Comments on: A Letter about Plagiarism by Professor Steve Stearns (Yale) http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/guorui/2007/12/21/a-letter-about-plagiarism-by-professor-steve-stearns-yale/ Sat, 05 Dec 2009 15:35:08 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5.2 hourly 1 By: Dingding http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/guorui/2007/12/21/a-letter-about-plagiarism-by-professor-steve-stearns-yale/comment-page-1/#comment-1213 Dingding Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:52:48 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/guorui/2007/12/21/a-letter-about-plagiarism-by-professor#comment-1213 Shi V. Liu 此人的一些背景资料 http://www.xys.org/forum/db/1/252/9.html Shi V. Liu 此人的一些背景资料
http://www.xys.org/forum/db/1/252/9.html

]]> By: guo rui http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/guorui/2007/12/21/a-letter-about-plagiarism-by-professor-steve-stearns-yale/comment-page-1/#comment-1212 guo rui Mon, 31 Dec 2007 10:01:35 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/guorui/2007/12/21/a-letter-about-plagiarism-by-professor#comment-1212 没有想到这篇转贴的博文引来众多访客.今天,剽窃是个关乎中国学术存亡的大问题,大家关注当然是件好事,希望这些关注可以对改善学术环境产生积极影响. 讨论如果要推向深入,解决什么是剽窃/如何认定剽窃的问题至关重要.对此,方流芳先生早些时候发表的一篇关于剽窃的文章值得仔细阅读.全文转载于: http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/guorui/2007/06/10/fang-liufang-plagiarism-and-countermeasures-in-china/ 没有想到这篇转贴的博文引来众多访客.今天,剽窃是个关乎中国学术存亡的大问题,大家关注当然是件好事,希望这些关注可以对改善学术环境产生积极影响.

讨论如果要推向深入,解决什么是剽窃/如何认定剽窃的问题至关重要.对此,方流芳先生早些时候发表的一篇关于剽窃的文章值得仔细阅读.全文转载于:
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/guorui/2007/06/10/fang-liufang-plagiarism-and-countermeasures-in-china/

]]> By: yang chao http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/guorui/2007/12/21/a-letter-about-plagiarism-by-professor-steve-stearns-yale/comment-page-1/#comment-1211 yang chao Mon, 31 Dec 2007 08:34:34 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/guorui/2007/12/21/a-letter-about-plagiarism-by-professor#comment-1211 No matter what professor Stephen Stearns has done, I don't know, and as a laity,I am not interested in it too, however, I think, for the long time interest of the scientific development in China, we Chinese should humblely and bravely admit our wrongdoings. After all, what Stephen Stearns said were truth. I appreciate professor Stephen Stearns' braveness and sincerity. We should thank him. No matter what professor Stephen Stearns has done, I don’t know, and as a laity,I am not interested in it too, however, I think, for the long time interest of the scientific development in China, we Chinese should humblely and bravely admit our wrongdoings. After all, what Stephen Stearns said were truth. I appreciate professor Stephen Stearns’ braveness and sincerity. We should thank him.

]]> By: Shi V. Liu http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/guorui/2007/12/21/a-letter-about-plagiarism-by-professor-steve-stearns-yale/comment-page-1/#comment-1167 Shi V. Liu Sat, 29 Dec 2007 17:32:52 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/guorui/2007/12/21/a-letter-about-plagiarism-by-professor#comment-1167 I doubt Stephen Stearns’s sincerity in fighting against violation of intellectual property right. This is because he was involved in a much greater and even more shameful violation of intellectual property. In a 2003 publication in Science (300: 1920) which was authored by his former student Martin Ackermann, himself, and his former colleague in Switzerland he cheated the whole world by claiming that “A fundamental question about senescence has not been settled: Which organisms should be senescent, and which should be potentially immortal?” This is an outright lie because I had already published a view that all organisms (including the so-called “immortal” bacteria) are mortal and subject to aging/senescence (see more details at http://im1.biz/Aging.htm). Due to the deception buried in that 2003 Science publication, western world has regarded Ackermann, Stearns and Jenal as pioneers in studying bacterial aging. But the truth is I was the true pioneer in this research area and has published most on this topic. Jenal (who later became a mentor of Ackermann) should know my study because he was at the same session of the 1997 ASM General Meeting where I presented my discovery of bacterial life and aging to the world for the first time. However, my publications, including a peer-reviewed and SCI-indexed publication in both English (Science in China 42: 64-654, 1999) and Chinese (Science in China 29: 571-579, 1999), were ignored (very likely intentionally) by Ackermann, Stearns and Jenal in their 2003 Science publication. I should also point out that the methodology used in that 2003 Science study was an exact “copy” of my method invention disclose in my 2000 patent application which was open to public in 2002 and granted a US patent in 2004 (US6767734B). In August this year, I wrote to Ackermann and others (including Stearns) to ask them to do some right things for the truth of scientific history and the respect for others’ intellectual property right after I saw Ackermann et al. continued their lie to the world in another publication (Aging Cell 6: 235-244, 2007). However, none of these “scientists” have answered my criticisms or done any right things so far. Thus, I was very surprised to see that Stearns would be so “upset” with the “plagiarism” he saw in the term papers submitted to him by the Chinese students. If he does upheld a high ethical standard, why would not he do anything moral regarding his outright lie and credit robbery? Shi V. Liu Eagle Institute of Molecular Medicine http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/SE2007V2N3A5_StopLie.htm I doubt Stephen Stearns’s sincerity in fighting against violation of intellectual property right. This is because he was involved in a much greater and even more shameful violation of intellectual property.

In a 2003 publication in Science (300: 1920) which was authored by his former student Martin Ackermann, himself, and his former colleague in Switzerland he cheated the whole world by claiming that “A fundamental question about senescence has not been settled: Which organisms should be senescent, and which should be potentially immortal?” This is an outright lie because I had already published a view that all organisms (including the so-called “immortal” bacteria) are mortal and subject to aging/senescence (see more details at http://im1.biz/Aging.htm).

Due to the deception buried in that 2003 Science publication, western world has regarded Ackermann, Stearns and Jenal as pioneers in studying bacterial aging. But the truth is I was the true pioneer in this research area and has published most on this topic. Jenal (who later became a mentor of Ackermann) should know my study because he was at the same session of the 1997 ASM General Meeting where I presented my discovery of bacterial life and aging to the world for the first time. However, my publications, including a peer-reviewed and SCI-indexed publication in both English (Science in China 42: 64-654, 1999) and Chinese (Science in China 29: 571-579, 1999), were ignored (very likely intentionally) by Ackermann, Stearns and Jenal in their 2003 Science publication. I should also point out that the methodology used in that 2003 Science study was an exact “copy” of my method invention disclose in my 2000 patent application which was open to public in 2002 and granted a US patent in 2004 (US6767734B).

In August this year, I wrote to Ackermann and others (including Stearns) to ask them to do some right things for the truth of scientific history and the respect for others’ intellectual property right after I saw Ackermann et al. continued their lie to the world in another publication (Aging Cell 6: 235-244, 2007). However, none of these “scientists” have answered my criticisms or done any right things so far.

Thus, I was very surprised to see that Stearns would be so “upset” with the “plagiarism” he saw in the term papers submitted to him by the Chinese students. If he does upheld a high ethical standard, why would not he do anything moral regarding his outright lie and credit robbery?

Shi V. Liu
Eagle Institute of Molecular Medicine
http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/SE2007V2N3A5_StopLie.htm

]]>