21日，警察逮捕犯罪嫌疑犯主谋武汉同济医学院泌尿科医生肖传国。尽管肖不能被采访发表评述，但他对北京警察已承认参与殴打方的事件。 方舟子说，肖可能面临3-10年的监禁 ，如果谋杀未遂指控成立的话，期限将更长。
肖传国和方舟子从未见面或交谈过，但他们在互联网上相撞，在法庭上相遇。肖与方舟子和方玄昌的冲突起因于肖传国发明的一种外科手术，其目的是恢复脊柱裂或脊髓损伤患者膀胱和肠道功能。肖传国报导其手术包括改道体神经取得了令人关注的87％的成功率【1，2】。 2005年，他被提名候选人，参与竞争中国科学界的精英机构中国科学院院士。
肖传国被提名后，人们开始在方舟子的网站（http://fangzhouzi-xys.blogspot.com）发表对肖的结论的质疑。 其后在2005年9月，方舟子在北京科技报上发表一篇文章说肖传国不是象他在自己的简历中所声称的纽约大学副教授，而只有一个助理教授。文章进一步指出肖列出的26篇英文论文中只有四篇是期刊，其余的为会议摘要。
目前还不知道是否方舟子的文章影响了科学院的决定，但肖没有当选。 肖先后五次以诽谤罪起诉方舟子。方舟子输一次，赢两次，还有两案待定。 有人批评方舟子的网站为举报人提供了一个平台，举报人
可以对敌对方进行不公正的攻击。同时，外界对“肖氏反射弧”外科手术批评不断。去年，方玄昌发表了系列文章质疑“肖氏反射弧”的有效性，这也可能导致其受到人身攻击。
北京律师彭健（Peng Jian）说，他已经会见了20-30曾经由肖做过手术而产生副作用的患者，他们正在需求赔偿。今年夏天，美国第一份治疗试验在泌尿学期刊上报导了模棱两可的结果，期刊杂志的两个编委说，要考虑experimental4。
与此同时，方舟子没有再受到攻击。他说： “这不会阻止我”。 “我将继续做我现在做的”。
参考文献：略。
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100929/full/467511a.html
Published online 29 September 2010 | Nature 467, 511 (2010) |
Brawl in Beijing
Critics of Chinese researchers targeted in physical attacks
David Cyranoski
Science can be a rough game in China. On 29 August, on his way home from a tea house in Beijing, Fang Shimin was assaulted. The former biochemist — who for the past decade has run a website exposing scientific fraudsters — was chased by two men, caught and attacked with a hammer.
"I believe they planned to kill me," he says. "The only way to shut me up is to kill me." He escaped with only minor cuts and bruises. In June, Fang Xuanchang, a journalist who had reported on corruption in science in China, was left with more serious injuries after two men assaulted him with steel rods.
On 21 September, police arrested Xiao Chuanguo, a urologist at Tongji Medical College in Wuhan, on suspicion of master¬minding both plots. Xiao could not be reached for comment, but has confessed his involvement to Beijing's police. Fang Shimin says Xiao could face 3–10 years in prison — or more if the charges become attempted murder.
Xiao and Fang Shimin have never met or spoken, but their paths have crossed on the Internet — and in court. Xiao's clash with him, and with Fang Xuanchang, revolves around a surgical procedure devised by Xiao that aims to restore bladder and bowel function in patients with spina bifida or spinal-cord injuries. Xiao reported an impressive 87% success rate for the operation, which involves re-routing nerves1,2. In 2005, he was nominated for membership of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the elite body of the Chinese scientific world.
Following his nomination, people started posting questions about Xiao's claims on Fang Shimin's website (http://fangzhouzi-xys.blogspot.com). Then in September 2005, Fang Shimin published an essay in Beijing Sci–Tech Report, which said that Xiao was not an associate professor at New York University as he states in his CV, but only an assistant professor. Furthermore, the article said that only 4 of the 26 English-language publications Xiao listed were journal articles — the rest being abstracts from conference proceedings.
It is not known if Fang Shimin's article affected the academy's decision, but Xiao was not made a member and has since sued Fang Shimin for libel five times. Fang Shimin, whose site has been criticized for giving contributors a platform for unjustified attacks on their enemies3, lost one case and won two, with the other two undecided. Meanwhile, criticism of the 'Xiao procedure' has continued. Last year, Fang Xuanchang published a series of articles questioning its efficacy, which may have prompted the attacks on him.
Beijing-based lawyer Peng Jian says he has interviewed 20–30 patients who have experienced side effects after undergoing the Xiao procedure, and who are seeking compensation. This summer, the first US trial of the treatment reported ambiguous results in The Journal of Urology4, and two journal editorials said it should be considered experimental4.
Fang Shimin, meanwhile, is unfazed by the attack. "It won't stop me," he says. "I will continue to do what I am doing."
References
1. Xiao, C.-G. Proc. Int. Conf. Urol. Shanghai, 2–4 July (2005).
2. Xiao, C.-G. Eur. Urol. 49, 22-29 (2006).
3. Cyranoski, D. Nature 441, 392-393 (2006).
4. Peters, K. M. et al. J. Urol. 184, 702-708 (2010).
