海内外知识分子关于肖传国诉方舟子案的公开信
The Open Letter of Global Chinese Intellectuals Regarding the Xiao-Fang Lawsuit

[1 august 2006, with 543 scholars signed, full name list at the end the letter.]

　　最近，武汉市江汉区法院就肖传国诉搜狐爱特信信息技术(北京)有限公司、中国协和医科大学出版社、方是民损害名誉权一案作出一审判决。该判决罔顾事实、偏袒一方，令人震惊。作为始终关注这起司法机构介入学术造假案件的海内外知识分子，我们愿就此以公开信的形式向公众表达我们的意见，并表达我们对本应受到法律保护的学术打假人方舟子的支持。

We, a group of over 500 Chinese intellectuals throughout the world who are concerned about the academic ethnics and integrity in China, write this open letter to express our support to Dr. Fang Zhou-zi, the whistle blower of Chinese academia. In particular, we appeal to the public to pay attention to the defamation lawsuit of Xiao Chuan-Guo against Sohu Information Technology Inc., Xiehe Medical University Press and Fang, filed at Jianghan District Court of Wuhan City. We are indignant to learn of the recently announced court decision of the first trial which, much to our disbelief, disregards basic facts and is astonishingly impartial.

　　此案源起于方是民以笔名方舟子于中国科学院公示院士候选人名单之时，发表《脚踏两只船的院士候选人》。文中，方舟子以充分的事实根据对2005年中国科学院院士候选人肖传国进行了多方面质疑，揭露了其同时在中美两国担任全职教师，以及在个人履历、国外职务、论文发表、所获奖励、科研成果等方面弄虚作假的事实。肖传国随后以“损害名誉权”为由，将方舟子及发表方舟子文章和访谈的相关媒体告上法庭。法庭一审判决方舟子败诉，向肖传国赔礼道歉并进行经济赔偿。

The lawsuit was launched because Dr. Fang published an article “The Academician Candidate Who Straddles Two Boats”, exposing a series of dishonest and unethical activities and academic misconducts of the plaintiff, Xiao Chuan-Guo, in his applications for large research funds in China and in his campaign to be admitted to the elite membership of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS). The plaintiff’s violations on academic ethics are extensive and of great severity, including lies in resume, taking multiple jobs at the same time, fabrications on job experience, exaggerations in publications, false information on awards, prizes and other honors, fabrications and exaggerations in research achievements, violation of principles of informed consent in medical tests on patients etc. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendants, Dr. Fang and the media where the whistle blowing article was published, accusing them of defaming his reputation. After the first trial, the court decides that Dr. Fang loses the case and is required to publicly apologize, and pay financial compensation, to Xiao.

　　我们认为，方舟子撰写评论文章对院士候选人肖传国进行质疑，是正当的学术批评与舆论监督，完全符合中国科学院公布士候选人名单以加强社会各界对院士增选工作的监督的目的，同时也是作为公民的正当权利。

We believe that Fang’s article, questioning the qualifications of Xiao as a candidate for the CAS member, is plainly normal as a part of academic critique and medium supervision and is a positive act to support the CAS which published the candidate list to draw public participation and collect public opinions in selecting its new members. It is the basic right of Fang, as a citizen of China, to express his opinion regarding public issues.

　　我们认为，在目前学术腐败现象日益泛滥、官方监督惩罚机制缺位的情况下，方舟子的所作所为对打击学术腐败起到了无可替代的积极作用。

Considering the widespread and increasingly serious academic corruptions and misconducts, we believe that Dr. Fang’s volunteering work in attacking academic corruption plays an important and positive role that cannot be substituted because China still lacks an appropriate official mechanism to enforce academic integrity and punish the violators.

　　我们认为，武汉市江汉区法院不顾被告方提供的肖传国学术造假的充分证据，指鹿为马、颠倒是非，从而破坏了法律的尊严。

We believe that judges of Jianghan district court of Wuhan city responsible for the case, have made a wrongful decision that completely disregards the massive evidence of Xiao’s academic misconducts. We believe that decision has damaged the dignity of the law.

　　我们认为，武汉市江汉区法院对此案所做的判决，将会助长学术造假者的嚣张气焰，这与我国目前完善学术监督机制、惩治学术腐败的努力背道而驰。

We believe that such a decision, if upheld in the final trial, would embolden the violators of academic ethics and encourage academic corruptions, ruing the efforts of the government in improving the academic supervision mechanism and curbing academic corruptions.

　　最后，我们呼吁上级司法机关和相关机构关注并调查此案审判过程中明显存在的枉法裁判和地方保护主义问题，为司法机构依法审判学术造假案件创造一个良好的先例。

Finally, we appeal to the superior judiciary authorities and the related institutions to initiate an investigation into the illegitimate activities involved in making such a wrong decision and the possible intervention of local protectionism so that a good precedent is set for judging cases involving academic misconducts in the future.