Recently, hebei university of technology released the results of the work on the korean spring rain team's dissertation - • unequivocally “noticing that the korean spring rain team has been found to have made a subjective forgery”, but has recovered its research funding and the rewards for its scientific performance. At the moment when this conclusion was triggered by a huge crisis of confidence, the news published a recording allegedly of the korean spring rain。
The tape shows that han chun-rain profited from his earlier exposure by writing a degree thesis, and that he also intended to organize the sale of a degree dissertation by students and to exchange his wife's signature of another's dissertation for the price of a copy. The authenticity of this recording remains to be confirmed. We look forward to an explanation and clarification from the korean spring rains and hope that the hebei university of technology will give high priority to responding in a timely manner to social concerns。
If the recording is true, its disclosure is sufficiently serious - according to the ministry of education, “the purchase, sale or organization of a degree dissertation or the sale of a degree dissertation, or of a degree dissertation for another person, or the organization of a degree dissertation”, is a dissertation and a serious academic misconduct, which has no reason to ignore。
More importantly, han spring rain has published what is known as the nobel prize. • when the “ngago, a new generation of gene-editing techniques” paper was soared that it was called into question that it was impossible to repeat the experiment, hebei university of technology had just published its findings some time earlier, concluding that “no subjective forgery was observed from the korean spring rain team”. If the information disclosed by this recording is true, does this conclusion stand a test? This is also a problem that hebei university of technology needs to face again。
While the “non-substantiation” conclusion has been controversial, since its publication some members of the academic community have also preferred a “sympathetic understanding”: in their view, the south korean outcome may at the earliest have been a bad mistake by an under-academic south korean rain in a crude laboratory. It was only after the paper was published that the schools and localities in which they were located, for political reasons, allocated additional funds for the korean spring rains and granted them various honours, which made it difficult for them to ride. Now that hebei university of technology had taken steps, he had paid the price and, on the basis of lessons learned, his team would be well placed to restart its research。
If the recording was really about han chun-rain himself, it might be too much of a “sympathetic understanding” on the part of many academics. A college teacher who's doing such a thing, who's making that big nosy-rated joke, is afraid that it's hard to explain it with poor experimental conditions and a weak academic foundation。
For the time being, of course, we cannot rely on this recording to prove that the results of the research previously published by han spring rain were deliberately false. However, public opinion has every reason to raise such doubts. The previous findings of the hebei university of technology have yet to be further verified – after all, the matter is not simply a matter of his own academic virtue, nor is it just a reputation crisis at a hebei university of technology. If the truth about this incident cannot be thoroughly investigated, it would be a disgrace to the chinese academic community as a whole。
