List China Events Chinese Culture China Watch Chinese Music Land of China Chinese Festival Chinese History Chinese Architecture Chinese Medicine People in China What Chinese Say Martial Arts China Tales World Watch World Beyond Amusing & Musing


Home >> China Watch | Fang Shi-min Watch

Chinese Academics Call to Investigate Fang Shi-min

25 July 2013
 

An Open Letter Signed by 60 Chinese Academics around the Globe to the Organizer and the Sponsors of John Maddox Prize Run by Journal Nature

Drafted by Dr. Xin Ge
(Source: China Academic Evaluations - 2250s.com)

Delivered in person to the recipients in the United Kingdom on June 28 and July 1, 2013.

Dear All:

According to a Nature editorial[1], the inaugural John Maddox Prize was given to Mr. Fang Shi-min (Shi-min Fang, or Fang Zhouzi) for supposedly “promot[ing] sound science and evidence on a matter of public interest.” It is our belief that your decision was based on misinformation, false evidence, and wrong perception, and we consider awarding the prize to Fang an insult to Chinese people in general, and to Chinese scholars in particular. The fact is, Mr. Fang is known to most Chinese people as anything but a science hero - he is a repeatedly convicted plagiarist, and a generally acknowledged internet thug and swindler:

First, according to studies by many Chinese scholars[2], Fang has committed plagiarism in more than one hundred individual cases in his published articles, and has pirated about two thousand artistic and scientific images in his books. Both the quantity and the frequency of Fang’s theft, as well as the length of his history of stealing, are unprecedented in China, and probably in the entire world as well. The fact is, Fang has plagiarized scholars from all over the world, including a professor of his alma mater, and the contributors to Nature[3].

Second, for the last 13 years, Fang has been prosecuting many Chinese scholars using cyber-terrorism tactics in the name of “academic fraud busting.” It has been well documented and demonstrated[4] that there are only two purposes of Fang’s so called “fraud busting”: his personal gain (monetary and reputational), and/or his enemies’ personal and professional loss. For example, Fang’s framing and defamation of Dr. Xiao Chuanguo, a world-renowned urologist, was initiated purely from personal hatred: it was Dr. Xiao who reported Fang’s plagiarism case to Science magazine in 2001, and it was Fang who framed and slandered Dr. Xiao in September 2005 when he found out Dr. Xiao’s true identity. It was Dr. Xiao who sued Fang in October 2005, and it was Fang who was convicted of defamation by a China court in July 2006. It was Dr. Xiao who announced in August 2009 that the court had enforced the judgment by taking away more than 40,000 RMB from the bank account of Fang’s wife, and it was Fang who immediately plotted, organized, and implemented a comprehensive and global retaliatory campaign by attacking the surgical procedure invented by Dr. Xiao. Last September, more than a thousand Chinese people signed a petition asking the Chinese government to investigate Fang’s crimes[5] against Chinese society and his damage to the development of science, technology, and medicine in China.

Third, since April 2011, Fang has been threatening the entire Chinese society and many individuals in order to prevent the discussion and spread of the news about his wife’s plagiarism, committed in 2002 in her Master’s degree thesis. For example, Fang said that he would spend the rest of his life to kill those who tried to “break my wife’s rice bowl.”[6] Of course, Fang and his wife share the same rice bowl: since 2002, they have been living in the state-subsidized house allocated to Liu Juhua, who used the plagiarized thesis to get her Master’s degree, and then used that ill-gotten degree to obtain her job in Xinhua News Agency, the only state-run news agency in China.

Lastly, Fang is currently one of the most despised persons in China. According to a vote participated in by more than 25,000 people, nearly 90% of the voters believed that Fang is the person who spread the most rumors and slandered and framed the most people on weibo.com, Chinese version of Twitter. Another vote taken by more than 26,000 people showed that less than 5% of voters held a positive or neutral opinion of him; the majority of voters believed Fang to be an internet swindler, an extortionist, and a thug. Yet another vote taken by more than 50,000 people showed that 82% of voters believed that Fang is “the real swindler.”[7]

It is based upon the above facts, as well as upon mountains of additional facts[8], that we believe you have made a serious mistake by awarding Fang the John Maddox Prize. Your decision sends to the world a pernicious message which reflects values that are just the opposite of what you, and the John Maddox Prize, are supposed to stand up for: evidence-based claims and integrity-based scholarship. Therefore, we strongly urge you to re-do your fact checking, namely, to investigate Fang Shi-min. As a matter of fact, your investigation could be initiated simply by asking Fang to answer, publicly, the following 10 questions:

1. Could you please provide us with a list of the more than one thousand fraud cases that you claim you have busted since 2000?

2. Could you please provide us with the definition and the law code based on which you have denied the more than one hundred plagiarism allegations and nearly two thousand copyright infringement charges?

3. Do you think you have the right to kill anyone simply because he or she believes that your wife has committed plagiarism? If the answer is yes, please explain why hammering you is a crime?

4. Is it a fact that Dr. Xiao Chuanguo reported your plagiarism in 2001, and that you accused Dr. Xiao of fraud in 2005? If so, do you think your action constitutes malicious retaliation and conflict of interest?

5. Did you write a series of defamatory articles against Dr. Xiao and publish them under a fake name on your New Threads in 2005?

6. Did you plot, organize, and personally participate in the smear campaign against Xiao’s Procedure in 2009?

7. Besides Dr. Xiao, have you ever attacked any other personal enemies of yours in the name of “fraud busting”?

8. Are you willing to support the public demand for disclosing the expenditure of your two funds, the Anti-Fraud Fund, and Fang Zhouzi’s Personal Security Fund, both of which have solicited donations, illegally, from the general public in China, and are both controlled solely by your private lawyer and personal friend Mr. Peng Jian? If not, why?

9. Are you willing to reveal the identity of the American bio-information or bio-tech company that hired you in the early 2000s, and the nature of the employment? If not, why?

10. Have you had a permanent residence in the United States in the past five or ten years? If not, on what ground you have kept your permanent resident status of an alien in the United States?

The fact is, there are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of questions like the above to be asked by you, and more importantly, to be answered by Fang. We do not see any reasons why you should not ask Fang these simple and straightforward questions, except for unwillingness; and we could not think of any excuses that Fang can use to refuse to answer these questions, except for hiding the truth. The fact is, Fang has claimed repeatedly that he suffers from an obsession with truth and moral cleanliness[10], therefore, by asking Fang to answer these questions, you are virtually doing the John Maddox Prize winner a huge favor. We do not believe that you are unwilling to seek the truth, nor do we believe that you are willing to let the persistent suffering of your chosen awardee continue.

On the other hand, regardless of your willingness or unwillingness, and considering all of your honor, pride, prestige, reputation, integrity, civility, nobility, and dignity, we deem, and you should concur, that it is your legitimate responsibility and ethical obligation to respond to the outcries against your wrongful decision, and explain to the Chinese people, as well as to the scientific community of the world:

For exactly what reason and purpose do you award and promote such a person as Fang Shi-min?

We are looking forward to your reply, and we are waiting for your investigation result.

Sincerely,

Signed by 60 Chinese scholars in alphabetical order:

(Omitted)

中文版摘录

(起草者:葛辛博士)

舟子在中国学界乃至整个中国社会是臭名昭著的剽窃惯犯、科学骗子、网络打手:

第一,据诸多学者查证,迄今发现的方舟子抄袭剽窃案例超过百起,盗版图片将近两千幅。

二,方舟子利用其在美国注册的新语丝网站,以“学术打假”为名,对大批中国学者通过网络恐怖主义手段进行诬陷和迫害。最典型的事例就是方舟子一伙对泌尿外科专家肖传国教授的疯狂攻击。事实是,肖传国教授揭发方舟子抄袭剽窃在前,方舟子对肖传国进行恶意报复在后。并且,方舟子利用其妻子担任新华社主任记者的关系,在中国主流媒体上颠倒黑白,对肖教授进行大规模诬蔑、诽谤。去年九月,上千人联署公开信,呼吁中国政府调查惩处方舟子危害社会,阻挠破坏中国科技医疗事业

第三,2011年4月,方舟子妻子刘菊花硕士学位论文抄袭案大爆发,方舟子为了阻止消息的传播和扩散,曾多次对社会和个人发出种种恐吓和威胁。

第四,方舟子是目前中国大陆最受人诟病的公众人物之一。一项有两万六千人参加的投票显示:对方舟子持正面或者中性看法的人,不足5%;绝大多数人认为他是一个“网络骗子”、“网络乞丐”、“网络打手”;另一项有两万五千多人参加的投票表明:90%的人认为方舟子是“新浪微博上造谣、诽谤、构陷他人最多的”人;还有一项有五万多人参加的投票表明,82%的人认为方舟子是“真正的骗子”。

根据以上事实,以及大量其他事实,我们认为,《自然》杂志以“捍卫科学”为由将首届John Maddox Prize颁发给方舟子,既有悖事实,也是对科学精神和诚信原则的背弃和践踏。不仅如此,它还是对中国学者乃至全体中国人民的侮辱和冒犯。我们强烈要求《自然》杂志,以及另外两家英国机构和四名评委,重新核对相关事实,即对方舟子展开调查,并且根据调查结果,对你们的决定做出相应的调整。 阅读全文(2250s.com)

 
 
RELATED:

Some major plagiarism offences committed by Fang Shi-min

- The Science Case
- The Chinese Postman Case
- The Harvard Case
- The IQ Case
- The Longevity Case
- The Ubiquity Case
- The GM Corn Case
- The U.S. President Case
- The Michigan State University Case

 


Home List About This Website Contact Us

Copyright © 2008 - 2017