Several things I have noticed recently make me extremely worried about the power of capital and its role in society.
The first is the rape and murder case of Didi Hitchhiker driver;
The second is Liu Qiangdong’s alleged sexual assault case;
The third is Han Chunyu’s withdrawal of the article Disposal.
Three seemingly unrelated things made me see the bloody mouth of capital behind the incident, eating people without spitting out bones.
"The Tao Te Ching" says: "The heaven and the earth are unkind and regard all things as stupid dogs; the saints are unkind and regard the common people as dogs." What Laozi means is that heaven and earth do not distinguish between good and evil, and all things are treated equally, without distinction between good and bad; saints treat people equally, and treat all people the same, without distinction between good and bad. What I want to say today is: "Capital is unkind and treats society as a stupid dog." Capital has no affinity or dislike for people or society. Capital has only one purpose, which is to make profits. It is precisely because of the neutral nature of capital that we need to be in awe and remain vigilant to prevent capital from doing evil.
One: Didi Hitchhiker rape and murder case. There is a large amount of information on the Internet about the causes and consequences of the case, which are clear and will not be detailed in this article. It is worth discussing that this case occurred three months after the "Didi Hitchhiker Killing Stewardess Case" and the day after the vehicle where the crime occurred was complained. What is the reason why Didi Company is so inefficient? What is the reason why Didi customer service remained indifferent and turned a blind eye when learning that passengers' lives were in extreme danger? There are of course issues with the personal quality and sensitivity of customer service; there are also issues with the customer service process, but more seriously, I saw the arrogance and ruthlessness of capital (neutral word). In the eyes of capital, you can kill the flight attendant while you are riding. Such a thing is an isolated case. It is the personal moral corruption of the murderer and heinous crime. Didi only provided a platform for convenient travel. It happened that this person used the platform to pick up the flight attendant and then killed him. . If he hadn't picked up the stewardess on the Didi platform, he might have used other means to kill others; taking a step back, this is because your stewardess was unlucky and her hit would have been fatal. If she didn't take Didi but took other cars, she might have been killed. Kill; Didi is so unjust when something like this happens. With such a large base, similar things will happen based on probability. If it does happen, it can only be blamed on Didi's bad luck, and it will be unlucky and lose money. Therefore, based on this understanding, Didi did not make any rectifications after the "stewardess case". Even the positioning promotion of Hitchhiking had sexual implications of "hookup", and the general manager of Hitchhiking also publicly advocated that Hitchhiking is a A very sexy scene. Based on this understanding, it led to the indifference of customer service, the blood-stained statement of "I will only compensate you even if you die" after the Yueqing incident, and the late and reluctant apology statement from senior executives.
Secondly, Liu Qiangdong was accused of sexual assault. The truth of this case has not yet been revealed. There are rumors on the Internet that ① there was no sexual assault at all, Liu was just framed; ② it is said that there was a fact of sexual assault, but the "price" was not negotiated and was negotiated later, which led to the emergence of the case. Catch and release situation. In Quanrun Jiangnan’s view, whether it is ① or ②, the ugly face of capital is the same. If ① is the truth, then the person who framed Liu must be the capital side who is wrestling with him. They are just fighting each other for their own interests. Be careful about the ugliness of capital; if ② is the truth, then Liu has learned from the past abroad (the Australian incident a few years ago) ), even with his wife, children and mother-in-law by his side, he still behaves so boldly and cannot control JB, which only shows that he is usually just pretending here, and he doesn’t know how rampant he will be in China. (Personally, I still tend to believe Liu, because it is stupid for such behavior to happen, and Liu is definitely not a stupid person. If it really happens, it is unscrupulous, and he is confident that he can "take care of it." Then it is reasonable to suspect that he is a habitual offender. This is not First time). Capital will corrode people's hearts. We must be wary of capital blinding people's hearts and human nature.
Third, the handling of Han Chunyu’s retraction incident. I think this matter does not receive as much attention as the first two. That is because firstly, this matter is a matter in the academic circle, and secondly, this matter has been delayed for too long. For specific opinions on how to handle this, please go next door and ask Du Niang. I personally agree with the conclusion: On the evening of August 31, 2018, Hebei University of Science and Technology announced the results of the investigation and processing of the withdrawn paper by Han Chunyu's team, saying that no subjective fraud by Han Chunyu's team was found.
The retracted paper no longer has the basis for re-publication. In accordance with regulations, the relevant parties have canceled the honorary title obtained by Han Chunyu, terminated the scientific research project undertaken by Han Chunyu's team and recovered the scientific research funds, and the academic awards obtained by Han Chunyu's team have been withdrawn. Scientific research performance rewards. Among them, the one that I am most concerned about and think is the most critical is "no subjective fraud was found in Han Chunyu's team", and Han Chunyu was not beaten to death with a stick.
Maybe many people in the academic circle believe that Han Chunyu committed academic fraud, and the investigation conclusion also said that the article no longer has the basis for re-publication. You, Quanrun Jiangnan, are neither academics nor have you ever conducted follow-up investigations. The truth of the incident, why should I support Han and write an article reversing the case? Let me first state that I am not writing an article about overturning the case, nor am I trying to support anyone. First, the investigation team of the incident has reached a preliminary conclusion, and I have no authority or ability to overturn the case. Second, I am a commoner, and my own waist is just enough for my own use. For the time being, there is not much power to support anyone.
Scholars want to ask me again, what are you doing here? I'm not trying to be ridiculous, but I just want to give you another possibility for the incident.
Back to the Han Chunyu retraction incident
On May 2, 2016, Han Chunyu, as the corresponding author, published an article in the top international journal "Nature Biotechnology" (Nature Biotechnology, 34, 768) -773, 2016) published a research paper titled "DNA-guided genome editing using theNatronobacterium gregoryiArgonaute" in the magazine, claiming that a new gene editing technology-NgAgo-gDNA was invented, which is a step forward from the most popular existing technology CRISPR- Cas9 launched a challenge.
On August 3, 2017, "Nature Biotechnology" issued a statement stating that it was withdrawing the paper published by Han Chunyu's team in the journal on May 2, 2016.
On the evening of August 31, 2018, Hebei University of Science and Technology announced the results of the investigation and processing of the retracted paper by Han Chunyu’s team, saying that no subjective fraud by Han Chunyu’s team was found.
As we all know: scientific research has always been based on bold assumptions and careful verification. Is it possible that Han Chunyu's matter is just because "Han Chunyu only achieved the former, and did not work hard enough for the latter". You know, once the gene editing technology invented by Han is proven feasible, the benefits involved will be measured in trillions of dollars. In the face of such huge benefits, which capital can sit still?
Han's method should be feasible in theory, otherwise the article would not be published at all. You must know that it is "Nature" magazine, and there is more than one reviewer, and they are all real big names in the industry. Damn, something that doesn't make sense in theory can't be released at all. Since this technology is in the field of life sciences, I wonder if there is a possibility that certain experimental conditions that Han has not paid attention to have played a key role, leading to the conclusions in the article. When Han repeated the test, if the conditions changed, he would not get the expected test results. One day, the experimental conditions are paid attention to, and it can be done again.
Let me borrow the words of a friend who is engaged in genetic research: Compared with Han’s genetic scissors, the existing genetic technology is scum. If China has a patent for this technology, we will seize the world’s life sciences. Peaks and opportunities in the field. Although South Korea later withdrew the paper, many scientists, research institutes, and companies in the field of life sciences around the world did not give up proving and improving the method, and invested funds in research.
I think after some time, this method will be used again. If it is confirmed to be feasible, how should the history of science be written? The interests are too great, especially the case of Chu Jian of Zhejiang University, so we have to be careful. We don’t know whether there is some capital behind the various articles that denounce Han Chunyu on the Internet today. The investigation team made this conclusion cautiously. They did not beat Han to death but gave him a chance. After all, it was scientific research, not to mention groundbreaking research. There was no way it would go without twists and turns. If this method is confirmed one day, I believe that 10,000 patents must have been applied for, and we are just waiting for us Chinese to take advantage of it and settle the situation.
Han is a talent, and sometimes it is more important to ask questions and solve them. In his case, we may need a little patience...