NEWS CENTER

新闻中心

奥博资讯

媒体报道

体系论文

首页

Should Judgments on Scientific Truth Be Entirely Left to Scientists?

发布时间：

2026-07-28

Should Judgments on Scientific Truth Be Entirely Left to Scientists?

Sun Zuodong

Looking back on the evolution of science and technology governance in China, a far-reaching official instruction emerged amid the controversy over Liu Yaguang’s biological research in the early stage of reform and opening up: “We must adopt a scientific attitude toward scientific matters, and scientists should judge right and wrong in science. Liu Yaguang has stirred up disputes for years, and further support would be inappropriate. Comrade Fang Yi is requested to communicate with Comrade Yang Mu.” (This historical record can be found in publicly available documents on science and technology history such as China Science News.)

Against the backdrop of a nation rebuilding everything after decades of turmoil, this judgment carried distinct practical value and progressive significance. Following a special historical period, the research community urgently needed to put an end to arbitrary interference in academic discussions by non-professionals, fully respect professional rules, unlock researchers’ innovative vitality, and rebuild basic disciplines and industrial technologies. During the same period, academic disputes surrounding Niu Manjiang intensified. These two cases together sparked sustained reflection within academia on where to draw the boundary of academic evaluation. Veteran scientists including Zou Chenlu deeply participated in both academic debates and published articles exploring Who Should Evaluate Scientific Achievements. They warned against non-academic factors interfering in research assessment, while objectively acknowledging inherent limitations in the self-purification mechanisms of academic communities.

Times have evolved tremendously, bringing sweeping changes to research forms and academic ecosystems. Today, we must engage in careful deliberation: if we absolutize the historical maxim that “scientists should judge right and wrong in science” and extend it unconditionally without constraints, will it give rise to new governance dilemmas?

First and foremost, academic communities are not inherently impartial nor capable of complete self-purification. Peer review constitutes the mainstream evaluation method for modern research, yet peer systems suffer from academic cliques, path dependence and cognitive barriers. Groundbreaking interdisciplinary original hypotheses that upend existing paradigms are particularly prone to rejection rooted in entrenched mindsets. In recent years, top journals including Cell and Science have repeatedly retracted papers worldwide amid frequent incidents of academic misconduct. This proves that relying solely on internal self-regulation within academic circles cannot build an impenetrable line of defense. China’s ongoing reform to break the “Five Overemphases” (overemphasis on papers, titles, credentials, awards and project funds) stems from recognition of the hidden flaws of monolithic and clique-based evaluation models, and seeks to develop a diversified, multi-tiered research evaluation system.

Secondly, scientific research is no longer confined within laboratory walls. A great many research outputs exert profound impacts on public health, social ethics and ecological security. Breakthroughs in cutting-edge biotechnology and life science that cross ethical boundaries can trigger irreversible societal consequences. Academic debates resolve theoretical validity, while public governance safeguards ethical red lines—the two must not be conflated.

The Party leads all undertakings covering the Party, government, military, civilians and academia, and scientific and technological innovation is no exception. Upholding the Party’s leadership centers on steering the direction of scientific and technological innovation, drawing clear ethical boundaries for research, and fostering a fair and open academic environment. It does not mean replacing scientists in judging the validity of academic viewpoints. Theoretical analysis and experimental verification at the scientific level still rely on rational deliberation among researchers. However, external oversight mechanisms are required to deliver effective checks and balances on conflicts of interest, ethical risks, unfair evaluation and other issues that academic circles cannot resolve independently.

It has always been my view that academic autonomy and external oversight are not contradictory; a dynamic balance between the two must be pursued. Completely rejecting external oversight risks fostering closed, insular academic cliques. Conversely, simply substituting professional academic judgment with external forces runs counter to the inherent laws of scientific exploration.

This balance bears particular importance for independent researchers. Foundational original paradigms often take shape before systematic experimental verification, making it nearly impossible to amass ample supporting evidence in a short timeframe. Such ideas are inherently disadvantaged under peer review systems. Once an original conception is submitted for discussion, the lengthy review window carries inherent risks: core creative ideas may be appropriated, reworded with altered terminology, and published by others in advance. This is precisely why I consistently advocate comprehensive, immediate documentation of all original ideas to secure priority.

Scientific progress is forever inseparable from free academic contention. Rational scholarly debate must remain fully open, yet no single governance principle can be simplified and absolutized without accounting for its specific historical context. Establishing a composite evaluation system featuring “peer academic deliberation as the mainstay and external oversight and checks as a supplement” that balances academic freedom and public interests will cultivate a more inclusive and equitable breeding ground for all innovative ideas.