根伯发飙，拍案怒斥方舟子！

2011年8月21日

亲爱的方博士,

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。

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。

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。

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？

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。

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。

21 August 2011
Dear Dr. Fang,

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.