关于第二军医大学孙颖浩校长的严重学术不端行为的举报

使用CN2/CN2GIA顶级线路，支持Shadowsocks/V2ray科学上网，支持支付宝付款，每月仅需 5 美元

## 加入品葱精选 Telegram Channel ##

关于第二军医大学孙颖浩校长的严重学术不端行为的举报

尊敬的周济院长、赵宪庚委员等各位院士：

您好！

一个半月前，我给知道准确地址的十五位医药卫生学部的工程院院士通过邮局发送了关于第二军医大学校长孙颖浩学术不端等问题的信件，可惜如石沉大海，杳无音信。倒是这样一条消息铺天盖地而来：“10月29日从中国工程院了解到，在中国工程院主席团领导下，医药卫生学部严格按照《中国工程院章程》和《中国工程院院士增选工作实施办法》的规定，坚持公平、公正的原则，通过科学、严谨的评审程序，院士增补7名新中国工程院医药学部院士。” 这7名院士中间就包含有第二军医大学校长孙颖浩。这些天我一直在思考，大家都意识到当下学术腐败问题的严重性，而且反对学术腐败、整治学术腐败，也不是直到今天才被提出来的，为什么学术腐败一直以来能够愈演愈烈而不能得到很好的根治呢？为什么大家对这些所谓的“大牛专家”的劣迹都熟视无睹呢？而当这些“大牛专家”倒下时，各种马后炮评论又汹涌而至。想来想去也没有什么结果，但有一点我愈来愈清醒，这些人的日子不会长久，科学的春天肯定会普照大地，中国科技事业的未来前程会更加美好。基于此，作为孙校长的同行，一个普通的泌尿外科的医生，我决定再次提笔。

1，科技奖励水分太多，投机取巧。

孙颖浩校长第一个国家科技进步二等奖《微创治疗泌尿系结石新技术的研究和应用》于2008年获得。按孙校长语：“从上个世纪末开始，孙校长便以微创治疗泌尿系结石为突破口，在泌尿系结石的体外震波、输尿管软硬镜碎石、经皮肾镜碎石、肾盂输尿管交界处狭窄伴结石等腔内治疗的基础上，组织技术力量进行系统的研究和创新。他们通过研究攻关及大量动物实验，将大功率的钬激光引入碎石治疗中，大大提高了复杂性肾脏大结石的治愈率；同时，运用一期输尿管镜下钬激光治疗肾盂输尿管交界处狭窄合并肾盂结石，大幅度减少了手术创伤；并在输尿管软镜碎石中，通过输尿管扩张鞘内进行进镜，进一步提高了进镜和碎石的成功率。”

在所有的泌尿外科同行看来，这里面水分太大。当年在结石领域潮流中，孙校长上述技术都不是孙校长的优势，真正强者是广州医学院第一附属医院微创外科中心的李逊教授，李逊自1984年起从事泌尿外科及腔内、微创新技术的临床研究及推广应用，在泌尿系结石、泌尿系肿瘤以及前列腺增生的诊治方面积累了丰富的经验，擅长于微创经皮肾镜取石、输尿管镜取石、输尿管狭窄微创治疗、前列腺微创手术（及泌尿腹腔镜手术，共计完成微创外科手术多达两万例以上，其中微创经皮肾镜、输尿管镜手术1万多例，是中国乃至世界上完成该项手术最多的医生之一。其首创的“中国式微创经皮肾取石术” 及研制开发的“李逊微创肾镜”、“MCC腔道窥镜灌注泵”等系列手术器械在临床上的成功应用，使98%以上的尿结石患者免受开放手术之苦，手术效果达到国内领先、国际先进水平，得到国内外同行的充分肯定，被誉名为“Chinese MPCNL”,且荣获2006年国内医学最高荣誉奖——中华医学科技奖。

但是我们的孙校长的过人之处在于发现了可以报奖，包装后便申报了国家奖，在中华医学会泌尿外科分会这也是一个笑谈，也是这么多年来孙教授对此次获奖较少提及的缘故。

孙校长的聪明才智在第二次申报国家科技进步奖的时候得以发挥到极致，采用纯粹的堆砌申报法。不论是高新和庞俊（中山三院泌尿外科）、叶定伟（上海肿瘤医院泌尿外科主任）、贺大林和李磊（西安交大一附院泌尿外科主任）、刘明耀（华东师范大学生科院），还是牛远杰和尚芝群（天津医科大学附二院泌尿外科）等都是孙校长以中华医学会候任主委的身份召集到一起拼凑而成。他们之前没有任何实质性的合作，查查他们之前的文章就很容易回答这个简单的问题。如果说有联系，就是2011年底孙主委组织了这些他的小弟们申报了“前列腺癌分子机制与干预的研究”973计划项目，此项目并于2012年2月份才启动。就是这样的打包堆砌也能够获奖，而且是国家科技进步一等奖。实在不知道说什么好？请各位明察。

前列腺癌诊疗体系的创新及其关键技术的应用

孙颖浩，高 新，叶定伟，刘明耀，贺大林，牛远杰，尚芝群，李 磊，易正芳，高 旭，周 铁，庞 俊，张海梁，任善成，王辉清

中国人民解放军第二军医大学第一附属医院（1），中山大学附属第三医院（2），复旦大学附属肿瘤医院（3），华东师范大学（4），西安交通大学附属第一医院（5）

“一个国家科技进步奖，不能简单地看他排第一或者第二，而要看他在这里面的具体贡献”。 我想请大家说说孙校长在这个国家科技进步一等奖中有什么贡献？给他一个组织贡献奖还是可以的。

2，严重的学术不端行为

孙校长一直津津乐道的有两篇文章。一篇关于前列腺癌GWAS研究相关研究成果发表于2012年9月30日出版的《自然-遗传学》上, 孙教授成功发现2个新的中国人群特异易感基因位点。文章第一作者是徐剑锋教授，国家千人计划入选者。我本人没有如此经济实力去做GWAS研究，也不能随便评判这2个新的中国人群特异易感基因。另外一篇是孙校长2012年发表在Cell Research上面的文章RNA-seq analysis of prostate cancer in the Chinese population identifies recurrent gene fusions, cancer-associated long noncoding RNAs and aberrant alternative splicings. 本人作为孙校长的同行专家，所带研究生也在从事前列腺癌的分子遗传学工作，出于兴趣对孙校长的发现的前列腺癌融合基因进行了验证，可惜数次没有结果。当然这不能说明孙校长的文章有问题，即使有问题也是测序的问题，可以理解。倒是孙校长与Cell Research副主编李党生的关系如此之好，使我“不惮以最坏的恶意来推测什么”。我非常想知道这篇文章的Reviewers是谁？审稿来往原始信件可否公开看看？我想这几乎是不可能发生的事情，但我这样想想应该没有罪吧。

而今年3月份发生的一件事情让我对自己的“恶意推测”有了些许安慰。孙校长公然的一稿两投，文章“Percent free prostate-specific antigen for prostate cancer diagnosis in Chinese men with a PSA of 4.0-10.0 ng/ml: results from the Chinese Prostate Cancer Consortium”在投稿BMC Urology同时投稿到Asian Journal of Urology（见附件1）。而且目前你还不能够在pubmed上搜索到这篇文章，因为题目已经被孙校长仔细“修改”了。

度娘了一下一搞多投的定义：“一稿多投是科学界严厉指责的行为,一稿多投行为如果在稿件的同行评议过程中被发现,通常会被简单地退稿,有些期刊编辑部可能会在退稿的同时函告作者所在单位的相关部门.如果一稿多投的文章已经发表,期刊有可能会采取制裁或处罚: (1)在一定期限内拒绝一稿多投作者向该刊继续投稿; (2)在刊物上刊登关于该作者一稿多投的声明,并列入目次页,以便被检索系统(如美国国立医学图书馆Medline数据库)收录,供同行检索; (3)可能在某特定专业群体的刊物中对一稿多投的行为进行通报; (4)可能通知作者所在单位。”可这些对孙校长有什么影响呢，他就是单位，单位就是他。

就这样，且行且运作，孙校长当选为院士了，你想怎样？

尊敬的各位院士，我希望您仔细看看。这一次发送材料给各位老专家的同时，我将抄送给相关媒体，如果再次没有下文，本人将实名举报。

此致 敬礼 一名普通的泌尿外科医生2015年11月 附件1：From: Hayley HendersonDate: 2015-03-11 19:45To: 陈锐CC: xielp@zjuem.zju.edu.cn; drcaixiaobing@126.com; zhoulqmail@sina.com; huangyrrenji@163.com; malulin@medmail.com.cn; gaoxu.changhai@gmail.com; xuchuanliang@medmail.com.cn;renshancheng@gmail.com; drcjyin@163.com; xu-danfeng@hotmail.com; cavinx@sina.com; zhangqun_ye@163.com; liuchx888@hotmail.com; dwyeli@163.com; gaoxin44@vip.163.com;jamesqfu@aliyun.com; xf192@163.com; jianliny@fmmu.edu.cn; hedl@mail.xjtu.edu.cn; wenzhoutie@163.com; wangbofengye@163.com; 190589109@qq.com; sunyh@medmail.com.cnSubject: RE: BMC Urology - Request to Withdraw - MS: 1343175367158156MS: 1343175367158156Research articlePercent free prostate-specific antigen for prostate cancer diagnosis in Chinese men with a PSA of 4.0-10.0 ng/ml: results from the Chinese Prostate Cancer Consortium. Rui Chen, Liping Xie, Xiaobing Cai, Liqun Zhou, Yiran Huang, Lulin Ma, Xu Gao, Chuanliang Xu, Shancheng Ren, Pengfei Shao, Danfeng Xu, Kexin Xu, Zhangqun Ye, Chunxiao Liu, Dingwei Ye, Li Lu, Qiang Fu, Jianquan Hou, Jianlin Yuan, Dalin He, Tie Zhou, Fubo Wang, Biming He and Yinghao SunBMC Urology Dear Prof Sun, Thank you for your email. It has actually come to my attention that you have submitted and published this manuscript with the Asian Journal of Urology. As I hope you will be aware, duplicate submissions to multiple publishers is a severe breach of publication ethics. As a signatory of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), we are obliged to allow you the opportunity to respond to our email and provide an explanation for such behaviour. However, we do not feel this step is necessary given that you have had ample time to declare that you had submitted elsewhere. Referring back to our earlier correspondence, you did indicate your wish to withdraw as you felt your manuscript would be better suited to a Chinese, or Asian readership. However, I then informed you that we were awaiting a second referee report, and you confirmed on the 26th February that you were happy to wait for this review – agreeing that your manuscript file should remain open at BMC Urology. Our editorial decision was sent to you on the 4th March, which indicated that we were happy to continue with peer-review after you had addressed the referees’ minor concerns. However, what you did not tell us at any stage was that your manuscript was also under consideration, and had since been accepted for publication, at the Asian Journal of Urology. We do apologise for the delay you experienced whilst we secured to independent referees, however, it is imperative that you request to withdraw your manuscript,AND then receive written confirmation from the editors that this has been done first BEFORE proceeding to submit elsewhere. Failure to do so could result in duplicate publication of your research, and a retraction paper against your name. Another important point to note is that duplicate submissions are a waste of a journal’s editorial resources – today, the pressure to secure referees, and ensure a quick and efficient peer-review service is ever increasing. Therefore, when authors call upon the time of more than one journal for their manuscript, and then later request to withdraw after another publisher has beaten the rest to the punch, this has wasted the time of both the handling editors and the referees. In light of this blatant breach of policy, and in line with COPE guidelines, we will inform the editors at the Asian Journal of Urology, and we will inform the head of your institution. However, I am hoping that you will know not to submit your manuscript to more than one publisher again in the future! Please be assured that the above manuscript file has been rejected from BMC Urology, and your files updated accordingly. Regards, HayleyDr Hayley HendersonSenior Executive Editor, BMC-Series Journals, BioMed CentralFloor 6, 236 Gray’s Inn Road , London , WC1X 8 HL , UKhayley.henderson@biomedcentral.com, www.biomedcentral.com From: 陈锐 [mailto:drchenrui@foxmail.com] Sent: 11 March 2015 07:45To: Hayley HendersonSubject: Re: BMC Urology - Request to Withdraw - MS: 1343175367158156 MS: 1343175367158156Research articlePercent free prostate-specific antigen for prostate cancer diagnosis in Chinese men with a PSA of 4.0-10.0 ng/ml: results from the Chinese Prostate Cancer Consortium.Rui Chen, Liping Xie, Xiaobing Cai, Liqun Zhou, Yiran Huang, Lulin Ma, Xu Gao, Chuanliang Xu, Shancheng Ren, Pengfei Shao, Danfeng Xu, Kexin Xu, Zhangqun Ye, Chunxiao Liu, Dingwei Ye, Li Lu, Qiang Fu, Jianquan Hou, Jianlin Yuan, Dalin He, Tie Zhou, Fubo Wang, Biming He and Yinghao SunBMC Urology ?Dear Hayley,I am so glad with the whole process of submitting manuscript to BMC Urology. However, I would like to withdraw my maunuscript as I have requested in past emails.I am really sorry for the trouble I have made. I would continue to pay attention to this Journal and find chances to contribute.Best wishes,Rui Chen —————— Original ——————From: “陈锐”;drchenrui@foxmail.com;Date: Thu, Feb 26, 2015 11:38 AMTo: “Hayley Henderson”Hayley.Henderson@biomedcentral.com;Subject: Re: BMC Urology - Request to Withdraw - MS: 1343175367158156 MS: 1343175367158156Research articlePercent free prostate-specific antigen for prostate cancer diagnosis in Chinese men with a PSA of 4.0-10.0 ng/ml: results from the Chinese Prostate Cancer ConsortiumRui Chen, Liping Xie, Xiaobing Cai, Liqun Zhou, Yiran Huang, Lulin Ma, Xu Gao, Chuanliang Xu, Shancheng Ren, Pengfei Shao, Danfeng Xu, Kexin Xu, Zhangqun Ye, Chunxiao Liu, Dingwei Ye, Li Lu, Qiang Fu, Jianquan Hou, Jianlin Yuan, Dalin He, Tie Zhou, Fubo Wang, Biming He and Yinghao SunBMC Urology ?Dear Hayley,?It’s a great pleaseure to recieve your email.We are also very happy to wait the second review comes back, which is due this week.Thank you for your generous help.Best wishes,Rui Chen —————— Original ——————From: “Hayley Henderson”;Hayley.Henderson@biomedcentral.com;Date: Mon, Feb 23, 2015 08:38 PMTo: “707460886”drchenrui@foxmail.com;Cc: “Santos, Hazel Joyce Delos”HazelJoyceDelos.Santos@biomedcentral.com;Subject: BMC Urology - Request to Withdraw - MS: 1343175367158156 MS: 1343175367158156Research articlePercent free prostate-specific antigen for prostate cancer diagnosis in Chinese men with a PSA of 4.0-10.0 ng/ml: results from the Chinese Prostate Cancer Consortium.Rui Chen, Liping Xie, Xiaobing Cai, Liqun Zhou, Yiran Huang, Lulin Ma, Xu Gao, Chuanliang Xu, Shancheng Ren, Pengfei Shao, Danfeng Xu, Kexin Xu, Zhangqun Ye, Chunxiao Liu, Dingwei Ye, Li Lu, Qiang Fu, Jianquan Hou, Jianlin Yuan, Dalin He, Tie Zhou, Fubo Wang, Biming He and Yinghao SunBMC Urology Dear Prof Sun, Thank you for your email and for letting us know that you wish to withdraw your manuscript from consideration in BMC Urology. However, before closing your file, I would like to let you know that we are currently awaiting a second referee report, which is due this week. Although your manuscript may be better received in a Chinese journal given the topic, I would encourage you to wait a few more days for the second referee report, and our editorial decision. The referees’ comments may help to strengthen your manuscript and improve the quality of reporting. If you are happy to wait, then I will update our records accordingly and ensure that the referees’ reports and an editorial decision are sent to you as soon as possible. Thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to hearing from you soon. With best wishes, Hayley Dr Hayley HendersonSenior Executive Editor; BMC-Series Journals; BioMed CentralFloor 6, 236 Gray’s Inn Road , London , WC1X 8 HL , UKhayley.henderson@biomedcentral.com, www.biomedcentral.com (XYS20151130)

最简单好用的 VPS,没有之一，注册立得 100 美金