送交者: Yush 于 2006-3-24, 02:10:23:
回答: 献丑：翻译了mercurynews的文章 由 Yush 于 2006-3-23, 23:49:56:
不知是否合版主意
方舟子答美国奈特—里德报系记者采访全文
1) 自你开始学术打假工作以来，你收到的针对科研人员学术剽窃的可靠指控有多少？
1) How many credible charges of plagiarism against Chinese academic scholars have you received since starting your work?
我没有精确统计。自从我2000年8月开始这项工作以来，我已经揭露了超过500起学术不端行为，而这仅仅是我收到的投诉的一小部分。其中绝大多数与剽窃有关，而且我只公布了那些我认为可信的事例。
I don't have a precise number. Since starting my work in August, 2000, I have disclosed more than 500 cases of scientific misconduct and these were just a small portion of charges I received. Most of them were about plagiarism, and I only disclosed those I believed were credible.
2) 为什么中国学术界人士害怕指责其同事的学术剽窃或学术腐败行为？该情形与美国有什么不同或相似之处？
2) Why do Chinese academics fear to level charges of plagiarism or corruption against their peers? How is this different than in the U.S.? Or is it similar?
学术不端或学术腐败在中国学术界人士中司空见惯，以至于大多数人对此已经见怪不怪了。在中国，剽窃国外论文的现象很常见。他们不把这当回事。另外，中国没有保护揭发者的机制，因此，即使有人能正直勇敢地站出来揭露其同事或上级的不端行为，也肯定会面临报复。我认为，美国的情况与此迥然不同。美国的学术界对学术不端的态度更明确，对学术不端进行处理的机制更好。例如，美国有正式渠道来报告、调查和惩罚学术不端，而中国则欠缺。
Scientific misconduct or corruption is so widely spread among Chinese academics that most of them have been used to it. Plagiarizing foreign papers is a common practice in China. They don't think it's a big deal. Besides, China doesn't have a system to protect whistleblowers, so even if someone has integrity and guts to stand up against his or her wrongdoing peers or supervisors, he or she will certainly face retaliation. I think the situation in the U.S. is quite different. The U.S. academics are much clearer, and the system is much better, for instance, the U.S. has an official channel to report, investigate and punish the scientific misconducts, which China lacks.
3) 学术剽窃有文化上的因素吗？换句话说，学术剽窃是否有其根源，导致了大学的升迁体制主要看重在学术期刊上发表论文？
3) Is the plagiarism issue cultural? Or is its root cause a system of promotions at universities focusing largely on the publishing of work in academic journals?
传统上，中国的学者没有知识产权的概念，不怎么尊重他人的脑力劳动成果。学术剽窃行为曝光后，剽窃者往往找出种种借口来辩解他没有实施剽窃，而且还能轻松自如地得到权威机构和公众的同情。由于中国没有处理学术剽窃的官方渠道，欺诈者根本就不用担心他们有一天会被逮住并得到惩罚。目前的大学升迁体制只不过是使该状况更加恶化的催化剂。
Traditionally, Chinese scholars didn't have concept of intellectual property and didn't respect others' intellectual works that much. They used a quite different academic standard from the Westerns. When a plagiarism act was exposed, the plagiarizer often argued that he didn't commit plagiarism using many excuses, and could easily manage to receive sympathy from the authorities and public. Since China does not have an official channel properly to deal with the issue, the cheaters don't have to worry they will someday be caught and punished. The current promotion system at universities is just a catalyst to make the situation worse.
4) 权威机构对该问题的处理充分恰当吗？还必须采取其它什么措施？
4) Is the problem being dealt with adequately by authorities? What else must be done?
不。权威机构并没有真正处理该问题。他们在这个问题上只不过嘴上说说而已。权威机构对我所揭露的大部分学术不端案例不预理睬，仅有很少案例得以在官方渠道曝光，而受到惩罚的欺诈者则更寥寥无几。如果胡兴荣不是自己辞职，我认为汕头大学不会真地惩罚他。中国应当设立一个调查学术不端的全国机构，就象美国公共医疗卫生服务署的学术道德规范办公室那样的机构。但是，即使马上成立了这样的机构，就象别的中国政府机构一样，该机构很可能会因自身腐败而不能正常运作。所以，我认为情况不会很快就得以巨大改善。这也是个政治和社会问题。要解决这个问题，中国社会必须先要有一个根本改善。我们需要有民主的政体、独立的科教机构以及自由的言论。还有很长的路要走。
No, the authorities aren't really dealing with this problem. They are just paying lip service to this issue. The cases I have disclosed mostly were ignored by authorities. Very few scientific misconduct cases were exposed through official channel, and fewer the cheaters were punished. If Hu Xingrong didn't resign by himself, I don't think Shantou University would really punish him. China should set up a national organization to investigate scientific misconducts, similar to the Office of Research Integrity of the U.S Health Service. But even if it's established right now, it itself will probably also corrupt and won't function properly, like other Chinese government organizations. So I don't think the situation will have dramatic improvement very soon. This is also a political and social problem. Before we can solve the problem, the Chinese society must have a radical change first. We will need to have a democratic government, independent scientific and educational institutions, and free press. A long way to go.