The controversial tiger photo has made fur fly in China.

A festival print in a resident’s house in Sichuan province, southwestern China, contains a tiger identical to the South China Tiger photo claimed to be taken earlier in Shanxi province, northwestern China.

It was commercially available three years ago from a print company based in Yiwu, Zhejiang province, eastern China. The company has confirmed that the print is their product. “This is our tiger!”, said the boss of the company.

Comparison of the two samples. Notice that the two tigers are identical even in the spot on them. Expects say tiger’s spots are like human fingerprints; there are no identical two.

Now you (and Science too) get the idea.

Science magazine has published on its Nov. 9 issue the controversial tiger photo from China and made a short account of the background (DOI: 10.1126/science.318.5852.893a, and for those like me who cannot afford an access to Scinece journal refer to the (same) text on the website of Saving China’s Tiger orgarnization), I have write a long post with more details, and from whose few comments I am sure some of my compatriots can rest assured that the disclosure of this event won’t damage the image of the intelligence of Chinese intellects because no one in the west cares about a fake tiger photo in China except the Science magazine if it represents someone.

And indeed this is not a science issue. It is ethical. The State Forestry Administration is searching South China Tiger in the village where the ‘fake’ tiger photo was taken. I believe there must be some tiger there even the photo is fake, and the State seems to believe it too. Scientifically we should stop here; the realness of the photo does not matter a thing. But ethically, we still care the photo because it may mean someone is cheating the public for money. And, especially in China, people have long been suffering from public cheating (and some of you may also know about this country from the food and toy safety scandals). What make the photo scientifically meaningful, besides the Science magazine’s attention, is a lot of Chinese scientists were involved in this national debate; they spoke what they should speak to the public. The State, indifferent at first, was almost forced to investigate the case under the huge pressure from the public and media.

This means the will to pursue the truth has waken up in China, which will lead to better science.