Professor Rao Yi Speaks Up

One prominent intellectual who was outraged by Xiao Chuanguo's lawsuit and open letter was Rao Yi (饶毅), then the Steiner Elsa A. Swanson Research Professor at Northwestern University. On September 6, 2006, Professor Rao Yi published an open letter of his own, practically denouncing Xiao Chuanguo's public behavior as brain-dead.

Because of this letter, Professor Rao Yi is now a co-defendant with Fang Zhouzi in a libel suit filed by Xiao Chuanguo in New York. The case is still awaiting for trial.

Meanwhile, Professor Rao Yi has left Northwestern and become the Dean of School of Life Sciences at Peking University in China.

Professor Rao Yi's letter can be read here in its original Chinese. Thanks to Yush for providing the English translation:

Yi Rao
Professor of Neurology
Northwestern University, USA
Senior Investigator,
National Institute of Biological Science, Beijing, China

The following is my opinion on the Chuan-Guo Xiao vs. Shi-Min Fang case.

I have been in the field of neuroscience for 23 years since I began my graduate study. In the past eleven years, I have been interacting with Chinese researchers and teaching and conducting research in China. I did some study on the historical evolutions of biomedicine in China. I am familiar with the Chinese academia in biomedicine, and I also know international academia in neuroscience quite well. In addition, I have a fair understanding of the current status of the academia in China.

Although I cannot possibly know every detail regarding this case, I urge the court to dismiss the case and never accept similar cases in the future for the dignity of the law. The reasons are as follows: I am not sure if Chuan-Guo Xiao’s intelligence does not match his age or is defected, or if he is psychologically ill or abnormal compared with ordinary adults. I am afraid that there may be a relatively big issue with one of these problems.

Except that I once responded to his questions indirectly in an explanatory article in 2002, I have been reluctant to express my opinion regarding matters related to Xiao, which is mainly to avoid the possible situation of arguing with someone of low IQ or psychological illness. It is often said that, if one argues with a fool (or psychopath), others would think that he is also a fool (or psychopath). I have not met with Chuan-Guo Xiao, and I cannot be sure, and neither can I exclude the possibility, that he has one of the two aforementioned problems. For example, if an adult scientific researcher who is psychologically healthy and understands the basic rules wants to be recognized by the academia, he should know very well that this depends on his own scientific work, and would not endlessly spend time and efforts in the media, the Internet, or court rooms. If someone actually torture himself by reading Chuan-Guo Xiao’s Open Letter to National Media, Academia and Shi-Min Fang, he would easily raise questions that are more serious than whether Xiao is talking sense, and he would find it hard not to question the psychological health of its author. Is it really that Chuan-Guo Xiao is so important that he deserves the attention of the media all over the nation, or that he sent the letter to the wrong recipients due to his unusual judgement? Is it really that he spent so much time fighting against Shi-Min Fang such that he had to give up his opportunity to earn a Nobel Prize (quote: “[I will] temporarily put Nobel Prize aside”), or that he would actually never win any Nobel Prize at all? As for putting foul language in an open letter to “national media” and “academia”, is it because Xiao has a low IQ or EQ, or is it because the taste of Chinese people is as low as he had thought, so low that they would not feel ill due to his foul language?

Since I suspected that he has one of the two aforementioned problems, I would not risk becoming an idiot or psycho by launching lawsuits against him for his attacking and falsely accusing more than twenty Chinese scholars residing in the United States including me. I urge the court not to accept his case without careful consideration. If sometime later evidence proves that he indeed has one of the problems, the acceptance of the case by the court now might become a shame for the court in the future. I am risking becoming an idiot or psycho by writing this opinion, only for the sake of the dignity of the court.

If Xiao failed to become a member of the Chinese Academy of Science not because that some members of the academy realized that Xiao’s academic achievement was insignificant and rejected him, but because the influence of the articles by Shi-Min Fang, I would think that Shi-Min Fang has done a good deed to the Chinese Academy of Science. In my opinion, there is no strong evidence that shows that Chuan-Guo Xiao really understands the norms of scientific research, or that sufficiently shows that his level of academic achievement is better than my junior graduate students, senior undergraduate students, or even students of my students. If Chuan-Guo Xiao had become a member of the Chinese Academy of Science, it would probably have set the record of the lowest level of academic achievement for the members of the academy.

September 6, 2006

An Open Letter Supporting Fang Zhouzi

In the summer of 2006, as a response to Professor Xiao Chuanguo's lawsuit and his open letter, another open letter was circulating the internet collecting signature to support Fang Zhouzi. The letter was drafted by Yush, and eventually signed by 601 intellectuals both in China and abroad. By the rule, all signatures are supposed to be real names, accompanied by their work address.

Later, Xiao Chuanguo hired a couple of law firms in China to "investigate and seek prosecution" of the letter signatories. To date, this has been shown as an empty threat.

The original Chinese version of this open letter, along with the signatories, can be read here. The English version is once again provided by Yush:

Recently, the first-instance judgment was made at Jianghan District Court of Wuhan City in the defamation lawsuit of Xiao Chuan-Guo against Sohu Information Technology Inc., the University Press of Peking Union Medical College, and Fang Shi-min. This judgment was astonishing that it was evidently partial to the plaintiff while disregarding the facts. We, Chinese intellectuals around the world who have been paying attention to this lawsuit in which the court intervened an action against academic misconducts, would like to express our opinions to the public in this open letter and also to show our support to Dr. Fang Shi-min, a well-known whistleblower against academic misconducts in China, who should have been protected by law.

The lawsuit was launched after Dr. Fang Shi-min, in his well-known pen name Fang Zhou-Zi, published an essay entitled “Academician Candidate Straddles Two Boats” during the period the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) solicited public comments on its 2005 candidate list. In the essay, Fang presented solid evidence and charged Dr. Xiao Chuan-Guo, then a CAS academician candidate, with a series of dishonest and unethical activities, including lying in his work experience and his overseas job title, as well as exaggerating his publication record, academic awards and research achievements, etc. Subsequently, Xiao filed the defamation lawsuit against Fang, the newspaper who published the essay and the internet media who interviewed Fang. In the first trial, Fang lost the case and was ordered to apologize publicly and to pay compensation to Xiao.

We believe that it is legitimate for Dr. Fang to criticize and question the qualifications of Xiao as a CAS candidate; it is purely academic criticism and media monitoring; it fits perfectly into the goal of the CAS to encourage the public to monitor its member selection process by publishing the candidate list; it is also a fundamental right for a Chinese citizen to express his opinions on public issues.

We believe that Dr. Fang plays an irreplaceable and positive role by fighting against academic corruptions which are increasingly widespread and serious in China nowadays while no official mechanism really enforces academic integrity and punishes the violators.

We believe that Jianghan District Court of Wuhan City has damaged the dignity of the law by disregarding the abundant evidence provided by the defendants that clearly shows Xiao’s academic misconducts, calling a stag a horse, and calling black white.

We believe that the judgment made by Jianghan District Court of Wuhan City on this case would embolden the academic fabricators, ruining the efforts of the Chinese authorities in improving the academic supervision mechanism and curbing academic corruptions.

Finally, we appeal to superior judicial authorities and relevant organizations to pay close attention to and to investigate into the obviously wrongful judgment and the role of local protectionism in this lawsuit, so as to set a good precedent for judicial bodies to judge cases involving academic misconducts and frauds.

Xiao Chuanguo: In His Own Words

On June 8, 2006, days before the legal proceedings started in Wuhan court, Professor Xiao Chuanguo published an open letter to "all media in the nation, all fellows in academia and Fang Zhouzi" regarding his case. It is an unusual letter for a professor and an Academician candidate, as it was filled with vengeance, hatred, and personal attacks towards Fang Zhouzi. It also contains occasional profanity. The original letter in Chinese is available here and here.

The letter has been translated into English by several supporters of Fang Zhouzi: polik, fuzzify, eng, xj, Yush, et al. Thanks to Yush, here is the letter in its entirety:

Ladies and Gentlemen:

An ugly bride eventually has to show her face to her in-laws. Fang Zhouzi, maybe you can hide yourself for now, but you cannot hide yourself forever. You will be brought to justice someday. The two defamation cases of Xiao Chuanguo vs. Fang Zhouzi will be heard on June 21st, 2006. I hereby announce this event to the media and fellows in academia who are interested in these cases, and sincerely invite and welcome all of you to come to Wuhan to be present in court.

Fang Zhouzi launched large scale false accusations, libel and personal attacks right before the membership election of the Chinese Academy of Sciences using his website New Threads and some of other irresponsible media. I tried my best to persuade my friends, relatives and students to refrain from counter-attacking on the internet, also gratefully turned down my employer’s offer to stage positive reporting to set the record straight. One obvious reason for my doing so, is that I would like to follow the Academy’s rule forbidding the seeking of publicity using the media. But more importantly, I desire to carry out the revenge myself. My membership in the CAS is secondary to such more vital things as my reputation and my dignity. Not only did Fang Zhouzi’s accusation based on pure fabrication blemished my flawless image built over a period of 30 years, he also maliciously insulted my spouse, vilified my teacher. If I do not settle the score, I swear not to call myself human. My advice to you, Fang Zhouzi, is to receive the punishment according to law without any resistance.

A thief is in constant fear of being caught. Fang Zhouzi has under various circumstances admitted his “pessimism” about the outcome of the above mentioned litigations and has “prepared himself mentally” for the defeat. But Fang complained vociferously about the “unfairness” of the trial before the verdict was given and even before the court hearing, which is a blatant derogation of the law of the People’s Republic of China. Fang Zhouzi, do you really think that in the court room over looked by the National Emblem, you will be allowed to do whatever you like and wag your tongue without any regard for truth, just as on your rogue website which is a shelter for evil activities? Do you really think that the reporters all over the country who will be attending the court hearing, their cameras and tape recorders especially their eyes and ears cannot tell the right from the wrong? Fang’s talk about local protectionism and social network is completely nonsense. I have returned to China for ten years, in the past four years, I have been nominated for both the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the Chinese Academy of Engineering, but I am only acquainted with no more than ten members of the Academies, most of whom are neuroscientists that I got to know while serving as the principle investigator for 973 project. I did not use “networking” for such important matter as getting nominated for the memberships of the Academies. It would be funny if I needed “networking” in order to deal with an unemployed person as insignificant as you, Fang Zhouzi. Fact and law are more than sufficient. A key step in my litigations with Fang is the issuance of a summons directly to Fang Zhouzi in Beijing. Fang Zhouzi, it is not easy flush you out in order to place a case on file for investigation and prosecution. When you sued Shanghai Zhen Ming Magazine, you asked the residents’ committee of the Xinhua News Agency to authenticate that Fang Shimin and his wife has been living in (the address omitted by the translator). However, all the summonses sent to that same address were returned. The Beijing Xi Cheng District court had to go so far as to deliver the summons in person while you were interviewed by Sohu. Is this local protectionism or national protectionism? You also said that the Xi’an court practices local protectionism. Does the case have to be handled by Judge Zhang in the court in your hometown in order for it not to be local protectionism? You have a habit of quoting the following sentence from the works of Mencius: “If on self-examination, I find that I am upright, I will go forward against thousands and tens of thousands.” And you also have a habit of bragging: “many people liken me to the character Qiao Feng in Tian Long Ba Bu.” Actually being liken to Qiao Feng may not be something that worth bragging about- Qaio Feng does not even know who his father is. Please don’t say that you don’t mind being called a turtle who dare not stick its head out of the shell hiding in your wife’s room or even under her skirt not having the guts to answer challenges to unsheathe the sword and to acknowledge the receipt of summons from the court. Fang Zhouzi, in order not to be chased around by “local protectionists” trying to deliver the summons from the court, I suggest you to publish your place of residence. But do you dare?

When you know you are in trouble, you should accept the fact that you are in trouble. “The truth of science and the merit of news can not be judged in court”. The above dim-witted remark as a death struggle to save face can only be written by an idiot like you, and can only be published imprudently by Zhao Jianhua, the editor of the Beijing Sci-Tech Report who has a special relation with you as a colluder. You already know where you trouble is: (1) my professorship has practiced medicine and conducted research for 30 years and have essentially flawless track record. (2) My professorship believes in returning favors and settling scores unlike some members of the academy who are unwilling to come down to your level to respond after being insulted by you. When I cure an illness, I only need one treatment plan. The more plans there are, the worse the outcome will be. If you want to destroy the career of a professor, it is enough to focus the attack on one issue. Too many issues won’t help your case. Your all-around attack of me only shows your sinisterness, ruthlessness and exasperation and your inability to find an issue to attack. On the other hand, it can serve as evidence of your crime in the court. Very soon the fake judge like you is going to meet a real judge. Are you ready with the “evidence”? If your are trembling with nervousness, here is an opportunity for you to achieve a “satisfactory” result without going to court: you can select any number of publications from your dozens of publications that attack me, attach anything you want to them as “evidence” and make two copies to send to Tsou Chen-lu and Ho Tso-Hsiu (who “always supports Fang”) respectively. If both of the two people agree that any of your accusations is true, that I have “committed fraud”, I will unconditionally accept their conclusion, I will resign from all the teaching positions in China and abroad that I current hold, and make an announcement in the Beijing Sci-Tech Report (which your livelihood depends on) to apologize to the whole country and disappear from the academia forever. What do you think? (Note: Please do not use any false evidence to deceive those two elderly people. I have caught you doing such things once before.) Please also note that I do not know those two members of academy in person. I have a great deal of respect for Academician Tsou. I do not have a favorable opinion on some of what Academician Ho said and did. But I believe that those two people will not lie.

As a Chinese saying goes, you do not need to worry about the shape of shadow if your body is straight; and you have to be strong enough to do the iron hammering. Fang Zhouzi has insulted me so much that his bad words are everywhere, which also deceived many immature young people. However, when we had a PK (personal kill), hasn’t all those words gone like smoke? Why do I need to explain the accusations item by item? I am busy. I am not a freelance. At the same time, I invite and welcome all of my fellow scientists and Chinese media from all over the country, especially the media in Hubei province, please do check every item that Fang Zhouzi has published on his website New Threads to accuse my wrongdoings. If you find one, I will give you 50,000 Yuan. I am confident that you will find that Fang Zhouzi’s accusations have no ground and are pure rumors. During the past 30 years, Xiao Chuanguo has done nothing that violates scientific ethics, and nothing that violates biomedical ethics. Nowadays, how many people can brag this? I am confident that I can. Since I was arranged by the ex-Minister of the Chinese Health Ministry Chen Minzhang, and by my mentor professor Qiu Fazhu, to return to China in 1997, I have tried my best to avoid the media, not only because I don’t like the vulgarity of some of the media reporters, but also because I know myself well. I know how much I have done for medical science and patients. I know the weight and share of my contribution. For people like me who have already achieved so much academically, if they still need the media to gain more fame, they should not work in the academic. This time, I heartily invite the media to report this issue not because I want you to testify my innocence, but because I hope you can expose more about Fang Zhouzi based on my case. I hope you can expose how Fang Zhouzi uses methods similar to that of the Chinese Culture Revolution to attack those researchers who are working hard for the development of Chinese science and technology, while Fang still has some supports; I hope you can examine how people like Fang Zhouzi can make great damages to the establishment of a harmony and legal-based society; I hope you examine how to morally and legally prevent people like Fang Zhouzi making more damages to the development of Chinese science and technology. Meanwhile, I hope you warn those individuals who did commit scientific frauds, don’t let their stupidity become the excuse that people like Fang Zhouzi can use at their wills to taint the reputation of Chinese academic.

Since I am PKing you, how about I also PK you, Fang Zhouzi, on your plagiarizing an article from the Science Magazine? so that you can be saved from being asked by everyone, and from the need of quibbling every time, which must be tiring. Yes, I was one of the people who reported your plagiarism to the well known US magazine, Science, and the Editor-in-Chief and editor J who was in charge of the actual investigation mainly contacted and discussed the issue with me because I was holding the title of Professor in one of the top US universities. Since I had an agreement with the Editor-in-Chief and editor J that we would not reveal any details of the process and the final conclusions to any third party, I have kept the promise. And I will still keep that promise. Of course, since then, everyone who was not blind could see that the Science Magazine would never want to have anything to do with you. Now there is the huge scandal of Hwang Woo-Suk in Korea, and there are many news reports plus commentaries in the Science Magazine, but there has never been any mention of you, “biochemist” and professional “debunker” since year 2000, whom they once specially reported on. Didn’t you understand? Sure you did. Otherwise why did you take your almost crazy revenge by “debunking” my “falsehood”, which was almost non-existent? If you really want to deny it and insist that it was not plagiarism, I dare you to give both the paper by Greene that appeared in the Science Magazine in September 2001 (Science: September 2001, volume 293, pages 2105-2108), and the issue of Southern Weekly on October 4, 2001, where Fang Zhouzi’s article was published, to Academician Chen-lu Tsou and Academician Ho Tso-Hsiu who “always supports Fang Zhouzi”, and let them decide whether you were plagiarizing. Wouldn’t you at least trust these people? If they two were bold enough to put their signatures on a statement that asserts that you were not plagiarizing, I would immediately write a letter to apologize to the Science Magazine, and make all the relevant articles and documents public by putting them on news papers, and I would quit the academia forever. How about that? Everyday I am saving lives, facing blood and flesh, leaving my back to the heaven. Every night I am doing research around the clock in labs. These are indeed noble and good deeds, but this is damn f***ing tiring. It would be much easier to write some articles on popular science using “one’s own words”, or do some bad deeds. But, but, but, “what if” those two academicians also think that you were plagiarizing? What then? I believe at least Ho Tso-Hsiu, the Academician who “always supports Fang Zhouzi”, will not keep his silence.

This lawsuit only involves Fang Zhouzi’s attacks on me published in the Beijing Sci-Tech Report and on the website Sohu. Fang Zhouzi used other pen names to publish dozens of articles with defamatory statements and personal attacks on me in the column “Snapshots” (of Academic Misconducts) on his website New Threads. Since those attacks were more malicious, I will make Fang pay for each of those articles. Being afraid? Want to hide in the US? Wait for me. The part-time faculty position I have been kept at the New York University was for my academic purpose in the past, but now it is mainly for the purpose of you, Fang Zhouzi. I could temporarily leave Academician behind me, and also temporarily forget about a Nobel Prize; however, I have to carry out the revenge on Fang. Using such means as “speaking out freely, airing one’s views fully, writing big-character posters, and holding great debates”, which originated from the Great Cultural Revolution and are forbidden by the Chinese Constitution, Fang Zhouzi maliciously made personal attacks on Chinese scientists, especially the Academicians with outstanding achievements, by wielding a stick, putting a label on other people, “capturing wind or shadow instead of a real person”, making false accusations anonymously, making a mountain out of a molehill, and tarnishing other people’s reputation on purpose. He got his fame and made a living out of damaging other people’s reputation, which is shockingly disturbing. Fang’s defamatory statements against me are just one typical example. A person who devotes oneself to sciences has no intention to get promoted to a government officer position, has a more difficult task to make a fortune, but cherishes one’s own reputation the most. Chinese scholars usually stick to the bad habit of “A pure person keeps oneself free from obscurity”. Furthermore, many well-known scientists don’t want to get down dealing with such a no-name low-life rat. Therefore, many people who got defamed by Fang Zhouzi either ignored him or failed to clear themselves of such defamation because they found nowhere to submit a lawsuit due to Fang’s wandering in the dead-zone between Chinese law and US law. As a result, there came an extremely angry professor Yu Jianrong, calling Fang “Son of Bitch”. However, the good days of Fang Zhouzi are coming to an end: I have determination, financial ability, and capability to fully expose and severely punish Fang, no matter where he is hiding, China or America.

Fang Zhouzi, personality-wise, I disdain you to the most; academic-wise, I look down upon you even more; professional ethics wise, sorry, you do not have a profession. But I would treat you equally in front of the law. See you in court if you dare to show up.

Xiao Chuanguo

Department of Clinical Urology, Xiehe Hospital
Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan

June 8, 2006

Wang Rui, One With Many Faces (And Genders)

In July, 2007, a netter reported to Fang Zhouzi that a Dean at Yunnan Nationalities University (云南民族大学) by the name of Wang Rui (王锐) has a peculiar resume. The resume was posted in the official school site but has since made unavailable.

In his resume, Mr. Wang Rui claims that he had spent six years (1997 - 2003) in University of Southern California (USC) under the Nobel Prize winner Professor George Olah and earned a Ph. D. in Chemistry there. He then spent a year or so there doing postdoctoral research. His resume then listed five papers he had coauthored and published in prominent research journals during the period.

What was peculiar, however, was that none of these papers listed USC as the author's address. Neither was Professor Olah in the coauthor list. Could this be a blatant case of identity theft?

This won't be hard to find out. Indeed, Fang Zhouzi's investigation quickly turned up the following facts:

1. One of Wang Rui's papers, published in Nature Biotechnology, is the product of a lab in University of Kentucky. The coauthor Wang Rui of that paper, is a female. Not even the same gender of the Dean at Yunnan Nationalities University.
2. The other four papers are all the products of a group from North Carolina State University. According to the corresponding author of those papers, Dr. Chen-Loung Chen, the Wang Rui in these papers is still in the United States and can not be the same person at Yunnan Nationalities University
3. Responding to Fang Zhouzi's inquiry, Professor Olah testified that "Mr. Rui Wang to my recollection spent maybe six months in my Institute on a Chinese fellowship in the late 90's. He never received a Ph. D. degree here or thus could not have been a post-doctoral fellow."
4. A search in ProQuest database showed two other Wang Rui's who had obtained Ph.D.'s during the time period in question. But their major areas are so different from the Dean's, they could not be possibly a match.

Therefore, it's pretty safe to conclude that the resume of this Dean at Yunnan Nationalities University is a complete fabrication. This Wang Rui most likely had never earned a Ph.D. degree as he claimed. His publications are stolen from other people with the same name.

Sadly, such a clear-cut fraud case did not seem to disturb much within Yunnan Nationalities University itself. Students in the school reported, anonymously, that their discussion of the issue in the internal BBS has been banned by the administration, and that Wang Rui continues to enjoy strong support from the school leadership.

Four months later, in November, a reporter from a local evening paper picked up the story. The reporter managed to get Mr. Wang Rui on the phone, who told the reporter that "not everything Fang Zhouzi said is true" and made an appointment to meet with the reporter. But alas, he turned out to be a no-show.

What Mr. Wang Rui did tell the reporter, though, is that he had since received a lot of phone calls from renowned professors throughout the country, inviting him to join together and sue Fang Zhouzi (presumably for libel and defamation).

The reporter still could not get in touch with Mr. Wang Rui and there is so far no news from Yunnan Nationalities University on this matter.

What is "Xiao's Reflex Arc"?

Professor Xiao Chuanguo claimed that the fruit of his research, the so-called "Xiao's Reflex Arc" or "Xiao's Procedure", is one of the very few world-wide recognized surgical procedures that are named after a Chinese national. If true, it is certainly a remarkable achievement worthy consideration of Chinese Academy of Science's Academician-ship.

However, after an exhausive search, Fang Zhouzi concluded that the terms such as "Xiao's Reflex Arc" or "Xiao's Procedure" do not exist in either medical literature or general information base. Indeed, up to today, a google search on these teams only turn up pages about Xiao Chuanguo vs. Fang Zhouzi libel case. Therefore, Fang Zhouzi accused that Professor Xiao Chuanguo had cooked up such terms on his own to gain fame.

On the web site of New York University, where Xiao worked during the period of dispute, it describes that Xiao "is actively engaged in pioneering research regarding creation of a somatic-autonomic reflex pathway for treatment of neurogenic bladder in patients with spinal cord injury." The term "Xiao's Reflex Arc" is nowhere to be found.

Today, we seem to know this much:

• In 1999, Xiao coauthored a paper describing a bladder reflex pathway in cats. This work was cited in Walsh Campbell's Urology, 8th edition, 2002. Xiao uses this example to show recognition of his work, but he never mentioned the fact that the cited work is not on human, nor did he mention his co-authors. More importantly, nowhere in Urology, can the term "Xiao's Reflex Arc" be found.
• The only occurrence of the term "Xiao's Reflex Arc" is in a Chinese textbook, edited by Xiao Chuanguo's thesis advisor Qiu Fazu（裘法祖）.

During the trial in Wuhan, the presiding judge ignored Fang Zhouzi's plea that the validity of Professor's work itself is not in dispute. The issue is whether the term "Xiao's Reflex Arc" is an internationally recognized name for the work, as Xiao had repeated claimed. Instead, the judge declared that since Xiao's research work is real. "Xiao's Reflex Arc" must also be real.

What Awards Had Professor Xiao Chuanguo Earned

In 2005, Professor Xiao Chuanguo boosted in his resume that he had won two big awards for his urologist research from the American Urologist Association (AUA): the Jack Lapides Award and an AUA Achievement Award. According to Xiao himself, these are the highest honors from AUA.

In his essay exposing Xiao's resume-padding, Fang Zhouzi pointed out that Jack Lapides award is not an achievement award but an award for an essay contest. Xiao did not provide the exact name in English of the other Achievement Award name, so Fang searched for recent winners of AUA's Achievement Awards and did not find Xiao in it.

During the libel lawsuit proceeding, Xiao presented his Jack Lapides Award certification. Although the certification clearly states "Jack Lapides Essay Contest ... ... Grand Prize Winner", Xiao continued to claim that it is one of the highest honors in the urological field, that "only the most world-renown scholars had won this award." Despite Fang Zhouzi's rebuttal and without further investigation, the Wuhan Court sided with Professor Xiao.

For the other award, Xiao presented a different certificate, indicating he was the winner of "Pfizer Scholars in Urology Award" in 2000. This is certainly different from the AUA Achievement Award he seemed to have claimed in his resume. The "Pfizer Scholars in Urology Award" is an award sponsored by the Pfizer Inc. and given to many young researchers each year. It is not uncommon for this award being given to outstanding residents. It is hardly prestigious worthy of "highest honor". What is more, it has since been discontinued.

In the Wuhan Court, Fang Zhouzi argued that this "Pfizer Scholars in Urology Award" is irrelevant since Professor Xiao had claimed in his resume as the winner of the AUA Achievement Award, which he certainly did not.

On this issue, the judge in the case pronounced: just because Fang Zhouzi failed to find Xiao Chuanguo's name in the past winners of the AUA Achievement Award is not enough evidence that Xiao did not win the award. Therefore, the Court recognizes that Professor Xiao has won the AUA Achievement Award.

Just like that, Fang Zhouzi was pronounced guilty for libel.

Wither "International Journal"

When Professor Xiao Chuanguo was a candidate for an Academician post in Chinese Academy of Science in 2005, his resume boosted that he had published 26 research papers. These papers were all written in English, he claimed, apparently to enhance their credibility. After an extensive search in publication databases, Fang Zhouzi concluded that, at that time, Professor Xiao had only published 4 papers in "international journals". The rest of them, Fang pointed out, were only abstracts submitted to conferences, whose inclusion as bona fide papers in the resume is one of Professor Xiao's unethical practices.

The term "international journals" is widely used in China, to distinguish publications in domestic ones, which are not widely read and generally considered inferior as credentials for achievements. It's not unusual for Chinese Academy of Science and universities to impose performance standards that included number of papers published in "international journals".

Among the various disputes around Professor Xiao's credentials, this one seems to be the easiest to decide. However, a judge in Wuhan presiding on Xiao's libel case against Fang Zhouzi has other ideas.

During the proceedings in the Jianghan District Court, Xiao Chuanguo produced a different list of his publications as evidence that he had published more than 4 papers as Fang Zhouzi claimed. Indeed, this list includes 15 papers, and apparently none of them were abstracts for conferences.

Upon close examination, however, these 15 papers are entirely different from the original 26 Xiao had listed on his resume. Indeed, there is no longer any conference abstract in these 15. But 9 of the 15 were actually written in Chinese and published in Chinese journals, in direct contraction of his "written in English" claim accompanying the original 26.

Nevertheless, the presiding judge of the case, Luu Ying, ignored this detail and ruled that since these Chinese journals are publicly available internationally, they are also "international journals". Therefore, Fang Zhouzi's claim that Xiao had only published 4 papers in "international journals" is a falsehood.

This peculiar ruling raised many eyebrows in the academic circle in China and became a running joke. Unfortunately for many, Chinese legal system does not allow the use of legal precedent. Otherwise there could be a flood of lawsuits by people who had lost their positions due to their lack of publications in "international journals".

In the meantime, the real issue, that Professor Xiao Chuanguo had used conference abstracts to inflate his original resume (which he had tacitly admitted by providing a different list in court), had fallen wayside and been ignored.