Fudan University Under Fire for its Plagiarism Decision

The controversial decision by Fudan University's Committee of Scholarly Standard that Professor Zhu Xueqin did not commit plagiarism in his Ph. D. thesis continues to draw attention on the Internet forums in China. Several print media also published reports questioning if the academic community in China is capable of policing itself.

Fang Zhouzi publishes more examples of Zhu Xueqin's thesis that were translated from Carol Blum's published book, including many "low-level mistakes" in misunderstanding and misinterpreting the original in English.

More damagingly, however, is an open letter published by more than a dozen of netters from an Internet forum where netter "Isaiah" raised his initial accusation. The authors of this open letter expressed their opinion that Zhu Xueqin had committed plagiarism "even by the loosest standard" and their worry that Fudan University's "partial and contradictory" conclusion could lead to a big setback in China's academic integrity.

The lengthy open letter disputes Fudan's claim that they do not accept anonymous leads, pointing out that they had indeed taken up cases originated from anonymous sources in the past. 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 Jianxiong 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.

The open letter also questions the Committee's verdict that Zhu Xueqin's thesis indeed contained "irregularities". It states that even the few "irregularities" listed by Ge Jianxiong as examples should have already qualified the work to be classified as plagiarism according to the common sense and norm of academic standards.

Finally, the open letter points out that plagiarism is plagiarism, even when the original author had granted permission to use his work. Zhu Xueqin's thesis had included passages from other scholar's work without citation, a practice that the Fudan Committee appeared to have found acceptable.

The open letter has by now received more than 200 signatories, including more than 30 with real names.

Fudan University Whitewashes a Plagiarism Case

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.

In July last year, a netter wrote to New Threads pointing out that the book, The End of Morally Idealist Nation, contained many passages that are plagiarized. Specifically, the netter claimed that Zhu Xueqin had lifted the Chinese translations of the book Sister Revolution: French Lightning, American Light 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.

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 Rousseau and the Republic of Virtue: the Language of Politics in the French Revolution by Carol Blum.

Zhu Xueqin did not back down from the accusations. In fact, he referred the case to the Fudan University's Committee for Scholarly Standard himself, seeking an official redemption. He also submitted a lengthy essay in defense.

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.

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.

As soon as the Committee's conclusion was made public, both Isaiah and Fang Zouzi voiced strong objections.

Fang Zhouzi then made his own investigation and found that as many as 18,000 characters 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."

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.

Chemistry World: Academic Controversy Leads to Bloodshet

Chemistry World China, a British scientific journal, reports:

Academic controversy leads to bloodshed

By Hepeng Jia and Tao He/Beijing, China

The imprisonment of a professor of urology after attacks on critics at has led to louder calls to shake up China’s academic community.

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

well-known pen name Fang Zhouzi - and Fang Xuanchang, science editor of Caijing Magazine.

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.

　　

‘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.

　　

Bloody attack

　　

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.

　　

On 21 September, Beijing police announced that the attackers had been detained and the individual suspected of hiring them was identified as Xiao.

A festering wound

　　

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.

　　

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.

　　

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

neurological complaint that affected this ability. But Fang questioned the achievement, saying there was little evidence supporting the use of the procedure.

　　

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.

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.

　　

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.

　　

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.

　　

Academic discipline

　　

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.

　　

‘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.

　　

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.

　　

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.

　　

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.

　　

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.’

　　

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.

　　

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.

　　

‘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.

　　

Science cop

　　

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.

　　

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.

　　

‘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.

　　

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.

Fang Zhouzi Selected by Nature Medicine Yearbook

Nature Medicine's The Yearbook, 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:

Fang Shimin: Least likely to back down Chinese blogger

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.

HUST Disciplines Dr. Xiao Chuanguo

In the aftermath of Dr. Xiao Chuanguo's conviction for attacks, 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 strip all administrative and teaching positions Xiao Chuanguo held in the school and hospital.

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.

Multiple Fraud Led to a Retraction

The research journal Cancer Biology & Therapy 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 Retraction Watch.

The paper in question have 5 authors, all from Huazhong 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.

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.

Science: Questions from China Snag U.S. Trial of Nerve-Rerouting Procedure

The following is a Science report in "Research Ethics," published on it's 11/5 edition. A Chinese version is also available here.

Questions From China Snag U.S. Trial Of Nerve-Rerouting Procedure

Hao Xin

SCIENCE VOL 330 5 NOVEMBER 2010 Published by AAAS

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.

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 (www.xys.org), 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.

Xiao was convicted of “causing disturbance” and sentenced to 5.5 months of detention (http://scim.ag/doctor-sentenced-Beijing). 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.

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.”

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.”