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 originated at the time Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) solicited public comments on its 2005 candidate list, after Dr. Fang Shi-min published an online article entitled “Academician Candidate Straddles Two Boats”, using his well-known pen name “Fang Zhou-Zi”. In his article, based on solid facts, Dr. Fang questioned a series of dishonest, unethical activities and academic misconducts of the plaintiff, Xiao Chuan-Guo, then a CAS academician candidate. Dr. Fang’s exposures of plaintiff’s violations of academic ethic codes are extensive and severe, including taking multiple full time positions at the same time in both America and China, lying in his resume, fabricating his oversea work experience, exaggerating in his scientific publications, falsifying and misleading information on his awards, prizes, and other honors, and exaggerating in his research achievements, violating the principle of informed consent in medical tests on human subjects, and etc. Subsequently, Xiao Chuan-Guo filed a lawsuit against Dr. Fang Shi-min and the media where the whistle blowing article was published, accusing them of defaming his reputation. After a first trial, the court adjudged that Fang Shi-min lost the case and was required to publicly apologize to and compensate Xiao.

Based on polik v 1.0 as follows:

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.