送交者: zhuchebiming 于 2006-4-12, 10:38:19:
After re-read your "就魏于全院士发表假论文问题致中国科学院的公开信", I have to say you are as great as Yuebuqun.
"作者附言：方先生，这件事一直憋了好久。几年前，我就想将此事揭发出去，但因受人阻挠，耽搁下来，一拖就是几年。眼看国内学术腐败，我怒火中烧，今日，只好借贵刊一角，将此文发表出去。我是一位老人，十分迂腐，让别人说，很不入流。像魏于全这种事情，在中国已经是见怪不怪的了，多得像牛毛一样，随便一抓就是一大把。中国高校的教学科研也因此而严重受损。总之，希望我们都为此出一把力。"
You were used to dividing one full story into two or more trash papers, I can't say anything; but you should know this: submitting one paper to two or more journals belongs to what you called "学术腐败". In addition, over-shortening the technical details in Materials and Methods of your papers is not correct either,because other researchers need to repeat your work. Even so, I still found some problems existing in (at least) one of your papers (I failed to get your other trash papers). As one Professor Expert in immunlogy, you should know the effects of endotoxin. One small technical detail is enough to overturn the paper, oops, two papers you published.
And you are not "迂腐", you are very smart and "很入流".
"在我不答应以后,他就威胁我,说他的研究生看了我编的书,检索了我的所有论文,发现我的书和论文中也有不少错误,书中也有抄袭别人的,如果我要发表我的文章，他们也要写文章，把我搞臭。我告诉他,那本书我是主编,100多万字,我审查的不会那么细,我问他,抄袭的部分能占多少,占得了10％,20%,…,至于论文么,肯定有错,尤其是10年以前的,连我都不愿意读了,科学发展的太快了,不过，您要是指出来，我还是愿意接受的。"
Your vaccine showed strong immunogenecity, several guys at here classified others against you into "Wei's Cohorts", although I never heard of Prof. Wei several weeks ago. Does this belong to "cross-reaction"? That's the theory base of Wei's papers, it's weird, huh?
Alhtough several guys have pointed out some of your mistakes, but I still want to repeat it: your acadmic credit is very low. For example: "试问在几千种蛋白被注射入小鼠体内以后,何以小鼠的免疫系统只对如此微量的一种或几种抗原选择性的发生如此强大的反应。". As a Professor teaching immunology, where did you get such knowledge? Which factors affect one protein's immunogenecity? It's unbelievable you stressed this several times, although your tone changed a little bit after some guys pointed it out. Furthermore, I don't know why you were so emotional when you mentioned Prof. Wei's work.
"魏于全提出的用异种组织作瘤苗治疗肿瘤在肿瘤研究的历史上并不新鲜。这本来就是一种十分幼稚的幻想。不过由魏于全进一步发展了，再次包装炒作，闹到吓人的程度而已。科学本来就是老老实实的学问，伪科学是经不起任何考验的，在事实面前总会露出它的伪装。"
I've given up immunology research for 20 years, but after surfed in Pubmed, I knew it was not "伪科学". Except Prof. Wei, there are numerous researchers working on it, some of them have even started phase II clinical trials with similar strategies. Honestly, these are the two main reasons that I don't like you: first, you misunderstood the "basic rules" of immunology; second, compared with other displines of science, immunology is very young, it's still in developing, from imperfect to perfect. What you can't understand should not be classified into"伪科学".
Someone clarified that you didn't record the phone calls as "evidence" against Prof. Wei, you are probably not so mean as I imagined. But I still got such conclusion: compared with Wei, you are much worse, wish you would not be the worst.