博文
密立根到底有没有学术不端？
精选
||
密立根到底有没有学术不端？
2009.07.12
Robert Millikan著名的油滴实验研究，涉及了两个所谓的学术不端指控。
a.密立根可能不正当地独占了第一篇油滴实验论文（The Isolation of an Ion,a Precisionmeasurement of Its Charge, and the Correction of Stokes law. Science, September 30, 1910.）的credit，而没有让自己学生Harvey Feltcher在该论文上署名。
b.密立根在1913年密立根发表的论文（On the Elementary Electric charge and the Avagadro Constant，R. A. Millikan, Phys. Rev. vol. II, no.2, pp. 109-143， 1913.）中，涉嫌选择性报道数据。
最为重要的是，这两项工作后来使得密立根独得了1923年的诺贝尔物理学奖。
对于这两项指控，方舟子在他2008年的文章《科学史上著名公案——密立根事件》中均有描述，并且对这两项指控基本上持肯定的态度。
方舟子《科学史上著名公案——密立根事件》博文链接：http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4740687901008q68.html
但是事实上这两项指控都完全站不住脚。
指控一
对于第一项指控的否定的根据，可以从Physics Today于1982年发表的Harvey Fletcher的自述My Work with Millikan on the Oil-Drop Experimemnt中找到直接的证据。Harvey Fletcher在这个自述中详细说明了自己未能在1910年那篇Science论文中署名的前后事实。并且特别指出：
People have frequently asked me if I had bad feelings toward Milligan for not letting me be a joint author with him on this first paper, which really led to his getting the Nobel Prize. My answer has always been no. It is obviously that I was dissapointed as I had done considerable work on it, and had expected to be a joint author. But Milligan was very good to me while I was at Chicago. It was through his influence that I got into the graduate school. he also found remunerative jobs for me to defray all my personal and school expenses for the last two years. Above this was the friendship created by working intimately together for more than two years.this lasted throughout our lifetime. When he wrote his memoirs shortly before he died he had probably forgotten some of these early experiences.
......
It was from these classmates (at University Chicago,博主注) that the rumors arose that I had been unfairly treated by Professor Milligan, and these rumors persisted at the Ryerson Physical Laboratories for many years after I left there. This is one of the reasons that i have outlined in some detail my connection and contribution to the famous oil drop experiment.
事实上，Millikan在指导Fletcher的博士论文期间（1908-1910），还只是assistant professor，远不是什么大老板。而且Fletcher说在1908年8月之后的两年多时间中：
We were together nearly every afternoon for the next two years.
可见Millikan绝不是甩手旁观的监工，而是一直自己亲手做实验和分析数据。
按照Fletcher的文章，Fletcher之所以没有在这篇Science文章上署名，是因为他的博士学位需要单独署名的文章。结果在二人的约定下，在Fletcher和Millikan共同完成的5篇文章中，有一篇是Millikan单独署名，两篇是Fletcher单独署名，两篇为二人共同署名。这样的结果不能说是对Fletcher更不公平。再说，那个时候Millikan也还不是非常成名的科学家，并且没有人一定知道这项工作的继续发展会在将来获得诺贝尔物理学奖。
在1982年Physics Today上的文章My Work with Millikan on the Oil-Drop Experimemnt全文：FletcherPhysicsToday
仔细阅读1910年Millikan单独署名的这篇长达13页的Science文章（我以前还从来不知道Science早期会发表数据如此详尽和篇幅如此长的研究文章），会发现这篇文章中有5处提到Fletcher的名字，其中三次是“Mr. Fletcher and myself...”，有一次为“Harvey Fletcher and myself...”，还有一次在解释所有的数据的来源的时候是这样提到Fletcher的名字的：
The letter F before a reading means that it was taken by Fletcher, the letter M that it was taken by Millikan.
也就是说，整篇文章对于Millikan和Fletcher在研究中的贡献描述的清清楚楚，不管Fletcher是否共同署名，事实上并不会影响人们判断Fletcher在这一工作中的实际贡献。这篇文章第一页有一个编辑说明如下：
1' At the request of the editor this abridgment of a paper presented on April 23, 1910, before the American Physical Society is published in SCIENCE.
署名是在文章最后，为：R. A. MILLIKAN THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO。
事实上，在1911年Millikan又在Physical Review上发表了长达49页的一篇自己单独署名并且和Science文章同名但内容更为详尽的论文。在这篇论文中，Millikan也多次几次提到Fletcher的名字，并且在文章最后的致谢中写到：
I wish also to acknowledge my great indebtedness to Mr. Harvey Fletcher who has most ably assisted me throughout the whole of this investigation.
在这篇Phisical Review文章中有以下的注解：
1'A preliminary account of this work was read on April 23 before the AmericanPhysical Society and was published in Science, Vol. 32, p. 436, September, 1910.
所以并不存在一稿多投的问题。在两篇文章中都有以下注解：
'The atomizer method of producing very minute but accurately spherical drops for the purpose of studying their behavior in fluid media, was first conceived and successfully carried out in January, 1908, at the Ryerson Laboratory, by Mr. J. Y. Lee, while he was engaged in a quantitative investigation of Brownian movements, His spheres were blown from Vood's metal, wax and other like substances which solidify at ordinary temperatures. Since then the method has been almost continuously in use here, upon this and a number of other problems, and elsewhere upon similar problems.
这里的Mr. J. Y. Lee，即李耀邦（John Yiubong Lee），是我国近代最早出国学习物理学并获得博士学位的先驱之一。非常有意思的是，尽管李耀邦对Millikan的油滴实验研究有直接的贡献，也先于Fletcher参与Millikan的有关工作，却从来没有和Millikan共同署名发表过文章。现在能够从文献上找到的李耀邦先生的文章只有一篇（DETERMINATION OF THE VALUE OF "e," BY MILLIKAN'S METHOD, USING SOLID SPHERES. Physical Review, Vol.4, 420-434, 1914.），而且这篇文章也只是李耀邦先生单独署名。这正好说明当时芝加哥大学的确对博士有发表自己单独署名文章要求，而当初Millikan和Fletcher商量署名问题绝对不是为了独占油滴实验的credit。如果没有芝加哥大学的这个要求，只按现在大家的惯常理解，李耀邦和Fletcher的名字应该都出现在Millikan于1910和1911年发表的Science和Physical Review文章中。
百度百科上有关李耀邦先生的介绍：http://baike.baidu.com/view/254813.html
李耀邦的这篇文章的致谢是这样写的：
I wish to express my sincere thanks to Professor Millikan for his kind assistance and counsel throughout these experiments.
如果今天哪个研究生发表文章的时候没有将导师署名，只是如此这般致谢了事，那才不知道要出什么乱子。
以上事实正好说明Fletcher在1908年8月参与Millikan实验室的研究之前，Millikan已经做了不少的带电液滴研究。Fletcher在自己的回忆录中说自己第一次到实验室去和Millikan讨论实验问题的时候，讨论了水滴易于挥发，所以应该改用挥发性小的油滴来做实验的想法，也应证了在此之前Millikan已经开展带电液滴的研究，并且获得了相当的进展。Fletcher对自己第一天进入Millikan的实验室发生的事情描述说：
In a discussion of that kind, it is rather difficult to be sure who suggested what. I left with the impression that I had suggested oil for it was easy to get and to handle. However, in his memoirs Millikan said he had been thinking of this before this conference. Of course, I cannot say yes or no to that, but I do know what happened after this conference.
Professor Millikan said to me,"There is your thesis; go try one of these substances which will not evaporate.
由这些直接的证据来看，Fletcher在油滴研究中的贡献事实上并没有那些假设Millikan对Fletcher不公的人希望的那么大。Millikan自己在Fletcher加入之前和加入之后都亲手做了大量的实验，所谓作为导师自己不动手还攫取了Fletcher作为学生的工作的可能性根本就不存在。如果可以为Fletcher做出受到不公对待的claim，也可以为李耀邦先生作同样的claim。油滴实验在Fletcher加入之后短短几周就取得了重要的进展，但是那篇重要的Science论文的内容直到1910年4月23日才在美国物理学会宣读，9月30日其abridgment才在Science上发表。
事实上，Millikan在Fletcher于1911年获得博士学位之后的，又做了大量的工作去验证油滴实验的准确性，否定了所谓亚电子（subelectron）电荷的存在，才于1923年获得诺贝尔物理学奖。有一些人似乎以为Fletcher的名字如果出现在了第一篇关于油滴实验的Science论文之上，Fletcher就一定会与Millikan共同获奖，那才是真正的天方夜谭。
注：Millikan在1910年在PHYSIKALISCHE ZEITSCHRIFT上还发表了一篇自己独自署名的类似题目的文章（The isolation of ion, a precise measuring of the bound to it electricity quantum and correction of Stokes' law, PHYSIKALISCHE ZEITSCHRIFT Volume: 11 Pages: 1097-1109 Published: 1910）。我看不懂德文，也没有直接找到这篇文章。估计那个时候重要的文章都需要用德文发表一遍才算做数。如果有谁能从这篇文章里面发现新的有趣的信息，敬请指教。
指控二
我没有时间和渠道去检查Millikan的实验原始记录，但David Goodstein在American Scientist和Engineering and Science上的文章中，Goodstein详细地描述了自己仔细检查和分析Millikan的原始实验过程细节和原始数据记录的发现和结论，他同时也仔细比较了Millikan发表于Physical Review上的那篇长达35页的被指控涉嫌选择性报道数据的文章和相关历史资料，这些都否定了对Millikan的指控。
David Goodstein发表在American Scientist上的文章In the Case of Robert Andrews Millikan全文链接：http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/MillikanII.pdf
David Goodstein发表在Engineering and Science上的文章In Defense of Robert Andrews Millikan全文链接：http://pr.caltech.edu/periodicals/EandS/articles/Millikan%20Feature.pdf
Goodstein的基本结论是，
I don’t think that any scientist, having studied Millikan’s techniques and procedures for conducting this most demanding and difficult experiment, would fault him in any way for picking out what he considered to be his most dependable measurements in order to arrive at the most accurate possible result.
......
In Betrayers of the Truth, Broad and Wade want to make the point that scientists cheat. Chapter 2, Deceit in History starts out with a list of culprits: Claudius Ptolemy, Galileo Galilei, Isaac Newton, John Dalton, Gregor Mendel and Robert Millikan. At the very least, Millikan is in good company. Of Millikan they say he “…extensively misrepresented his work in order to make his experimental results seem more convincing than was in fact the case.”
I would argue that this statement is profoundly incorrect. Incidentally, although I have no time to make the case today, the accusations against most of the other scientists on the list are equally spurious.
任何人想要了解Goodstein所做的分析的细节，可以去仔细阅读Goodstein的那两篇文章，或者到加州理工学院去看Millikan的原始记录，再做自己的分析。
结论：
综上所述，对Millikan的两项涉嫌学术不端的指控，应该说完全经不起事实和历史记录的检验。可是人们对这一类没有根据的谣言却常常采取宁可信其有的态度，并且经过多次不加检验的传播以后，使其谬种流传。
记得我以前在做实验室主任的时候，实验室的有一个博士后跑来问我：王主任，如果有人作为导师学术不端是不是应该处理？
以我对她的了解，我还真很怀疑她是否明白什么叫做学术不端。我说：学术不端当然要处理。不过要弄清楚一件事情是不是真的属于学术不端，先得把事实和判断标准弄清楚，不能冤枉好人。
结果她告诉我她的导师在一篇他们与其它单位分工合作的论文上，同意将本实验室的作者单独分列写在第二行，这样她的署名虽然排在本单位第一，却不能算这篇文章的第一作者，所以她要指控她导师没有充分肯定她的贡献，属于学术不端。
我只得笑着告诉她，这件事情和学术不端没有任何关系。这种事情都是国内稀里糊涂的评价标准惹出来的麻烦。
科学研究中弄虚作假和走捷径的事情的确存在，不假思索就道听途说地相信没有根据的事情并且做出错误的判断也是每一个人自己的权利。不过真要得出“干修饰数据勾当的物理学家还不在少数”的结论，恐怕还是要更谨慎和实事求是一些才好。
学术不端
https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-176-243267.html
上一篇：《背叛真理的人们》的有关争论
下一篇：科学中的操行与不端（转帖）
