The Fraud Case of Prefessor Xiao Chuanguo

In September, 2005, the Chinese Academy of Science (CAS) announced a new slate of candidates for her prestigious Academician program. Almost on the same day, an alert New Thread reader reported that one of the candidates, Professor Xiao Chuanguo (肖传国), although nominated from the Huazhong Science and Technology University(华中科技大学) at Wuhan, China, actually holds a full-time faculty position at New York University (NYU). If so, he should not be eligible to become a CAS Academician.

Other New Thread readers soon joined in to dispute many of the critical accomplishments listed in Professor Xiao Chuanguo's resume. On September 21, 2005, Fang Zhouzi published an essay in Beijing Science and Technology and summarized the major disputes surrounding Professor Xiao Chuanguo's credentials:

1. Professor Xiao's position at NYU had been an Assistant Professor up until recently (2005), not Associate Professor as he had claimed. Even then, he was promoted as a Clinic Associate Professor, not a tenured Associate Professor.
2. Professor Xiao's resume claimed that he had published 26 papers written in English. However, there had been only 4 such publications. The others are abstracts submitted to conferences. There were only 9 citations to the 4 publications he had, hardly a laudable record.
3. Professor Xiao claimed that he had won a couple of highest awards from the American Urological Association (AUA) for his achievements. However, one of the awards was given for a conference abstract and the other unverifiable.
4. Most important of all, Professor Xiao claimed that his work resulted in a "Xiao's Reflective Arc" procedure that is internationally recognized. In fact, he claimed that it was one of the very few procedures that were named after the name of a Chinese national. However, an extensive search of that term and its similar variations did not turn out any results. The so-named procedure could not be so recognized or acclaimed.

Professor Xiao eventually lost his bid to be elected as a CAS Academician. It is not known how much impact Fang Zhouzi's essay had had in the matter. Nevertheless, Professor Xiao launched a series of lawsuits against Fang Zhouzi and the media that had carried Fang's work, resulting in some very interesting, and even peculiar rulings.

In China, It's A Matter of Principle

Ouyang Ziyuan, the Chief Scientist of China's Chang'e lunar probe project, commented on the rumors and discussions surrounding the authenticity and quality of Chang'e moon picture. He said:

Whether the picture is real or fake is a matter of principle. Any doubt on this is intolerable and can not be allowed. To doubt the picture's authenticity is an insult to our Country. It is an affront to the work of 17,000 people who had worked on the project.

There you have it.

It's worth pointing out that the said Chief Scientist had publicly claimed the proof of the picture's authenticity is that there is a new meteorite site in the picture that was not present in the NASA pictures. However, amateur astronomers in Shanghai and USA quickly figured out that the new site was a defect in the data-processing of the picture itself. A mistake that had evaded the Chief Scientist and the 17,000 workers.

Ironically, the presence of the defect also proved the picture's authenticity, just not the way the Chief Scientist had wanted. So, now he no longer feels that he needs to present any evidence at all.

But then again, it is simply a matter of principle.

Moon Photo is Real, But...

There is an independent verification today that the moon picture from Chang'e is real. But it is not for the reason the Chinese space official had presented, which is becoming a big embarrassment by itself.

Moon Photos From Chang'e

Danwei has just published an excellent summary on the current discussions of the moon photos from Chang'e: Netizens pick apart the Chang'e moon photo.

From Tiger To The Moon: The Credibility Crisis

Today's news from the Reuters has a blaring headline: "China Says Moon Pictures Not Faked From NASA". At the same time, the official China Daily had just declared that "South China Tiger Photos Are Fake". Two stories, neither may be of great significance in the long run, but both pointing to a phenomenon that can no longer be ignored in China: the great trust crisis.

The tiger photos came first in the early October. A farmer and hunter in the remote Shaanxi claimed to have seen a live "South China Tiger" in the wild and took a series pictures to prove it. This type of tigers has been declared extinct in the wild for decades. The farmer's stories and pictures were initially backed by local forestry authorities and given great fanfare in the Chinese media. However, the authenticity of the photos was immediately questioned by many on the internet. Much analysis shows that the pictures are more likely to be a product of photoshop-ing.

Then came the launch of Chang'e 1 in late October, the very first lunar probe from China. By any means, it is a big milestone in the China's surging space program. In deed, the official media in China hailed it as a great victory for the nation.

It took weeks for Chang'e 1 to reach its lunar orbit, during which there was a curious silence in the media on this subject. Rumors circulated on the internet that Chang'e 1 was in trouble, and may have been lost. It was not until a month later, on Nov 26, a picture of the moon surface taken by Chang'e was released to the public, first unveiled by no other than the Premier Wen Jiabao.

Taken the cue from the experience in the tiger pictures, the Chinese internet is once again abuzz on the possibility that this picture from Chang'e could be a doctored version of NASA's old picture, available on the internet. It has become the talk of the day, so much so that it was necessary for the high officials in China's space program to issue an official denial.

Of course, it is highly unlikely that such blatant forgery could be practiced in a high-profile program as Chang'e. But the problem now is, you can just never be sure. In China, people are suspicious on anything, no matter how sacred it could be.

It is a crisis in trustworthiness.

For the record, Fang Zhouzi was marginally involved in the debunking of the tiger pictures. He wrote a couple of articles commenting on the tiger's appearance and habitat. He also pointed out that, even if the tiger were real, it would be pointless to protect since the forest area involved was too small to support even a single tiger.

So far, he has not participated in the Chang'e picture debate.

Current Court Cases

Fang Zhouzi has been sued by some of people he had exposed as fraud, for libel and defamation. Here is a brief list of the current lawsuits. (More details will be filled in later.)

1. Liu Zihua's family vs. Fang Zhouzi, Beijing, China
   
2. Ding Zuyi and Xi'an Fanyi vs. Fang Zhouzi and Beijing Science and Technology, Xi'an, China
   
3. Xiao Chuanguo vs. Fang Zhouzi, Wuhan, China
4. Xiao Chuanguo vs. Fang Zhouzi, Beijing, China
5. Xiao Chuanguo vs. Fang Zhouzi, New York, USA
6. CEB Rice vs Fang Zhouzi, Beijing, China
   

Exposed Fraud Cases

How many fraud cases has Fang Zhouzi and his New Thread exposed so far?

It may just be too many to list. According to the most recent report by New Scientist, Fang Zhouzi himself has estimated that they have exposed more than 700 cases, involving falsification, corruption, and pseudoscience. Sadly, very few of these cases received official attention in terms of formal investigation and resolution.

New Thread maintains a For The Record (立此存照) column, where discussions surrounding major cases are archived. About 100 more prominent cases are documented there (all in Chinese).

Resume Padding Cases:

• Professor Xiao Chuanguo (肖传国)
• Tang Jun (唐骏)

Forgery:

• Ding Zuyi and Xi'an Fanyi University (丁祖怡和西安翻译学院）
• Wang Rui (王锐)
• Scandal at Zhejiang University
  

Pseudoscience:

• Liu Zihua and his Eight Diagrams Astronomy (刘子华和他的八卦宇宙论)

Plagiarism:

• Wang Mingming (王铭铭)
  
• Yang Xiongli (杨雄里)
• Li Xiaoming (李晓明)
• Zhu Yinghao (朱英浩)
  

Other:

• Mengniu (蒙牛)
  

(This post will be frequently updated with English summaries of major cases as they become available.)