方舟子的Blog

 

华尔街日报·中国实时报 2010年10月15日

 

在Photoshop和复制粘贴盛行的时代，保卫学术诚信在任何国家都十分困难，而在中国更是完全没有希望。

 

至少在了解方是民本周的经历之后会产生这样一个印象。

 

方是民以笔名方舟子更为人所熟知，他无疑是中国最有名的学术打假斗士。他在成为作家之前曾是生物化学博士，有一个更新颇为频繁的网站，他揭露了中国许多引人注目的学术造假事件，赢得很多人的尊敬，还获得了“科学警察”的绰号。

 

上周末，北京法院对泌尿科医师肖传国做出了温和的判决。方舟子和另外一位作家对肖传国推广的一项实验性疗法提出质疑后，肖传国雇凶对二者进行殴打。

 

周二，曾被曝光伪造学历、微软中国前首席执行长唐骏打破耻辱的沉默，在天津召开的高尔夫俱乐部经理会议中发表了关于领导力的演讲。

 

在这两起学术打假事件中，对肖传国一案的判决对中国学术打假行动有着更为深远的影响。

 

肖传国是湖北省华中科技大学附属医院的泌尿外科主任，九月份被拘捕并被指控策划两起打人事件：一起发生在八月份，陌生男子使用麻醉喷剂和铁锤的袭击方是民，另一起发生在六月份，《财经》杂志编辑方玄昌（与方是民无关）在离家不远处遭铁棒袭击，受伤住院。（《纽约客》杂志（The New Yorker）作者奥斯诺斯（Evan Osnos）详细报道了两起事件的过程。）

 

在遇袭之前，方舟子和方玄昌都对肖传国用于研发一项复杂的治疗尿失禁的神经疗法的研究提出了质疑。肖传国对此进行否认，并指责他们的指控导致他未能成为中国科学院院士。

 

尽管有国外泌尿学专家的支持信，北京石景山区人民法院还是在周日宣布肖传国雇凶袭击罪名成立，官方判决是寻衅滋事罪。他被判处五个半月拘役。

 

肖传国立即对该判决提出上诉。

 

中国官方媒体称赞该判决为学术打假的一次胜利，但被告方有不同的看法。

 

方是民的辩护律师彭剑在法院宣布判决后告诉《中国实时报》记者，该判决有违常理。

 

彭剑的主要不满在于该判决太轻。他争论说，鉴于袭击案的严重性，肖传国应被判为故意伤害罪，判处更严厉的处罚。

 

据当地媒体报道，寻衅滋事罪最长的有期徒刑是五年。彭剑说，肖传国的结果是该罪最轻的处罚。

 

彭剑和方玄昌还同时指出此次审判过程不符合常规。虽然肖传国在9月份被捕时向警察认了罪，但在周日一到法庭上却提出无罪辩护。彭剑说，由于肖传国之前的坦白认罪，外界预计法庭会迅速结案，但相反，由于肖传国出人意料地提出无罪辩护，法庭在中午宣布休庭。更令人意外的是，法庭在那天下午宣布继续开庭并对肖传国进行宣判，但并未通知方舟子或方玄昌或其律师。

 

这种戏剧化的司法程序使得方玄昌怀疑存在幕后交易。他说，警方意外地迅速破获了这起案件，但审判结束后，我们坚决相信肯定有一只黑手在幕后操纵这个案子。

 

石景山区人民法院拒绝就此案置评。当被要求对方舟子和方玄昌的怀疑做出回应时，北京高级人民法院说由于肖传国提出了上诉，无法就此案置评，但说石景山区人民法院的判决并不是最终决定。

 

如果维持对肖传国的轻微处罚甚至降低处罚，将会令中国的学术诚信保卫者们寒心不已，方玄昌说，以后谁还敢揭露和批评这些学术造假行为？

 

Josh Chin

 

http://cn.wsj.com/gb/20101015/rlw155751.asp?source=Billingual

 

http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2010/10/14/a-bad-week-for-an-antifraud-activist/

 

OCTOBER 14, 2010, 8:56 PM HKT

A Bad Week for an Antifraud Activist

 

CHINA REAL TIME REPORT

 

Defending intellectual honesty is difficult anywhere in the age of Photoshop and copy-paste, but in China it can feel downright futile.

 

At least that’s the impression you get from reading about the week Fang Shimin is having.

 

Fang, better known by his pen name Fang Zhouzi, is arguably China’s best-known crusader against academic fraud. A biochemist-turned-writer with an obsessively maintained website, he has earned the admiration of many in China—as well as a nickname, “Science Cop”—by exposing some of the country’s most egregious cases of highbrow hucksterism.

 

Over the weekend, a Beijing court ruled leniently in the case of a urologist, Xiao Chuanguo, who sent thugs after Fang and another writer after the two raised doubts about an experimental medical procedure Xiao was promoting.

 

Then, on Tuesday, Jun Tang, a former Microsoft China chief executive famously exposed by Fang as having forged his academic credentials, emerged from disgraced silence to deliver a speech on leadership at a golf club managers conference in Tianjin.

 

Of the two, the decision in the Xiao Chuangguo case is the development with more lasting implications for antifraud efforts in China.

 

Xiao, head of urology at a hospital associated with Huazhong University of Science and Technology in the Hubei Province capital of Wuhan, was arrested in September and charged with masterminding two attacks: One on Fang Shimin in August, in which the writer was attacked by men armed with anesthetic spray and hammers; and another on Caijing magazine editor Fang Xuanchang (no relation to Fang Shimin), who was hospitalized in July after being beaten with metal clubs a few steps from his home. (The New Yorker’s Evan Osnos offers full accounts of the attacks here and here.)

 

Prior to the attacks, both Fangs had raised questions about research Xiao had used in developing a complicated neurological procedure to treat incontinence. Xiao blamed the accusations, which he denied, for his failing to become a member of the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

 

Despite a letter of support from urologists outside China, Xiao was found guilty of orchestrating the attacks on his critics—the official charge was “creating a disturbance”—by the Shijiang District People’s Court in Beijing on Sunday. He was sentenced to five and a half months in prison.

 

Xiao immediately appealed the decision.

 

While the verdict was lauded in official Chinese media as a victory over academic fraud, the defendants saw it differently.

 

“The verdict is in violation of common sense,” Peng Jian, lawyer for Fang Shimin, told China Real Time after the court announced its decision.

 

Peng’s principal complaint was with the lightness of the charge. Given the severity of the attacks, he argues, Xiao should have been charged with intent to harm, a crime that carries a much stiffer sentence.

 

The maximum sentence for creating a disturbance is five years in prison, according to local media. Peng says Xiao received the lightest possible jail term under that charge.

 

Peng and Fang Xuanchang both also noted irregularities in the way the trial was conducted. Though he confessed to police at his arrest in September, Xiao pleaded not guilty once in court on Sunday. Peng says the trial had been expected to be quick because of the earlier confession but instead the court adjourned at noon because of the unexpected not-guilty plea. In another surprise move, the court reconvened that afternoon and passed judgment on Xiao—without notifying either of the Fengs or their lawyers.

 

The judicial sleight-of-hand led Fang Xuanchang to suspect backroom dealings. “The police solved the case in short order, which was a surprise,” he said. But “after the trial, we firmly believe there is a black hand manipulating the case behind the scenes.”

 

The Shijingshan District People’s court declined to comment on the case. Asked to address the Fangs’ criticisms, the Beijing High People’s Court said it couldn’t comment on the case because of Xiao’s appeal but that the lower court’s decision “is not final.”

 

Should Xiao’s slap on the wrist stand as-is—or even be reduced—the effect on China’s guardians of intellectual honesty could be chilling, Fang Xuanchang says: “Who would dare expose and criticize these things in the future?”

 

– Josh Chin. Follow him on Twitter @ch_infamous