Lu Daopei, an expert in hematology, held a press conference with eight experts, accusing his disciple Huang Xiaojun, director of the Institute of Hematology, Peking University People's Hospital, of plagiarizing and robbing others' research results when he participated in the first prize selection of the 2008 China Medical Science and Technology Award. Previously, Lu Daopei had applied to the Chinese Medical Association, but the application still won the prize. The Chinese Medical Association appointed Peking University Medical Center and People's Hospital to conduct an investigation. The results showed that there were some problems in Huang Xiaojun's paper, such as "incorrect data and unclear labeling", but the plagiarism was "difficult to clarify".
There are also media reports that there are personal grievances between Huang Lu and the interests of Peking University People's Hospital and Daopei Hospital behind this academic debate. It doesn't matter how the situation develops. Academician's exposure of disciple's fraud has caused us to worry about academic evaluation and supervision mechanism.
In recent years, although the relevant state departments have promulgated many laws and regulations to strengthen the construction of academic ethics and style of study in the academic education system, there are still many unsatisfactory aspects in scientific research awards: academic misconduct is common and fraud incidents are frequently exposed. Some academic institutions and universities have a righteous statement about all kinds of academic fraud and plagiarism, claiming that "if one is found, one will be dealt with", but if it really involves people in their own units, they are caught in a dilemma of interests: either they deliberately protect the plagiarists because they are the academic backbone of their own units, or they hide it because they are worried about the reputation of their units.
It is not a bad thing that the teacher exposed his apprentice and his predecessor took office after the exposure. In fact, the circle and factionalism in the academic field is one of the sources of academic corruption to a great extent. If the academic field can break the circle of various teacher-student departments and unit departments, academic plagiarism will naturally lose its umbrella. Whether from the perspective of protecting scholars' own interests, or from the perspective of maintaining scientific ethics and promoting academic integrity, people in the system and academia have an unshirkable responsibility and obligation to expose fraud.
Academic fraud has been repeatedly banned because the evaluation and supervision mechanism needs to be further improved. At present, fraudulent behaviors in academic circles are always investigated and dealt with by the units where the parties work, but at present, most scientific research institutions and schools do not have detailed rules and regulations to regulate academic behaviors. After receiving the complaint, the Chinese Medical Association appointed Peking University Medical Center and People's Hospital in Huang Xiaojun as appraisal institutions, in other words, it was our own people to check our own people. Such an inescapable review mechanism of academic misconduct is an authentication mode of being both a referee and an athlete, and the result can only be a mere formality. Lack of independent third-party academic evaluation and adjudication institutions, and lack of open and transparent procedures and substantive rules for accepting academic corruption are the main factors for academic corruption to repeatedly exploit loopholes.
Scientific research and development must not be fake. The complete eradication of academic misconduct depends on the establishment of academic supervision and restriction mechanism and strict academic punishment system. To curb academic fraud, counterfeiters must pay a heavy price. Hwang Woo-suk, the father of Korean cloning, forged data in a paper published in Science magazine, and fell into the predicament of ruin. Although Hwang Woo-suk is well-known in South Korea, the relevant Korean authorities did not relent in identifying Huang's false facts, but punished him realistically according to the identification results. "In academia, as long as a person does a plagiarism, he will never want to do such a thing in academia." This severe punishment mechanism can certainly deter counterfeiters.
Academics is not stealing or cheating, objectivity and truth are the basic requirements. If we can't do it or don't plan to do it, it will not only bring about the scandal of academic awards, but also be tantamount to academic suicide.
For researchers, innovation is the soul of scientific research, and quality is life. We advocate the rigor and pragmatism of scientific and technological personnel in scientific research and their dedication to science. At the same time, it is necessary to reform all kinds of drawbacks in scientific research evaluation, improve the academic evaluation and supervision mechanism, and let all academic counterfeiters do everything they can.