今日看到一封举发方舟子论文图造假的信，短短的一封信却反映出中国人思维之偏狭。

首先科学研究中，如果实验造假，必定是结果无法重复，如果要打击方舟子，揭穿他实验造假，不是用图形软件把图放大，看是不是人工画线还是真实数据线，而是用同样仪器同样的试剂，同样的研究对象，重复同样的实验，画同样的曲线。

其次，写信人居然自己做法官，自己裁判方舟子已经作假，看他写的信：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，他的结论已经有了，还需要杂志给个公正的判断吗？他只要用电脑放大看看曲线就可以判断文章数据的真假，那么按照这种方式，还有谁去做实验？

最后，要命的是他自己还承认，可以合并两根曲线： We understand that sometimes a scientist may merge two gels into one figure. However, the merged two parts should be separately demonstrated. 这样逻辑就不通了，既然你自己承认可以合并，但为啥说合并就是作假，作者的过失也只是因为没有分开显示说明而已。另外，也没有一定说数据线必须分开显示。通常为了比较，可以把不同的数据一起显示。

所以这么一篇短短的举发信没有任何科学实验数据说明，却包含自相矛盾的观点，还有自做裁判的判决，很难让杂志编辑决定对方舟子的论文重审。嘴上说打假，而实际是用非科学理性的方式告状。中国人混乱的逻辑可见一斑。

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

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