On the night before the opening of the school, the hebei university of technology network of officials published the results of a huge survey of the korean spring rains. This invisible statement was captured by the sensitive media, thus bringing the disclaimer back into public view。
In a statement entitled " school publication of the results of the research and processing of the korean spring rain team withdrawal papers " (hereinafter referred to as " the survey and processing results " ), it was stated that the withdrawal papers no longer had a basis for re-publication and that no subjective falsification of the korean spring rain team had been detected。
The results of the investigation and processing show the clear investigative behaviour of the school: the school gave high priority to the incident and carried out a thorough verification along academic and administrative lines. The school academic council set up an investigation team to carefully verify all the original laboratory information involved in the paper, on the basis of the principles of “legality, discipline, factuality, objectivity and impartiality”, and commissioned a repeat validation experiment from a third-party national priority laboratory, which concluded that the withdrawal papers no longer had a basis for re-publication and that no subjective forgery had been detected in the korean spring rain team。
The results were clear: the south korean spring rains took the initiative to request the return of scientific research projects, performance awards, honours, social employment, etc., based on distillation papers. In accordance with the regulations, the korea spring rains team has been cancelled from its reputation, its scientific research project has been terminated and its funding recovered, and the korean spring rains team has been rewarded for its scientific research performance. Individual social work is being done in accordance with statutory procedures。
The practice of the hebei university of technology is also an improvement over that of the university of higher education, which had been silent in similar cases. But such a call-in finding has given rise to new challenges。
At the heart of the question lies the fact that the finding of the han spring rain team that there is no subjective falsification is itself a contradiction. In our usual understanding, forgery is a forgery, which is itself a subjective act of the human person, and “wrong” or “fault” are completely different in nature, so there is no distinction between so-called “subjective forgery” and “objective forgery”. Whether or not the korean spring rain team is a "subjective forgery" is never the focus of the scientific community or the public, but is concerned about whether or not the korean spring rain team is making a forgery, and what it is。
Experimental science and technology, which must be capable of being replicated, is also a rule shared by the entire scientific community. Since it is impossible to repeat it, it is either an error in the experimental process or a falsification. The former is understandable, and this is a frequent occurrence of scientific research; the latter is intolerable because of its relevance to scientific research and academic ethics. It is clearly not convincing that a year-long academic survey, which has attracted international and national attention, has led to the creation of a new concept, “and mud”, that is, “without subjective falsification”。
Indeed, an objective and impartial investigation has made it easy to ascertain whether or not the korean spring rain team is a fraud. Did you tamper with or falsify experimental data? Did you destroy the lab records and materials? It is enough to get these two core issues straight. Unfortunately, despite the establishment of a dedicated “investigation team” and the commissioning of “third-party national priority laboratories”, the results of the survey and processing have not been mentioned in any of these two core issues。
After the findings of the hebei university of science and technology, han chun-rain himself subsequently expressed his regret that “the experimental design was flawed and the research process was not rigorous, and that the publication of the paper was misleading and a waste of human and material resources for fellow national and international scholars”. The statement also failed to respond to the two core issues mentioned above。
It is logical that the hebei university of science and technology and the relevant academic authorities should initiate an investigation in may 2016, when the results of the korean spring rains were widely questioned by the scientific community, particularly by their professional counterparts. Unfortunately, it was not until 3 august 2017, when nature-biotech was withdrawn, that hebei university of technology announced the launching of an academic review and related process of the results of the study on the korean spring rain。
Indeed, instead of investigating its team, hebei university of technology has continued to bind ngago, seeking higher-level funding for scientific research, and accelerating the “school construction and development” process, with more than 200 million projects invested by the hebei provincial development commission. In a sense, hebei university of technology has tied itself closely to the korean spring rain to form a “community of interests”。
Following the publication of the results of the survey by hebei university of technology, some media have described the korean spring rain as a “closure of dust” and a “conclusion of coffins”. This may be just a wishful thinking at hebei university of technology. Despite the establishment of an investigation team and the commissioning of a third-party laboratory as a “community of interest” in the korean spring rains incident, the arrangements for hebei university of technology to lead the investigation and issue the report themselves are flawed and make its objectivity difficult to ensure。
Unfortunately, despite the fact that our universities have their own academic committees and the national commission for the natural sciences, we do not yet have a dedicated, neutral third-party academic ethics and arbitration body, so that every time a similar incident occurs, the school can only investigate and punish the “child of its own family” and its outcome is often unconvincing. In the case of the korean spring rains, the hebei university of technology dealt with “recovering the financing of research, recovering the rewards for its performance, and individual social work is being done in accordance with the procedure established by law”, apparently in the hope of “reduced and trivializing”。
In the eyes of the world, many countries have very severe penalties for academic forgery. In 2015, korean american scientist han dong-hwan was sentenced by the united states federal court for 57 months to three years of out-of-school surveillance and fined $7. 2 million. It is not an isolated case of a sentence for academic forgery. In 2006, eric pohrman, associate professor at the university of vermont school of medicine in berlin, united states, was sentenced by the district court of berlin to one year and one day for applying for false data from the nih foundation. In 2009, the prosecutor's office in cologne published a list of nearly 100 professors suspected of academic forgery in germany, accusing them of facilitating access to doctoral degrees for unqualified students, and, finally, many professors were sentenced to three and a half years ' imprisonment. As well as being relieved of the professorship in 2009, the most well-known “father of korean cloning” huang zin was sentenced to two years' imprisonment, suspended for three years, for fraud, misappropriation of public funds and violation of the act on life ethics。
In 2014, the academic community was shocked by the forgery of the thesis by the japanese "academies" xiao bao liang. In the end, libuko xiao was forced to resign, and the university even cancelled her doctoral degree, while his mentor, taki sumi, committed suicide in kobe under pressure from public opinion。
Truth is the lifeline of scientific research, and good faith is the cornerstone of building an innovative state. If there is a lack of respect for and awe of basic academic norms and principles, and if the events of the korean spring have so much influence, what can we say about building the world's technological power if we simply end with a “survey of findings” such as “without discovery of subjective falsifications”
