Rao Yi commented on the Yang Hui incident: The first year of China's "no scientific research fraud"

Although at the end of 2019, the Chinese state hopes to seriously investigate and deal with academic misconduct in the field of scientific research, in 2020, some people have deceived and neglected their duties, and in 2021, two shocking arguments have been launched:

First, the ironclad evidence of picture falsification in front of everyone's eyes has been resolved as "misuse of pictures" by people who are not in the international academic stream and can play tricks in China.

Second, petty bureaucrats who don't understand science have a bit of sesame power to think that they can openly claim that scientific experiments don't need to be repeated.

If these two articles become the criteria for judging academic misconduct in scientific research in China, then there is no longer the possibility of scientific research misconduct in China, and there is an undefeated that can be easily resolved.

2021 is in danger of becoming the first year of China's scientific research fraud. This kind of danger is harmful to China, Chinese people, and is only conducive to turning China's noble science into a low-level fun villain.

Some people have falsely suggested that academic criticism can only be carried out in English academic journals, and there can be no Chinese articles. In fact, the majority (but not 100 percent) of such people hope that most people in China do not read English and can only slip through English criticism.

The time has come to test these people: will seven countries, more than thirty universities, and more than a hundred scientists seriously question the same article again and again, and in China, will it be seriously investigated and dealt with strictly?

The answer, I'm afraid, is very uncertain.

In the first year, it was announced that there was no counterfeiting in China, and the joke came again, although it may be a black joke.

On April 7, 2021, more than 30 universities and more than 100 scientists (including Scientists of Chinese Descent) from 7 countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Japan, Canada, Belgium, and the Czech Republic, published articles once again refuting Yang Hui, a researcher at the Shanghai Institute of Neuroscience of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and the "Cell" paper published in 2013.

In short, Yang Hui's paper in 2013 generally cannot be repeated.

The scientific community often forgets it, and no one dwells on this.

But, perhaps angry at being wasted too much time and resources, some scientists were indignant and co-authored in 2019 criticizing the 2013 paper. In 2021, Yang Hui published a rebuttal to the criticism. In 2021, these scientists will refute it.

I've lived so long that I haven't seen seven countries, three dozen universities, or more than a hundred scientists questioning the same article over and over again.

This Yang Hui, in April 2020, also had an article in Cell, which was questioned by Professor Fu Xiangdong of the University of California as the idea of stealing Fu Xiangdong's laboratory, and this article was recently suspected by famous American professors at Harvard University and Hopkins University, and several Chinese professors questioned the reliability

Hopefully, Chinese scientific research articles have been repeatedly questioned by "seven countries, more than thirty universities, and more than a hundred scientists" only once in an unprecedented time, and never after.

List of scientists who criticized Yang Hui's articles and critical articles:

Yang H, Wang H, Shivalila CS, Cheng AW, Shi L, Jaenisch R (2013) One-step generation of mice carrying reporter and conditional alleles by CRISPR/Cas-mediated genome engineering. Cell154:1370-1309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2013.08.022.

Gurumurthy CB, O'Brien AR, Quadros RM, Adams J Jr, Alcaide P, Ayabe S, Ballard J, Batra SK, Beauchamp MC, Becker KA, et al. (2019) Reproducibility of CRISPR-Cas9 methods for generation of conditional mouse alleles: a multi-center evaluation. Genome Biology20:171. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-019-1776-2.

Yang H, Wang H, Jaenisch R (2021) Response to “Reproducibility of CRISPR-Cas9 methods for generation of conditional mouse alleles: a multi-center evaluation”. Genome Biology 22:98.

Gurumurthy, C.B., O’Brien, A.R., Quadros, R.M. et al. (2021) Response to correspondence on “Reproducibility of CRISPR-Cas9 methods for generation of conditional mouse alleles: a multi-center evaluation”. Genome Biology 22:99