今日看到一封舉發方舟子論文圖造假的信，短短的一封信卻反映出中國人思維之偏狹。

首先科學研究中，如果實驗造假，必定是結果無法重複，如果要打擊方舟子，揭穿他實驗造假，不是用圖形軟件把圖放大，看是不是人工畫線還是真實數據線，而是用同樣儀器同樣的試劑，同樣的研究對象，重複同樣的實驗，畫同樣的曲線。

其次，寫信人居然自己做法官，自己裁判方舟子已經作假，看他寫的信：Based on the case of the scientific misconduct, this paper should be trashed since such a kind of behavior is prohibited and should be regarded as artificially manufacturing data. 你看，他的結論已經有了，還需要雜誌給個公正的判斷嗎？他只要用電腦放大看看曲線就可以判斷文章數據的真假，那麼按照這種方式，還有誰去做實驗？

最後，要命的是他自己還承認，可以合併兩根曲線： We understand that sometimes a scientist may merge two gels into one figure. However, the merged two parts should be separately demonstrated. 這樣邏輯就不通了，既然你自己承認可以合併，但為啥說合併就是作假，作者的過失也只是因為沒有分開顯示說明而已。另外，也沒有一定說數據線必須分開顯示。通常為了比較，可以把不同的數據一起顯示。

所以這麼一篇短短的舉發信沒有任何科學實驗數據說明，卻包含自相矛盾的觀點，還有自做裁判的判決，很難讓雜誌編輯決定對方舟子的論文重審。嘴上說打假，而實際是用非科學理性的方式告狀。中國人混亂的邏輯可見一斑。

--------------------------------

From: Rao Yun [rao.yun434@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 8:42 AM
Subject: A paper with fake data

Dear Editor:

   We read a paper entitled “RNA Polymerase II-associated Protein (RAP)
74 Binds Transcription Factor (TF) IIB and Blocks TFIIB-RAP30 Binding” published on Vol 271, No. 20, Issue of May 17, pp. 11703-11709, 1996, JBC. We suspect that the data in Figure 4B and 4C were artificially
spelled out. By using a high resolution screen, it is very clear that there was one imprint line in the middle of the gel in Figure 4B, and two imprint lines in the gel in Figure 4C. The background difference can be seen if you adjust the whole image background. Therefore these two figures were manufactured. We would like to request your investigation and to ask the authors for explanation. Based on the case of the scientific misconduct, this paper should be trashed since such a kind of behavior is prohibited and should be regarded as artificially manufacturing data. We understand that sometimes a scientist may merge two gels into one figure. However, the merged two parts should be separately demonstrated. Unfortunately the authors merged two gels into one to mislead readers. Even worse, the authors used a box to group the two/three parts together as if all the lanes were from one gel. This is an obvious scientific misconduct. We consider that such a kind of behavior damaged the reputation of the journal badly.

We strongly request the journal to trash the paper and at the same time to report this scientific misconduct case to NIH and the institute of the authors.  We thank you for your attention to this issue and look forward to
hearing from you.

Sincerely yours,


Yun Rao, Ph. D., Professor;
School of Life Sciences,
Peking University, Beijing, China.
Email: rao.yun434@gmail.com