Group 1 - The article discusses the recent dismissal of Guo, a former chief scientist at Jiangsu University, due to allegations of academic fraud and misappropriation of national research funds, reigniting concerns about research integrity [1] - It also highlights the fall of Zhang Yaoxue, former president of Central South University and an academician of the Chinese Academy of Engineering, who was under investigation for serious violations of discipline and law, marking the end of a scientific myth that lasted over a decade [1][2] Group 2 - Zhang's theory of transparent computing was initially celebrated as a breakthrough that could help China overcome reliance on Western technology, particularly in the context of a chip shortage [2][5] - Transparent computing is described as a network computing model that separates computing from storage, theoretically reducing dependence on high-end chips from companies like Intel and Qualcomm [3][5] Group 3 - The theory gained significant attention when it won the National Natural Science Award, which is the highest honor in China's natural science field, and was seen as a symbol of national pride [2][6] - However, the article points out that the theory was built on existing concepts and lacked true innovation, with early criticisms emerging from both academia and industry [7][9] Group 4 - The article details how transparent computing was criticized for being a repackaging of outdated technologies rather than a groundbreaking advancement, with comparisons made to earlier concepts like "thin client" computing [8][9] - Despite its initial acclaim, the theory failed to demonstrate practical applications or market viability, leading to questions about its legitimacy and effectiveness [9][11] Group 5 - The narrative surrounding transparent computing reflects a broader issue in China's pursuit of technological independence, where hype often overshadows rigorous validation and market testing [12][13] - The article calls for a more transparent evaluation mechanism for technology, emphasizing the need for market validation rather than relying solely on academic endorsements [13][14] Group 6 - It concludes by advocating for a culture that respects scientific rigor and encourages questioning, warning against the dangers of pursuing technological myths without grounding in reality [14][15] - The piece suggests that a more measured approach to innovation, focusing on solid foundations rather than chasing fleeting trends, is essential for the future of China's technology sector [15]