NEWS CENTER

新闻中心

奥博资讯

媒体报道

体系论文

首页

On How to Define the Boundaries of the Right to Scientific Judgment

发布时间：

2026-07-29

On How to Define the Boundaries of the Right to Scientific Judgment

Sun Zuodong

Introductory Reflections for Pre-Reading

Disputes in science—should they be settled solely by the community of scientists? When entrenched consensus takes shape within academic circles, do blind spots in cognition emerge? Where should the line be drawn for external parties stepping into academic debates? How can we strike a balance between safeguarding academic autonomy and guarding against systemic insularity? Against the backdrop of the national reform to break the "five overemphases" in academic evaluation, does the traditional model of scientific judgment call for a timely reassessment? These questions merit rational discussion across society.

Looking back on the evolution of science and technology governance in China, two easily conflated academic controversies in biology arose in the 1970s and 1980s, whose contexts must be clarified separately.

The first centered on the academic debate surrounding Liu Yaguang. Liu claimed to have made groundbreaking breakthroughs in molecular biological research on Shengmai San (Pulse-Generating Formula). The renowned writer Yang Mu spoke out vigorously in his support, sparking deep divisions within the scientific community. Many industry scholars argued that his experiments lacked rigorous control groups and failed to substantiate his conclusions. After all viewpoints were escalated through official channels, an influential guiding instruction was issued: "We must adopt a scientific attitude toward scientific matters; judgments on scientific right and wrong rest with scientists. Liu Yaguang has stirred up controversy for years, and further backing would be inappropriate. Comrade Fang Yi shall talk to Comrade Yang Mu to straighten this out." Within the historical context of that era, this statement carried distinct contemporary value: it aimed to eliminate arbitrary interference in scientific research by laypeople and secure space for researchers to conduct their work.

The second controversy surrounded the "Tong Fish" experiments conducted by Tong Dizhou in collaboration with Niu Manjiang. Tong Dizhou, the founding father of experimental embryology in China, partnered with Niu Manjiang to conduct experiments injecting cytoplasmic ribonucleic acid extracted from crucian carp, which induced trait variation in goldfish and produced the so-called "Tong Fish"—a discovery that drew widespread attention at home and abroad. Tong Dizhou maintained rigorous scholarship throughout his life, and his experimental framework rested on solid foundations. After Tong’s passing, Niu Manjiang continued to promote the "extra-gene theory", whose arguments remained subject to persistent skepticism within academia for decades.

Though unfolding around the same period and falling under biological research, the two cases addressed distinct research avenues and revolved around entirely separate core conflicts, and must not be conflated. Times have moved forward, and the landscape of scientific research and academic ecology has undergone earth-shaking transformations. This compels us to deliberate carefully: if we absolutize the notion that "all scientific disputes must be judged exclusively by scientists", will it breed new practical predicaments?

First and foremost, academic communities are inherently incapable of natural impartiality and complete self-purification. The research system is composed of human beings, and scholars alike are constrained by entrenched academic paradigms, mentorship lineages, academic interests, and cognitive inertia. Long-dominant mainstream theories easily erect mental barriers, creating an innate bias against original hypotheses that break free from traditional frameworks. The national push to dismantle the "five overemphases" evaluation system stems precisely from recognizing the flaws of a single evaluation model. Overemphasis on papers, academic titles, and research projects stifles diverse innovation; successive academic misconduct scandals uncovered in top international journals further prove that relying purely on internal self-regulation within academia bears obvious limitations.

Furthermore, modern science is no longer a niche pursuit confined to ivory towers. Countless research outcomes directly impact public health, industrial development, and social public policy. When scientific conclusions bear close relevance to the vital interests of the public, completely shutting out public voices and cross-disciplinary researchers from deliberation hinders the sound advancement of science. That said, external participation does not equate to laypeople having the final say over academic conclusions—nuance and restraint are indispensable here.

We may draw on theoretical disputes in genetics to illustrate the room for re-examining established paradigms. Mainstream theory puts forward the semi-conservative DNA replication model: the double helix unwinds into two separate strands, each of which pairs with complementary bases to complete replication. Alfred Wegener, in the original German edition of The Origin of Continents, used a classic analogy: continents resemble torn newspaper sheets—their jagged edges interlock perfectly, and the printed text on adjacent fragments aligns coherently, proving they once formed a single whole. Applying this logic to the fundamental mechanisms of heredity: a genetic carrier holding three billion base pairs and a vast sequence of uninterrupted genetic information is comparable to an intact newspaper. If torn apart, the odds of reconstructing the full set of information perfectly by matching fragmented single strands approach zero from a probabilistic perspective.

Against this backdrop, the Origami Windmill Tetramer Model offers an alternative line of reasoning. The tetramer resembles a windmill, with four blades each carrying a complete, unbroken set of genetic information. Hereditary information transmission requires no splitting of the original information carrier. This framework also offers a reasonable explanation for Okazaki fragments frequently cited in academia: these fragments merely represent transient intermediate forms during replication, and cannot serve as definitive evidence for the strand-splitting replication mechanism. We do not deny the objective double-helical structure of DNA; we merely question the established paradigm of unwinding strands for single-strand replication.

Scientific progress often originates from sustained, rational reflection on canonical theories. No paradigm ought to be treated as an unchallengeable dogma. An ideal academic ecosystem should function as an open, inclusive forum for discussion—one that respects the professional judgments of field experts while reserving space for rational debate on cross-disciplinary insights and non-mainstream hypotheses. The power to judge scientific merit should not be reduced to a binary choice between "lay interference" and "insular monopoly"; instead, it ought to evolve toward multi-stakeholder collaborative governance.

This piece is a personal reflective essay on academic thought. Rational exchanges and constructive critiques from all walks of life are warmly welcomed.