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。
方舟子（资料图）
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。）
加拿大华人网 http://www.sinoca.com/
SinoCa.COM All Rights Reserved.