Umele vyfabrikovana afera Argentina, snazici se (neuspesne) vystvat poslance P. Mateju z Akademie, je znama tez jako ARGENTINSKE TANGO. Mozna inspirovala i jednoho cesko-kanadskeho akademika k podobne umele vyfabrikovane SMEAR CAMPAIGN. Autorovi ci autorum te sqele vymyslennosti se podarilo naplnit hned dva paragrafy trestniho zakona: PODVOD a POZMENOVANI VEREJNE LISTINY. Ale v nepravnim state samozrejme o nic nejde. Argentinske tango v provedeni cesko-kanadskeho ochotnika je posano v nasledujicim textu, ktery ted tez vychazi v jednom mezinarodnim mediu.
And our peers in particular
In the present wave of interest in scientific misconduct, the role of peers has frequently been stressed. In this note, I shall point out just a negative example -- a case of a peer who tried to suppress, victimize and punish a legitimate criticism. It deals with a Canadian scholar of a Czech origin, let us call him XXXX YYYYY.
Let us start from some other end. Some time ago, a leading figure from the Czech Academy of Sciences in Prague announced in a large-scale newspaper interview a discovery of 'the strongest classical explosive known so far, one hundred times, possibly even one thousand times, stronger than trinitrotoluene, dynamite or nitroglycerin'. It was an obvious nonsense, a trivial textbook mistake. Standard scientific ethics calls for correction of such mistakes to prevent their spreading and repetition. I have recently published my criticism in Skeptical Inquirer vol. 24, No. 4, p. 18 (2000). Before that, I had tried to distribute my critical remarks among the Czech scholars concerned (it is virtually impossible to publish such a criticism within the Czech scientific community as people are afraid that it would further deteriorate a shaky image of science in eyes of general public).
I have been serving as a professor at a university department in the Far East. Suddenly, one day a strange fax arrived from a Canadian university to my department executive, and I quote the main body of the text here:
"I am very sorry that I have to bother you with this letter. However, I do not have any other choice since I have received two anonymous letters which were sent in official envelopes of your Department. I am enclosing the xerox of the two envelopes. I suspect that the same letters were sent to a considerable number of scientists around the world. Would you please send me a fax number to which I can send a confidential letter (I would prefer it to be your personal Fax number). When I receive this number I shall write to you in detail as to what the whole case is all about.
XXXX YYYYY
Professor of ...
Professor of ...
Fellow of the Royal Society of ...
Reading this, you may believe that I did something wrong. I didn't. Let us summarize the relevant facts in order to understand this completely confusing and misleading message. On both envelopes my name was clearly given, written by my hand above the departmental address, though it was done in the local writing system (I did not have a private address as I lived on the campus). However, just the parts of the envelopes with my name were skillfully covered on the xerox copy he faxed. However, if they were not, one would not have been able to speak on anonymous sendings! I myself would call this manipulation fraud. Now, he didn't say a pretty important fact -- the materials in both envelopes were exclusively in the Czech language (this itself contradicts that they might be sent to "a considerable number of scientists around the world"). One of the materials was my own text, with my name, and dealing with a criticism of the above pseudo-discovery. The other material was a selection from the Czech newspapers concerning the Czech Academy of Sciences. There was a yellow adhesive label on it with my signature and greetings. Hence, it was a very Czech event and there was no ground to speak on some "anonymous letters".
I have concluded that the scholar had tried to punish me because I have criticized a clear scientific nonsense and, moreover, he had used a disgusting distortion, manipulation and fabrication that certainly could seriously harm my own reputation, if run out of control (he is not responsible for the pseudo-discovery -- it was done by his close friend). There is of course no excuse for this type of approach, especially not for a member of a Royal Society!
I have sent several letters to the Canadian scholar of Czech origin, clearly saying that he committed a fraud. He has never replied to me. In overall, it should be noticed that sometimes some peers can act just against the rules of scientific ethics that otherwise actually require a support and protection of 'whistle-blowers' (cf. the recent NAS Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Research). This sad and depressive fact certainly makes any fight against misconduct in science even more difficult and risky.
Zdenek Slanina
PS: A nyni jeste dodatek pro vazne zajemce o historii ceskeho vedeckeho marastu -- jmenovite postatna cast (n+1)-veho vykladoveho dopisu pro onoho Prof. Prof. YYYYY, o tom, ze ta jeho sofistikovana vymyslennost do te miry kulha na vsechny ctyri, ze by snad dneska uz nastesti nemohla zafungovat ani v Cechach (ni na tento (n+1)-vy vykladovy dopis onen akademik samozrejme nikdy neodpovedel).
Dear Professor YYYYY,
This is the last plus one informal warning in the fraud described below. I have noticed, with a growing embarrassment, that I have not received any response from you to my numerous appeals in the matter of your completely confusing and misleading... Now, I would like again repeat why this your message is so completely confusing and misleading:
1. The laws of the country explicitly forbid its institutions to keep secret files on its citizens. I do not believe that anybody would be willing to create such a secret file on me. Just on the contrary -- the citizens do have a free access to all the files dealing with them. That's certainly nothing extraordinary; it is an elementary feature of a state governed by law.
2. On both envelopes my name was given, owing to an 'accident' just that part of the envelopes is hidden on your xerox copy. However, if it were not, one should not have been able to speak on anonymous sendings. I cannot know how do you call this event (obviously, as I never got any your response). I myself call it fraud.
3. The materials in both envelopes were exclusively in the Czech language -- this itself contradicts your wary that they might be sent to 'a considerable number of scientists around the world'.
4. One of the materials was my own text, with my name and dealing with some aspects of so called krakatene. You may believe it is a discovery of the decade; I do believe it is a large-scale nonsense. The other material was a selection from the Czech newspapers concerning the Czech Academy of Sciences. There was a yellow adhesive label on it with my signature and greetings.
5. In the country concerned the university envelopes can freely be purchased in a stationary shop accessible to anybody. I used them as I have had no other mail address there, and as there have been quite a lot of people writing to me (directly).
6. I do understand you have had a text dealing with me and you have intended to distribute the text. I do offer to you that, as a real expert in my own biography, I shall check it for you and call your attention to errors and imperfections. I guess you have wanted to distribute a text as precise and correct as possible. Some time ago, a colleague named Ing. Mrha created a grotesque caricature of my biography in which he achieved improbable -- no single sentence in it was correct. I do not believe you want to follow this bad example. If you want to have the text in its best possible form, please, use my address and my name simply from either of the two envelopes you have had in possession (or use the address below); your sending will reach me safely on any of the two addresses.
In overall, your above-quoted message was completely confusing and misleading, and it could not be such without your own intention. I would be happy to join you in an effort to end with the present way the Czech newspapers are reporting on the Academy; after all, as a member of the Czech Learnt Society you should also be concerned with it. However, at present I am unable to do that as I still do not know your own opinion on the strange event, and also because I have never received your own text on me. I would like to stress my deep interest in the problem...
...Yours sincerely,
Zdenek Slanina