Source: Tuchuang Creative Mustard Pile News On January 26, in response to the incident of "Rao Yi reporting Pei Gang's academic fraud", the Ethics Construction Committee of the Chinese Academy of Sciences issued a document saying that it had investigated Pei Gang's paper and no f

notice shows that the papers of Cao Xuetao, Li Hongliang and Geng Meiyu were not found to be faked after investigation, but there were misuse of pictures. Pei Gang and Rao Yi’s papers were not found to be faked after investigation. Two hours after the

notice was issued, Rao Yi published an article "Formal Reporting Lin-Pei (1999) Paper Suspected of Academic Misconduct" on his personal WeChat public account "Rao Yi Science". The report article was Ling K, Wang P, Zhao J, Wu Y-L, Cheng Z-J, Wu, G-X, Hu W, Ma L and Pei G (1999) Five transmembrane domains appear sufficient for a G protein-coupled receiver: Functional five-transmembrane domain chemokine receptors. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 96:7922-7927.

Picture source: "Rao Yi Science" WeChat public account

Pei Gang is the corresponding author of this article. The three first authors are Ling Kun (Associate Professor of the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology of Mayo Medical Center), Zhao Jian (Researcher at the Institute of Immunochemistry of Shanghai University of Science and Technology), and Wang Ping ( Professor of , School of Medicine, Tongji University). When Rao Yi published the article on the 21st, he referred to the abbreviation of the paper "Lin Pei (1999)", and was corrected as "Ling Pei (1999)" in the article published on the 22nd.

In the article, Rao Yi pointed out that "Ling-Pei (1999)" discovery "CXCR4 and CCR5 two GPCRs can function with just five-fold transmembrane". 21 years after the paper was published, it was not repeated in any laboratory, and Pei Gang's laboratory did not publish papers that repeated their own work.

"Whether an important breakthrough can be repeated is the key to verifying its reliability." Rao Yi questioned the fraud of Pei Gang's laboratory paper.

Rao Yi suggested that the Ethics Committee of the Chinese Academy of Sciences ask a third party to repeat the paper "Ling-Pei (1999)". If the experimental results can be strictly repeated by a third party, he will publicly apologize; if the paper "Ling-Pei (1999)" is wrong, then Pei Gang should write a letter to the Proceedings of the American Academy of Sciences to propose to revoke the paper according to international practice.

Interestingly, Pei Gang is the director of the 6th Moral Construction Committee of the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

At noon the next day, Rao Yi published another article to add some suggestions to the Sixth Moral Construction Committee of the Chinese Academy of Sciences: Repeated experiments must strictly use the same mutated genes described in the paper "Ling-Pei (1999)"; the repeated experiments are Figures 3, 4, and 5 of "Ling-Pei (1999)" (it is said that the function of the mutated protein in the five-fold transmembrane is almost exactly the same as that of normal proteins). What needs to be repeated are three experiments of two mutated genes, a total of six experiments; if it cannot be repeated, is it someone faked or something unintentional, and a special investigation is needed; he does not object to inviting/consulting the Nobel Prize winner to investigate the papers in Pei Gang's laboratory.

"responds" to Zhang Shuguang, saying that his experimental results are opposite to Pei Gang

1. On January 22, Science Network , head of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, published an article titled "Zhang Shuguang VS Rao Yi: Controversy about Pei Gang's questioned paper", which disclosed the Chinese translation of the letter from Zhang Shuguang, chief researcher of the Molecular Structure Laboratory of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, to Rao Yi. In the letter, Zhang Shuguang said that Rao Yi's accusation against Pei Gang was wrong.

Zhang Shuguang said that his paper "Non-full-length Water-Soluble CXCR4QTY and CCR5QTY Chemokine Receptors: Implication for Overlooked Truncated but Functional Membrane Receptors" published in the Cell sub-job iScience (Cell Press) in 2020 confirmed the results of "Ling Pei (1999)".

In the face of Zhang Shuguang's doubts, Rao Yi published an article on "Rao Yi Science" on January 23, "Experience is the only criterion for testing Zhang Shuguang's pk Pei Gang's right and wrong", and attached a reply to Zhang Shuguang, saying that if Zhang Shuguang's paper is credible, its experimental results just denied the result of "Ling-Pei (1999)", which means that it cannot repeat the result of "Ling-Pei (1999)".

article points out that Zhang Shuguang's paper results show that truncated (non-seventh-seventh-transmembrane) receptors cannot mediate the increase in intracellular calcium concentration caused by 25nM ligand. Ling Pei (1999) claims that the penta-transmembrane receptor can mediate the increase in intracellular calcium concentration caused by 10 nM ligands like the full-length normal receptor. These two results are completely opposite.

Rao Yi also said that strictly speaking, Zhang Shuguang's experiment did not use the same protein molecule, so the experiment of "Ling-Pei (1999)" was not strictly repeated. "A credible third party should be asked to conduct repeated experiments and draw a convincing conclusion: Can the results of 'Ling-Pei (1999)' be repeated?"

"Counterattack" Ling Kun: Don't help but

Ling Kun also attached a document catalog provided to the expert group with third-party laboratory repeated GPCR truncations that still have functional experimental results, totaling 12 articles.

Then, Rao Yi posted on the official account "The tree wants to be quiet but the wind does not stop: Advising Pei Gang's student Ling Kun not to help the worse", analyzing 12 articles sent by Ling Kun. In a reply to Ling Kun, Rao Yi wrote, "After reading these 12 documents carefully, the normal view should be: the so-called five-fold transmembrane that Ling Kun-Pei Gang "discovered" in 1999 can transmit signals the same as the normal GPCR receptor of the full-length seven-fold transmembrane. It has never been verified by strict repeated experiments in 22 years."

Rao Yi also pointed out that the articles listed by Ling Kun cannot prove that the results of "Ling Pei (1999)" can be repeated, and some of them deny the experimental results of "Ling Pei (1999)".

In the article, Rao Yi attached an email sent to the Shanghai Institute of Biochemical Cell Investigation Committee in December 2019, "In fact, my laboratory has used the reagents from Pei Gang's laboratory for a long time, but this result cannot be repeated, and I have told Pei Gang himself a long time ago." Rao Yi also said that he had not been questioned by the expert group responsible for the investigation of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and that the investigation opinions had been issued only two days after he handed the draft report to the Brain Planning Expert Group (December 1, 2019).

It is worth mentioning that after the incident fermented, discussions on related topics such as "How to view Rao Yi's official report on Academician Pei Gang's suspected of academic misconduct" once became the first and second place in Zhihu Science List; netizens under the comment section of related articles on platforms such as Science Network commented on "the more you debate the truth, the more you become clearer", "the science is not clearer", and "support rational debate, etc.".

Chinese Academy of Sciences: No more investigation

According to Caixin.com, on January 25, Pei Gang responded to the matter through a text message sent to Caixin.com reporters, saying, "It is well known that scientific research anti-counterfeiting and reporting academic misconduct should abide by the law. The whistleblower provides evidence, as a legal responsibility and obligation to provide the empirical evidence of academic fraud held during online reporting in 2019 and the substantive evidence of publicly reporting academic misconduct in real name this time."

Pei Gang added that the so-called empirical evidence should be substantive evidence that can be evidenced in court, "It can also be evidence materials or verification clues that have been identified by the joint meeting mechanism of the Ministry of Science and Technology for scientific research integrity construction after serious investigation. If there is any.”

Image source: Chinese Academy of Sciences website

Subsequently, the Science Network published an article "The "Rao Yi Report" incident was settled: No fraud in Pei Gang was found", reporting the above handling opinions. The article mentioned that the head of the relevant department of the Chinese Academy of Sciences introduced in an interview with " China Science Daily " that on the morning of January 25, the School Ethics Committee held a special meeting to discuss the matter. According to relevant regulations, Pei Gang was born The person avoided it, and finally concluded the results of no further investigation and announced it.

The person in charge also revealed the previous investigation: After Rao Yi sent a letter of complaint on November 29, 2019, the Ethics Construction Committee of the Chinese Academy of Sciences then formed an investigation team composed of many well-known experts. In January 2020, a special investigation was carried out under the framework of the joint working mechanism. The members were mainly experts outside the hospital, and experts in the same field were also organized to present consultation opinions. html l2

Starting from March 2020, the Ethics Construction Committee of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the Academic Committee of the Chinese Academy of Sciences jointly organized academic reviews. The review opinions formed by secret ballots by experts believe that "the existing evidence shows that the papers involved in Pei Gang do not have academic misconduct"; in June 2020, the review expert group organized a review expert group to conduct on-site review and evaluation, and the review opinions were formed after discussion at the plenary meeting of the review expert group in September, believing that "the investigation procedures for Pei Gang's related papers are compliant and the factual evidence is true. The conclusions of the paper are repetitive and no fraud is found. "

The above-mentioned person in charge called on the majority of scientific and technological workers to distinguish the boundaries between normal academic doubts and academic misconduct reporting, and professional academic doubts should be reflected through academic channels; all sectors of society are welcome to criticize and supervise the work of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and jointly promote the improvement of the credibility of the Chinese science and technology community.