08/08/06

Critic of scientific fraud in China loses libel case

Fang Shimin says the court ruling will not stop him exposing misconduct Copyright: Fang Shimin

By: Hepeng Jia

We encourage you to republish this article online and in print, it’s free under our creative commons attribution license, but please follow some simple guidelines:

You have to credit our authors.
You have to credit SciDev.Net — where possible include our logo with a link back to the original article.
You can simply run the first few lines of the article and then add: “Read the full article on SciDev.Net” containing a link back to the original article.
If you want to also take images published in this story you will need to confirm with the original source if you're licensed to use them.
The easiest way to get the article on your site is to embed the code below.

For more information view our media page and republishing guidelines.

The full article is available here as HTML.

Press Ctrl-C to copy

<div class="article-wrap">
<div id="article-introduction">
<h1>Critic of scientific fraud in China loses libel case</h1>
<h4>By: Hepeng Jia</h4>
</div>
<br />
<br />

<div id="article-body">
<p><P>[BEIJING] China’s main critic of scientific misconduct has been found guilty of libelling a scientist he accused of academic wrongdoing.</P><br />
<P>It is the first time that someone has sued Fang Shimin — also known as Fang Zhouzi — who claims to have exposed hundreds of cases of plagiarism, academic fraud and pseudoscience on his New Threads website (see <a  href="/Features/index.cfm?fuseaction=readfeatures&itemid=497&language=1" target=_self rel="noopener noreferrer">Out to debunk: China’s ‘science police’</A>).</P><br />
<P>On 25 July, Jianghan District Court in Wuhan ruled that Fang had libelled Xiao Chuanguo, a professor of surgery at Wuhan-based Huazhong University.</P><br />
<P>In September 2005, Fang published an article criticising Xiao’s selection as a candidate for membership of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS). </P><br />
<P>It said that CAS members must work full-time in China, but that Xiao worked both at Huazhong University and the New York University Medical Center, United States.</P><br />
<P>Fang also said Xiao had exaggerated his academic achievements by including presentations listed in conference proceedings among his international publications. Publications are an important indicator of academic output in China, but conference proceedings tend to publish short summaries of research rather than full papers.</P><br />
<P>Xiao immediately sued for libel, and the court subsequently ruled that Fang had no evidence for his claims. It ordered Fang make a public apology and pay Xiao 30,000 yuan (US$3,750) in compensation. </P><br />
<P>Between Xiao suing and the court case taking place, CAS members voted against Xiao joining their number.</P><br />
<P>Xiao told SciDev.Net that he believes the outcome of his case could help to create a better working environment for China’s scientists. </P><br />
<P>Liu Huajie, an associate professor of philosophy of science at Peking University, says the case shows that independent ‘science police’ like Fang are not equipped to collect evidence of scientific misconduct.</P><br />
<P>But Fang, who is appealing to the Intermediary Court of Wuhan, says the ruling will not stop him. </P><br />
<P>“Individual science police are certainly insufficient but without an institutional way to fight the scandals, giving up would mean misconduct would continue,” he told SciDev.Net.<BR><BR></P></p>

</div>
<div class="quick-links-wrapper">
<h3>You might also like</h3>
[related-articles]
</div>
<p>This article was originally published on <a href="https://www.scidev.net" target="_blank">SciDev.Net</a>. Read the <a href="https://www.scidev.net/global/news/critic-of-scientific-fraud-in-china-loses-libel-ca/" target="_blank">original article</a>.</p>
<script type="text/javascript">
(function(e,t,n,r,i,s,o){e["GoogleAnalyticsObject"]=i;e[i]=e[i]||function(){(e[i].q=e[i].q||[]).push(arguments)},e[i].l=1*new Date;s=t.createElement(n),o=t.getElementsByTagName(n)[0];s.async=1;s.src=r;o.parentNode.insertBefore(s,o)})(window,document,"script","//www.google-analytics.com/ga.js","ga");var _gaq=_gaq||[];var _gaq=_gaq||[];_gaq.push(["_setAccount","UA-3223906-8"],["_trackEvent","article interaction","republished","https://www.scidev.net/global/news/critic-of-scientific-fraud-in-china-loses-libel-ca/",null,true])
</script>
</div>

[BEIJING] China’s main critic of scientific misconduct has been found guilty of libelling a scientist he accused of academic wrongdoing.

It is the first time that someone has sued Fang Shimin — also known as Fang Zhouzi — who claims to have exposed hundreds of cases of plagiarism, academic fraud and pseudoscience on his New Threads website (see Out to debunk: China’s ‘science police’).

On 25 July, Jianghan District Court in Wuhan ruled that Fang had libelled Xiao Chuanguo, a professor of surgery at Wuhan-based Huazhong University.

In September 2005, Fang published an article criticising Xiao’s selection as a candidate for membership of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS).

It said that CAS members must work full-time in China, but that Xiao worked both at Huazhong University and the New York University Medical Center, United States.

Fang also said Xiao had exaggerated his academic achievements by including presentations listed in conference proceedings among his international publications. Publications are an important indicator of academic output in China, but conference proceedings tend to publish short summaries of research rather than full papers.

Xiao immediately sued for libel, and the court subsequently ruled that Fang had no evidence for his claims. It ordered Fang make a public apology and pay Xiao 30,000 yuan (US$3,750) in compensation.

Between Xiao suing and the court case taking place, CAS members voted against Xiao joining their number.

Xiao told SciDev.Net that he believes the outcome of his case could help to create a better working environment for China’s scientists.

Liu Huajie, an associate professor of philosophy of science at Peking University, says the case shows that independent ‘science police’ like Fang are not equipped to collect evidence of scientific misconduct.

But Fang, who is appealing to the Intermediary Court of Wuhan, says the ruling will not stop him.

“Individual science police are certainly insufficient but without an institutional way to fight the scandals, giving up would mean misconduct would continue,” he told SciDev.Net.