2005年蒲慕明和李朝义发生冲突。蒲慕明和李朝义的电子邮件发给全所研究员（heads@
ion.ac.cn）。流传甚广。终于流传到网上。

From: "CY Li"

Reply-To: cyli@sibs.ac.cn

To: "heads"

Cc: "gpei" , "kxchen" ,

"wujr" , "bwtang"

神经所各位PI，

现将我写给蒲慕明信件的全文转发给大加，请大家仔细阅读，就不难发现他是如何对我信的内容进行断章取义，有意向大家隐瞒我的病情以及医生对我的告诫，并无理地逼迫大家向他本人表态，借以对我施加压力，来达到他强迫我提前退休的不可告人的目的（根据国加法律中国科学院院士是终身职位，可工作到80岁后转为资深院士）。无论蒲今后采取何种手段，我在近几年内绝不会离开神经所，更不会如他期望的那样同时将属于我的基金和仪器设备非法地转到他的名下。我的全部国家基金项目将继续进行下去，直到这些项目完成为止。根据事态的发展情况（包括蒲的表现），今后如果有必要，我将向大家展示更多的细节和证据。我保留向党中央和国家最高领导人对蒲慕明侵犯李朝义院士人权，和进行人身迫害，提出申诉的权利。

专此。

中科院院士 李朝义

2005年6月5日

---------------

尊敬的蒲慕明所长,

关于我的健康状况前些时候我已经同您详谈过了。 去年我突发大面积心肌梗死， 随后又发生脑梗塞，在医院的大力抢救下才获得了第二次生命, 直到现在尚处于病休之中。负责治疗我的心脏科和神经内科主任以及其他医院的会诊专家们都一再告诫我, 对于像我这样发生过如此大面积心肌梗死的患者, 相当大的一部分心肌已发生了不可逆转的改变，目前能够做到的是在近一、二年内争取我心脏功能能够获得部分的代偿。因此，我心脏的功能能够恢复到什么程度，今明两年将是最关键的时期。在此期间内，医生们强烈地要求我要最大限度地减轻工作上的负荷，充分休息，特别强调要避免一切精神刺激和心理上的压力。根据我目前的病情，显然，在今年要求我参加像“评议”、“考核”之类的活动是极不合适的。希望能够得到您的理解。

尽管如此，我可以在此表示，即便是在我目前带病工作的情况下, 我一定能够带领我研究组的全体人员，夺回因我生病而被耽误的时间，努力工作, 争取在不久之后，用我们的实际成绩交出一份满意的答卷。在今后适当时机，我将十分乐意接受一个由国际视觉领域顶级科学家组成的评审委员会对我的工作进行评定。

致礼！

李朝义

2005年6月4日

--------------------------

Date: Sat, 04 Jun 2005

To: "CY Li"

From: Mu-Ming Poo

Subject: PI review

Cc: "Gang Pei" , ,

, ,

Dear Prof. Li:

I have received your letter expressing your intention not to participate in
this year's academic review of ION PIs & laboratories. As I explained to you
on numerous occasions, I cannot change the principle that every laboratory
in operation in ION must be reviewed on a regular basis. Over the past year,
even before your health problem, you have openly stated in a PI meeting and
in numerous discussions with me that you object to the review of your

laboratory, based on two reasons: (1) Academicians of CAS are proven by the
Chinese scientific community to be the leader in their field, thus should
not be reviewed by an international committee, and (2) the academicians have
the right guaranteed by CAS to continue research activity indefinitely.
However, the CAS "no retirement" rule for academicians does not imply that
they can continue to run a laboratory indefinitely without proper review. In
fact, it is agreed by every PI when he/she joins ION, including yourself,
that all PIs will accept the 4th-year review for investigators and 6th-year
review for senior investigators.

With regard to your health, I have indeed been very concerned about your
health and whether your condition allows you to supervise the research of
your students. Your students have been very concerned about their future and
the morale of your group has been extremely

low, as the prospect of their graduating on time is diminishing. After
careful consideration of my responsibilities to you and your students as the
ION director, I offered you the solution that will waive you from
participating in the review, namely, to accept the Honorary Investigator
position, keep exactly the same level of salary and your office, but
terminate your lab head position by June 1. You had agreed with this
arrangement and xxxxally announced it, even as late as May 21 of this year.
By June 1, however, you suddenly broke the agreement unilaterally and
announced that you want to continue to run your laboratory. Your action has
left me no choice but to ask you again to participate in this year's review
process. The health issue is a new issue, but now has become your main
argument for not participating in the review this year. However, as you are
fully aware, you always have the option not to be present during the site
visit of the review team, should your health conditions not permit you to do
so, but your laboratory activity and research program can still be reviewed.

In any case, I am very sorry to learn that you do not intend to participate
in the review this year. If you do change your mind again, you can still
send me an e-mail note (or fax 510-642-2544) stating explicitly that you "
will participate in this year's PI review according to the standard ION
procedure", before noon Monday June 6 (Shanghai time, when I have to inxxxx
our International Advisory Board for the assembly of the review team).
Without the above explicit statement, I will have to interpret that you have
decided not to participate in the review this year.

Sincerely yours,

Mu-ming Poo

Director, ION

P.S. Your accusation of my personal (or Dr. Yang Dan's) intention on your
fund and equipment is so ridiculous that it does not deserve my response.
However, since your accusation is open to all ION Lab Heads and the SIBS
leadership, I have to make a simple and to-the-point response, in defense of
my reputation (and that of Dr. Dan, your guest investigator for four years).

Over the past several years, my efforts and Dr. Dan's efforts in helping
your research projects (in a manner that has always been most respectful to
you) have been impeccable and can be testified by all of your students (
including those who have graduated). Your constant strict orders to your
students not to take any well-intended suggestions from Dr. Dan on your
students' projects have resulted in Dr. Dan's withdrawal from any
interaction with your students in the past two years with the exception of
one student, whose research activity barely allows the CAS-funded guest
investigator program (under your name as a "collaborator") to continue as
proposed to CAS. Even under such difficult circumstances, Dr. Dan managed to
provide extensive help while you were hospitalized late last year on the
publication of your two most recent papers by two of your students, one of
which (Xu Weifeng) was on the verge of losing the eligibility for his Ph.D
diploma. This fact is well-recognized and acknowledged by all of your
students.

My order to the ION staff to carry out equipment inventory on the first week
of June was based on your agreement on the termination of your lab head
position by June 1. By any measure, this is a necessary step for me as the
ION director to organize the research efforts of the students in order to
ensure successful completion of their thesis projects and, by accepting the
Honorary Investigator position, you no longer had the authority over
research funds and the equipment. In my order to the ION staff, I
specifically mentioned the "expensive" piece of the newly-bought equipment,
because one of your xxxxer students Xu Shengjin proposed a thesis project in
May, which was approved by the Ph.D qualification exam committee, that
requires the use of this piece of equipment. To me as a scientist, it is
absolutely unreasonable to spend such a large amount of taxpayer's money on
an expensive piece of equipment, but keep it in the office to prevent a
student from carrying out the research.

P.S. (to ION Laboratory Heads)

For the interests of ION, I request that my e-mail communications to Prof.
Li not to be circulated outside ION and to ION students. However, in the
event that Prof. Li continues his open accusation, I am always prepared to
defend myself.