I don't know why I felt a faint sadness after reading the news that the Japanese Institute of Physical and Chemical Research announced that the experiment could not repeat STAP cells. To tell the truth, I hope they can repeat this experiment. This is not only a major breakthrough in academic circles, but also a rare breakthrough for Japanese female scientists, and it is also the heaviest blow to those speculative scientists who were famous before but were in trouble.

Unfortunately, the drama I hoped for did not appear, and it is basically impossible to repeat the experiment so far. However, Kohokata's mentor, Yoshiki Hayashi Sakai, a scientist who attracted the attention of the industry, could not bear the pressure and chose to commit suicide. It's a sad story anyway.

I have something to say about this tragedy.

These days, STAP cells of Haruko Jr. in Bao Fang really occupy a lot of media pages, from the favorable comments at the beginning of the year, to the questioning and censure afterwards, and then to the apology of the mentor's death, which shocked public opinion every time. I remember that during that time, I was preparing for the N 1 exam, listening to NHK news every morning, and Kohokata's name appeared almost every time, which made me feel very stressed. So far, it is difficult to draw a conclusion about the existence of STAP cells. I can only say that I hope someone can repeat it. Let's wait and see.

I hope to return to hope. A few mistakes in Bao Fang Haruko's thesis are still difficult enough. It is not too much to directly identify fraud based on these evidences. In particular, the picture of running glue is actually spliced, and there is a convincing image that is actually versatile, which is really shameful. But it doesn't seem to be entirely Kohokata's fault. I wonder how many tutors will personally teach students the basic skills of papers, the arrangement of data and the making of charts? Presumably, every meeting urges students to write and vote quickly. Moreover, compared with undergraduate courses, doctoral courses are often more free. In some places, doctoral courses are not systematic at all, and students can only learn by themselves. Is it karma to teach irresponsible students like this?

Here, I don't want to delve into whether Kohokata intentionally falsifies, just want to talk about the black hole in this industry. When I went to a meeting two weeks ago, Elsevier's editor gave a shocking set of data: 70% of academic staff had participated in or knew that people around them had academic misconduct, and nearly 20% said they would continue to cheat if necessary. I can only say that I am young and shallow?

However, in fact, long before I was a graduate student, I had heard of scientific fraud. After all, no magazine will examine the authenticity of your data very rigorously, which makes "beautifying" data almost a professional skill of some scholars. To tell the truth, I knew this in middle school, but the shock is strong enough only when you really see or know it. Only when you really step into this business, the fullness and bone feeling inside will be displayed at the same time.

On the other hand, I am quite critical of the attitude and actions of the academic circles towards mistakes. This is an era of rapid development, and most of the people who stand in the front line to do experiments and write articles are fledgling doctoral students or postdoctoral students, so it is not uncommon to make mistakes in experiments. In this case, I think the best way is to correct it in time, not to cancel it immediately. Mistakes and frauds should not be equated. Fraud is unacceptable, and everyone can make mistakes. Science cannot allow fraud, but it must tolerate mistakes. Therefore, I sincerely hope that major magazines will pay more attention to how to promote the spread and progress of science, including how to better make scientists who have made mistakes willing to inform their peers in the fastest and most appropriate way, so as not to "harm the Millennium".