【经济学人】网络监管员 | 2016.11.05 | 总第717期

关注这里

每天进步一点点

收获成长和自信

翻译 | hua外音，若水

小编 | 澜意

Scrutinising science

The watchers on the Web

网络监督员       

A court case may define the limits of anonymous scientific criticism

一个法院的案件可能会定义匿名科学评论的界限

Nov 5th 2016 | From the print edition

2016.11.5 |印刷版

MANY scientific studies are flawed. Often, the reason is poor methodology. Sometimes, it is outright fraud. The conventional means of correction—a letter to the journal concerned—can take months. But there is now an alternative. PubPeer is a website that lets people comment anonymously on research papers and so, in theory, helps purge the scientific literature of erroneous findings more speedily.

许多科学研究都是有缺陷的，这一原因大多是由于缺乏方法论造成的。但有时，它也可能沦为一场彻头彻尾的欺诈。常规修正的方法如向杂志社发送信件，这一过程往往需要历时数月。但现在有另一种选择。PubPeer是一个让人们匿名评论研究论文的网站，理论上有助于加速清除科学文献中的错误。

Since its launch in 2012, PubPeer has alerted scientists to mistakes and image manipulation in papers, and exposed cases of misconduct. But it has also attracted criticism, not least from journal editors, some of whom argue anonymity’s cloak lets vendettas flourish unchecked. Now the site is embroiled in a court case that tests the limits of free speech under America’s First Amendment, and may define what it is permissible for researchers to say online and anonymously about science.

PubPeer网站自2012创办以来为学者警示错误、为论文提供图像处理并揭露不端行为。但其中也不乏反对之声，尤其是杂志编辑们的不满。一些编辑认为在匿名的庇护下学术间争斗将会不可抑制的泛滥。现在该网站卷入据美国宪法第一修正案检验言论自由限制的诉讼案件，并且这一案件的结果可能会重新定义科学界在线匿名评论的界限。

The proceedings centre on discussions that began on the site in November 2013. These highlighted apparent similarities between images showing the results of different experiments in papers by Fazlul Sarkar, a cancer researcher who was then based at Wayne State University in Detroit. Dr Sarkar alleges that certain commenters insinuated he was guilty of scientific fraud. The comments, he says, together with anonymous e-mails sent to the University of Mississippi, cost him the offer of a professorship there. In October 2014 he sued the commenters for defamation and subpoenaed PubPeer to disclose their identities. A court is now expected to decide whether the site will be forced to do so.

事件开始于2013年11月的网站评论。来自底特律韦恩州立大学的癌症研究人员Fazlul Sarkar发表论文，关于高度明显相似的图像表明不同课题的实验结果。Sarkar博士称某些批评者暗示他科研造假。他认为这些评论，连同之前寄到密西西比大学的匿名邮件，使他失去了学校教授职位的邀请。2014年10月，他以诽谤罪起诉这些评论者，并传唤PubPeer网站要求公开他们的身份。法院如今就网站是否应该公布评论者进行审理。

The American Civil Liberties Union has taken on the case on PubPeer’s behalf. Its lawyer, Alex Abdo, says that the anonymity of PubPeer’s commenters is protected by American law unless Dr Sarkar can provide evidence that their statements are false and have damaged his reputation. Evidence filed by PubPeer from John Krueger, an image-analysis expert, states the images in question “did not depict different experiments as they purported to” or contained other “irregularities”, and may have been manipulated. Mr Abdo asserts that the comments identified by Dr Sarkar are not defamatory. Therefore PubPeer should not be forced to disclose the commenters’ identities.

美国民权同盟承接该案并为PubPeer辩护。其律师Alex Abdo表示，PubPeer网站上评论者的匿名性受到美国法律的保护，除非Sarkar博士可以提供证据证明这些评论是伪造的并损害了他的名誉。一位名为John Krueger的图像处理专家申请为PubPeer网站提供证据，他表示这些受到质疑的图像并未描述出不同的实验结果或包含了其他的“违规之处”，并且图像可能已经被篡改。Abdo先生坚称关于Sarkar博士研究的评论不具有诽谤性，因此PubPeer网站不应被强制公开评论者的身份。

Who blows the whistle?

谁是举报人？

By contrast, Dr Sarkar’s lawyer, Nick Roumel, argues the law should not provide anonymous commenters with more protection than it gives those who post under their real names. It is impossible to contact PubPeer’s commenters to establish what they know about the allegations without knowing their identities, he says.

与此同时，Sarkar博士的律师Nick Roumel提出，与那些实名制评论相比，法律不应该为匿名评论提供保护。他表示在不知晓PubPeer评论者身份的情况下，确认他们评论的可信程度是不可能的。

In March 2015 a judge at the Wayne County Circuit Court agreed that PubPeer need not disclose the identities of any of its commenters except for one. That commenter had confirmed on the site that he or she had notified Wayne State University of problems with Dr Sarkar’s papers. A prolific pseudonymous whistle-blower named Clare Francis is known to have e-mailed Wayne State in November 2013, to notify it of concerns with Dr Sarkar’s work aired on PubPeer, adding in her e-mail (if, indeed, “Clare Francis” is a woman) that, in some cases, they amounted to “what many think of as scientific misconduct.” Whether Clare Francis and the subject of the judge’s order are the same is not clear.

2015年3月，韦恩县巡回法院的法官同意PubPeer除了一名评论者之外，无须披露其他所有评论者的身份。这名评论者（未公开性别）承认了是他/她向韦恩州立大学揭发了关于萨卡尔博士论文造假的问题。在此之前，曾有一位名为Clare Francis的告密者（之前该人曾多次检举），于2013年11月向韦恩州立大学发检举邮件而为人所知。她（根据名字可暂时确定为一名女性）在邮件中表示，Sarkar博士在PubPeer网站上传的研究，在一些情况下，是“学术不端行为“。这名Clare到底是否是法院裁决要求披露姓名的那位评论者尚不清楚。

Both sides lodged appeals against the ruling. PubPeer objects to revealing the identity of the last commenter. MrRoumel wants to know the identities of them all.

双方都提出上诉反对裁决。PubPeer网站反对公布这名评论者的身份。而Nick律师想要知道所有评论者的身份。

Two goliaths of information technology, Google and Twitter, lodged a brief in support of PubPeer in January 2016. So did two giants of science: Harold Varmus, a Nobel prize-winning cancer researcher, and Bruce Alberts, a former president of the National Academy of Sciences. They argued that the First Amendment protects “unfettered scientific discourse”.

2016年1月，两大信息技术巨头Google和Twitter发表简要声明表示支持PubPeer网站。诺贝尔奖获得者、癌症研究员Harold Varmus，美国国家科学院前院长Bruce Alberts两位科学大家也表示支持，他们认为第一修正案保护“不受约束的科学言论”。

On October 19th the Scientist, a magazine, published some findings of a misconduct investigation carried out by Wayne State University in 2015. The report of this investigation, which the magazine obtained under America’s Freedom of Information Act, states that Dr Sarkar “engaged in and permitted (and tacitly encouraged) intentional and knowing fabrication, falsification, and/or plagiarism of data”. Furthermore, 18 papers from Dr Sarkar’s laboratory have been retracted from five different journals.

10月19日，科学家杂志公布了韦恩州立大学在2015年一些不当行为的调查。该杂志披露了受美国信息自由法案保护所获得的调查报告，报告中称Sarkar博士参与并允许（默许）蓄意制造、伪造、和/或剽窃数据。此外，Sarkar博士实验室的18篇论文已经被5份不同的期刊撤销。

Dr Sarkar rejects all the investigation’s findings. He states that he provided the correct images to the university but his explanations of how the errors occurred were dismissed out of hand. Despite his having more than 500 peer-reviewed papers to his name, his reputation has been destroyed because of “minor errors in a few articles,” he says. Philip Cunningham, who convened the Wayne State panel that investigated Dr Sarkar, says all evidence was carefully considered and the university stands by the integrity and accuracy of the report.

Sarkar博士拒不承认上述所有调查结果。他声称他向大学提交了正确的图像，但是他对于错误如何发生的解释却被驳回。他提出尽管发表了超过500份经同行评审的论文，但是他的名声却因为几篇论文中的小错误而遭到毁损。Philip Cunningham召集了韦恩州陪审团对Sarkar博士进行调查。他表示所有证据都已经仔细斟酌并且大学支持报道的完整性和准确性。

Normally, neither Dr Sarkar’s retractions nor Wayne State University’s report would have any bearing on the case because appeals can only consider evidence presented during an earlier trial. But on October 28th, in what may be a decisive ruling, the court allowed PubPeer to enter the Scientist’s story about the report into the official record of the case. The results of the appeal hearing itself, which took place on October 4th, are expected imminently.

通常，无论是Sarkar博士被撤回的论文还是韦恩州立大学的报告都不会对案件有任何影响，因为上诉只能参考在早期审讯中提供的证据。然而在可能具有决定性判决的10月28日，法院允许PubPeer网站在该案件的官方记录中加入《科学家杂志》的报道。10月4日的上诉听证会的结果的揭晓迫在眉睫。

Whichever way that decision goes, at least one side is likely to appeal against it. But however the case eventually ends, its outcome will affect the process of “open peer review” that PubPeer is pioneering by determining whether or not anonymous critics of scientific papers can, in the last analysis, retain their anonymity.

无论最终判决如何，至少有一方仍可能提出上诉。期待您的翻译，您可以将翻译留言到文章底部，第二天会有详细解析哦。

【经济学人】叙利亚战争丨2016.08.27丨总第684期

【经济学人】美国房地产丨2016.09.17丨总第685期

【经济学人】自动驾驶汽车彻底改变了汽车保险丨2016.9.24丨总第674期