A top virologist, instead of studying life-saving viruses in the lab, lies on the floor in the cold doorway and protests against the forced closure of his laboratory. It happened at the Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center, where his protests were ignored by his superiors. And Fan Xiaohong, the commander of the laboratory transformation, quickly became a hot search because of the way he treats scientists.
It all started with a sudden decision by the Public Health Center: to renovate the laboratory. Sounds normal, right? However, before any notice or proper arrangement, the construction team entered the stadium recklessly, and the head of the lab, Professor Zhang Yongzhen, and his team members were left out. A laboratory that had conducted research on major viruses such as the new crown and avian flu was suddenly broken into by a group of construction workers who were not trained in biosafety.
Professor Zhang didn't try to communicate, but the ear on the other side seemed to be stuffed with cotton. In desperation, he chose the most extreme method: spending the night outside in the cold, hoping to draw attention to the dignity of scientific research.
Unfortunately, all he gets is the onlookers of security guards and an indifferent night breeze. Nor are the students fuel-efficient lamps, they have spoken out on social media, protecting data and samples more diligently than they can eat themselves.
Having said that, Fan Xiaohong, as a leader, behaved unusually calmly, as if a bystander, without any response. Netizens have pushed her onto the "online trial table", questioning her leadership and the rationality of her decision-making. Many people began to wonder if there was something hidden behind this? Is there some secret between Fan Xiaohong and Professor Zhang Yongzhen that cannot be said?
As soon as this information was released, netizens immediately turned into detectives and started an online "truth tracking". Some questioned the qualifications of the construction team, some worried about the safety of the laboratory, and some blamed the leadership for inaction. Everyone was crying out for Professor Zhang, as if it was their relatives who were being bullied.
In today's rapid development of science and technology, we like to advertise "respect for science", but when respect is really challenged, what can we do? Professor Zhang Yongzhen's experience is not only an individual case, but also a mirror, reflecting all kinds of contradictions and problems within the field of scientific research. Hopefully, this turmoil will be a turning point for us to truly respect and protect those who contribute to science, not only in words, but in deeds.
While the story continues to ferment, each of us is a bystander and a participant. Let us continue to pay attention to speak for Professor Zhang, for all researchers, and for our own future. After all, science needs more than just laboratory equipment and chemical reagents, but also an environment of justice, respect and understanding.