tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22660482645845265172024-03-13T09:31:47.293-06:00China's Scientific & Academic Integrity WatchSince about 2000, a young man by the name of Fang Shimin, better known by his net-name Fang Zhouzi, has been fighting a lonely crusade exposing the many frauds in China's scientific and academic communities. His efforts has gained as many enemies as friends.
<p>
This blog follows his crusade.Eddie Chenghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03285289956451750621noreply@blogger.comBlogger191125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2266048264584526517.post-58437541817297632832014-10-21T20:21:00.001-06:002014-10-21T20:36:48.143-06:00Fang Zhouzi Erased from China's Social MediaFor the last decade, Fang Zhouzi has focused on his scientific writings and debunking efforts in the expanding cybersphere of China's social media. He has quickly acquired a huge fan base. His several accounts usually have hundreds of thousands followers.<br />
<br />
Until last night (Beijing time).<br />
<br />
A few days ago, China's President Xi Jinping (习近平) praised a relative unknown young author by the name of Zhou Xiaoping (周小平) as an exemplary artist of China, dramatically raising the latter's profile. His works are now being actively circulated and caught the attention of Fang Zhouzi.<br />
<br />
It turns out that Zhou Xiaoping had previously written a blog post attacking Fang Zhouzi during <a href="http://fangzhouzi-xys.blogspot.com/search/label/Xiao%20Chuanguo%20%28%E8%82%96%E4%BC%A0%E5%9B%BD%29">the affair of debunking Dr. Xiao Chuanguo</a>, which was well documented on this site. But more interestingly, Zhou Xiaoping had also written an essay titled "The American Dream Crashed," describing what he termed as the miserable realities of living in the USA.<br />
<br />
Fang Zhouzi found the essay full of factual errors. He wrote a detailed rebuttal, accusing Zhou Xiaoping had "sleepwalked" America instead. Fang Zhouzi's article cites each of the "facts" from Zhou Xiaoping and debunks them with detailed references.<br />
<br />
After Fang Zhouzi published his article, it started to circulate in the social media quickly. But almost as quickly, they started to disappear. Then, Fang Zhouzi found himself being denied access to his own social media accounts. Within half an hour or so, the accounts have been removed from across at least three major social media sites.<br />
<br />
Quite literally, Fang Zhouzi has been erased.<br />
<br />
Ironically and perhaps fittingly, the article Zhou Xiaoping penned years ago attacking Fang Zhouzi was titled "When the World is Rid of Fang Zhouzi, We will have Harmony" (当世上没有方舟子,天下就和谐了).<br />
<br />
Fang Zhouzi has now moved to Twitter (@fangshimin), which is beyond the control of the Chinese government but also beyond the reach of his millions of fans inside the Great Firewall.<br />
<br />eddiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05941964283639189336noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2266048264584526517.post-66678835531482021852013-06-26T18:00:00.002-06:002013-06-26T18:00:18.213-06:00Fang Zhouzi Receives Cliff Robertson Sentinel Award for Anti-Fraud<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Fang Zhouzi is the 2013 recipient of the <a href="http://www.fraudconference.com/24th-Awards.aspx">Cliff Robertson Sentinel Award</a> bestowed by the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners at their annual Global Fraud Conference held in Las Vegas.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YHcELbzNAmg/Uct_PnO2JzI/AAAAAAAAAOI/-cSgD6kbnN8/s1600/m_b3efgf2745651631739.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="213" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YHcELbzNAmg/Uct_PnO2JzI/AAAAAAAAAOI/-cSgD6kbnN8/s320/m_b3efgf2745651631739.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
The award is named after the Academy Award-winning actor, "for choosing truth over self."</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
eddiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05941964283639189336noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2266048264584526517.post-1413547995269084902012-11-10T17:21:00.001-07:002012-11-10T17:21:07.340-07:00Fang Zhouzi Awarded the Inaugural John Maddox PrizeThe British journal <em><a href="http://www.nature.com/news/john-maddox-prize-1.11750?nc=1352566538135">Nature</a></em> and charity organization <a href="http://www.senseaboutscience.org/pages/john-maddox-prize.html">Sense about Science</a> announced recently that they have awarded the first ever <a href="http://www.senseaboutscience.org/pages/2012-maddox-prize.html">John Maddox Prize</a> to Fang Zhouzi and the British psychiatrist Simon Wessley.<br />
<br />
The inaugural prize is established in the honor of John Maddox, a former editor of <em>Nature</em>, to reward "individuals who have promoted sound science and evidence on a matter of public interest, with an emphasis on those who have faced difficulty or opposition in doing so.<br />
<br />
In awarding the prize to Fang Zhouzi, the judges wrote:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
China’s rush to modernize and the communist government’s celebration of science and technology have firmly embraced scientists and scientific achievements, sometimes uncritically. And into that permissive milieu has walked a plethora of opportunists ready to take advantage of the situation with padded CVs, fraudulent and plagiarized articles, bogus medicines and medical procedures carried out without clinical evidence.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In 2000, Shi-min Fang started to expose these escapades in his New Threads website. As an outsider, trained as a biochemist but turned science writer and commentator, he has done much of what the scientific community aims, but often fails, to do — root out the fakers.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
For example, Fang called into question DNA supplements that were widely advertised as a means to rejuvenate the tired, the pregnant and the old. Eventually, the government issued warnings about the supplements. Fang seemed to especially relish smacking down powerful or popular scientists. He even challenged official support of traditional Chinese medicine. But his targets fought back, in one case with particular hostility. In the summer of 2010, thugs hired by a urologist attacked Fang with a hammer and, according to Fang, tried to kill him. Fang had previously challenged not only the efficacy of a surgical procedure developed by the urologist, but also his CV.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Fang imposes transparency on an opaque system. He has opened a forum for criticism and debate in a community that is otherwise devoid of it.</blockquote>
The award is for £2,000 (US$3,200) for each recipient.Eddie Chenghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03285289956451750621noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2266048264584526517.post-67515567319549774152011-08-17T21:36:00.003-06:002011-08-17T21:45:44.402-06:00Rao Yi Out of Academician Race, Protests OpenlyRao Yi, professor of biology and the dean of College of Life Science at Peking University, lost out in the first round of the selection process for a new class of members of the Chinese Academy of Science.<div>
<br /></div><div>The outcome was both shocking and expected. While an excellent research scientist in his own field, Rao Yi has also been very outspoken in his criticism of the current academic system in China.</div><div>
<br /></div><div>In an unusual response, Professor Rao Yi wrote a post in his blog expressing gratitude to the scholars who nominated him but declared that he would never be a candidate for CAS again. The news and his protest is carried in at least some of the official newspapers in China. </div>Eddie Chenghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03285289956451750621noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2266048264584526517.post-48885884046295904342011-08-09T21:09:00.004-06:002011-08-09T22:16:18.593-06:00Controversy of Fang Zhouzi's Essay Debated among American ProfessorsBack in 1995, when the Internet was still at its infancy, Fang Zhouzi, then a graduate student at Michigan State University, wrote an essay in a newsgroup (online forum of the day) during a heated discussion. In it he introduced and paraphrased an interpretation of science first proposed by Professor Robert Root-Bernstein in the same school (although the two never met in person). The essay was later revised and published in a couple of books as part of Fang Zhouzi's collective essays.<div>
<br /></div><div>More than 15 years later, the essay was frequently used by Fang Zhouzi's detractors as evidence of an act of plagiarism. In April of this year,<a href="http://fangzhouzi-xys.blogspot.com/2011/04/chinese-magazine-stirs-up-old.html"> a Chinese newspaper carried the same accusation</a> for which <a href="http://fangzhouzi-xys.blogspot.com/2011/04/fang-zhouzi-files-lawsuit-against.html">a legal battle is still underway</a>.</div><div>
<br /></div><div>More recently, the issue has been brought in front of Professor Root-Bernstein himself, who concluded that Fang Zhouzi did commit plagiarism and issued a lengthy open letter to a semi-public mailing list of concerned members and therefore ignited a heated debate among learned scholars and others interested parties. Parts of the discussion have been selectively made public in various online forums by both sides.</div><div>
<br /></div><div>Following is a collection of the leaked exchanges, with a few narratives of my own to provide some connection and perspective.</div><div>
<br /></div><div>The first is Professor Root-Bernstein's open letter itself. It is quite long, but included here in its entirety for the fairness to both parties.</div><div><div></div><blockquote><div><b>An Open Letter to Shi-Min Fang from Robert Root-Bernstein, Ph. D., Professor of Physiology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824 USA; rootbern@msu.edu. Dated 3 August 2011.</b></div><div>
<br /></div><div>A number of people, including myself, have accused you of plagiarizing my work. You and your followers have denied it. Let’s use this difference of opinion to educate ourselves about what constitutes plagiarism in and see if we can reach an accord.</div><div>
<br /></div><div>Let me begin by stating that I am basing my arguments on The Universal Copyright Convention, to which the People’s Republic of China and the United States both adhere.</div><div>
<br /></div><div>1)<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>You admit that you used my article “On Defining a Scientific Theory” as the basis for an essay that you published online in your blog in 1995 and subsequently in a book. The full bibliographic reference for my article is: Root Bernstein, R. S. "On Defining a Scientific Theory: Creationism Considered," in Evolution and Creationism, Ashley Montagu, ed. (Oxford: The University Press, 1984), pp 64 94.) It is copyrighted by the Oxford University Press.</div><div>
<br /></div><div>2)<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>You and four of your Chinese colleagues have sent me various English translations of your essay. Although there are some differences in the specific wording of each translation, all display exactly the same development of the argument in the same order using the same examples.</div><div>
<br /></div><div>3)<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>According to copyright law, a person may plagiarize another person’s work in several ways. The first is to copy their words without attribution. The second is to use more than a certain percentage of a work without explicit permission from the copyright holder. For example, in the U. S. one may not quote more than 250 words from a single source, even with attribution, without obtaining explicit permission from the copyright holder. I am told that in China, an essayist must not copy more than 3% of a text and that a student who copies more than 25% may be denied his or her degree. A third form of plagiarism consists of lifting another author’s arguments and examples without explicit permission. Accordingly, one may plagiarize a work even in the absence of copying its language and even with attribution, especially if the arguments and examples are unique and constitute a substantial portion of the work plagiarized.</div><div>
<br /></div><div>4)<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Others claim, and I concur, that you have plagiarized my work in all three ways. Let’s take a look at each, one at a time. You claim that you have not plagiarized me because you have not copied my words. Translations of words and ideas from one language to another pose a special problem in plagiarism cases, since differing grammars and cultural idioms will necessarily create alterations from the original text. Re-translations back into the original language cause further distortions. While it is always difficult to prove copying of words when using translations, many of your sentences have the identical structures and occur in the same order as mine and this is highly suggestive of copying. Therefore, in considering plagiarism in translation one must look beyond exact verbal duplication. </div><div>
<br /></div><div>5)<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Beyond exact verbal duplication, it is necessary to ask how much of the original text has been used in formulating the second-language text and whether the second language text copies the verbal logic, the development of the argument, and the specific examples of the first language text. With regard to your essay, the answer is that you plagiarized me all of these ways. Many of your sentences (retranslated into English) have the same logical structure and occur in the same order as mine. This is highly suggestive of copying. Moreover, this identity of logic and sequence certainly exceeds 250 words and you certainly did not obtain my permission to do so. Finally, whether or not it can be proven that your essay simply translates mine, it can certainly be proven that the argument and the order of the points that you make are identical to those in my article, and the majority of examples are also identical. Since these arguments and examples constitute virtually the whole of my article and they also constitute the whole of your essay, I must conclude that your essay is a copy of mine. In verbal logic, development of argument and choice of example, your essay replicates my article.</div><div>
<br /></div><div>6)<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>You and your followers respond that you have incorporated several of your own examples in the place of mine. This does not alter the fact that the development of the entire argument, the exact order of the points, and the majority of the examples are still drawn from my own text. </div><div>
<br /></div><div>7)<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>You and your followers also argue that you did cite my name in publishing your article, but the only evidence you have provided to me is a photograph of a page in Chinese from an undated book on which my name appears. This evidence is inadequate for two reasons. First, the issue is not whether you cited me in your book, but whether you cited me in your original blog post in 1995. I have been presented with evidence that your original blog post did not cite me, and that you subsequently altered your post to incorporate my name only after you were accused of having plagiarized my article. Even if you did cite me in your original blog post, and even though you cite my name and even the source of my article in your essay as it now appears in book form, the claim of plagiarism still stands. Because you use the same logic, the same development of argument and very largely the same choice of examples as my original article, and because you draw on no other sources, your essay is a representation of my work and you are still under the obligation to obtain my explicit written permission to publish your essay in any form. </div><div>
<br /></div><div>8)<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>In addition, you and your followers have argued that my own essay “On Defining a Scientific Theory” is itself a popularization or “summary” of other people’s scholarship and therefore not protected by the same copyright laws as scholarly works. I gather that you believe that because you think you could have found the ideas in my article expressed elsewhere, my work is derivative and not therefore a copyrightable work. This is simply untrue on two counts. In the first place, Oxford University Press did copyright my essay. It is protected under law. Indeed, popularizations of all kinds are protected by copyright. Secondly, my article was not a popularization. It is a scholarly work published by a major university press. Moreover, you cannot find any other author arguing that a scientific theory must satisfy four sets of criteria simultaneously: logical, evidential, sociological and historical. You may find other scholars who have argued one or two of these together, but I know of no one who has argued any three of them together, and I am quite certain that I am the first scholar to argue that there are historical criteria that must also be part of the mix (see also my book Discovering [Harvard University Press, 1989]). Thus, my essay represents a unique and important scholarly contribution to the study of science. In plagiarizing my work, you have therefore stolen a scholarly synthesis of intellectual ideas that is unique to me, and which occurs in no one else’s scholarly or popular work. In other words, you could not have found these ideas anywhere else, nor could you have invented them yourself.</div><div>
<br /></div><div>9)<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>You and your followers have also argued that same criteria for citations do not pertain to popularizations as to scholarly essays and books. This argument is simply irrelevant. A popularizer may not plagiarize any individuals work whether they cite it or not. </div><div>
<br /></div><div>In short, I maintain that whether you have used my exact words or not, you have certainly plagiarized my work by copying my unique scholarly argument, the logic and the points I use to substantiate it, and most of the examples I laboriously found to support it. I further maintain that because of the extent of this plagiarism, which consists of your entire article, you have plagiarized me in both your blog post and in your written essay. This plagiarism stands whether or not you cite my name in your blog post or in your written essay because of the extent of the material borrowed. Stated another way, your essay is an unacceptable copy of my work both because of the extent of the material borrowed and because you drew upon no other source or sources but mine in writing it. Due to this replication, you were obligated to obtain my explicit written permission before posting your blog or publishing your essay.</div><div>
<br /></div><div>Now, what do I want from you? The answer is simply an apology. I am a teacher and I welcome this opportunity to teach about the complexities and subtleties surrounding the protection of intellectual property. We all make mistakes. What is important are the lessons we learn from our mistakes. The lesson here is that all you needed to do was to ask permission if you could popularize my essay and I would have said “yes!”. I was, after all, in the building right next to yours at MSU when you wrote your essay in 1995! And, like most scholars, I am always very pleased to have my work used by other people – as long as I get credit for having done that work! So my advice to you and all other scholars is something I learned very early in my career: it never hurts you to credit everyone who might have contributed to your own ideas; it always hurts you to leave anyone out. It never hurts to obtain copyright permission, even if you may not need it; but it always hurts to try to get away without obtaining that permission. </div><div>
<br /></div><div>I look forward to your reply!</div><div>
<br /></div><div>Sincerely,</div><div>Bob Root-Bernstein, Ph. D., Professor of Physiology, Michigan State University</div><div></div></blockquote><div>Although Professor Root-Bernstein claims that he intends "to teach about the complexities and subtleties surrounding the protection of intellectual property," his own open letter seems to have confused the distinction between "plagiarism" and "copyright infringement," a point he had to clarify to some extend in the list. He also invoked the mythical "250 words" criteria as copyright threshold.</div></div><div>
<br /></div><div>Fang Zhouzi responded with a concise statement disputing the plagiarism or copyright charges, but included an apology for lack of explicit crediting in the original version of the essay:</div><div><div></div></div><blockquote><div><div>Dear Dr. Root-Bernstein,</div><div>
<br /></div><div>In 1995 when I was a graduate student at MSU, I posted a short writing to an online forum called alt.chinese.text when there was a debate about pseudoscience among oversea Chinese students. It was an informal, casual follow-up to a discussion thread, not an academic paper or assignment. Part of it paraphrased the criteria of science from your article. I presented the criteria of science as "consensus in philosophy of science" and give my own examples to explain it. This writing was revised and formally published in one of my books in 1999, and it cited the source as "According to the summary by Root-Bernstein", and when the criteria were mentioned again in another book of mine in 2007, it gave reference as "On Defining a Scientific Theory: Creationism Considered, Robert Root-Bernstein, Science and Creationism, Oxford University Press, 1984".(Without this reference, I don't believe the supporters of Xiao Chuanguo, the surgeon who hired assailants to attack me using pepper spray and hammer after I exposed his malpractice, could track down the source and report the "plagiarism" to you and MSU administration 16 years later. I have deleted email addresses of four Xiao's supporters in this reply)</div><div>
<br /></div><div>I never presented the criteria as my own original idea, nor did I copy your wordings. And when it's formally published, the source had been credited and cited. Therefore I don't think it consists of plagiarism or copyright infringement according to the common accepted definitions with which you disagree. But it's inappropriate not to explicitly credit you in my original posting, and I apologize for it.</div><div>
<br /></div><div>Sincerely,</div><div>
<br /></div><div>Shi-min Fang</div></div><div></div></blockquote><div>Professor Root-Bernstein was not satisfied with the response and apology as he still insists on his "plagiarism" charge, but now he added the phrase "copyright infringement" to go along with it, seemingly still mixing up the two distinct concepts:</div><div><div></div><blockquote><div>Dear Shi-min Fang,</div><div>
<br /></div><div>Thank you for admitting your error in failing to cite my article in your initial online essay, and for the apology regarding it. I do not, however, believe that your response adequately addresses the points I made in my open letter. The issue is not a matter of a missing citation, which, since you have corrected it, would be a minor matter indeed. The issue is that you have appropriated my entire argument and most of the examples that I use to support it. Whether we want to label this "plagiarism" or "copyright infringement" or some combination of the two is irrelevant. The fact is that you did not alter my argument in any way; you did not mix it or modify it with other peoples's arguments; and you presented it in exactly the same order and (and here I must insist on this) using the same language. Now you add the additional insult in arguing that I am mis-using the concepts of plagiarism and copyright infringement in making my accusations. And you do so without justifying this attack upon my supposed ignorance. So how, exactly, do you define plagiarism and copyright infringement? At what point did you inquire of me or of Oxford University Press the right to use a large portion of my article, or even to popularize it?</div><div>
<br /></div><div>Please note that I am sending this to all of the people who have expressed interest in this issue. As I said in my open letter to you, I want to use this as an educational forum. Your attempt to prevent those who you consider your "enemies" from having a voice in this discussion undermines the openness with which I approached you and is counter-productive. </div><div>
<br /></div><div>Sincerely,</div><div>
<br /></div><div>Bob Root-Bernstein</div><div></div></blockquote><div>At about this point, it appears that the discussion on the mailing list has taken a bad turn with personal attacks and other accusations, including that Fang Zhouzi had committed academic fraud in his thesis work. Fang Zhouzi's thesis adviser, Professor Zachary Burton, was compelled to rise in defense of his formal student:</div></div><div><div></div></div><blockquote><div><div>To the list,</div><div>
<br /></div><div>As Dr. Shi-min Fang’s former graduate school mentor, I would like to re-iterate my support for Dr. Fang’s prominent position in Chinese society. </div><div>
<br /></div><div>I have no interest in the efforts of Dr. Fang’s political opponents to try to discredit him. </div><div>
<br /></div><div>Dr. Fang completed a good quality thesis in my laboratory, awarded in 1996. He published a high quality research paper in the Journal of Biological Chemistry based on his thesis work. So far as I know, his thesis work has passed the test of time, and Transcription Factor for RNA polymerase II (TFII)F still interacts with TFIIB.</div><div>
<br /></div><div>If there is merit in Dr. Root-Bernstein’s accusations, I fail to see it. Dr. Fang has responded to Dr. Root-Bernstein in a reasonable and measured way. </div><div>
<br /></div><div>With best regards and sincerity,</div><div>
<br /></div><div>Zachary Burton, Ph.D.</div><div>Professor</div><div>Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology</div><div>Michigan State University</div><div>E. Lansing, MI 48824-1319</div></div><div></div></blockquote><div>But apparently the attacks continued and included Professor Burton as targets, so much so that Professor Root-Bernstein himself had to issue a desperate call to "stop attacking Dr. Fang's and Dr. Burton's Characters":</div><blockquote><div><div>To All,</div><div>
<br /></div><div>I want to say that I am very displeased with the direction that the conversation about Dr. Fang has taken. I am not Dr. Fang's enemy. I am not attacking Dr. Fang's character. I am offended by those people who are doing so. I am even more offended that my colleague and friend Zach Burton should be attacked as well. This is a complicated issue and Dr. Burton is entitled to his opinion, and to air it freely. The issue we are debating is whether Dr. Fang made an error in using more of my work than is considered appropriate under academic and legal definitions of plagiarism and copyright infringement. Whether or not Dr. Fang is guilty of such an error should be the focus of our discussions as we try to work out how different cultures using different languages assess these issues. The outcome of our deliberations should have nothing to do with whether Dr. Fang is a good person, a bad person, a prominent member of Chinese society, or any other aspect of his character. Nor should the characters of any other individual involved in this controversy be an aspect of our deliberations. If such personal attacks on Dr. Fang and/or Dr. Burton continue, I shall withdraw my allegations and consider the matter closed. Deal with the facts, not the people or their personalities, or this ends now!</div><div>
<br /></div><div>Sincerely, Bob Root-Bernstein </div><div>Robert Root-Bernstein, Ph. D.</div><div>Professor of Physiology</div><div>2174 Biomedical and Physical Sciences Building</div><div>Michigan State University</div><div>East Lansing, MI 48824 USA</div></div><div></div></blockquote><div>It is hard to predict where this discussion could lead to from here, if anywhere. What is clear is that Professor Root-Bernstein's efforts "to teach about the complexities and subtleties" of plagiarism and copyright infringement in that forum has been ineffective to say the least. Part of the problem may well be with the teacher himself.</div><div>
<br /></div><div>
<br /></div>Eddie Chenghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03285289956451750621noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2266048264584526517.post-81838730850162323002011-04-28T21:26:00.003-06:002011-04-28T21:34:27.842-06:00Fang Zhouzi Files Lawsuit against MagazineFang Zhouzi has formally filed a defamation lawsuit against the magazine <i>Legal Weekly</i>, which has been carrying attacks on <a href="http://fangzhouzi-xys.blogspot.com/2011/04/chinese-magazine-stirs-up-old.html">him</a> and <a href="http://fangzhouzi-xys.blogspot.com/2011/04/fang-zhouzis-wife-responds-to-charges.html">his wife</a>. The <a href="http://www.xys.org/xys/ebooks/others/science/dajia12/guoguosong35.txt">lawsuit</a> claims that the magazine has committed defamation by publishing biased, and non-factual articles against him. It also alleges that the magazine has misused his picture.<div><br /></div><div>He is seeking a retraction of the articles, an apology and monetary compensation.<br /><div><br /></div><div>The lawsuit application was originally submitted more than 10 days ago after the first-round of the attack by the magazine. Because <i>Legal Weekly</i>, like the majority of media in China, is an official government entity, the court was not sure whether it could accept the case. After the delay, however, the suit is now officially accepted.</div></div>Eddie Chenghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03285289956451750621noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2266048264584526517.post-562934328804869892011-04-28T20:37:00.004-06:002011-04-28T21:08:40.905-06:00Fang Zhouzi's Wife Responds to Charges of Plagiarism<a href="http://fangzhouzi-xys.blogspot.com/2011/04/chinese-magazine-stirs-up-old.html">Media attacks on Fang Zhouzi</a> continue in China and they are now turning on his wife, Liu Juhua. The magazine <i>Legal Weekly</i> published another lengthy report accusing Liu Juhua plagiarism in her masters thesis completed in 2002, a couple of years before she married Fang Zhouzi.<div><br /></div><div>In an essay signed as "Fang Zhouzi's Wife," <a href="http://fangzhouzi-xys.blogspot.com/2010/10/fang-zhouzis-wife-living-indignantly.html">a customary way for her</a> to write in such occasions, Liu Juhua responded by saying that she keeps <a href="http://www.xys.org/xys/ebooks/others/science/dajia12/guoguosong36.txt">a clear conscience</a> on her earlier work. She explained that she had never intended to work in academic research or publish her thesis. The thesis was done only to satisfy the degree requirement. She regarded her thesis, like any those for masters degree in liberal arts, as a review of given issue and not necessarily full of original ideas. However, she denies that she had plagiarized. </div><div><br /></div><div>Liu Juhua expressed her frustration as being the target of vicious personal attacks on the Internet because of his husband's work. But she was confident that she could handle whatever comes with grace.</div><div><br /></div><div>Fang Zhouzi had initially maintained his silence when the accusation first surfaced on the Internet. After the publication of this article, he forcefully defended his wife and vowed to "go after" those who had attacked his wife by "applying the same plagiarism standard"(*) to examine their thesis work.<br /><div><br /></div><div><i>(*) As that had been applied to his wife's work, which sometimes confuses copying and paraphrasing.</i></div><div><br /></div></div><div>At the same time, however, Fang Zhouzi allows that her wife's thesis could have been improved with better citation and quoting techniques, a skill that was rarely taught to students in China. It is a common and wide-spread problem for which he has been advocating that a thesis should not be required for earning a bachelors or masters degree.</div><div><br /></div>Eddie Chenghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03285289956451750621noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2266048264584526517.post-20421407670165325882011-04-24T20:35:00.005-06:002011-04-24T22:31:16.621-06:00Xiao Chuanguo Hosts Press ConferenceDr. Xiao Chuanguo, who was <a href="http://fangzhouzi-xys.blogspot.com/2011/03/confusion-surrounds-status-of-released.html">recently released from prison</a> for<a href="http://fangzhouzi-xys.blogspot.com/2010/09/xiao-chuanguo-vs-fang-zhouzi-chronology.html"> his attacks</a>, made his first public appearance in the form of a press conference today in Wuhan, China. The conference was announced a few days ago and had a touch of mystery, as reporters were required to sign a non-disclosure-agreement in the name of protecting patients' privacy.<div><br /></div><div>News reports of the conference are just starting to show up in some small-scale media in China. According to them, Dr. Xiao Chuanguo presented:</div><div><ol><li>A report from the American Urology Association on the three-year results of Xiao's Procedure tests. It shows that the procedure can "improve the voiding functionality" of patients with spina bifida. [<b>Blogger's Note</b>: as far as we could tell, this must refer to the to-be-published results from Beaumont Hospital, which indicated that the so-called "Xiao's Reflective Arc" had disappeared from all but one patient after three years.]</li><li>Some video clips of patients voiding by scratching their side or leg skins</li><li>A couple of patients or their relatives making statements of their being cured by Xiao's Procedure.</li><li>A picture of himself in prison uniform. Dr. Xiao Chuanguo claims that he has been mistreated by the media and will sue CCTV for slandering.</li></ol><div>When responding to questions from reporters, Dr. Xiao Chuanguo insisted that the procedure had not been officially halted in China. Although he has lost his medical licence due to his court trouble, he said that his students and assistants can still perform the procedure.</div></div><div><br /></div><div>He also disclosed that he is considering to leave China for America.</div><div><br /></div>Eddie Chenghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03285289956451750621noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2266048264584526517.post-83607280858022406692011-04-04T21:00:00.004-06:002011-04-04T21:20:01.598-06:00Chinese Magazine Stirs Up Old ControversyThe <i>Legal Weekly </i>(法治周末), a relatively new and small weekend magazine, published <a href="http://www.legalweekly.cn/content.jsp?id=166447&lm=%25E8%25A6%2581%25E9%2597%25BB">a four-page "investigative report" on Fang Zhouzi</a> on the eve of the April Fool. The acid-toned article was based on many slandering rumors that had been circulated on the Internet for years. <div><br /></div><div>The article interviewed many characters that either had been exposed for fraud by or had clashes with Fang Zhouzi in the past. One of them was quoted saying that Fang Zhouzi has very few long-term friends, "he is not a person suitable to be a friend."</div><div><br /></div><div>More damningly, the article accused Fang Zhouzi of having committed plagiarism himself. It lists many verbiage comparisons between Fang Zhouzi's work and those he had used as source material. The comparison generally showed the reporter's <a href="http://xysblogs.org/eddie/archives/8987">lack of understanding in the difference between copying and paraphrasing</a>.</div><div><br /></div><div>Although the same accusations and rumors had been around for a long time, this is the first time they were published in an official media. The report stirred up heated exchanges in the Chinese blogsphere over the weekend.</div><div><br /></div><div>Fang Zhouzi has threatened to sue the paper for slandering.</div><div><br /></div>Eddie Chenghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03285289956451750621noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2266048264584526517.post-89362002986213216102011-03-28T17:50:00.003-06:002011-03-28T18:09:23.253-06:00Confusion Surrounds the Status of Released ProfessorProfessor Xiao Chuanguo, who was previously<a href="http://fangzhouzi-xys.blogspot.com/2010/10/xiao-chuanguo-sentenced-to-five-and.html"> sentenced to 5.5 month detention</a> for masterminding <a href="http://fangzhouzi-xys.blogspot.com/2010/09/science-urologist-arrested-for-attacks.html">brutal attacks</a> on Fang Zhouzi and the journalist Fang Xuanchang, is recently released from prison after serving his term. The newspaper <a href="http://www.xys.org/xys/ebooks/others/science/dajia12/attack15.txt"><i>XinKuaiBao</i> interviewed the unrepentant doctor</a>, who continued to call Fang Zhouzi as a "mad dog."<div><br /></div><div>Curiously, the reporters found Dr. Xiao Chuanguo at work in his old office at HUST, which had, supposedly, <a href="http://fangzhouzi-xys.blogspot.com/2010/11/hust-disciplines-dr-xiao-chuanguo.html">stripped all his administrative and teaching positions</a>. The doctor did not directly answer reporter's questions on his work status, but he appeared to be busy at his work. He also disclosed that he is scheduled to travel abroad for his surgical work.</div><div><br /></div><div>Despite a videotaped confession in which he admitted to the <a href="http://fangzhouzi-xys.blogspot.com/2010/09/details-of-fang-zhouzi-attack-emerging.html">details of his involvement</a>, Dr. Xiao Chuanguo now claims that he had never violated any law, nor admitted to such. He claimed that it was the media that were spreading rumors.</div><div><br /></div><div>In response to <a href="http://fangzhouzi-xys.blogspot.com/2010/10/ap-patients-protest-chinese-doctors.html">complains of his patients</a>, he appealed for calm and promised that he could reexamine and "fix" those who had failed to see effects of his procedure. He also blamed most doctors in China lacked sufficient expertise to understand his work.</div><div><br /></div><div>Meanwhile, both Fang Zhouzi and Xiao Chuanguo are <a href="http://fangzhouzi-xys.blogspot.com/2011/03/fang-zhouzi-goes-to-highest-court.html">appealing to the highest court</a> of China for a retrial of the attack case. </div>Eddie Chenghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03285289956451750621noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2266048264584526517.post-42123079204529187252011-03-17T17:53:00.004-06:002011-03-17T18:07:01.163-06:00Authors Accuse Baidu of Stealing WorkOn March 15, China's "Consumer Rights Day", more than 40 Chinese authors published an open letter accusing the search engine company Baidu for making their work available on its site free of charge without authorization.<br /><br />Fang Zhouzi is one of the authors. He told news reporters that <a href="http://www.xys.org/xys/ebooks/others/science/dajia12/baidu.txt">he could find almost all his books in the Baidu repository</a> called Baidu Wenku. Even older books had been scanned and uploaded. Therefore, he suspected an organized and intentional effort of piracy.<div><br /></div><div>According to <i><a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110316/tc_afp/chinainternetcopyrightcompanybaidu">AFP</a></i>:</div><div><div></div><blockquote><div>"Baidu has become a totally corrupt thief company," the authors said in the letter posted Tuesday on the website of government-linked China Written Works Copyright Society.</div><div><br /></div><div>"It stole our works, our rights, our property and has turned Baidu Wenku into a marketplace of stolen goods," it said.</div><div><br /></div><div>Baidu Wenku was launched in 2009 and allows users to read, share or download files and books, or their excerpts, for free. Readers can also purchase books from the online library -- at a much lower cost than the cover price.</div><div><br /></div><div>All documents are uploaded by Internet users and as of November Baidu Wenku had stockpiled more than 10 million files and books, accounting for 70 percent of China's online file sharing market, according to the company's figures.</div><div><br /></div><div>Baidu spokesman Kaiser Kuo said the search engine "attaches great importance to intellectual property rights protection" and had deleted "tens of thousands of infringing items" uploaded by web users.</div><div><br /></div><div>"We promised that authors or copyright holders can report problematic content found on Baidu Library to the complaint centre ... and we will delete infringing content within 48 hours," Kuo said in a statement Wednesday.</div><div><br /></div><div>In a disclaimer on its website, Baidu said users who uploaded the files must take on all liabilities and be responsible for compensation in any copyright disputes.</div><div><br /></div><div>However, the writers insisted Baidu should bear responsibility, claiming the company took advantage of the uploads to "enhance its own influence, boost its stock price and increase its profits".</div><div><br /></div><div>"We do not blame the friends who uploaded (the documents). We only blame the evil platform of Baidu," they said.</div><div><br /></div><div>Baidu has long been criticised for flouting intellectual property rights and its MP3 search service, which provides links to free but often pirated music downloads, has drawn fire from the recording industry.</div><div><br /></div><div>The US Trade Representative's office last month named Baidu as one of the world's top marketplaces for pirated and counterfeit goods, saying the company was enabling piracy with "deep linking" searches.</div></blockquote><div></div></div>Eddie Chenghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03285289956451750621noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2266048264584526517.post-22435388105690839572011-03-08T17:33:00.003-07:002011-03-08T17:56:57.819-07:00Fang Zhouzi Goes to the Highest CourtFang Zhouzi and Fang Xuanchang, the two victims (no relation) of <a href="http://fangzhouzi-xys.blogspot.com/2010/09/science-urologist-arrested-for-attacks.html">a vicious attack masterminded by the disgraced Dr. Xiao Chuanguo</a>, made a formal appeal to <a href="http://www.court.gov.cn/">the Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China</a> yesterday, asking for a review of the previous lower court decisions which led to a<a href="http://fangzhouzi-xys.blogspot.com/2010/10/xiao-chuanguo-sentenced-to-five-and.html"> five and half month detention for Xiao Chuanguo</a>. They are appealing that the decisions contained mistakes in legal basis and that there are new evidences proving that the facts recognized by the earlier judges were in error.<div><br /></div><div>The <a href="http://www.xys.org/xys/ebooks/others/science/dajia12/attack3.txt">lengthy appeal document</a> lists seven major issues:</div><div><ol><li>Obvious errors in the application of law and the crime. (The lower courts had settled with a minor "causing disturbance" charge while the attackers had clearly intended to kill or at least causing major injuries.)</li><li>New evidences prove that previous court-recognized facts are in error. (The lower courts had accepted a hospital statement that Fang Xuanchang only suffered minor injuries while the involved doctor told a newspaper that Fang Xuanchang had lost a large amount blood and showing signs of shock and dizziness.)</li><li>The lower courts made mistakes in recognizing key facts, missed important leads in the case, and confused a few facts.</li><li>There are significant discrepancies in the motives of the defendant.</li><li>The sentences given by the lower courts are too light for the crimes involved.</li><li>On their appeal, the Intermediate Court did not factually record evidences provided by the prosecutors.</li><li>The original court procedure was seriously fraud.</li></ol><div>By the original sentence, Dr. Xiao Chuanguo is due to be released at the present time.</div></div><div><br /></div>Eddie Chenghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03285289956451750621noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2266048264584526517.post-40705264476795437992011-02-16T20:54:00.004-07:002011-02-16T21:17:56.000-07:00An Assistant Professor with a $450K Annual SalaryA few days ago, an alert netter informed <i>New Threads</i> that a local newspaper in China had reported that a Chinese student <a href="http://www.xys.org/xys/ebooks/others/science/dajia12/muqiwen.txt">gave up his $450K salary</a> in the US and returned to serve his motherland. The <a href="http://www.cnncw.cn/pdf/ncrbnew/html/2010-08/30/content_179924.htm">newspaper story</a> also introduced the hero, Dr. Mu Qiwen, as the Chief Scientist at the <a href="http://find.musc.edu/index.jsp?id=500000000004931&page=view">Medical University of South Carolina</a>. However, the netter claimed that he knew the truth, that Dr. Wu Qiwen neither was a Chief Scientist nor has a $450K salary. <div><br /></div><div>Dr. Wu Qiwen himself quickly <a href="http://www.xys.org/xys/ebooks/others/science/dajia12/muqiwen2.txt">responded to the charge</a>. He referenced his page in at the South Carolina university which lists him as having two titles, one as "Adjunct Assistant Professor" and another as "Senior Investigator Faculty/Chief Scientist/Radiologist/Mentor in Doctoral and Postdoc Programs". Furthermore, he produced a job offer letter signed by his boss to prove his salary:</div><div><div></div></div><blockquote><div><div>January 5, 2011</div><div><br /></div><div>Dear Dr. Qiwen Mu,</div><div> </div><div>As you know, you are relatively unique in the world in some of your clinical and research training and knowledge. You have worked with Dr. Elliot Stein, who is a world leader in brain imaging and addictions. We were able to recruit you to MUSC where you worked for many years with our groups and learned and developed new techniques with image data analysis and TMS. You are also clinically trained as a neuroradiologist and have passed the required board examinations for licensure. </div><div><br /></div><div>Based on your unique skills and knowledge, I would like to offer you the following positions - Senior Investigator Faculty (Professorship), Chief Scientist, Radiologist, and Mentor in Doctoral </div><div>and Postdoctoral Programs at Brain Stimulation laboratory, Medical University of South Carolina. Your responsibilities would include, but would not be limited to, interleaved TMS-fMRI, perfusion, diffusion, and spectroscopy. You will also be involved in clinical trials as well. </div><div>The annual salary for this position would be USD 450K. </div><div> </div><div>Thank you for your consideration. If you have any questions, please contact me.</div><div><br /></div><div>Sincerely,</div><div><br /></div><div>Mark S. George, MD</div><div>Distinguished University Professor of Psychiatry, Radiology and </div><div>Neuroscience</div><div>Director, Brain Stimulation Laboratory</div><div>Founding Director, Center for Advanced Imaging Research (CAIR)</div><div>MUSC Director, SC Brain Imaging Center of Excellence</div><div>Editor-in-Chief, Brain Stimulation: Basic, Translational and </div><div>Clinical Research in Neuromodulation</div></div></blockquote><div>Dr Mu Qiwen challenged his detractors to contact Dr. Mark George for verification.</div><div><br /></div><div>Although the evidence appeared convincing, suspicion grew nevertheless, especially from the awkward language used in the offer letter. Multiple inquires were indeed sent to Dr. Mark George's way, to which he replied thusly:</div><div><br /></div><div><div></div><blockquote><div>Dear Doctors: </div><div><br /></div><div>I am confused and am not clear what has happened. </div><div><br /></div><div>Dr. Mu was indeed a scientist working in our lab at MUSC for many years. He left last year to return to China. He told me that he was offered a position to do research in China involving imaging and TMS. He suggested that we try and continue collaborations, which I encouraged. </div><div><br /></div><div>While at MUSC he was a very good and hard working scientist with numerous publications. He is trained as a research scientist and as a neuroradiologist. After he announced that he was returning to China, we offered him a continued appointment at MUSC, non-paid, in order to </div><div>continue analyzing data and potentially applying for grants. </div><div><br /></div><div>In December Dr. Mu returned to Charleston and asked me to re-issue an offer letter. If Dr. Mu were available in the US we would indeed like to have him rejoin our faculty. I informed him that I would not be able to make a formal offer as I am not head of my department (psychiatry) and that it would take higher administrative approval and several months to get a fully binding letter. He asked that I sign the letter below which I read. He stated that he needed it signed and soon in order to apply for collaborative grants. I was confused. When I saw the salary level, I was surprised, as it is over twice my salary and I have been here 20 years. However, Dr. Mu is trained as a neuroradiologist, and their clinical salaries are higher than a psychiatrists. He found the salary number as the national average of neuroradiologists. It is not clear if he could serve as a clinical neuroradiologist without taking the US boards and completing a US fellowship. </div><div><br /></div><div>I have no information about the number of houses or other issues you raise. </div><div><br /></div><div>I am a bit astonished to be bothered by this exchange and I hope this email clarifies things. </div><div><br /></div><div>Sincerely, </div><div><br /></div><div>Mark </div><div><br /></div><div>Mark S. George, MD </div><div>Distinguished Professor of Psychiatry, Radiology and Neurosciences</div><div>Medical University of South Carolina</div><div>Charleston, SC 29425</div><div></div></blockquote><div>So there you have it, Dr. Mu Qiwen had manufactured his own position and salary, making himself a much bigger asset for his motherland.</div></div><div><br /></div>Eddie Chenghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03285289956451750621noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2266048264584526517.post-30361869177470546762011-02-10T21:29:00.004-07:002011-02-10T21:33:54.644-07:00Ministry of Science and Technology Revokes an AwardAlmost a year after Xi'an Jiaotong University <a href="http://fangzhouzi-xys.blogspot.com/2010/03/xian-jiaotong-university-fires.html">fired its professor</a> Li Liansheng for fraud after a lengthy and difficult campaign by six elder professors, the Ministry of Science and Technology of China finally reached a decision to <a href="http://news.sina.com.cn/c/2011-02-10/055021930879.shtml">revoke an award</a> it had given to Li Liansheng in 2005.<div><br /></div><div>The ministry cited severe plagiarism and inaccurate economic impact data in the application for the reason for its action.</div>Eddie Chenghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03285289956451750621noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2266048264584526517.post-65059983234400381662011-01-22T09:51:00.006-07:002011-01-22T10:46:05.045-07:00Fudan University Under Fire for its Plagiarism DecisionThe controversial decision by <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Fudan</span> University's Committee of Scholarly Standard that Professor <a href="http://fangzhouzi-xys.blogspot.com/2011/01/fudan-university-whitewashes-plagiarism.html"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Zhu</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Xueqin</span> did not commit plagiarism</a> in his <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Ph</span>. D. thesis continues to draw attention on the Internet forums in China. Several print media also published reports questioning <a href="http://www.xys.org/xys/netters/Fang-Zhouzi/interview/bjcb5.txt">if the academic community in China is capable of policing itself</a>.<div><br /></div><div>Fang <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Zhouzi</span> publishes more examples of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Zhu</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">Xueqin's</span> thesis that were translated from Carol <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">Blum's</span> published book, including many "<a href="http://www.xys.org/xys/netters/Fang-Zhouzi/blog/zhuxueqin4.txt">low-level mistakes</a>" in misunderstanding and misinterpreting the original in English.</div><div><br /></div><div>More damagingly, however, is <a href="http://www.xys.org/xys/ebooks/others/science/dajia12/zhuxueqin17.txt">an open letter published by more than a dozen of netters</a> from an Internet forum where netter "Isaiah" raised his initial accusation. The authors of this open letter expressed their opinion that <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">Zhu</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">Xueqin</span> had committed plagiarism "even by the loosest standard" and their worry that <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">Fudan</span> University's "partial and contradictory" conclusion could lead to a big setback in China's academic integrity.<br /></div><div><br /></div><div>The lengthy open letter disputes <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">Fudan's</span> claim that they do not accept anonymous leads, pointing out that they had indeed taken up <a href="http://fangzhouzi-xys.blogspot.com/2007/12/disciplinary-actions-at-fudan.html">cases originated from anonymous sources in the past</a>. It also claimed that the investigation chose to narrow its scope so as to avoid the most damaging accusations being raised and its conclusion is self-contradictory. The Committee's spokesperson Professor Ge <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">Jianxiong</span> had said that they did not investigate the entire thesis (because it was out of the scope of the investigation) but nevertheless announced that the thesis "as a whole" was an adequate academic work.</div><div><br /></div><div>The open letter also questions the Committee's verdict that <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">Zhu</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">Xueqin's</span> thesis indeed contained "irregularities". It states that even the few "irregularities" listed by Ge <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">Jianxiong</span> as examples should have already qualified the work to be classified as plagiarism according to the common sense and norm of academic standards.</div><div><br /></div><div>Finally, the open letter points out that plagiarism is plagiarism, even when the original author had granted permission to use his work. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">Zhu</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">Xueqin's</span> thesis had included passages from other scholar's work without citation, a practice that the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18">Fudan</span> Committee appeared to have found acceptable.</div><div><br /></div><div>The open letter has by now received <a href="http://www.newsmth.net/bbstcon.php?board=Reader&gid=455331">more than 200 signatories</a>, including more than 30 with real names.</div>Eddie Chenghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03285289956451750621noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2266048264584526517.post-35806300369909290612011-01-17T16:05:00.004-07:002011-01-17T16:59:14.697-07:00Fudan University Whitewashes a Plagiarism Case<div>Professor Zhu Xueqin (朱学勤) of Shanghai University is an outspoken scholar who has been involved in more than one controversy for his speeches. His latest trouble, however, comes from the content of his Ph. D. thesis in history, which he completed in 1992 at Fudan University. The thesis has been published in book form in several editions, receiving critical acclaim and popularity.</div><div><br /></div><div>In July last year, a netter wrote to <i>New Threads</i> pointing out that the book, <i>The End of Morally Idealist Nation</i>, contained <a href="http://www.xys.org/xys/ebooks/others/science/dajia11/zhuxueqin.txt">many passages that are plagiarized</a>. Specifically, the netter claimed that Zhu Xueqin had lifted the Chinese translations of the book <i>Sister Revolution: French Lightning, American Light</i> by the American author Susan Dunn. Zhu Xueqin did mention the book in his preface, but neglected to mention its translated version and also left impression that the lifted passages were his own work.</div><div><br /></div><div>About the same time, the apparently same netter published more detailed allegations in Internet forums in China with the pseudonym "Isaiah". In addition to Susan Dunn's work, Isaiah found more sources from which Zhu Xueqin has plagiarized passages, including that of a Chinese scholar Gao Yi (高毅) and the English book <i>Rousseau and the Republic of Virtue: the Language of Politics in the French Revolution</i> by Carol Blum.</div><div><br /></div><div>Zhu Xueqin did not back down from the accusations. In fact, he referred the case to the Fudan University's <a href="http://fangzhouzi-xys.blogspot.com/2007/12/disciplinary-actions-at-fudan.html">Committee for Scholarly Standard</a> himself, seeking an official redemption. He also submitted a lengthy essay in defense.</div><div><br /></div><div>Half a year later, the Committee publicized its verdict. It declared that Zhu Xueqin's thesis and book contained irregularities in providing end notes and citations, as well as mistakes and misinterpretations in translations from foreign languages, but nonetheless did not commit plagiarism.</div><div><br /></div><div>In the specific case of using Gao Yi's work, the Committee accepted Zhu Xueqin's explanation that Gao Yi himself had agreed on his usage, although the work was not properly cited as so. For the English books, the Committee noted that a part of his thesis was originally intended to be a preface for the translation of Susan Dunn's book, so a lack of citation or notes in that scenario is acceptable. As for Carol Blum's book, the Committee noted that the book was cited in the beginning of the thesis.</div><div><br /></div><div>As soon as the Committee's conclusion was made public, both Isaiah and Fang Zouzi voiced strong objections.</div><div><br /></div><div>Fang Zhouzi then made his own investigation and found that <a href="http://www.xys.org/xys/netters/Fang-Zhouzi/blog/zhuxueqin3.txt">as many as 18,000 characters</a> in Zhu Xueqin's thesis were direct translations from Carol Blum's book, most of which without citation. These passages even included end notes from Carol Blum's book itself, but made it appear as the author's own citations. He also pointed out a few obvious mistakes in Zhu Xueqin's translation work and concluded that, "if the thesis were original, then it's plagiarism; if the thesis were a translation, then it's of low quality."<br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Fang Zhouzi also expressed his disappointment in Professor Ge Jianxiong (葛剑雄), a member of the Fudan Committee who spearheaded the investigation. Ge Jianxiong has been outspoken in the past, advocating a "zero-tolerance" policy for academic fraud.</div><div><br /></div>Eddie Chenghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03285289956451750621noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2266048264584526517.post-25512867662044498242010-12-22T21:54:00.003-07:002010-12-22T22:12:42.354-07:00Chemistry World: Academic Controversy Leads to Bloodshet<b><span class="Apple-style-span"><i><a href="http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/China/Issues/2010/OctoberDecember/AcademicControversy.asp">Chemistry World China</a></i>, a British scientific journal, reports:</span></b><div><b><span class="Apple-style-span"><br /></span></b></div><div><b><span class="Apple-style-span" >Academic controversy leads to bloodshed</span></b></div><div><div><br /></div><div><b>By Hepeng Jia and Tao He/Beijing, China</b> </div><div><br /></div><div>The imprisonment of a professor of urology after attacks on critics at has led to louder calls to shake up China’s academic community.</div><div><br /></div><div>On 8 November, Beijing’s Intermediary Court sentenced Xiao Chuanguo of Wuhan-based Huazhong University of Science and Technology (HUST) to five and half months’ imprisonment for hiring thugs to assault an outspoken science fraud buster - Fang Shimin, who goes by </div><div>well-known pen name Fang Zhouzi - and Fang Xuanchang, science editor of Caijing Magazine.</div><div><br /></div><div>The two victims are highly dissatisfied with the slight penalty, while Xiao’s lawyer argues he should not be found guilty and imprisoned because the attack was not serious enough. Accompanying the debate is an increasing concern surrounding academic ethics in China. </div><div> </div><div>‘It is a dangerous time for academic ethics,[in China]’ says Huang Boyun, president of Changsha, China-based Central South University, at the annual meeting of China Association for Science and Technology (Cast) in early November.</div><div> </div><div><b>Bloody attack</b></div><div> </div><div>The assault against Fang Xuanchang took place in June, when Fang’s skull was cracked by three men brandishing steel sticks. He lost nearly two litres of blood. Two months later, Fang Shimin was attacked with hammer and chili water, but luckily escaped with only minor injuries.</div><div> </div><div>On 21 September, Beijing police announced that the attackers had been detained and the individual suspected of hiring them was identified as Xiao.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>A festering wound</b></div><div> </div><div>In September 2005, Fang published an article criticising Xiao's candidacy for membership of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS). In it he explained that CAS members must work full-time in China, but that Xiao worked both at HUST and New York University Medical Center, in the US.</div><div> </div><div>Fang, who obtained his PhD in biochemistry from Michigan State University in the US before becoming well-known in China after starting a website to expose scientific misconduct, also claimed that Xiao had exaggerated his academic achievements by including presentations listed in conference proceedings among his international publications.</div><div> </div><div>Xiao is mainly famous for his bold operation to rebuild sections of patients’ nervous systems to return the ability to control urination to those who were paralysed or suffered some other </div><div>neurological complaint that affected this ability. But Fang questioned the achievement, saying there was little evidence supporting the use of the procedure.</div><div> </div><div>Fang Xuanchang then led investigations into Xiao’s case published in China News Weekly in 2007 and Science News Magazine in 2009, where he had been science editor and executive chief editor respectively.</div><div><br /></div><div>In 2006, a court in Wuhan, where HUST is located, ruled that Fang had libelled Xiao. In 2007, however, Beijing Intermediary Court ruled that Fang’s articles against Xiao constituted normal academic criticism, and the court should not be involved in the debate. CAS members voted against Xiao joining the organisation in 2005.</div><div> </div><div>Fang Shimin, meanwhile, continued to question Xiao’s claims, and a series of investigative news articles criticising Xiao’s medical procedure were published by Fang Xuanchang and other journalists in late 2009 and early 2010.</div><div> </div><div>According to police, Xiao began to plan the assault in early 2010 and he spent Yuan100,000 (US$15,000) to hire the attackers. But in court Xiao said that he only wanted to teach the two small lessons, rather than cause bloody injuries or even murders as claimed by the two.</div><div> </div><div><b>Academic discipline</b></div><div> </div><div>This escalation from academic controversy to physical attack in China has caused increased calls among both the public and academics for better discipline in science communities.</div><div> </div><div>‘I hope this case can become a good chance for the fight against academic misconduct,’ Bruce Alberts, editor-in-chief of the journal Science, said during his visit to China in mid October.</div><div> </div><div>According to Alberts, the key to improve academic ethics is to establish a system to investigate claimed misconduct in a timely manner and punish wrongdoers.</div><div> </div><div>Chinese science Minister Wan Gang promised at a symposium in Shanghai in mid November that his ministry will take a zero tolerance approach to academic plagiarism and fabrication.</div><div> </div><div>In 2006, the Ministry of Science and Technology set up an academic disciplining office. This facility has been replicated in government departments like Education Ministry, National Natural Science Foundation and CAS.</div><div> </div><div>However, Fang says it is unlikely to have an effect overnight. ‘The key is not to claim zero tolerance over and over again, but to give real punishment. There are more and more cases of misconduct being exposed, but only a few of them get real punishment.’</div><div> </div><div>On Fang’s website, famous for exposing and criticising academic misconduct and pseudoscience, allegations of more than 1000 cases of academic misconduct have been made in the past 10 years, but only a tiny proportion of them – often first reported by media – were officially investigated.</div><div> </div><div>In Xiao’s case, a Ministry of Health spokesperson said in early November that his medical procedure, despite having been carried out on more than 4000 patients, has not been approved for commercial operation.</div><div> </div><div>‘But the ban did not appear before this, despite the media and I repeatedly reporting the poor outcomes of the operation and hyped claims to the ministry,’ Fang Shimin told Chemistry World.</div><div> </div><div><b>Science cop</b></div><div> </div><div>While the government has not done enough to vet academics as appealed by Fang and others, Fang himself has been hailed by the public as a hero since being attacked.</div><div> </div><div>But some, mainly academics, question Fang’s efforts against academic misconduct, saying he could not judge academic fields outside his specialism or criticising his firm denial of traditional Chinese medicine. </div><div> </div><div>‘The efforts against academic misconduct by Fang and others have hidden the true problem of Chinese science, which is lack of real innovative research. The attention should be focused on the scientific and education systems that brew innovations, says a scientist at Tsinghua University, who would not be named.</div><div> </div><div>But Fang says that he would prefer the authorities – such as ministries of science, health and education – instead of him and his website to take more systematic work to stamp out misconduct, “But they have done too little,” he says.</div></div><div><br /></div>Eddie Chenghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03285289956451750621noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2266048264584526517.post-41623229996053855772010-12-11T09:17:00.003-07:002010-12-11T09:24:13.513-07:00Fang Zhouzi Selected by Nature Medicine Yearbook<span style="font-style:italic;">Nature Medicine</span>'s <a href="http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v16/n12/abs/nm1210-1359b.html">The Yearbook</a>, which "list key people who made headlines this year, either by standing up for what they saw as right or by stopping what they felt was wrong," included an entry for Fang Zhouzi this year:<div><br /></div><div></div><blockquote><div><b>Fang Shimin: Least likely to back down Chinese blogger</b></div><div><br /></div><div>Shimin has investigated and exposed numerous counts of scientific misconduct. But even writing under a pen name ('Fang Zhouzi') did not protect him from a physical attack, in which he says he was chased down by assailants wielding a hammer. Shimin suffered only minor injuries, but the incident brought attention to the perils faced by journalists reporting on fraud in China.</div></blockquote><div></div>Eddie Chenghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03285289956451750621noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2266048264584526517.post-28106945875643045712010-11-25T09:05:00.002-07:002010-11-25T09:14:09.342-07:00HUST Disciplines Dr. Xiao ChuanguoIn the aftermath of Dr. Xiao Chuanguo's <a href="http://fangzhouzi-xys.blogspot.com/2010/10/xiao-chuanguo-sentenced-to-five-and.html">conviction for attacks</a>, the Huazhong University of Science and Technology decided to impose severe disciplinary actions on Dr. Xiao Chuanguo, who is an employee at the school and its affiliated Xiehe Hospital. The school announced today that they had decided on November 6 to <a href="http://news.hustonline.net/Html/2010-11-25/74856.shtml">strip all administrative and teaching positions</a> Xiao Chuanguo held in the school and hospital.<div><br /></div><div>But the school stopped short of expelling him altogether. Dr. Xiao Chuanguo also received an administrative censure and a one-year probation. It is unclear how the probation would carry out.</div>Eddie Chenghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03285289956451750621noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2266048264584526517.post-42779594734020810942010-11-23T21:50:00.003-07:002010-11-23T21:59:45.072-07:00Multiple Fraud Led to a RetractionThe research journal <i><a href="http://www.landesbioscience.com/journals/5/article/12828/">Cancer Biology & Therapy</a></i> retracted a paper recently in a case that was described as "nearly everything dishonest authors can do to doctor a manuscript, these authors did" by the web site <i><a href="http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2010/11/22/best-of-retractions-part-iii-whatever-can-go-wrong/#more-845">Retraction Watch</a></i>.<div><br /></div><div>The paper in question have 5 authors, all from <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Huazhong</span> University of Science and Technology (华中科技大学). According to the journal, at least 2 of the authors were not aware of their involvement in this paper, including one that is supposed to be the corresponding author. The other authors used a fake email address for the corresponding author to intercept any communication.</div><div><br /></div><div>Besides such oddities, editors of the journal also found one figure in the paper is a re-publication of data in an earlier paper. "The authors have misrepresented their data as being from 2 separate cell lines," concluded the editors in the retraction notice.</div>Eddie Chenghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03285289956451750621noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2266048264584526517.post-61761594757227054442010-11-04T18:44:00.004-06:002010-11-04T18:52:40.077-06:00Science: Questions from China Snag U.S. Trial of Nerve-Rerouting Procedure<b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">The following is a <i>Science </i>report in "Research Ethics," <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/330/6005/741">published on it's 11/5 edition</a>. A Chinese version is also available <a href="http://www.sciencenet.cn/m/user_content.aspx?id=380535">here</a>.</span></b><div><br /></div><div><div><br /></div><div><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">Questions From China Snag U.S. Trial Of Nerve-Rerouting Procedure</span></b></div><div><div><b>Hao Xin</b></div><div>SCIENCE VOL 330 5 NOVEMBER 2010 Published by AAAS</div></div><div><br /></div><div>A running 5-year medical brawl in China has spilled over into Michigan, where it has delayed a clinical trial about to enroll patients. The trial, based at the William Beaumont Hospital in Royal Oak, Michigan, aims to surgically reroute the nerves of spina bifida patients to give them control of their bladder. Principal investigator Kenneth Peters confirmed last week that the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH)—which is funding the work—has asked for a review.</div><div><br /></div><div>The urologist who invented the nerve-rerouting procedure, Xiao Chuan-Guo, has claimed phenomenal results in China—including an 87% success rate for 110 spina bifida patients at their 1-year follow-up visits. But the controversy surrounding his work is phenomenal, too. Earlier this year police charged Xiao, head of urology at the Union Hospital affiliated with Huazhong University of Science and Technology in Wuhan, with organizing street attacks on two of his critics. Those injured were Fang Shimin, who under the pen name Fang Zhouzi operates the Xin Yu Si or New Threads Web site (<a href="http://www.xys.org/">www.xys.org</a>), and journalist Fang Xuanchang (no relation to Fang Shimin), who has edited magazine articles about Chinese patients who failed to benefit from Xiao’s procedure.</div><div><br /></div><div>Xiao was convicted of “causing disturbance” and sentenced to 5.5 months of detention (<a href="http://scim.ag/doctor-sentenced-Beijing">http://scim.ag/doctor-sentenced-Beijing</a>). He has appealed the verdict. Science sent a request for comment to Xiao’s lawyer by e-mail but did not receive a response by presstime.</div><div><br /></div><div>Questions about the clinical trial in Michigan based on Xiao’s procedure reached the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in March, when the so-called New Threads Volunteers, a watchdog group that tracks Xiao’s research, sent a letter to the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) and the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP). The letter alleged, among other things, that “the current clinical trials in the United States are based on dubious data.”</div><div><br /></div><div>ORI declined to take action, according to Eddie Cheng, a blogger, software engineer, and member of the Volunteers, who mailed letters about Xiao’s study to ORI and OHRP. Cheng says ORI wrote back in March that the allegations weren’t specific and that Xiao’s work in China was out of its jurisdiction. Last week, however, OHRP confirmed in an e-mail to Cheng that it had asked the funding agency to evaluate the allegations.</div><div><br /></div><div>Xiao has many friends in the scientific community. Peters, head of urology at the Beaumont Hospital, and 30 researchers signed an open letter in support of Xiao in September urging China to “protect his human rights” and praising Xiao as “a compassionate man who is respected worldwide for his integrity and his innovative scientific contributions to society.”</div><div><br /></div><div>Xiao developed a nerve-rerouting procedure to treat neurogenic bladder disorder in patients with spinal cord injury (SCI). Nerve crossover was first proposed by an Australian surgeon in 1907; medical literature holds a scattering of partial success stories. But Xiao’s approach—which he proposed in the late 1980s—bypasses the central nervous system by grafting a lower lumbar nerve to one or two sacral nerves below the spinal cord lesion, rerouting signals to bladder and urinary muscles. Xiao claims to have established a new pathway that can be used to initiate voluntary urination by scratching or squeezing skin on the thigh.</div><div><br /></div><div>After testing the idea on rats and cats, Xiao applied for and received an NIH grant in 1994 to study dogs at the Long Island College Hospital in Brooklyn, New York. According to his own published account, Xiao began a trial of the procedure with Chinese SCI patients at a hospital affiliated with a coal mine in Henan Province in 1995 and published final results from the SCI patients in 2003 in The Journal of Urology. This peer-reviewed article reported that of 15 male SCI patients—all with hyperreflexic neurogenic bladder (involuntary voiding)— who had the surgery, 10 gained satisfactory bladder function, two had partial recovery, two failed, and one was lost to follow-up.</div><div><br /></div><div>Critics see inconsistencies in the data. For example, in early reports (some in Chinese), Xiao described patients’ recovery taking place between 10 and 12 months post-op, but the 2003 final report says that patients gained bladder function 12 to 18 months post-op. In addition, the depiction of all 15 patients as hyperreflexic in the 2003 report seems at odds with Xiao’s previous reports, which described treating a mix of patients with hyperreflexic bladder and areflexic bladder (failure to void).</div><div><br /></div><div>Eric Kurzrock, chief of pediatric urology at the University of California, Davis, Children’s Hospital in Sacramento, California, says Xiao’s study is “extremely flawed” because of “patient selection bias.” Kurzrock is particularly critical of the claimed high success rate, because it is not based on data from a randomized, controlled trial.</div><div><br /></div><div>After treating SCI patients, Xiao began using nerve rerouting to treat bladder malfunction in children with spina bifida, whose spinal cords are generally not as damaged as those of SCI patients. The first privately funded trial at Beaumont Hospital, which took place in 2006 and 2007, included nine spina bifida patients and two SCI patients; Peters and co-authors reported preliminary results from spina bifida patients, but results on SCI patients have not been reported. The current NIH-funded trial aims to enroll about 16 spina bifida patients; the original design was not blind and had no control group. Peters says NIH has “created an oversight committee for our study. We met with them a few weeks ago and are addressing their comments. We will be submitting a revised protocol soon for their review.”</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div></div>Eddie Chenghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03285289956451750621noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2266048264584526517.post-71974233480341923072010-10-22T07:38:00.004-06:002010-10-22T19:24:32.237-06:00OHRP Responds to Open Letter on Xiao's Procedure<b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Back in March, we sent </span></b><a href="http://fangzhouzi-xys.blogspot.com/2010/02/new-threads-volunteers-draft-open.html"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">an open letter on Xiao's Procedure</span></b></a><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">, with supporting material, to several government offices and related hospitals. Of them, the Office of Research Integrity of Department of Health and Human Services, had previously responded to </span></b><a href="http://fangzhouzi-xys.blogspot.com/2010/03/dhhs-declines-to-investigate-claims.html"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">decline an investigation</span></b></a><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">.</span></b><div><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></b></div><div><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Today, an email arrived from a different office, the Office for Human Research Protections, indicating that they are taking actions on this issue:</span></b></div><div><br /></div><div>From: Borror, Kristina C (HHS/OASH) </div><div>To: Eddie Cheng</div><div>CC: Menikoff, Jerry (HHS/OASH)</div><div>Subject: "Xiao Procedure"</div><div><br /></div><div>Dear Mr. Cheng:</div><div><br /></div><div>The Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) has received your letter concerning research conducted at William Beaumont Hospital. I apologize for the delay in responding to you.</div><div><br /></div><div>OHRP has responsibility for oversight of compliance with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regulations for the protection of human research subjects (see 45 CFR Part 46 at <a href="http://www.dhhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.htm">http://www.dhhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.htm</a>). In carrying out this responsibility, OHRP evaluates, at OHRP's discretion, substantive allegations of noncompliance involving human subject research projects conducted or supported by HHS or that are otherwise subject to the regulations (see OHRP memorandum dated October 14, 2009 at <a href="http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/compliance/ohrpcomp.pdf">http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/compliance/ohrpcomp.pdf</a> for an explanation of OHRP's jurisdiction).</div><div><br /></div><div>OHRP has initiated an evaluation of the matter referenced in your letter. We notified the funding agency of your allegations and they have stopped enrollment into the study. We will advise you when the evaluation has been completed.</div><div><br /></div><div>OHRP appreciates your concern about the protection of human research subjects. Please do not hesitate to contact me at any time should you have any questions or wish to provide additional information.</div><div><br /></div><div>Sincerely</div><div><br /></div><div>Kristina C. Borror, Ph.D.</div><div>Director</div><div>Division of Compliance Oversight</div><div>Office for Human Research Protections</div><div>1101 Wooton Parkway, Suite 200</div><div>The Tower Building</div><div>Rockville, MD 20852</div><div><br /></div><div><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">(Note: email address and phone number are also included in the above email. Although they are public records, they are omitted here to limit spam.)</span></b></div>Eddie Chenghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03285289956451750621noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2266048264584526517.post-8127932501924046632010-10-20T16:32:00.002-06:002010-10-20T16:37:42.262-06:00Nature Editorial: A Hammer Blow to National Ethics<i><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Nature</span></b></i><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> joins the fray with an </span></b><a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7318/full/467884a.html"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">editorial</span></b></a><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> of its own today:</span></b><div><br /></div><div><div><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">A hammer blow to national ethics</span></b></div><div><br /></div><div><i>Nature 467 , 884 (21 October 2010) </i></div><div><i>Published online 20 October 2010</i></div><div><br /></div><div>China needs to act on broader science failures, not simply condemn an isolated case.</div><div><br /></div><div>The trial of Chinese urologist Xiao Chuanguo for organizing beatings of two of his critics started on a Sunday. By Monday, the Beijing district judge had handed him a five-and-a-half- month sentence, and lesser or equal terms to other men involved. One of the victims, Fang Shimin, a self-styled science watchdog who investigates misconduct claims under the name Fang Zhouzi on his New Threads website, says the penalty is too light. But the judgment has already made Xiao persona non grata in China.</div><div><br /></div><div>The attacks involved a hammer, steel rods and pepper spray (see Nature 467, 511; 2010). Xiao's supporters argue that the incident involving Fang Shimin followed a long-standing feud between the two men. The Chinese scientific establishment is right to condemn Xiao for his crime, but the authorities should not use this case to divert attention from wider failings in the research community.</div><div><br /></div><div>The science ministry issued an online statement after the verdict, saying that Xiao “should be condemned for his vicious misconduct and lack of integrity”. The ministry wants nothing to do with Xiao, taking pains to disavow claims that he was chief scientist on a ministry-sponsored science project. The China Association for Science and Technology (CAST), the country's largest non-governmental organization of scientists and engineers, likewise welcomed the judgment. Meanwhile, the widespread and debilitating failures in China's scientific community go on largely uncontested, even though they have created fertile ground for this ugly episode.</div><div><br /></div><div>Lack of monitoring and regulation in China means false CVs and scientific misconduct are rife there. The laxity can lead to a blurring of the lines between what is considered acceptable and unacceptable scientific behaviour, especially among young researchers. Channels of complaint about misconduct exist, but fear of identification and doubts over effectiveness drive many to launch unofficial, often anonymous attacks. Reasoned examination of facts and allegations gives way to vitriol and fear.</div><div><br /></div><div>The impacts can be widespread. More than 250 patients in China are now threatening to sue hospitals, or Xiao directly, because they claim a surgical procedure he pioneered — which aims to restore bladder and bowel function in patients with spina bifida or spinal-cord injuries — doesn't work. The procedure has its critics, who say it should be considered experimental (K. M. Peters et al. J. Urol. 184, 702–708; 2010). But others back it, and last month 31 scientists (including 22 from the United States) posted a letter of support on the CareCure Community website, which is largely devoted to discussions of cutting-edge spinal therapies. The letter, signed by many who use Xiao's method, asks that his “scientific and humanitarian contributions to the world” are considered. With Xiao's conviction, will his technique get a fair trial?</div><div><br /></div><div>Chinese government officials often promise to deal with scientific misconduct. This time they should do more than just punish hammer-wielding thugs and take steps to create a system that properly monitors fraud and plagiarism, checks reasonable allegations, prosecutes libellous ones and protects whistleblowers. The careers of scientists, the health of patients and the scientific future of the nation are at stake.</div></div>Eddie Chenghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03285289956451750621noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2266048264584526517.post-91173569350307331662010-10-19T20:24:00.003-06:002010-10-20T16:38:21.828-06:00AP: Patients Protest Chinese Doctor's Risky Surgery<b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">The following is an </span></b><i><a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101019/ap_on_he_me/as_china_risky_medicine"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Associate Press</span></b></a></i><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> report:</span></b><div><br /></div><div><div><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">Patients protest Chinese doctor's risky surgery</span></b></div><div><br /></div><div><i>By GILLIAN WONG, Associated Press Writer – Tue Oct 19, 5:53 am ET</i></div><div><br /></div><div>BEIJING – At one moment, the Chinese urologist seemed to be at the height of his career: He had invented a surgical procedure to help patients overcome incontinence and was training doctors in America and elsewhere. The next, Dr. Xiao Chuanguo was in handcuffs, confessing that he'd hired thugs to attack two persistent critics who called him a fraud.</div><div><br /></div><div>The scandal has shocked the public and prompted calls for better regulation of Chinese medical research. And while research fraud and misconduct is widespread in China, Xiao is no run-of-the-mill charlatan. More than 30 urologists from the United States, Canada, France, India and other countries issued a letter in support of the U.S.-trained surgeon after his arrest late last month.</div><div><br /></div><div>In China, several former patients have complained about severe side effects, including a worsening of their mobility. The respected Southern Weekly newspaper said in an analysis that poor regulation led to Xiao "treating patients as if they were voluntary lab mice."</div><div><br /></div><div>Last week, a Beijing court sentenced the 54-year-old doctor to five and a half months in detention for his role in the attacks. Xiao, in police custody, could not be reached for comment.</div><div><br /></div><div>Some American doctors consider his technique experimental but promising, and two U.S. hospitals are carrying out trials on a small number of volunteers, mostly children. Others, though, are skeptical, particularly of his claims of an 85 percent success rate. The surgery is meant to help people who cannot control their bladders because of a paralyzing accident or a birth defect known as spina bifida.</div><div><br /></div><div>"Most of the pediatric urologists in the United States were very cynical about his reports," said Dr. Eric Kurzrock, chief of pediatric urology at the UC Davis Children's Hospital in Sacramento, California. "Nobody ever believed there was an 85 percent success rate, you know, and when you looked at his reports they were very short on details."</div><div><br /></div><div>In China, Xiao forged ahead with the surgery on hundreds of patients, according to media reports. Now, some are saying he exaggerated the chance of success and that the surgery left them worse off.</div><div><br /></div><div>Whether or not he is guilty of fraud or an ethical lapse, his case highlights the unregulated nature of research in China, with few protections for patients.</div><div><br /></div><div>"It's no secret that the Chinese medical space is the Wild West," said Cong Cao, a researcher at the State University of New York who has written two books on China's science and innovation.</div><div><br /></div><div>One man, Fang Shimin, has emerged as an unofficial sheriff, unearthing examples of scientific fraud and posting them on his website.</div><div><br /></div><div>He took on Xiao, and the two ended up in a long-running feud. Separately, investigative journalist Fang Xuanchang, no relation to the other Fang, also started writing critical pieces about Xiao.</div><div><br /></div><div>The stakes are high for Xiao, who once told reporters his procedure should win him a Nobel Prize and has said that becoming a target of the two Fangs cost him a seat in the prestigious Chinese Academy of Sciences.</div><div><br /></div><div>In June, two men attacked the journalist Fang with metal pipes, leaving a deep gash on his head. Two months later, the other Fang was attacked with a chemical spray and a hammer, escaping with minor injuries.</div><div><br /></div><div>Police arrested Xiao after he returned from training doctors in Argentina. In a videotaped interrogation, the doctor said he paid a distant relative 100,000 yuan ($15,000) to hire two men "just to give them black eyes and swollen faces ... but not to do any permanent damage.</div><div><br /></div><div>"Nothing else would solve the problem except beating him up," he said, referring to Fang Shimin, the muckraker.</div><div><br /></div><div>Half a dozen patients and family members protested outside his trial, saying they represented 200 patients who were duped by Xiao into thinking the 30,000 yuan ($4,500) procedure had an 85 percent success rate.</div><div><br /></div><div>"We need an explanation. We need justice," said Qu Binbin, a 29-year-old man in a wheelchair who said he was able to get around without crutches before having the surgery three years ago.</div><div><br /></div><div>Supporters of the doctor also showed up. Guo Yuling, a 19-year-old college student, said he constantly wet his pants for the first 13 years of his life before Xiao's surgery.</div><div><br /></div><div>Two former patients are suing Xiao for false advertisement, and more lawsuits are planned, said Peng Jian, a human rights lawyer who said he has documented 150 cases in which the surgery had no benefit or left patients worse off.</div><div><br /></div><div>So far, the scandal has not derailed plans to continue studies in the U.S. </div><div><br /></div><div>Researchers at William Beaumont Hospital in Royal Oak, Michigan, reported mixed results — and some side effects — from a pilot study of nine spina bifida patients. </div><div><br /></div><div>By early next year, they plan to begin a 5-year clinical trial funded by $2.3 million from the National Institutes of Health.</div><div><br /></div><div>Dr. Kenneth Peters, the hospital's head of urology, said he ensures that patients are fully aware the surgery is experimental and carries serious risks.</div><div><br /></div><div>"Dr. Xiao has been nothing but in our experience an incredible gentleman, scientist and a very good colleague," said Peters, one of those who signed the letter in Xiao's support.</div><div><br /></div><div>A separate 3-year study on eight children is under way at All Children's Hospital in St. Petersburg, Florida.</div><div><br /></div><div>___</div><div>Associated Press researcher Xi Yue contributed to this report.</div></div>Eddie Chenghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03285289956451750621noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2266048264584526517.post-82190648629393128602010-10-14T20:53:00.003-06:002010-10-14T21:13:45.914-06:00Fang Zhouzi's Wife: Living Indignantly<b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">The following is a translation of an essay written by Fang Zhouzi's wife, expressing her anger and frustration on how the Xiao Chuanguo case was handled. Fang Zhouzi posted the original in Chinese </span></b><a href="http://www.xys.org/xys/ebooks/others/science/dajia11/attack300.txt"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">here</span></b></a><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">.</span></b><div><br /></div><div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">Living Indignantly</span></b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>by Fang Zhouzi's wife</b></div><div><br /></div><div>Today I plan to take an act of rebellion forced by high officials.</div><div><br /></div><div>I am a very good citizen. I live a normal life. In the subway, I offer my seat to those who are old, preganant, or very young. I am optimistic, always hoping for and pursuing a beautiful future. I live cleanly myself, and think about charity whenever I am able. I have never caused any trouble to society, never wanted to harm anyone. I am one of those who form the foundation of social stability, I am one of those for whom the ruling class is most at ease, never a need to worry or concern about.</div><div><br /></div><div>However, Xiao Chuanguo spent 100,000 RMB to purchase an attack [on my family] -- considering that the perpetrators lived in a hotel across the street from my family for months and spent all day doing nothing but sitting on a stone bench or sidewalk in front of our building waiting for Fang Zhouzi, that was an expensive undertaking. Unless they are volunteers, this 100,000 sum is most likely only a down payment -- and planned [the attack] for half a year. When they took the action, Fang Zhouzi was lucky enough to be able to run away without serious harm only because of his quick reflexes, a result that led to the conspirator to claim as "impossible" on the Internet. Yet this very conspirator was only sentenced to 5.5 month of detention. This dramatic event became the last straw for me to live a silly and indignant life in this society.</div><div><br /></div><div>I no longer want to use words like crazy, absurd, or emptiness. This rotten society does not deserve such emotion from me. I want to say it's buffoonery, for the ordinary people are slipping around in a giant, black and messy sauce jar, and splash, they are tripped and fell, and immediately submerged into the bottom. There is only a sound and everything will appear the same normal again. Life goes on. Only that too many people had drawned this way, the stench is unbearable.</div><div><br /></div><div>"Social phenomena" much worse than this case of attacking Fang Zhouzi are happening every day. In the past, I have always hoped and believed that their exposure will lead to change. A net-friend had described me as "a woman desperately struggling in a sauce jar while her husband is making a great effort to smash it." Because of its symbolic importance, the attack has become national and even international news. But in the end, it is still able to be massaged and smoked into such a ball of mess without any true color. I congratulate the Political and Legal Committee of the city of Beijing. </div><div><br /></div><div>You have successfully threatened a chivalrous fighter, encouraged criminals, and made obedient people desperate. You did a marvelous job.</div><div><br /></div><div>Ever since that day of September 21, when Xiao Chuanguo was captured, a strong and mysterious power started to assert its force -- if this power had known it was Xiao Chuanguo's deed ahead of time, he would never have been arrested. So here I want to sincerely express my respect and gratitude to the Beijing police. Given the will and resource, you are able to recover all truth.</div><div><br /></div><div>Guided by that mysterious power, in the short span of a dozen or so days, the investigation and questioning screeched to a halt. The case was sent to the prosecutors with a baffling charge. The prosecutors did not even take a break during the National Day holiday and forwarded it to the court with high efficiency. The court announced its verdict with lightning speed, without the presence of any "irrelvant" media. Xiao Chuanguo coorperated accordingly. Report shows that Xiao Chuanguo, who had been acting up "like a professional lawyer in questioning witnesses in court," behaved much unlike himself in the beginning, claiming that he did not understand the "causing disturbance" charge but if the court designates this charge to him, he would have no objections. Perhaps because all this had been planned too carefully and executed too smoothly, it actually led to a close call among themselves. When the defendant's side realized that the victim's side is helpless with the cover provided by the court, they wanted to enter a not-guilty plea instead. This sudden change must have not been planned ahead of time. At noon, the hungry judge had no choice but announced that he had to change the simplified proceeding back into a normal procedure. He announced an adjournment, the verdict would have to wait for another day.</div><div><br /></div><div>The mysterious power realized that they could not afford to wait any longer and quickly took action to guide the events back into a preset track. So, the court was back to action in the same afternoon.</div><div><br /></div><div>The defendants were then no longer making any troubles and an "intelligent" verdict was reached on time -- never mind that the victims' lawyer was not even present. Xiao Chuanguo said he would appeal. Yes, please continue your act, please continue to act diligently. The whole nation is watching with taste and excitement. They know what's at stake now. When the ruling class embraces sin, deception, and lies, the powerless has no choice but lowering their heads and accepting exploitation, cheating, and insults.</div><div><br /></div><div>I can no longer trust the laws and courts of my motherland. I can not imagine what would be the result of the petition by more than a hundred victims of the surgical operation called "Xiao's Procedure". I can no longer believe that the Ministry of Science and Technology, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Health, or any other "relevant" power institutes could take their responsibilities. They always pretend to see nothing and hear nothing. Reports say that "the Minsitry of Health may publish its opinion on Xiao Chuanguo within a week." Is it so difficult to say that we need to launch an investigation on the "Xiao's Procedure"?</div><div><br /></div><div>On the day after the verdict, an abusive and threatening message showed up on my cell phone. I couldn't help but laugh. Look how desperate you guys were, did you want the Beijing Policial and Legal Committee to take another action and arrest the entire family of Fang Zhouzi and kill them? Would that help to ease the hatred of Xiao Chuanguo and the like?</div><div><br /></div><div>My little baby often makes up stories with me. Lately she has been naming her hero "Little Tear Drop". She also calls her most faviorate toy Little Tear Drop... Why are there so many tear drops in your little heart? I recall the confession from one of the attackers. He had followed Fang Zhouzi all the way as he was carrying our baby to supermarket. I tremble with fear. I have also been unknowingly taken pictures by the spies hired by Xiao Chuanguo. I have not seen those pictures myself. They were most likely taken around my neighborhood. For a Mom who dedicated all her spare time to her baby, the pictures must have been clandestinely taken when I was playing with her. I had even smiled at Xu Lichun, one of the would-be attackers. He was sitting on a stone bench with a funny expression and stared at me. I thought he was a relative of one of my neighbors. Then I turned away to chase my baby. She was calling for me.</div><div><br /></div><div>China could not tolerate Fang Zhouzi. I open my eyes waiting for the time when the burning lava could break through the ground. There is no need for Fang Zhouzi to change himself. Let the time distill his sincerity and his value.</div><div><br /></div><div>So, Ah Min, shall we run away?</div></div>Eddie Chenghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03285289956451750621noreply@blogger.com0