方舟子再被曝抄袭 网友称其剽窃美国教授 (转帖)

网易娱乐2月6日报道（文/小易） 近日，在深圳大学传播系副主任孙海峰微博爆料方舟子著作《大象为什么不长毛》涉嫌剽窃图表后，又被曝抄袭美国Root Bernstein教授论文，而网友“打假巡抚”更爆料称方舟子曾多次抄袭国内外专家文章。
网友“打假巡抚”6日在微博中爆料，在方舟子发表的文章中曾经多次抄袭国内外专家学者的论文，其中：2010年3月24日在《中国青年报》发表的《转基因玉米更有益健康》抄袭自Bruce Chassy and Drew Kershen 2004年10月27日在美国西部农场通讯Western Farm Press 上发表的文章《Bt corn reduces serious birth defects》；2006年10月11日在《中国青年报》发表的《啄木鸟为什么不头疼？》大段抄袭美国加州大学Ivan R Schwab教授于2002年发表在英国眼科学杂志 Br J Ophthalmol 2002;86:843 的一篇文章《Cure for a headache》；2006年12月11日在《经济观察报》发表的《现代药物是怎么开发出来的》一文抄袭作者“颍河”发表在新语丝”新到资料”的《认识药物》系列文章。
而对于方舟子涉嫌抄袭美国Root Bernstein教授一事，虽然方舟子回应称已经向Root·Bernstein教授作出解释和交代。但有网友指出Root Bernstein教授并未接受方舟子的道歉，反而写邮件对方舟子给予重责：“你除了自定规则是不遵守他人规则的……你迄今回应你是打假专家，你鉴定自己没有剽窃，却拒绝提供鉴定标准……我对你是否偷窃我作品的担心远不如我担心你把自己当成监督中国造假行为的一个不受制约亦不承担指控的角色。”
网友贴出Root-Bernstein教授公开信全文及译文：
21 August 2011（2011年8月21日）
Dear Dr. Fang,（亲爱的方博士）
What a joke! You threaten to no longer participate in this dialogue if I insist on making your emails to me, and mine in return, public? In the first place, what is the point of public letters, such as those that I have written, if they are not public? In the second place, since you have not participated in this discussion at all for quite some time, what difference does it make? Third, I thought your goal was to help China identify and reveal frauds wherever and whenever they occur, so why are you refusing to participate in an open discussion about what constitutes plagiarism and copyright infringement? And finally, and most importantly, how can you have the gall to demand that I keep private your emails to me when you have been attacking me and on your website and in the Chinese press behind my back this entire time? So, yes, this letter is going to everyone, and you can do as you like. You don't play by anyone's rules but your own anyway?
（真是一个大笑话！如果我坚持把你的来信及回信公开，你就威胁要退出讨论？首先，如果不公之于众，我写的那些公开信还能叫公开信吗？其次，你本来就几乎从不参加讨论，你的威胁有意义吗？第三，我以为你的事业就是帮助中国发现与揭露不论何时何地的造假，那么你为什么拒绝参加一个针对什么是剽窃与侵犯版权的公开讨论？最后，最重要的是，你背着我一直在你的网站与中国媒体上攻击我，你怎么有脸要求我不公开你的信件？因此，无庸置疑，此信发给每个人，你要干什么，随你。你除了自定规则，是不遵守别人的规则的。）
You ask where I got the figure that you have plagiarized as much as 90% of my article in yours and object that it could not possibly be more than 50%. Well, there's a simple answer: I apparently have never been shown your entire article, even by you! You will recall sending me your translation of your article. It does not appear to be complete. So if I have been misled as to the amount my material that may be in your article, you are as much to blame as anyone.
(你质问我从何处得到你剽窃我的文章达到90%的结论，抗议说绝不会超过50%。好吧，我简捷明快地回答你：显然，我从未见识到你的全部文章，包括你递送的文本！你应该记得寄给我你文章的译文，它并非全文。因此，如果我误解了你窃取了多少我的文章，你跟其他人一样难辞其疚。)
In any event, at least we are talking about how much of my article appears in yours. On this point, one of your self-proclaimed supporters (email attached) actually puts the amount of your article that matches mine at 60%. No matter how we look at it, everyone, including you, agrees that a substantial portion of your article is drawn from mine. So the issue becomes how much is too much? You have already admitted that there was sufficient commonality that you should have cited me as the source of your arguments in your original blog. So if there is that much commonality, how can you deny both plagiarism and copyright infringement? The reason for making this a public debate is precisely because the issue of how much is too much needs to be hashed out and your own admissions certainly help make my case against you.
（不管怎么说，起码我们讨论的是你的文章窃取了多少我的内容。对此，你的自称支持者之一（见所附电邮）还将之定量在60%。不管我们怎么看这个问题，所有人，包括你自己，都同意你的文章很大一部分取自我的文章。因此，问题就归结于多少是不适当的？你已经承认，在你最初博文中就应当因为雷同程度而提及引用我。如果雷同程度如此高，你又凭什么否认剽窃与侵犯版权指控？将之变为公开讨论的确切原因正是因为多少雷同是不适当的需要推敲，而你自己的认可也显然有助于我对你的批评。）
You also claim that I am making up my own definitions of plagiarism and copyright infringement. I insist on pointing out with regard to this question that the criteria I am using in accusing you of plagiarism and copyright infringement are not something I have made up. Every major journal and every educational institution has guidelines regarding these points, all of which are very similar. If Chinese scholars, such as yourself, expect to participate in the worldwide culture of science, you must learn to abide by the standards set forth in these guidelines. I have attached one such set from the American Chemical Society. You will note that not only do YOU not have the right to reproduce my article, even I do not have the right to use more than 400 words from my own publication, nor can I use my own illustrations, without written permission from the journal. Copyright not only protects the author of a work, but also the publisher of that work! This raises a point that has not yet been discussed in our correspondence, which is that you have not only plagiarized and/or breached the copyright on my article, but also Oxford University Press, which published the book in which my chapter appears. Did you get their written permission to use my material?
（你还宣称我自制了剽窃与侵犯版权的标准。对此我坚称我指控你剽窃与侵犯版权的标准并非自己心血来潮。对这些问题每一个重要的杂志与每一个教育机构都有指南并且都大致相同。如果象你这样的中国学者希望参与世界科学文化，你必须学会遵守这些指南所立定的规则。我为你附上美国化学协会的标准。你应当注意到，不仅仅是你无权复制我的文章，甚至我自己都不能从我的发表文章中复制超出400字的内容，也不能再使用我自己的图表，除非取得杂志的允许。版权不仅保护作者的权益，也保护出版商的权益！这就涉及到我们的讨论中还没有论及的一个要点，这就是你不仅剽窃与（或）侵犯了我的文章的版权，也剽窃侵犯了牛津大学出版社的版权，该出版商出版了含有我的文章的书。你从他们那里获得了使用我的材料的许可没有？）
Your only response to that issue so far has been to say that you are an expert on fraud and you know that you have not plagiarized me or violated my copyright. Yet you refuse to reveal the criteria you are using in making that decision, which not only leaves me in the dark, but also leaves the people of China in the dark about how you reach your conclusions regarding the fraudulent behaviors of anyone you accuse. And there is an additional problem: even if you get around to divulging your criteria, you can't be the judge in your own case. Indeed, you can't be the accuser, judge and jury in any fraud case and yet that is exactly the power you have attempted to accrue to yourself.
（你对这一问题的迄今为止的回应是你是打假专家，你鉴定你没有剽窃我，也没有侵犯我的版权。然而，你拒绝提供你的鉴定标准，这不仅是让我，也让中国人民茫然无知，你指责任何人造假采取什么标准。这还有更进一步的问题：即使你最终遮遮掩掩地说出你的标准来，你也不能成为你这一案的裁定者。实际上，在任何案例中，你都不能同时扮演指控者、法官、与陪审团的角色，然而，那正是你试图为已攫取的权力。）
And here we get to the crux of the matter. I am far less worried about whether you have stolen some of my work than I am worried that you have set yourself as an unassailable and unregulated monitor of fraud in China. No individual should ever have the power that you have taken upon yourself. You have every right, and indeed every responsibility, as do I!, to point out fraud wherever you think it occurs, but you do not have the right to decide whether your accusations are valid. For you see, if you have that right, then so do I, in which case you would be guilty of plagiarism and copyright violations just because I said so. You clearly don't want that to be the case (nor do I), but you must learn from this controversy that you cannot have that power over others, either. The determination of fraud must lie in the hands of unbiased, disinterested parties, both in this case and in any other case you might bring or be accused of. I'm not sure who in China, or in the world, should decide how much of my work you should be permitted to use without permission, but I do know it is not you! My fondest hope at this point in time is that our controversy will lead to substantial changes in how fraudulent practices such as plagiarism and copyright infringement are handled in China and in who has the authority to handle such issues.


（现在我们就进入了问题的中心。我对你是否偷窃了我的部分作品的担心远不如我担心你把自己当成了监督中国造假行为的一个不受制约也不承担指控的角色。没有任何个人应当拥有你所攫取的权力。你（我也一样！）拥有绝对的权力，也实际上是绝对的义务，来揭露任何造假，但是你无权决定你的指控是否正确。你应当看到，如果你有此特权，我也应该有，那样的话，就可以因为我说你剽窃与侵权了，你就剽窃与侵权了。你显然不愿就此伏法，我也不愿如此行事。但是你必须籍着这样的矛盾理解到你不能拥有超越别人的特权。决定造假取决于没有偏见的、没有利益倾向的行为者，无论是在这一案例中，还是其它你指控别人的案例或者你受指控的案例中。我不知道究竟在中国，或者在世界其它地方可以决定你可以不经过允许而使用多少我的作品，但我确信，那必不是你自己！我现在的对此事的最大期望是此案会导致中国针对造假（比如剽窃与侵犯版）的案例处理实践以及谁拥有此类事件的发言权带来巨大的变化）

一直对方舟子没有好感，唯恐天下不乱，他炒作自己更甚于他所谓的学术打假

既定事实了还辟什么谣...

搬个小凳子围观下

太长，没看

lz拜托你转贴之前好歹去看看当事人的回应先成么？就算你不相信方舟子的解释，好歹也贴一下。人当事人明明八百年前就回应过的事儿，你转过来来一个求辟谣，也太没意思了点吧。

我把Bernstein放在后面，先说前面这段“2010年3月24日在《中国青年报》发表的《转基因玉米更有益健康》抄袭自Bruce Chassy and Drew Kershen 2004年10月27日在美国西部农场通讯Western Farm Press 上发表的文章《Bt corn reduces serious birth defects》；2006年10月11日在《中国青年报》发表的《啄木鸟为什么不头疼？》大段抄袭美国加州大学Ivan R Schwab教授于2002年发表在英国眼科学杂志 Br J Ophthalmol 2002;86:843 的一篇文章《Cure for a headache》；2006年12月11日在《经济观察报》发表的《现代药物是怎么开发出来的》一文抄袭作者“颍河”发表在新语丝”新到资料”的《认识药物》系列文章。”

科普文章不同于论文，不要求原创。方舟子的这几篇文章，信息来源无疑是国外的论文，而且他在科普文章里采用的表达方式是“xx研究表明”，比如《转基因玉米》里说“上个世纪90年代初，对居住在美国得克萨斯州南部里奥格兰德山谷的墨西哥裔妇女进行调查时有个意外的发现”“谜底一直到10年以后才揭晓。对危地马拉、中国、南非等地的研究表明”，有脑子的读者都不会认为这些研究是方舟子亲自做的。科普文章的性质就是介绍科学进展，这要是算抄袭，滑天下之大稽。至于你说参考文献？首先科普文章不是必须要列参考文献（你可以去看Scientific American，一般只有“扩展阅读”或者“相关文献”），其次，中国青年报的版面也不允许你列一大堆参考文献啊。again，这是科普文章，翻译并用通俗的话介绍外国论文的研究结果这不能叫抄袭，不会有读者误认为这些研究是方舟子的成果。

再说Bernstein，这事儿去年就有媒体报道过了，lz只要去新语丝搜Bernstein就可以看到方的解释。过了这么久又翻出来还不去看方的解释，打一个“求辟谣”，不由得感觉是被那些职业方黑带到了沟里。

媒体报道见此：
美教授公开要求道歉 打假专家方舟子否认抄袭
2011年08月09日每日经济新闻
http://www.xys.org/xys/ebooks/others/science/dajia12/root2.txt

懒得看的话，我来总结下前因后果。

起因是方舟子1995年在网上灌水的时候，讲科学的四个特征，这是Bernstein的paper原创的。但是方的帖子里没有注明引用。这肯定不算抄袭或者剽窃或者学术不端，最多被跟贴的人骂一句“lz你转贴要注明出处啊”，根本上升不到再高的层面。如果你灌水发帖子写了一个观点，其实是你看过的书里的观点，你懒了或者忘了注明这是书里的观点，这是抄袭或者剽窃或者学术不端么？显然不是。

然后方后来出版了自己的一系列灌水科普文章，在书里依然引用了Bernstein的科学四个特征，并且注明了出处，给出了引用。后来被方黑歪曲事实捅给了Bernstein。Bernstein看不懂中文，被方黑们的翻译误导，开始以为方舟子没有注明出处，就写信骂方。然后方解释了他做出了合理的合适的标注和引用。可是不知道Bernstein又受了什么误导，还在发邮件说什么剽窃，就有了这封信。这里Bernstein被误导了很多，比如“对此，你的自称支持者之一（见所附电邮）还将之定量在60%”，这都是间接通信，鬼知道这个自称支持者是不是方黑冒充的。

这封信Bernstein已经乱了，把剽窃和版权混为一谈。我们先说剽窃，方95年的帖子无疑谈不上剽窃，那只是灌水而已。后来出版的书籍，因为注明了出处做出了引用，也不算剽窃。方黑不仅向Bernstein那里举报，还向MSU举报了，MSU学术委员会的调查结果是：

“James M. Pivarnik：I rejected their challenges on the basis that there was no credible Evidence supporting the Allegation and that your online document was not done in fulfillment of a University requirement.”

同时方舟子的导师也否认这是剽窃：

“Zachary Burton：If there is merit in Dr. Root-Bernstein’s accusations, I fail to see it. Dr. Fang has responded to Dr. Root-Bernstein in a reasonable and measured way. ”

再说Bernstein说的版权，在书里引用别人的东西，算不算侵犯版权？还是属于版权法规定的fair use？这里仁者见仁智者见智，fair use本身就是版权法里的重大争议。

The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
如果Bernstein坚信这不算fair use，欢迎他起诉，不过根据以往判例，这显然赢不了。

这次方韩大战，反韩的一方阅读了大量的韩寒作品、采访录，并据此写出了一大堆有分量的文章，而韩粉一方，在抹黑方舟子的尝试中（虽然就算方舟子是黑的也不能证明韩寒白），一直抱着方黑们搞了n年的旧资料，什么妻子抄袭啊，科普文章剽窃啊，也太火星了点。好歹向韩黑们学习，把研究对象的文章拿来仔细读一遍，拿出点原创的东西好么？
为了防止以后哪天谁来抓我一亩三分地的水贴剽窃，我声明以上文字除了已经给出链接的，还有部分来源于以下链接，并不全是我的原创。如涉及版权，我坚持认为这属于fair use，欢迎起诉：

方舟子关于《法治周末》造谣诽谤的声明
http://www.xys.org/xys/netters/Fang-Zhouzi/blog/guoguosong2.txt

方舟子导师对所谓“方舟子剽窃”一事的看法
http://www.xys.org/xys/ebooks/others/science/dajia12/root.txt

方舟子：转基因玉米更有益健康
http://zqb.cyol.com/content/2010-03/24/content_3149291.htm

方舟子本人的视频解释。这已经是他第n次回应了。希望感兴趣的人去看看。

http://www.tudou.com/playlist/p/l14930986.html/?union_id=100400_141111_02_01

上面这个视频前10min解释清楚了此事的来龙去脉，后10min解释了剽窃问题，包括论文、科普文章。感兴趣的可以去看看，对我们自己遵守学术规范是有好处的。



附lz贴的这封回信的起源。lz贴的回信指的是回复方舟子的第二封信，见下。可见他被误导或者阅读不过关。方说的是

我不知道你是根据什么说“方博士的文章实际90%（或该比例左右）是我的作品”，这个不公平的指控作为抹黑我的行动的一部分被张贴到了许多中文网站上。我的文章包括11个段落，只有5个段落是与源自你的文章的科学判定标准有关。即使这5个段落是直接从你的文章翻译的而没有别的内容（这是不符合事实的），那也只是我的文章的大约50%。

方舟子本人第一次回应：
方舟子回应Root-Bernstein博士的“剽窃”指控

http://www-lla9ax.xys.org/xys/netters/Fang-Zhouzi/blog/root.txt

按：8月4日我给指控我“剽窃”的“母校教授Root-Bernstein”（我不认识他，从未上过他的课或见过他）回了一封信。这封信本不打算公开。但Root-Bernstein博士将它转给“方学家”公开，“方学家”将其内容和Root-Bernstein博士的信通过有意误译的方法歪曲。所以还是在这里公开好了。我的导师Zachary Burton博士认为我的这个答复“合理而审慎”。

尊敬的Root-Bernstein博士，　　

1995年我还是密歇根州立大学一名研究生时，我在一个叫alt.chinese.text的网上论坛张贴了一篇短文，当时在中国留学生中有一场关于伪科学的辩论。那篇短文是对一个网上讨论的一个非正式的、随意的跟帖，不是学术论文或作业。它部分地复述了你的文章中的科学判断标准。我把这些科学标准说成是“科学哲学界的共识”，并给出自己的例子解释它。我后来改写了这篇短文，在1999年我的一本书中正式出版，并注明来源为“根据Root-Bernstein的归纳”。2007年在我的另一本书中这些标准又被提及时，我给出文献出处为"On Defining a Scientific Theory: Creationism Considered, Robert Root-Bernstein, Science and Creationism, Oxford University Press, 1984"（如果没有这一文献出处，我不相信肖传国——这位外科医生由于我揭露了其不正当医疗行为而雇人用辣椒水和锤子袭击我——的支持者能在16年后追踪到文献来源并向你和密歇根州立大学校方举报“剽窃”。在这一答复中我删掉了四名肖传国支持者的电子邮址。）　　

我从未把那些标准说成是我自己的原创思想，也从未复制你的措辞。而且它正式出版时，已注明了引用出处和文献来源。因此根据你不同意但公认的定义，我不认为它构成剽窃或侵犯版权。

但是在最初的网帖中我没有明确地提及你的名字是不妥的，我为此道歉。　　

诚挚的，方是民

Dear Dr. Root-Bernstein,

In 1995 when I was a graduate student at MSU, I posted a short writing to an online forum called alt.chinese.text when there was a debate about pseudoscience among oversea Chinese students. It was an informal, casual follow-up to a discussion thread, not an academic paper or assignment. Part of it paraphrased the criteria of science from your article. I presented the criteria of science as "consensus in philosophy of science" and gave my own examples to explain it. This writing was revised and formally published in one of my books in 1999, and it cited the source as “According to the summary by Root-Bernstein”, and when the criteria were mentioned again in another book of mine in 2007, it gave reference as "On Defining a Scientific Theory: Creationism Considered, Robert Root-Bernstein, Science and Creationism, Oxford University Press, 1984".(Without this reference, I don't believe the supporters of Xiao Chuanguo, the surgeon who hired assailants to attack me using pepper spray and hammer after I exposed his malpractice, could track down the source and report the "plagiarism" to you and MSU administration 16 years later. I have deleted email addresses of four Xiao's supporters in this reply)I never presented the criteria as my own original idea, nor did I copy your wordings. And when it's formally published, the source had been credited and cited. Therefore I don't think it consists of plagiarism or copyright infringement according to the common accepted definitions with which you disagree.

But it's inappropriate not to explicitly credit you in my original posting, and I apologize for it.Sincerely,

Shi-min Fang(XYS20110809)

方舟子第二封信：

http://www.xys.org/forum/db/9/114/227.html

8月12日我又给Root-Bernstein博士写了一封信，反驳其“方博士的文章实际90%左右是我的作品”的指控。从那以后我未再见到Root-Bernstein博士对此有任何回应，事情算过去了。我本不想公开此信，但现在北大法学院教授贺卫方加盟郭国松、孙海峰，炒作“方舟子剽窃美国教授”一事，我还是公开吧。

尊敬的Root-Bernstein博士，

　　我不知道你是根据什么说“方博士的文章实际90%（或该比例左右）是我的作品”，这个不公平的指控作为抹黑我的行动的一部分被张贴到了许多中文网站上。我的文章包括11个段落，只有5个段落是与源自你的文章的科学判定标准有关。即使这5个段落是直接从你的文章翻译的而没有别的内容（这是不符合事实的），那也只是我的文章的大约50%。

　　我已与中国学术不端行为作战了11年，我确信我知道怎么认定一个剽窃事例。我已咨询了两名知识产权方面的中国律师，他们都不认为我的文章侵犯了你的版权。

　　我不想与那些已骚扰我、我的家人、导师、同学和朋友多年的人交流（我再次从这个邮件列表中删掉他们的邮址）。你上次把他们放回邮件列表时，我就知道这种讨论是不会有结果的。我将不会再做出任何回应。如果你坚持要把讨论继续下去，能否把我的名字从邮件列表中删除？谢谢。

诚挚的，

方舟子

Dear Dr. Root-Bernstein,

I don’t know how you got the idea that “Dr. Fang's article is essentially 90% (or somewhere around that percentage) my work”, and this unfair charge has been posted on many Chinese Web sites as part of public smear campaign against me. My article contains 11 paragraphs, and only 5 paragraphs are about criteria of science from your article. Even if these 5 paragraphs were directly translated from your article and contained nothing else (which is not true), that would be only about 50% of my article.

I have been fighting against academic misconducts in China for eleven years, and I am confident that I know how to determine a plagiarism case. I have consulted two Chinese lawyers specified at intellectual property, and none of them thinks my article infringe your copyright.

I don't want to communicate with those persons who have harassed me, my family, mentors, classmates and friends for years (I have to delete their email addresses from the list again). As soon as you put them back to the list, I knew this type of discussion would lead us nowhere. I will not provide any further responses. If you insist keeping the discussion going, can you please kindly remove my name from the list? Thank you.

Sincerely,

Shi-min Fang

回复 6# zach


    你明显没有明白plagiarism是什么意思，自己去看看明白，再来说吧

回复  zach


    你明显没有明白plagiarism是什么意思，自己去看看明白，再来说吧
davexuke 发表于 2012-2-10 22:31

哟，那您觉得是plagiarism还是fair use？

拍砖的话好歹下点功夫多打点字成么？

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism

Plagiarism is defined in dictionaries as the "wrongful appropriation," "close imitation," or "purloining and publication" of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions," and the representation of them as one's own original work,[1][2] but the notion remains problematic with nebulous boundaries.

方并没有present as his own original work，写在书里注明了出处，无疑是fair use. 怎么算plagiarism？

再凑下热闹，发张网上Robert Root-Bernstein 教授给某网友的回信

顺便附上一个有趣的抄袭大全网址：
http://www.2250s.com/list.php?53