Fang Zhouzi Files Lawsuit against Magazine

Fang Zhouzi has formally filed a defamation lawsuit against the magazine Legal Weekly, which has been carrying attacks on him and his wife. The lawsuit 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.

He is seeking a retraction of the articles, an apology and monetary compensation.

The lawsuit application was originally submitted more than 10 days ago after the first-round of the attack by the magazine. Because Legal Weekly, 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.

Fang Zhouzi Goes to the Highest Court

Fang Zhouzi and Fang Xuanchang, the two victims (no relation) of a vicious attack masterminded by the disgraced Dr. Xiao Chuanguo, made a formal appeal to the Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China yesterday, asking for a review of the previous lower court decisions which led to a five and half month detention for Xiao Chuanguo. 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.

The lengthy appeal document lists seven major issues:

1. 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.)
2. 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.)
3. The lower courts made mistakes in recognizing key facts, missed important leads in the case, and confused a few facts.
4. There are significant discrepancies in the motives of the defendant.
5. The sentences given by the lower courts are too light for the crimes involved.
6. On their appeal, the Intermediate Court did not factually record evidences provided by the prosecutors.
7. The original court procedure was seriously fraud.

By the original sentence, Dr. Xiao Chuanguo is due to be released at the present time.

A Proclaimer for each Criticism Article

There are disclaimers, and there are proclaimers.

Fang Zhouzi challenged the action by a local Wuhan court to deduct money from his wife's bank account without their knowledge on two accounts: a) neither he nor his wife had received any notice on the impending action; b) he and his wife had a formal agreement on the separation of their financial accounts. Based on these facts, the action by the local court is both inappropriate and illegal.

His challenge was predictably rejected. The court responded that a) they had previously sent out notifications (never mind that they were not received by their recipients) and b) Since the beneficiary Xiao Chuanguo did not have any pre-knowledge of the financial agreement between Fang Zhouzi and his wife, the agreement is declared as non-applicable to the case.

Absurd as the second point sounds, it actually might have some base in the vague language of the Chinese marital law, whose applicability to this case is questionable.

As a measure of defiance and avoid a similar scenario in the future, Fang Zhouzi is making a public proclaimer to "all those who had been and shall be criticized by him" that "Fang Zhouzi and his wife had already agreed to separate their financial matters. Those who are criticized by Fang Zhouzi shall have no right to dispatch local court officials to seize the legal properties of Fang Zhouzi's wife."

This proclaimer will be headlined in every future articles of his that criticizes any person, until the local Wuhan court returns the seized property.

Beijing Court Sides with Fang Zhouzi on CEB Rice Case

After half a year's recess, Beijing Western District Court reached its verdict on the libel case CEB Rice had filed against Fang Zhouzi.

The court considered a laundry list of evidences provided by both sides and chose to rely on only those on which neither side had explicitly objected.

On Fang Zhouzi's claim that the science behind CEB Rice was not an original discovery, the court found it was without factual bases (to which Fang Zhouzi disputes). Nevertheless, the court concluded that the defendant's claim was within the boundary of freedom of expression and did not constitute falsehood, insult, or libel.

On whether the protein SOD could survive the rice-cooking process and be benefit to human body, the court maintained that it was still not a well-established scientific fact. The dispute on this issue was normal expressions of opinion, and therefore not libel.

Finally, the court found the defendant could have used better language in his criticism but could not find any intention or fact of libel. Therefore, the court rejected the plaintiff's case and ordered CEB Rice to pay for the court fee.

It's quite remarkable that this court has unequivocally used the "freedom of expression" clause to decide this case in Fang Zhouzi's favor.

CEB Rice Trial in Recess

The trial of the defamation case brought by CEB Rice against Fang Zhouzi commerced on June 30 in Beijing.

After opening statements by each side, the court proceeded with the plaintiff submitting evidences to the court. The shear amount of evidences apparently had taken up all allocated court time and forced the court into a recess. The judge declared that the court will have to find a date later to continue with the case.

With only a couple of exceptions, the plaintiff's evidences were largely various media reports on their achievements and the popularity of their product. Again and again, Fang Zhouzi's lawyer repeated the same words to indicate that the evidence presented was true but irrelevant and unreliable.

The transcript of the trial was available on the Internet in real time. A copy can be read here.

It is not immediately known when the court will resume this case.

The Broadcast of the CEB Rice Trial

It turns out that the broadcast of the CEB Rice trial is not going to be in stream video. Rather, it is just a real-time display of the court proceedings, in text. You can access the text reporting (all in Chinese) here, but you have to use IE as your browser.

Many thanks to Yush for pointing it out and the link.

Trial Date Set for the CEB Rice Case

The CEB Rice case, in which Fang Zhouzi had been accused for defamation, will be tried in the West District People's Court in Beijing on June 30. The trial will be open to public and available with stream video on the Internet. It's not clear if the practice of streaming video of court cases is a common practice in China or not.

The latest issue of the China News Weekly summarized the case in a detailed report, which is very favorable to Fang Zhouzi. Fang Zhouzi insisted that his accusation of fraud was about the company's product, not its technology as the lawsuit had claimed. The story also quoted several other scientists who questioned the claims of the CEB Rice company.

Particularly damning to CEB Rice is an interview with a businessman by the name of Zhang Jiang. Zhang Jiang had worked with the founders of CEB Rice, the parents of the current plaintiff. According to Zhang Jiang, their original attempts in creating a super-nutrious rice had failed miserably. After they gave up their experiment, the other two partners founded CEB Rice without Zhang Jiang's knowledge. An angry Zhang Jiang provided evidence to the paper of fraudulous behavior commited by CEB Rice, including selling rice that was contaminated.

CEB Rice did not respond to the reporter's requests for an interview.

Fang Zhouzi Will Defend Against CEB Rice Case

As reported earlier, CEB Rice has sued Fang Zhouzi for defamation. The lawsuit was filed at Beijing's Western District Court (北京西城区法院). CEB Rice is asking for 20,000 RMB ($3,000) in damage and a public apology.

According to China News, CEB Rice accused that Fang Zhouzi has been openly questioning the company's core technology and caused grave damage to the company's operation. The company's Chief Scientist Nie Xiaomei (聂晓梅) provided a copy of certification from the Wuhan Branch of the Chinese Science Academy in 1991, which certified that her research was an innovation that was "a first both at home and abroad", which had opened up new research areas.

Fang Zhouzi announced on New Thread that he had authorized his lawyer to accept and defend this case, because the publicity of such a case will help raise awareness of consumers on the truth behind the "super-expensive rice". In a brief note, Fang clarified that his criticism of the rice was entirely on the product, not the technology. The technology itself had existed abroad long before its "discovery" by the CEB Rice scientists anyway.

Fang also pointed out that the "certification" is meaningless if it is not backed by publications in international journals.

Liu Zihua: the Lawsuit

In August 2006, the International Astronomical Union redefined the definition of planets and declared the newly discovered "10th Planet" not a planet. Pluto is also gone from the category. Therefore, the solar system is left with only 8 planets.

Three months later, in November 2006, the Beijing 2nd Intermediate People's Court held the proceedings on the defamation case brought by Liu Zihua's wife and son against Fang Zhouzi and four media companies. The plaintiff claimed Fang had defamed Liu Zihua for his essay exposing the fraud in Liu's theory predicting a 10th Planet in the Solar system. Fang's characterization that Liu was trying to gain fame through deception (欺世盗名) was a grave personal attack and insult and caused great damage to the health and psychological welfare of Liu's family members.

The defendants presented evidences of fraud and deception, including:

• Liu's degree certificate showed that his degree was in liberal arts, but he was presented as an astronomer
• The parameter values Liu had predicted was far from what had measured from the new "10th planet", but it was presented as "shockingly close"
• Liu Zihua is a public figure and should legally withstand public criticism.

After deliberation, the Beijing 2nd Intermediate People's Court decided that, while it recognizes the rights that scientific opinions are debatable, Fang Zhouzi had crossed the line to accuse Liu Zihua as deceiving. Therefore, the defendants were found guilty for defamation.

The Court ordered all defendants to make public apologies to Liu Zihua's family. Fang Zhouzi and the Beijing Science and Technology should each pay 20,000 RMB ($2,500) to the plaintiff for damage. The other defendants were spared of damage payments. The damage payout was only about 1% of what the plaintiff had asked for.

As a matter of course, the defendants appealed to the Beijing High Court. This time, Fang Zhouzi provided documented evidences of Liu Zihua's deception, gathered from memorials published by Liu's family.

In July, 2007, the Beijing High Court heard the appeal case. With the evidence, the High Court recognized that the deception did occur. However, the Court also pointed out that the evidences were published after Liu Zihua's death. The deception behaviors were the responsibility of Liu's family, not Liu himself. Therefore, Fang's claim of Liu Zihua was a man of deception himself was still not supported by the evidences.

In its verdict, the Beijing High Court further reduced the damage payout ordered by the Beijing 2nd Intermediate Court to 10% of its original amount. Fang Zhouzi is now ordered to pay only 2,000 RMB ($250), a token value. However, he is still court-ordered to publicly apologize.

So now the Court had determined that Liu Zihua's descendants had committed deception. But because it was not done by Liu himself (evidences of otherwise were ignored by the Court) and that Liu had since passed away. The defendants who had exposed the deception are now ordered to pay damage fines to Liu's family, the very people who had done the deceptions.

Very interesting, indeed.

Xi'an Fanyi: The Lawsuit

Fang Zhouzi's investigation of the Xi'an Fanyi's fraudulent claim of being a Top 10 university in China was first picked up by a reporter named Tang Yong (唐勇). Mr. Tang worked for the Huanqiu (环球时报), a subsidiary of the official newspaper People's Daily (人民日报). He also happened to be at Los Angles at the time. So he got a copy of the October 4, 2004 edition of Los Angles Times and looked over the entire content. Based on that he reported that there was no news about any ranking of China's universities in that paper. Obviously, it had never occurred to him that he needed to check all the advertisements in the paper as well. Similarly, he searched and could not find the "USA Fifty State Higher Education Union" in any database or on Google.

On November 8, 2004, Tang Yong reported his findings on Huanqiu. (Subsequently, Fang Zhouzi accused Tang Yong for plagiarism by using Fang's contents without citation.)

In early December, even the top level authority became aware of this issue. In a news conference, the Spokesperson of the Ministry of Education (MOE), Wang Xuming (王旭明), said specifically:

... As we are aware, the report on Los Angles Times was a paid advertisement. The so-called "USA Fifty State Higher Education Union" does not exist. There was never such an organization. The paper had informed concerned people in China (中方有关人士) that the piece was a paid advertisement, not a news report. If anyone engages distorted propaganda using the Los Angles Times, the Paper will seek legal actions against them.

It was not clear whether the MOE Spokesperson based his information on Fang Zhouzi and Tang Yong's reports or had independent sources of their own.

The "official" pronouncement not withstanding, Xi'an Fanyi's President Ding Zuyi sued Tang Yong and a local paper which carried his report in January, 2005. In May, the Chang'an District Court in Xi'an decided that Tang Yong had written his report without learning all the facts and therefore was guilty of libel and defamation. He and his paper were ordered to apologize.

At the same time, Fang Zhouzi, New Thread, and other media received letters from Xi'an Fanyi's lawyers to remove related contents and apologize. In defiance, Fang Zhouzi reiterated the Xi'an Fanyi fraud case in a column published in Beijing Science and Technology (BST) on July 27, 2005. In the article, he cited the MOE Spokesperson that the ranking news and its sponsoring institution are "non-existent" (子虚乌有).

On August 30, 2005, Ding Zuyi and Xi'an Fanyi filed a lawsuit against Fang Zhouzi and BST for defamation. More than a year later, on November 10, 2006, the case was heard in the Chang'an District Court.

The Court apparently ignored Fang Zhouzi's plea that the passage in his article was a direct quote from the MOE Spokesperson and not his own and proceeded the case against Fang. The defendants provided copies of the Los Angles Times, which clearly showed that the "news" in question was a paid advertisement, as well as results from State of California registry showing the registration date of the so-called "USA Fifty State Higher Education Union" and its current defunct status. The court ruled that these evidences inadmissible since they haven't been properly notarized by the Chinese Consulate in the US.

Without any other evidences, however, on November 14, the Court declared that it had verified that on October 4, 2004, Los Angles Times had published a news article on the ranking of "most respected" universities in China. That the defendants did not have sufficient evidence to prove the report was a paid advertisement. Nor could the defendants prove the "non-existence" of the "USA Fifty State Higher Education Union". Therefore the defendants had based their criticisms of Xi'an Fanyi on falsehoods and were guilty of defamation.

The Court decreed that

1. Within 10 days, Fang and BST must publish an open apology to Xi'an Fanyi, reviewed by the Court
2. Within 10 days, Fang and BST must pay Xi'an Fanyi 150,000RMB ($18,750) for economical damage
3. Within 10 days, Fang and BST must pay Ding Zuyi 10,000RMB ($1,250) for psychological damage

Fang Zhouzi and BST appealed. In April, 2007, Xi'an Intermediate People's Court delivered the final verdict and rejected the appeal.

On October 22, BST published an open apology to Xi'an Fanyi and Ding Zuyi, fulfilling it's part of the court obligation. It was not clear if the paper had paid for the damage fine. Fang Zhouzi, however, continued to choose defiance. He is appealing to the Highest People's Court of the nation.

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.

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.

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.

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
   

A Victory at Beijing's High Court

It's nice to be able to start this new blog with a piece of very good news. In the morning of November 30, 2007, the People's High Court in Beijing announced its final judgment on the libel case brought on by Xiao Chuanguo.

Just about a year ago, Science magazine carried an alarming report on Fang Zhouzi's efforts and his setbacks. At the time, Fang Zhouzi was hit by three big libel cases in various courts in China, all brought by people he had exposed as fraud. The preliminary judgments had all gone against Fang Zhouzi. He was ordered by the courts to pay huge amount of fines, which, to this day, he has refused to pay.

One of the libel cases was brought by Xiao Chuanguo, a urology professor at Huazhong University of Science and Technology in Wuhan, China. Fang Zhouzi had previously exposed him for falsifying and exaggerating his resume and achievements. (The details of the case will be described later in this Blog.) Apparently, Fang's effort dealt a fatal blow to Xiao's chance of becoming an Academician in China, a prestige Xiao had openly campaigned for himself. Angered, Xiao sued Fang in Wuhan for libel. Last November, a judge in Wuhan ordered Fang to apologize publicly and pay Xiao $3,750 in compensation. Fang Zhouzi appealed and lost again. So far, he had neither apologized nor paid any money.

Not satisfied by the ruling in Wuhan, Xiao Chuanguo brought a similar libel case against Fang Zhouzi in Beijing in January. This time, he was much less successful. In May, Beijing Intermediate Court determined that Fang Zhouzi's criticism of Professor Xiao did not constitute libel and therefore rejected Xiao's case. Xiao appealed to the Beijing High Court. Today, Beijing's High Court reached its final ruling. As such Fang Zhouzi won his first case.

Given that Fang Zhouzi had lost three other libel cases in China already and is currently defying court orders, today's victory is a small but more or less comforting one.