- Email: [email protected]
Shi-min Fan: Fake research papers are endemic in China
Comment on these stories at newscientist.com/opinion
Michael Le Page is environment features editor at New Scientist
One minute with...
Shi-min Fang The Chinese science writer has just been honoured for risking life, limb and libel writs to expose misconduct in his homeland You've just won the inaugural Maddox prize, awarded for your continuing work exposing scientific misconduct in China despite the threats you face. How does that feel? I am thrilled and honoured. There are many people who are supporting me and fighting with me, so I consider this award as an acknowledgement of all our efforts, not just mine. What prompted you to start challenging dubious pseudoscientific claims in China? In 1998, after eight years studying in the US, I returned to China and was shocked to see it was deluged with pseudosciences, superstitions and scientific misconduct. What action did you decide to take? I had created a Chinese website called New Threads in 1994 when I was a graduate student at Michigan State University as a forum for sharing Chinese classics and literature. From 2000, I started to publish articles on the site fighting scientific misconduct and fraud. Eventually, New Threads became a flagship for those fighting pseudoscience, misconduct, fraud and corruption among the Chinese science community. Are dubious claims a big problem in China? The majority of cases exposed are plagiarism, the exaggeration of academic credentials and faked research papers, which are endemic in China. Tell me about some of them. A typical case was the nucleic acid “nutrition” scheme – supplements promoted to boost energy levels in the tired, pregnant and old. It involved more than a dozen Chinese biochemists and was the first that brought wide media coverage, both domestically and internationally. New Threads has exposed more than 1000 cases of scientific fraud. Why is science fraud such a problem in China? It is the result of interactions between totalitarianism, the lack of freedom of speech, press and academic research, extreme capitalism that tries to commercialise everything including
Profile Shi-min Fang has held research posts at the University of Rochester, New York, and the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California. He is now a freelance science writer
science and education, traditional culture, the lack of scientific spirit, the culture of saving face and so on. It’s also because there is not a credible official channel to report, investigate and punish academic misconduct. The cheaters don’t have to worry they will someday be caught and punished. What have been the worst moments? I have been sued more than 10 times. Because the Chinese legal system is very corrupt and a ruling is not always made according to the evidence, it is not surprising that I have lost some libel cases even though I did nothing wrong. In one of these, a local court at Wuhan ordered me to pay 40,000 yuan in compensation and transferred the money from my wife’s account. I have also narrowly escaped from an attack with pepper spray and a hammer. Has it been worth it? Yes. I fully understand the risk I am facing and am willing to take it. What troubles me most is that my wife and my young daughter also have to endure vituperation and personal attacks. Interview by Jon White
17 November 2012 | NewScientist | 29
Xinghai Zhang
crops that offers clear benefits to consumers, from looking better to tasting better to being better for us. Scare stories about cellphones causing cancer didn’t stop them taking off because they are so useful. Similarly, scare stories about GM foods will lose their power if GM products that help prevent cancer or heart disease can be bought in supermarkets. The very last way to win hearts is to trick people to eat GM crops by not telling them what’s in their food. Californians may have voted down the proposal for mandatory labelling of GM foods – Proposition 37 – after food firms spent $45 million on TV ads telling them it would raise food prices, hurt farmers and spark legal wrangles. Few consumers will be any keener on eating GM food, though – quite the contrary. Prop 37 was flawed, and many of the arguments for it were nonsense. Its opponents argued that the science says there are no ill effects of eating GM, so labelling, which might deter GM consumption, is unnecessary. A triumph for science over antiscience then? No. The argument against Prop 37 really boiled down to something more disturbing: “If we tell people what’s in their food, they will make the wrong choice, so we shouldn’t give them one.” Why is the US of all places protecting GM foods rather than letting them sink or swim in a free market? Companies should instead persuade people that their new products are better than the alternative. If all countries insisted on GM labelling, corporations would be forced to convince consumers of the benefits. As it stands, in California the companies who have helped engender such rabid distrust of GM foods have been let off the hook. Prop 37 could have been a catalyst for change. Instead the status quo remains – and we’ll all be the losers in the end. n
Michael Le Page is environment features editor at New Scientist
One minute with...
Shi-min Fang The Chinese science writer has just been honoured for risking life, limb and libel writs to expose misconduct in his homeland You've just won the inaugural Maddox prize, awarded for your continuing work exposing scientific misconduct in China despite the threats you face. How does that feel? I am thrilled and honoured. There are many people who are supporting me and fighting with me, so I consider this award as an acknowledgement of all our efforts, not just mine. What prompted you to start challenging dubious pseudoscientific claims in China? In 1998, after eight years studying in the US, I returned to China and was shocked to see it was deluged with pseudosciences, superstitions and scientific misconduct. What action did you decide to take? I had created a Chinese website called New Threads in 1994 when I was a graduate student at Michigan State University as a forum for sharing Chinese classics and literature. From 2000, I started to publish articles on the site fighting scientific misconduct and fraud. Eventually, New Threads became a flagship for those fighting pseudoscience, misconduct, fraud and corruption among the Chinese science community. Are dubious claims a big problem in China? The majority of cases exposed are plagiarism, the exaggeration of academic credentials and faked research papers, which are endemic in China. Tell me about some of them. A typical case was the nucleic acid “nutrition” scheme – supplements promoted to boost energy levels in the tired, pregnant and old. It involved more than a dozen Chinese biochemists and was the first that brought wide media coverage, both domestically and internationally. New Threads has exposed more than 1000 cases of scientific fraud. Why is science fraud such a problem in China? It is the result of interactions between totalitarianism, the lack of freedom of speech, press and academic research, extreme capitalism that tries to commercialise everything including
Profile Shi-min Fang has held research posts at the University of Rochester, New York, and the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California. He is now a freelance science writer
science and education, traditional culture, the lack of scientific spirit, the culture of saving face and so on. It’s also because there is not a credible official channel to report, investigate and punish academic misconduct. The cheaters don’t have to worry they will someday be caught and punished. What have been the worst moments? I have been sued more than 10 times. Because the Chinese legal system is very corrupt and a ruling is not always made according to the evidence, it is not surprising that I have lost some libel cases even though I did nothing wrong. In one of these, a local court at Wuhan ordered me to pay 40,000 yuan in compensation and transferred the money from my wife’s account. I have also narrowly escaped from an attack with pepper spray and a hammer. Has it been worth it? Yes. I fully understand the risk I am facing and am willing to take it. What troubles me most is that my wife and my young daughter also have to endure vituperation and personal attacks. Interview by Jon White
17 November 2012 | NewScientist | 29
Xinghai Zhang
crops that offers clear benefits to consumers, from looking better to tasting better to being better for us. Scare stories about cellphones causing cancer didn’t stop them taking off because they are so useful. Similarly, scare stories about GM foods will lose their power if GM products that help prevent cancer or heart disease can be bought in supermarkets. The very last way to win hearts is to trick people to eat GM crops by not telling them what’s in their food. Californians may have voted down the proposal for mandatory labelling of GM foods – Proposition 37 – after food firms spent $45 million on TV ads telling them it would raise food prices, hurt farmers and spark legal wrangles. Few consumers will be any keener on eating GM food, though – quite the contrary. Prop 37 was flawed, and many of the arguments for it were nonsense. Its opponents argued that the science says there are no ill effects of eating GM, so labelling, which might deter GM consumption, is unnecessary. A triumph for science over antiscience then? No. The argument against Prop 37 really boiled down to something more disturbing: “If we tell people what’s in their food, they will make the wrong choice, so we shouldn’t give them one.” Why is the US of all places protecting GM foods rather than letting them sink or swim in a free market? Companies should instead persuade people that their new products are better than the alternative. If all countries insisted on GM labelling, corporations would be forced to convince consumers of the benefits. As it stands, in California the companies who have helped engender such rabid distrust of GM foods have been let off the hook. Prop 37 could have been a catalyst for change. Instead the status quo remains – and we’ll all be the losers in the end. n