Hebei University of Science and Technology deepens the mystery of Han Chunyu incident： undetermined academic misconduct

　　On August 31st, Hebei University of Science and Technology released the "Investigation and Processing Results of Han Chunyu Team’s Withdrawal Papers" (hereinafter referred to as "Investigation and Processing Results") in a low-key way, trying to end the question about whether Han Chunyu had made a fraud for more than two years with a conclusion of less than 600 words.

　　What is the conclusion of the Han Chunyu incident? This is still an "unsolved case" at present, and Hebei University of Science and Technology has not clearly determined whether Han Chunyu is "academic misconduct" in its conclusion. In contrast, another university, Wuhan University, directly thought that Li Hongliang "had no academic fraud" when it was reported to the Li Hongliang team of the university on January 29th. Nevertheless, the academic fraud in Li Hongliang is still controversial.

　　The Paper (www.thepaper.cn) found in the investigation that whether Han Chunyu was "academic misconduct" was not clearly determined by the school, but the related "termination or revocation of relevant scientific research projects, revocation of academic awards and honorary titles" was actually one of the treatments for those responsible for academic misconduct in accordance with Chapter V of the Measures for Preventing and Handling Academic Misconduct in Colleges and Universities.

　　The Paper tried to get detailed information about the investigation from Hebei University of Science and Technology, the subject of the investigation, but Hu Yongqi, member of the Standing Committee of the Party Committee of Hebei University of Science and Technology and director of the Academic Committee, and the secretariat of the Academic Committee refused to answer the phone many times. In addition, the official website of Hebei University of Science and Technology has completely cleared the list of members of the academic committee of the school, and the relevant web pages only keep the title without the list content.

　　In view of the fact that Han Chunyu’s retracted paper "NgAgo-gDNA-oriented Gene Editing Technology" in the top international academic journal "Nature Biotechnology" caused a great sensation in the hot field of gene editing, and hundreds of laboratories took time, effort and money to verify it under the circumstance that Han Chunyu repeatedly emphasized "repeatability". In fact, "Investigation and Processing Results" is no longer only related to the interests and reputation of Han Chunyu and the school itself.

　　"Personally, I think the purpose of the investigation is just to find a way to cope with the past. Experimental errors can be subjective and objective, but fraud is fraud, and there is no subjective and objective distinction." A professor of Zhejiang University whose research interests include the improvement and application of CRISPR gene editing technology said this in an interview with The Paper (www.thepaper.cn). This is also the general view of the current academic circles on the Han Chunyu incident.

　　In addition, a researcher who participated in the real name query in October and November, 2016 and jointly wrote the article "Questions about NgAgo" ("Questions about NgAgo") recently revealed to The Paper that the National Natural Science Foundation of China specially organized experts to hold a hearing, and Han Chunyu attended the hearing. However, this hearing was not widely publicized in academic circles. The Paper contacted relevant experts by email, but he didn’t get a reply.

　　At present, the handling of Han Chunyu has made the outside world feel that Han Chunyu himself has just returned to the state before the publication of the paper, "unscathed". Some insiders told The Paper, "If it is academic fraud, then this kind of treatment is obviously unreasonable. If it is not academic fraud, it is good news for Han Chunyu and the school, and there is no reason not to announce it."

　　The investigation process was not open, and the school refused to talk.

　　According to the Measures for Preventing and Handling Academic Misconduct in Colleges and Universities, colleges and universities are the main body of preventing and handling academic misconduct. According to the Regulations of Academic Committees in Colleges and Universities, colleges and universities should set up academic committees according to law, with the academic committees as the highest academic institutions in the school, and exercise the functions of decision-making, deliberation, evaluation and consultation on academic affairs as a whole.

　　Official website of Hebei University of Science and Technology shows that the Academic Committee of Hebei University of Science and Technology is the highest academic institution in the school. "Under the framework of the articles of association of the Academic Committee of the school, we will exercise the powers of decision-making, deliberation, evaluation and consultation of academic affairs in our school, stick to academic professional judgment and abide by academic ethics."

　　According to The Paper (www.thepaper.cn), the director of the Academic Committee of Hebei University of Science and Technology is Hu Yongqi, a member of the Standing Committee of the Party Committee of Hebei University. This position is nominated by the president and elected by all members. The academic committee of Hebei University of Science and Technology is appointed by the president.

　　According to the website of the Institute of Technology of the Independent College of Hebei University of Science and Technology, Hu Yongqi graduated from the Department of Chemical Engineering of Hebei Institute of Chemical Technology in July 1983. After graduation, he stayed as an ideological and political work counselor and later became a classroom teacher. In June 1988, he obtained a master’s degree in chemical engineering from Beijing Institute of Chemical Technology, and a doctor’s degree in chemical engineering from Tsinghua University in June 1998. In October 1998, he went to the Department of Energy Science and Engineering of Nagoya University to do postdoctoral research.

　　In 2002, Hu Yongqi entered Hebei University of Science and Technology, and served as Dean of the School of Chemistry and Pharmaceutical Engineering and Dean of the Graduate School of Hebei University of Science and Technology. In scientific research, Hu Yongqi’s main research field is catalytic reaction process and technology.

　　A source told The Paper that in addition to the establishment of an investigation team by the academic Committee of the school, "Hu Yongqi is also responsible for organizing third-party investigations." However, in the conclusion issued by the school, the number and composition of the investigation team of the academic Committee, the third party and other basic details that are usually announced in the processing results are currently unknown.

　　In an attempt to restore the investigation process, The Paper contacted Hu Yongqi several times on September 5, but the other party did not answer. Also refusing to answer is the contact information of the academic committee secretariat provided by official website of Hebei University of Science and Technology.

　　It is worth noting that when The Paper inquired about the list of members of the Academic Committee in official website, Hebei University of Science and Technology, the page under this heading did not exist, but was blank.

　　In addition, when comparing the Regulations of Academic Committee of Colleges and Universities (Order No.35 of the Ministry of Education of People’s Republic of China (PRC)) with the Articles of Association of Academic Committee of Hebei University of Science and Technology, The Paper noticed that in the chapter of operation system, the Articles of Association of Academic Committee of Hebei University of Science and Technology stipulates that "whenever the contents that need to be kept confidential are determined at the academic Committee meeting of the school, members must keep them confidential and implement and maintain the results of deliberation or evaluation of the academic Committee." However, there is no such provision in the Regulations of Academic Committees of Colleges and Universities.

　　At the same time, the operating system chapters of the above two documents all stipulate that "the decisions made by academic committees should be publicized and an objection period should be set. If there is any objection during the objection period, with the consent of more than 1/3 members, a plenary meeting may be held for reconsideration. The decision adopted after reconsideration is final. "

　　However, the decision made by Hebei University of Science and Technology on the Han Chunyu incident was obviously not made public in official website. According to the person in the school contacted by The Paper, "I have not seen any publicity on this matter in the school". In the Measures for Preventing and Handling Academic Misconduct in Colleges and Universities (Order No.40 of the Ministry of Education of People’s Republic of China (PRC)), it is also stipulated that if there is a clear whistleblower, the handling result must also be delivered to the whistleblower, and a 10-day objection or appeal period will be reserved.

　　Raw data required to be disclosed.

　　According to the Measures for Preventing and Handling Academic Misconduct in Colleges and Universities, the investigation team should form an investigation report on the basis of finding out the facts. The investigation report shall include the confirmation of the person responsible for academic misconduct, the investigation process, the fact finding and reasons, the investigation conclusion, etc.

　　At present, the "Investigation and Processing Results" given by Hebei University of Science and Technology, which is less than 600 words, obviously lacks many elements compared with the requirements of the above investigation report.

　　As can be seen from the published conclusions, the investigation team said that it had carefully checked "all the original experimental data" involved in the paper. In fact, these raw data have been emphasized by scientists who questioned NgAgo technology.

　　As early as July 21st, 2016, Gaetan Burgio, a geneticist at the Australian National University, posted a long article "My NgAgo Experience" on Twitter, asking Han Chunyu to disclose all raw data and experimental conditions.

　　On October 10th, 2016, 13 China biologists, including Professor Wei Wensheng of Peking University College of Life Sciences, jointly voiced in the media. They could not repeat the experimental results, and unanimously expressed their hope that Han Chunyu would disclose all the original data. Han Chunyu’s Hebei University of Science and Technology and other relevant units (such as the National Natural Science Foundation of China) started academic investigation.

　　However, Han Chunyu never released the original data, insisting at that time that "it will be used and will be responded through academic journals".

　　In addition to the original data, the "repeatability" that the outside world is most concerned about only refers to entrusting a third party to carry out repeated verification tests, and the results of verification tests are not clearly explained. The wording used in the conclusion is, "I think that the papers that have been withdrawn have no basis for re-publication, and no subjective fraud has been found by the Han Chunyu team".

　　So, what is "no longer has the basis for republication"? What is "subjective fraud"? There is no subjective fraud. What’s wrong with the team?

　　"The conclusion of the investigation did not explain at all which link, which step and when it was wrong. What Han said could be repeated before was what was repeated. These were not mentioned. This is not a survey." The aforementioned Zhejiang University professor bluntly said.

　　Another academic told The Paper that as a scientific research unit, the conclusion made by Hebei University of Science and Technology is "too imprecise". "You just say a conclusion that there is no subjective fraud, so the specious conclusion is very unscientific." Referring to the investigation and handling of similar international cases of academic fraud, the scientific approach is to describe the investigation process and make the final determination one by one according to the doubts of peers.

　　In fact, in addition to the conclusion that it is still foggy to the outside world, another version has been circulated inside the school before. A person from Hebei University of Science and Technology who is close to Han Chunyu’s team revealed to The Paper (www.thepaper.cn), "The conclusions passed between teachers before are not quite the same as those coming out now. It was said before that it could be made, but the efficiency was very low." The person also mentioned, "The investigation has already reached a conclusion, not recently."

　　However, the above statement cannot be confirmed by Hu Yongqi or the secretariat of the academic Committee at present.

　　Not only did this treatment make the outside world unconvinced, but also some practices or promises made by Han Chunyu and Hebei University of Science and Technology made the outside world wait for nothing again and again.

　　As for NgAgo’s work efficiency, when Han Chunyu gave a report to Zhejiang University, where Shen Xiao, the co-author of the paper, was located, he quipped, "In our laboratory, the success rate is over 90%, even if there is one plate of pollution in ten plates, because we have smog there.".

　　During the short period of less than 4 months from June 22, 2016 to October 14, 2016, the number of laboratories that Han Chunyu claimed to be able to successfully repeat its experiments was gradually reduced from 20 to 1. Even if there is only one laboratory, it has not been publicly claimed. Han Chunyu has refused to disclose it on the grounds that he does not want the other party to be harassed.

　　According to a report by Xinhuanet in August, 2016, Hebei University of Science and Technology said that in about one month’s time, Han Chunyu will take appropriate forms to publicly verify the results, and an authoritative third party will testify.

　　However, the school has not fulfilled its promise at that time.

　　The National Natural Science Foundation of China held a hearing and Han Chunyu attended.

　　In addition to the investigation organized by the academic committee of the school, Han Chunyu was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation for the project he applied for after the publication of the paper, and also participated in the hearing and defense of the National Natural Science Foundation.

　　A researcher who participated in the real-name query in October and November of 2016 and jointly wrote the article "Questions about NgAgo" ("Questions about NgAgo") recently told The Paper (www.thepaper.cn), "Before the National Natural Science Foundation of China specially organized experts to hold a hearing, Han Chunyu participated in the defense."

　　In September 2016, official website of the National Natural Science Foundation of China showed that the project "The Improvement and Application of NgAgo-gDNA Gene Editing Technology" with Han Chunyu as the project leader was approved for 1 million yuan, and the project started from January 2017 to December 2018.

　　Based on the fact that the above-mentioned project was approved after Han Chunyu’s paper, the authenticity of NgAgo-gDNA gene editing technology invented by him before is directly linked to whether this funding is established. The Measures for the Prevention and Handling of Academic Misconduct in Colleges and Universities clearly stipulates that the situation that should be considered as academic misconduct includes "providing false academic information in the process of reporting topics, achievements, awards and job evaluation".

　　In addition, it may be related to another grant involved in Han Chunyu’s retracted paper. It is mentioned in the paper "Thanks" that this paper was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation with the number of "31270950". The name of the project is "Evaluation of the Effect of Angiotensin Converting Enzyme on the Presentation of Exogenous Antigen in Cells and Its Physiological Significance", with an approved amount of 800,000 yuan, supported by Zhejiang University, and the starting and ending time is from January 2013 to December 2016. The project leader is Shen Xiao, the second author of the retracted paper and a researcher at Zhejiang University School of Medicine.

　　However, Shen Xiao once told the media, "I marked my fund, and there is no fund in Han Chunyu. But this research is basically self-raised by Han Chunyu through various channels, and my funds have not been invested in the experimental part. "

　　At present, The Paper contacted two experts who participated in the hearing by email, but no reply was received as of press time.

　　The aforementioned professor of Zhejiang University said, "If the National Natural Science Foundation of China holds such a hearing, it should be widely publicized, indicating that it is necessary to investigate the attitude of academic integrity."

　　According to the conclusion released by Hebei University of Science and Technology, relevant parties "terminated the research project undertaken by Han Chunyu’s team and recovered the research funds". However, it is not clear who the specific "relevant parties" refer to and how to recover the scientific research funds (part or used).

　　"Academic fraud" has not been determined, but the handling conforms to the relevant provisions of "Academic fraud"

　　In addition to the fact that the investigation results of withdrawing the paper itself make the outside world suspicious, Hebei University of Science and Technology’s handling results of Han Chunyu himself this time are also quite vague.

　　The result shows that after the publication of this paper, Han Chunyu’s personal housing, professional title and salary have not changed. During the investigation, Han Chunyu voluntarily requested to return the scientific research projects, performance awards, honorary titles, social posts, etc. Han Chunyu’s honorary title has been cancelled, the scientific research project undertaken by Han Chunyu’s team has been terminated, the research funds have been recovered, and the scientific research performance award won by Han Chunyu’s team has been recovered. Individual social posts are being handled according to legal procedures.

　　According to this result, after more than two years of ups and downs of being applauded and questioned, Han Chunyu himself just returned to the original point without being punished.

　　At the same time, if there is no subjective fraud, where is the basis for canceling the honorary title won by Han Chunyu and terminating scientific research projects? I’m afraid this needs further explanation from the school. What’s wrong with Han Chunyu’s team besides the "no subjective fraud"?

　　Compared with the fifth chapter of the Measures for Preventing and Handling Academic Misconduct in Colleges and Universities, "terminating or revoking relevant scientific research projects and revoking academic awards and honorary titles" is one of the treatments for those responsible for academic misconduct. The rest also includes informed criticism; Warning, demerit; Lowering the level of professional and technical posts and revoking professional and technical posts or administrative posts; Dismissal or dismissal; Other treatment measures stipulated by laws, regulations and rules.

　　If there is academic misconduct and it has a bad influence, it should be considered as serious. Treatment should be given to lower the level of professional and technical posts, revoke professional and technical posts or administrative posts; Expelled or dismissed.

　　In addition, Han Chunyu received 1 million yuan from the National Natural Science Foundation after the publication of the paper. In August 2016, the Development and Reform Commission of Hebei Province "agreed in principle" to the project of Hebei University of Science and Technology Gene Editing Technology Research Center with a total investment of 224 million yuan, and the funds were arranged by the provincial financial funds. This huge sum of money also makes the outside world think that the interests and reputations of Hebei University of Science and Technology and Han Chunyu are closely tied together.

　　On September 21, 2016, the project of purchasing imported instruments and equipment by the Gene Editing Technology Research Center of Hebei University of Science and Technology was opened in Shijiazhuang, with a budget of 19.58 million yuan.

　　At present, how does this most concerned huge sum of money end? Neither Hebei University of Science and Technology nor Hebei Provincial Development and Reform Commission announced a clear statement.

　　It is worth mentioning that this conclusion of Hebei University of Science and Technology not only makes the academic community full of doubts, but also feels disappointed. Some researchers said, "This survey results are contrary to the spirit of zero tolerance of academic integrity promulgated by the Ministry of Science and Technology. Now it is unclear why the counterfeiters can still continue to engage in academic work, and the academic community should really do it ‘ Zero tolerance ’ " .

　　More than one person is confused about the domestic academic environment. According to a report by WeChat WeChat official account Intellectuals a few days ago, Xu Chenyang, a mathematician born after 1980s who left Peking University to teach at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, talked about three major problems in domestic scientific and technological circles, including "academic fraud can’t be punished".

　　Xu Chenyang said, "Surprisingly, the suspected fraud has been exposed for a long time, and there has been no news to deal with it, let alone specific punishment measures."

　　"If ‘ Zero tolerance ’ Finally become ‘ Zero as ’ Or ‘ Inaction ’ It will make many people mistakenly think that our system does not punish or cannot punish academic fraud. If so, I think the impact is very bad. " Xu Chenyang mentioned.

　　At present, it seems that since the school announced the launch of the investigation in August 2017, the truth has not been one step closer to the public.