誠(chéng)信制度之危

1、誠(chéng)信制度之危DishonoringtheHonorSystemcientific review is not designed to catch cheats. But the South Korean cloning scandal suggests that the journals Nature and Science may be too powerful in deciding what research reaches the public.科學(xué)評(píng)審的本意并非是要抓騙子。然而，韓國(guó)克隆丑聞?wù)f明，在決定將哪些科研成果公諸于眾方面，自然和科學(xué)雜志或許有些過(guò)于強(qiáng)大了。Jan Hendri

2、k Schons success seemed too good to be true, and it was. In only four years as a physicist at Bell Laboratories, Schon, 32, had co-authored 90 scientific papersone every 16 daysdetailing new discoveries in superconductivity, lasers, nanotechnology and quantum physics. This output astonished his coll

3、eagues, and made them suspicious. When one co-worker noticed that the same table of data appeared in two separate paperswhich also happened to appear in the two most prestigious scientific journals in the world, Science and Nature-the jig was up. In October 2002, a Bell Labs investigation found that

4、 Schon had falsified and fabricated data. His career as a scientist was finished.If it sounds a lot like the fall of Hwang Woo Sukthe South Korean researcher who fabricated his evidence about cloning human cellsit is. Scientific scandals, which are as old as science itself, tend to follow similar pa

5、tterns of hubris and comeuppance. Afterwards, colleagues wring their hands and wonder how such malfeasance can be avoided in the future. But it never is entirely. Science is built on the honor system; the method of peer-review, in which manuscripts are evaluated by experts in the field, is not meant

6、 to catch cheats. In recent years, of course, the pressure on scientists to publish in the top journals has increased, making the journals that much more crucial to career success. The questions raised anew by Hwangs fall are whether Nature and Science have become too powerful as arbiters of what sc

7、ience reaches the public, and whether the journals are up to their task as gatekeepers.Each scientific specialty has its own set of journals. Physicists have Physical Review Letters, cell biologists have Cell, neuroscientists have Neuron, and so forth. Science and Nature, though, are the only two ma

8、jor journals that cover the gamut of scientific disciplines, from meteorology and zoology to quantum physics and chemistry. As a result, journalists look to them each week for the cream of the crop of new science papers. And scientists look to the journals in part to reach journalists. Why do they c

9、are? Competition for grants has gotten so fierce that scientists have sought popular renown to gain an edge over their rivals. Publication in specialized journals will win the accolades of academics and satisfy the publish-or-perish imperative, but Science and Nature come with the added bonus of pot

10、entially getting your paper written up in The New York Times and other publications.Scientists are also trying to reach other scientists through Science and Nature, not just the public. The line between popular and professional notoriety is not distinct. Scientists tend to pay more attention to the

11、Big Two than to other journals. When more scientists know about a particular paper, theyre more apt to cite it in their own papers. Being oft-cited will increase a scientists Impact Factor, a measure of how often papers are cited by peers. Funding agencies use the Impact Factor as a rough measure of

12、 the influence of scientists theyre considering supporting. Because Nature and Science papers have more visibility, the number of submissions is growing, say the editors. Nature now gets 10,000 manuscripts a year, and that figure is rising, says editor-in-chief Phiip Campbell via email. This partly

13、reflects the increase in scientific activity around the world, he says. It also no doubt reflects the increasing and sometimes excessive emphasis amongst funding agencies and governments on publication measures, such as the typical rates of citation of journals.Whatever the reasons, the whims of the

14、 editors at Science and Nature loom large for many scientists. When either magazine is considering a paper for publication, the authors are told not to speak to the press lest they want to risk rejection. Every scientists hates them and loves them, says a prominent scientist who would not speak for

15、attribution for fear of offending the editors. We hate them because its so political to get an article in them. Frankly Im astonished at some of the things they accept, and some of the things they reject.Whether the clamor to appear in these journals has any bearing on their ability to catch fraud i

16、s another matter. The fact is, fraud is terrifically hard to spot. Consider the process Science used to evaluate Hwangs 2005 article. Science editors recognized the manuscripts import almost as soon as it arrived. As part of the standard procedure, they sent it to two members of its Board of Reviewi

17、ng Editors, who recommended that it go out for peer review (about 30 percent of manuscripts pass this test). This recommendation was made not on the scientific validity of the paper, but on its novelty, originality, and trendiness, says Denis Duboule, a geneticist at the University of Geneva and a m

18、ember of Sciences Board of Reviewing Editors, in the January 6 issue of Science. (Editors would not comment for this story ahead of the completion of Seoul National Universitys investigation, which was released today. The panel found that Hwang had fabricated all of the evidence for research that cl

19、aimed to have cloned human cells, but that he had successfully cloned the dog Snuppy.)After this, Science sent the paper to three stem-cell experts, who had a week to look it over. Their comments were favorable. How were they to know that the data was fraudulent? You look at the data and do not assu

20、me its fraud, says one reviewer, anonymously, in Science. At a December news conference, editor-in-chief Donald Kennedy maintained that the paper, despite its importance, was not rushed to print. Any important paper gets careful scrutiny, and I think our peer reviewers gave it that, he said. Its ver

21、y difficult for a peer-review process to detect mistakes that are not clearly evident or are deliberate misrepresentations.In the end, a big scandal now and then isnt likely to do much damage to the big scientific journals. What editors and scientists worry about more are the myriad smaller infracti

22、ons that occur all the time, and which are almost impossible to detect. A Nature survey of scientists published last June found that one-third of all respondents had committed some forms of misconduct. These included falsifying research data and having questionable relationships with students and su

23、bjectsboth charges leveled against Hwang. Nobody really knows if this kind of fraud is on the rise, but it is worrying.Science editors dont have any plans to change the basic editorial peer-review process as a result of the Hwang scandal. They do have plants to scrutinize photographs more closely in

24、 an effort to spot instances of fraud, but that policy change had already been decided when the scandal struck. And even if it had been in place, it would not have revealed that Hwang had misrepresented photographs from two stem cell colonies as coming from 11 colonies. (Natures Campbell would not a

25、nswer questions about review policy or the status of Hwangs 2005 Nature paper on the cloning of Snuppy the dog, which Nature is investigating.) With the financial and deadline pressures of the publishing industry, its unlikely that the journals are going to take markedly stronger measures to vet man

26、uscripts. Beyond replicating the experiments themselves, which would be impractical, its difficult to see what they could do to make take science beyond the honor system. 簡(jiǎn)亨德里克舍恩的成功似乎令人難以置信，但它的確如此。歲的舍恩曾是貝爾實(shí)驗(yàn)室的物理學(xué)家，在短短年間，他卻與人合作撰寫了篇科技論文每天一篇這些論文詳盡闡述了他在超導(dǎo)、激光、納米技術(shù)和量子物理學(xué)方面的最新發(fā)現(xiàn)。如此多產(chǎn)令他的同事大為驚訝并產(chǎn)生懷疑。當(dāng)一位同事發(fā)現(xiàn)同

27、一個(gè)數(shù)據(jù)圖表出現(xiàn)在兩篇不同的論文之中而且恰恰分別出現(xiàn)在世界上兩家最為知名的科學(xué)期刊科學(xué)與自然雜志上時(shí)把戲被拆穿了。年月，貝爾實(shí)驗(yàn)室調(diào)查發(fā)現(xiàn)，舍恩曾篡改并捏造數(shù)據(jù)。他的科學(xué)家生涯就此止步。如果此事聽(tīng)起來(lái)很像是黃禹錫的名譽(yù)掃地一事，那么事實(shí)的確如此。這位韓國(guó)研究者在克隆人體細(xì)胞上偽造了證據(jù)?？茖W(xué)丑聞與科學(xué)本身的發(fā)展亦步亦趨，并且往往遵循著類似的規(guī)律，即自以為是必然會(huì)受到懲罰。丑聞曝光之后，同行們都在痛定思痛，思考今后怎樣才能避免此類事件的發(fā)生。但是，要完全避免絕不可能?？茖W(xué)雜志是建立在誠(chéng)信制度之上的；同行評(píng)審的辦法，即由同一領(lǐng)域?qū)＜覍?duì)論文原稿進(jìn)行評(píng)審的方法，并非旨在抓騙子。當(dāng)然，近年來(lái)要求科技工作

28、者在頂級(jí)期刊上發(fā)表論文的壓力越來(lái)越大，使得這些期刊在他們事業(yè)成功上所起的作用越來(lái)越關(guān)鍵。黃禹錫事件讓這些問(wèn)題再次浮出水面：自然和科學(xué)在決定將哪些科研結(jié)果公諸于眾方面的權(quán)力是不是太大了，這些刊物是否能夠勝任其守門人的工作。每個(gè)科學(xué)專業(yè)領(lǐng)域都有自己的一系列刊物。物理學(xué)家有物理評(píng)論快報(bào)，細(xì)胞生物學(xué)家有細(xì)胞，神經(jīng)科學(xué)家有神經(jīng)元，等等。但是，科學(xué)和自然是僅有的兩家覆蓋全部科學(xué)學(xué)科的主要刊物，學(xué)科范圍從氣象學(xué)和動(dòng)物學(xué)到量子物理學(xué)和化學(xué)等。因此，媒體記者每周都關(guān)注這兩家期刊，以便在林林總總的新科學(xué)論文中覓取精華。在某種程度上，科學(xué)工作者也期望通過(guò)這兩家期刊為新聞界所獲知。他們?yōu)楹稳绱嗽谝饽?？因?yàn)榭蒲薪?jīng)費(fèi)的競(jìng)

29、爭(zhēng)異常激烈，要想比對(duì)手略勝一籌，科學(xué)工作者就需要尋求大眾知名度。在專業(yè)期刊上發(fā)表論文可以贏得學(xué)術(shù)界的贊譽(yù)，也可以滿足“不發(fā)表就完蛋”的迫切需要。但是，在科學(xué)和自然雜志上發(fā)表論文還會(huì)帶來(lái)不期之喜，那就是，你在上面發(fā)表的論文可能會(huì)被紐約時(shí)報(bào)及其他報(bào)刊所報(bào)道?？茖W(xué)工作者不但希望通過(guò)科學(xué)和自然雜志成為知名人士，而且還希望為其他科學(xué)工作者所了解。公眾領(lǐng)域與職業(yè)領(lǐng)域內(nèi)的聲名狼藉兩者之間的界線并不分明?？茖W(xué)工作者對(duì)期刊“兩巨頭”的關(guān)注往往多于其他期刊。如果某篇論文為更多科學(xué)工作者所了解，他們?cè)谧约赫撐闹幸盟目赡苄跃透蟆１唤?jīng)常引用會(huì)增加科學(xué)工作者的“影響因子”，而這是衡量論文被同行引用次數(shù)的一個(gè)尺度。資

30、助機(jī)構(gòu)用“影響因子”來(lái)粗略衡量他們考慮資助的科學(xué)工作者的影響力。兩家雜志的編輯稱，因?yàn)樽匀缓涂茖W(xué)雜志受注目的程度更高，提交給它們的論文數(shù)量與日俱增。目前自然雜志每年收到萬(wàn)份稿件，且這個(gè)數(shù)字還在增長(zhǎng)，該雜志主編菲利普坎貝爾通過(guò)電子郵件表示?！斑@一方面反映了全世界科學(xué)活動(dòng)的增加，”他說(shuō)，“同時(shí)無(wú)疑也反映了資助機(jī)構(gòu)和政府日益強(qiáng)調(diào)甚而有時(shí)過(guò)分地強(qiáng)調(diào)論文在發(fā)表方面的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，如各期刊的平常引用率?！睙o(wú)論原因如何，對(duì)許多科學(xué)工作者來(lái)說(shuō)，科學(xué)和自然雜志的編輯們一時(shí)心血來(lái)潮就讓人誠(chéng)惶誠(chéng)恐。無(wú)論哪家雜志在考慮發(fā)表某篇論文的時(shí)候，都會(huì)告知作者不要將消息透漏給媒體，除非他們不怕退稿?！懊總€(gè)科學(xué)工作者都對(duì)它們愛(ài)恨交加，”一位擔(dān)心得罪雜志編輯而不愿透露自己身份的著名科學(xué)家說(shuō)道?！拔覀兒匏鼈兪且?yàn)樵谶@些雜志上發(fā)表論文太過(guò)于倚重人際關(guān)系。說(shuō)實(shí)話，對(duì)他們接受和退掉的一些稿件我都感到很吃驚?！比藗兤疵朐谶@些雜志上露面是否會(huì)影響到雜志的打假能力是另一碼事。事實(shí)上，要發(fā)現(xiàn)造假極為困難。我們來(lái)看看科學(xué)雜志評(píng)估黃禹錫年發(fā)表的那篇