Education and training put Iran ahead of richer states
1
CORRESPONDENCE NATURE|Vol 441|22 June 2006 932 Misconduct: lack of action provokes web accusations SIR — As the webmaster of New Threads (www.xys.org) — the website “at the centre of concerns over claims of misconduct”, according to your Special Report “Named and shamed” (Nature 441, 392–393; 2006) — I cannot agree with your comment that “some fear persecution reminiscent of that used in the Cultural Revolution”. The Cultural Revolution was started by Chairman Mao in 1966 and formally ended with his death in 1976. Although 30 years have passed, the memory of this calamity is still vivid in many Chinese minds — it is understandable that some fear the tragedy might someday recur. But it is ridiculous to compare free speech on the Internet to the violence of the Cultural Revolution, which was controlled by a dictator, allowed for no freedom and included governmental persecution of ‘class enemies’. I find it ironic that 120 Chinese-American scientists and self-appointed human-rights advocates have signed an open letter appealing to the Chinese government to suppress media and public opinions: they still need to learn what free speech and human rights mean. I agree that China should establish an official channel to investigate allegations of misconduct. In fact, I made this suggestion as early as 2001, in a speech to the Chinese students and scholars association at the University of California, San Diego (see www.xys.org/xys/netters/Fang-Zhouzi/ science/yanjiang.txt). But before this channel exists, and to make sure it functions properly after it is established, free press and free speech are indispensable. Shi-min Fang New Threads Chinese Cultural Society, PO Box 26194, San Diego, California 92196, USA Misconduct: exposure is not like Cultural Revolution SIR — Your Special Report (Nature 441, 392–393; 2006) and Editorial “Finding fraud in China” (Nature 441, 549–550; 2006) express deep concern about accusations of scientific misconduct in China. You rightly point out that it should be the government’s greatest priority to crack down on scientific misconduct, if it is rife. The New Threads website covers wide areas such as literature and popular science. It is well known for posting accusations of all types of scientific misconduct, and providing a forum for people to discuss their concerns. There are good reasons for the popularity of the website among intellectuals and the general public. It is the motivation of those condemning it that needs to be questioned. It is misleading to suggest that high-profile researchers could be persecuted through accusations made against them on the Internet, or to compare this to the Cultural Revolution. I witnessed the violence of the Cultural Revolution in my childhood. My parents were abused by the Red Guard because of their family, education and professional background. I cried when I saw crosses marking their names in posters and cartoons. The Cultural Revolution was a mass movement organized by the country’s leader to crack down on his opponents. New Threads is just a platform without any official power: openness is the key to its success. It has become a portal for the grass roots who are ignored by official channels, such as university authorities, when they report misconduct. Internet debate and the resultant public attention can act as a warning to people attempting to violate research ethics. This is nothing like the horror of the Cultural Revolution. Zheng Huang Radiation Oncology Department, University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center, Aurora, Colorado 80045, USA Misconduct: Chinese funding body unmoved SIR — I can believe you had difficulties contacting the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) for your Special Report (Nature 441, 392–393; 2006). As executive editor of the Journal of Clinical Investigation, I recently attempted to contact the NSFC to help us investigate an allegation of misconduct in a study the journal had accepted from Chinese authors. A whistle-blower’s e-mail from someone at the authors’ institution indicated that data in the study were fabricated. The authors had collaborated with the dean of their university, so we were unsure whether contacting the institution would result in an unbiased investigation. As China does not have a supervisory body akin to the US Office of Research Integrity, we thought the NSFC — which had funded the study — would help. Despite multiple e-mails, in English and in Chinese, the NSFC did not respond. Through a personal contact, I was put in touch with the director of the division that granted funding to the senior author. After repeated e-mails, I received the following: “I received the letter you written and we discussed the things you written to him. We have to say it is very difficult for us to determine whether their work is true. Because there are more than 50,000 proposals and about 10,000 grants supported in the Foundation every year. So we think maybe you have to find other way to make sure the thing.” This statement indicates that the NSFC does not prioritize the policing of misconduct. If it is not responsible for, or is too busy to investigate, the researchers it funds, then surely such behaviour is tolerated and endorsed? The story has a sad ending. When confronted, the senior author claimed to have misplaced the primary data during a move between laboratories. In addition, the co-corresponding author (who signed our authorship agreement form upon acceptance, and who wrote to our office inquiring about the publication date) later claimed never to have seen more than the title of the work and asked to be removed as a co-author. The authors have now withdrawn their article. Alongside Xin-Yuan Fu and his 120 co-signatories, I too eagerly await a response from Chinese authorities on whether they will establish a body to police misconduct. Ushma Savla Neill Journal of Clinical Investigation, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, Box 57A, New York, New York 10032, USA Education and training put Iran ahead of richer states SIR — We read with interest your News report “Arab state pours oil profits into science” (Nature 441, 132–133; 2006). Other countries in the Gulf have also tried to spend oil money on setting up branches of Western universities, which is of arguable value when the infrastructure and the basic prerequisites of scientific research do not exist. Educating and training the personnel capable of doing research, as you describe in Qatar, is more important than spending on research and buying sophisticated equipment. Focusing on research and inviting scientists from overseas may lead to some short-term results, but it does not guarantee sustainable development without a solid, internal educational base. Iran is a good example of a country that has made considerable advances through focusing on education and training. Despite sanctions in almost all aspects of research during the past 27 years, Persian scientists have been producing cutting-edge science. Their publication rate in international journals has quadrupled during the past decade. Although it is still low compared with the developed countries, this puts Iran in the first rank of Islamic countries. Considering the country’s brain drain and its poor political relationship with the West, Iran’s scientific community remains productive, even while economic sanctions make it hard for universities to purchase equipment or send people to the United States to attend scientific meetings. Mohammad Reza Mohebbi*, Mehri Mohebbi† *Department of Neurology, University of Texas Medical School, Houston, Texas 77030, USA †Center for Immigration Research, University of Houston, Houston, Texas 77204, USA Nature Publishing Group ©2006
Transcript of Education and training put Iran ahead of richer states
© 2006 Nature Publishing Group
CORRESPONDENCE NATURE|Vol 441|22 June 2006
932
Misconduct: lack of actionprovokes web accusations SIR — As the webmaster of New Threads(www.xys.org) — the website “at the centre of concerns over claims of misconduct”,according to your Special Report “Namedand shamed” (Nature 441, 392–393; 2006) —I cannot agree with your comment that“some fear persecution reminiscent of thatused in the Cultural Revolution”.
The Cultural Revolution was started byChairman Mao in 1966 and formally endedwith his death in 1976. Although 30 yearshave passed, the memory of this calamity is still vivid in many Chinese minds — it isunderstandable that some fear the tragedymight someday recur. But it is ridiculous tocompare free speech on the Internet to theviolence of the Cultural Revolution, whichwas controlled by a dictator, allowed for no freedom and included governmentalpersecution of ‘class enemies’. I find it ironicthat 120 Chinese-American scientists andself-appointed human-rights advocates have signed an open letter appealing to theChinese government to suppress media andpublic opinions: they still need to learn whatfree speech and human rights mean.
I agree that China should establish anofficial channel to investigate allegations of misconduct. In fact, I made this suggestionas early as 2001, in a speech to the Chinesestudents and scholars association at theUniversity of California, San Diego (seewww.xys.org/xys/netters/Fang-Zhouzi/science/yanjiang.txt). But before this channelexists, and to make sure it functions properlyafter it is established, free press and freespeech are indispensable.Shi-min FangNew Threads Chinese Cultural Society, PO Box 26194, San Diego, California 92196, USA
Misconduct: exposure isnot like Cultural Revolution SIR — Your Special Report (Nature 441,392–393; 2006) and Editorial “Finding fraud in China” (Nature 441, 549–550; 2006)express deep concern about accusations ofscientific misconduct in China. You rightlypoint out that it should be the government’sgreatest priority to crack down on scientificmisconduct, if it is rife.
The New Threads website covers wide areassuch as literature and popular science. It iswell known for posting accusations of alltypes of scientific misconduct, and providinga forum for people to discuss their concerns.There are good reasons for the popularity of the website among intellectuals and thegeneral public. It is the motivation of thosecondemning it that needs to be questioned.
It is misleading to suggest that high-profileresearchers could be persecuted throughaccusations made against them on theInternet, or to compare this to the CulturalRevolution. I witnessed the violence of theCultural Revolution in my childhood. Myparents were abused by the Red Guard becauseof their family, education and professionalbackground. I cried when I saw crossesmarking their names in posters and cartoons.
The Cultural Revolution was a massmovement organized by the country’s leaderto crack down on his opponents. New Threadsis just a platform without any official power:openness is the key to its success. It has becomea portal for the grass roots who are ignored byofficial channels, such as university authorities,when they report misconduct. Internetdebate and the resultant public attention can act as a warning to people attempting toviolate research ethics. This is nothing likethe horror of the Cultural Revolution.Zheng Huang Radiation Oncology Department, University ofColorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center,Aurora, Colorado 80045, USA
Misconduct: Chinesefunding body unmoved SIR — I can believe you had difficultiescontacting the National Natural ScienceFoundation of China (NSFC) for your SpecialReport (Nature 441, 392–393; 2006). Asexecutive editor of the Journal of ClinicalInvestigation, I recently attempted to contactthe NSFC to help us investigate an allegationof misconduct in a study the journal hadaccepted from Chinese authors.
A whistle-blower’s e-mail from someone atthe authors’ institution indicated that data inthe study were fabricated. The authors hadcollaborated with the dean of their university,so we were unsure whether contacting theinstitution would result in an unbiasedinvestigation. As China does not have asupervisory body akin to the US Office ofResearch Integrity, we thought the NSFC —which had funded the study — would help.
Despite multiple e-mails, in English and inChinese, the NSFC did not respond. Througha personal contact, I was put in touch with thedirector of the division that granted fundingto the senior author. After repeated e-mails, I received the following: “I received the letteryou written and we discussed the things you written to him. We have to say it is verydifficult for us to determine whether theirwork is true. Because there are more than50,000 proposals and about 10,000 grantssupported in the Foundation every year. Sowe think maybe you have to find other way to make sure the thing.”
This statement indicates that the NSFCdoes not prioritize the policing of misconduct.
If it is not responsible for, or is too busy toinvestigate, the researchers it funds, then surelysuch behaviour is tolerated and endorsed?
The story has a sad ending. When confronted, the senior author claimed to have misplaced the primary data during amove between laboratories. In addition, theco-corresponding author (who signed ourauthorship agreement form upon acceptance,and who wrote to our office inquiring aboutthe publication date) later claimed never tohave seen more than the title of the work andasked to be removed as a co-author. Theauthors have now withdrawn their article.
Alongside Xin-Yuan Fu and his 120 co-signatories, I too eagerly await a responsefrom Chinese authorities on whether theywill establish a body to police misconduct.Ushma Savla NeillJournal of Clinical Investigation, ColumbiaUniversity College of Physicians and Surgeons,Box 57A, New York, New York 10032, USA
Education and training putIran ahead of richer states SIR — We read with interest your News report “Arab state pours oil profits intoscience” (Nature 441, 132–133; 2006). Othercountries in the Gulf have also tried to spendoil money on setting up branches of Westernuniversities, which is of arguable value whenthe infrastructure and the basic prerequisitesof scientific research do not exist. Educatingand training the personnel capable of doingresearch, as you describe in Qatar, is moreimportant than spending on research andbuying sophisticated equipment. Focusing onresearch and inviting scientists from overseasmay lead to some short-term results, but itdoes not guarantee sustainable developmentwithout a solid, internal educational base.
Iran is a good example of a country that hasmade considerable advances through focusingon education and training. Despite sanctionsin almost all aspects of research during thepast 27 years, Persian scientists have beenproducing cutting-edge science. Theirpublication rate in international journals hasquadrupled during the past decade. Althoughit is still low compared with the developedcountries, this puts Iran in the first rank ofIslamic countries.
Considering the country’s brain drain and its poor political relationship with theWest, Iran’s scientific community remainsproductive, even while economic sanctionsmake it hard for universities to purchaseequipment or send people to the UnitedStates to attend scientific meetings.Mohammad Reza Mohebbi*, Mehri Mohebbi†*Department of Neurology, University of TexasMedical School, Houston, Texas 77030, USA†Center for Immigration Research, University ofHouston, Houston, Texas 77204, USA
22.6 correspondence NEW MH 20/6/06 9:54 AM Page 2
Nature Publishing Group ©2006
