On March 23, the Chinese Academy of Sciences issued a document titled “Scientific Ethics Code for Scientific Workers.” This “Code…” defines seven unacceptable behaviors in scientific research.
Following a series of fabricated events and fraud in the academic community, on March 23, the Chinese Academy of Sciences released the “Scientific Ethics Code for Scientific Workers.”
This “Code” defines seven types of behaviors considered unethical as follows:
1- Deliberately reporting falsehoods, fabricating data or results, compromising the integrity of original data, altering actual records or drawings, providing false reports in project applications, performance reports, promotion requests, etc., and issuing fake award certifications…
2- Violating or harming the copyright of others, deliberately shortening the published works of others, copying works, distorting the content of others’ works; using information in grant applications or self-reviewed manuscripts without authorization, disclosing unpublished works or research plans to others, attributing achievements to individuals who did not contribute, excluding those who made actual contributions from authorship lists, impersonation, or unreasonable demands on authors or collaborators.
3- Misreporting results.
4- Using improper means to disrupt or obstruct the research activities of others, including deliberately damaging or withholding equipment, documents, and materials related to others’ research; intentionally prolonging the evaluation and verification of others’ results or projects, or making unprovable assertions; obstructing the verification of competing projects or results.
5- Participating with others to conceal academic weaknesses, including engaging in academic forgery with others, conspiring to hide unethical behaviors, retaliating against whistleblowers. Participating in review and evaluation activities outside one’s expertise; when evaluating awards, reviewing research reports, or assessing projects, giving subjective evaluations that are biased or inaccurate due to personal conflicts of interest; direct contact with reviewers and review organizations, receiving gifts from subjects under review.
6- Engaging in propaganda and commercial advertising in the name of an expert or academic organization.
The “Code…” also specifies the supervision procedures for unethical behaviors in academia. The Chinese Academy of Sciences will establish academic records, specifically documenting individuals with unethical behaviors. Upon receiving complaints, the Academy will delegate relevant associations, organizations, or departments to investigate the facts and provide handling opinions.
Based on the “Code…” mentioned above, the Chinese scientific community has recommended that the government address several issues related to improving management mechanisms to combat corruption in scientific research. These include:
– Viewing corruption in scientific research as fundamentally linked to personal ethical quality. Therefore, it is essential to enhance ethical education and foster a spirit of academic integrity to create a healthy academic environment. Improving the ethical standards of university and college students is a crucial link.
– Separating academic power from administrative power. Academic papers, works, projects, or research funding should not be used as evaluation criteria for university and college management personnel. Proper compensation systems should be established to allow them to focus fully on management tasks. Responsibilities should align with professional expertise to avoid confusion between technical and administrative tasks, thereby reducing opportunities for corruption.
– Promptly establishing and refining legal provisions to address corruption. There must be clear regulations for handling cases, including pursuing criminal liability for various levels of embezzlement or misappropriation of research funds, including for those in charge of the unit.
Cutting all ties of interest between government officials and researchers, as this is a “soft bed” for corruption.
– Strengthening the audit management supervision process. For significant projects, independent audits must be conducted by non-governmental auditing agencies. All projects must be managed and monitored throughout the process, not just self-checked.
 |
Thanks to this fake chip, a Chinese scientist quickly got promoted before the incident was discovered (Photo: Epochtimes) |
6-
 |
Sichuan University held a press conference regarding a case of falsified research results (Photo: HEXUN) |
The government should “cool down” the research frenzy; research cannot be conducted as a trend. Research institutes within schools and government agencies need to prevent fraudulent research while promoting research aligned with real-life practices.
For fundamental research, the outcomes should be recognized by the industry, and the government should not interfere. For technical research, the government can establish systems to encourage privatization, but the effectiveness should be determined by the market. The government should not “play unfair” and should not allow the government’s achievements to lead to forced outcomes in research.
Xue Nhung (Compiled from Xinhuanet and other sources) – Vietnamnet
