【1.4】同行的尴尬

Peers in Awkward Position

既然法律上不能解决学术争端，那么究竟该由谁来评价肖传国和他的“肖氏反射弧”？但令人略感沮丧的是，在官司过后，迄今没有哪一个泌尿外科同行愿意再对此项成果进行评价。

Since law suit cannot solve the academic debating, then who should be appointed to evaluate Xiao Chuan-guo and his “Xiao-Procedure”? Somehow frustratingly, till now no more peers in urinary surgery are willingly to evaluate the achievement after the law suit.

北京一家医院的泌尿外科专家告诉《科学新闻》：“依靠同行评议目前是不可能的，我敢保证没有哪一位专家愿意进行评论。如果同行评议的话，我说什么，他（肖传国）总有很多理由说我的不对。”他同时认为，肖传国的方法还是一个值得肯定的研究方向，只是如何由动物实验到临床，需要更多考虑。而对于肖本人，还是尽量“不招惹”为好，“我还有很多的事情要做。”他说。

A urinary surgery expert in a hospital in Beijing told “Science New”: “It is currently impossible to rely on peer-review; I can assure that none of the experts is willingly to comment on it. If there were peer-review, no matter whatever I would say, he (Xiao Chuan-guo) would always have many excuses to say my incorrectness (原文的“不对”指的是什么？)” Meanwhile he thought that the method proposed by Xiao is nevertheless a worthy (值得肯定的?) research direction; but there are more to concern how to bring the results from animal experimentation to clinical trials. As to Xiao Chuan-guo himself, it is better not to antagonize him as much as possible, “I have a lot to do,” said him.

从事神经基础研究的鞠躬则坦言肖传国一开始所做的基础研究，如运用电子显微镜所做的组织切片不够令人信服；另外，他画了个反射图，从神经解剖来讲，中间是不正确的。“因为通过挠皮肤引起的神经反应，不能直接到运动神经元形成反射弧，他是这么画的。这种反射弧，是直接到肌肉的，不可能皮肤感觉就能达得到，是经过中间神经元才能到前脚去的。他缺了个环节，但他就画，他也不听人家意见，就认为这是很对的。”鞠躬说，“我不喜欢这种事情。”

Ju Gong, who is engaged in neurology basic research, said frankly on the other hand that the basic research done by Xiao Chuan-guo at the very beginning was not convincing enough, for example the tissue slice performed by using an electronic microscope; moreover, Xiao had drawn a scheme of reflex, but the middle part is not correct according to neurotomy. “The reason is, the nerve reactions brought by scratching skin cannot reach motoneurons directly to form a reflex arc, as he had drawn. Such kind of reflex arcs reaches muscle directly, which is only possible to reach feet (前脚？) through an interneuron instead of to reach (‘达到’不知道用什么动词)” by skin-sense. He missed a connection, but he just drew in his way; he never concerned other’s arguments, but insisted that it is very correct”, said Ju Gong, “I don’t like such kind of things.”

2003年，在北京召开的第42届国际脊髓大会上，上海同济医院的张世民曾与肖传国先后作了此方面的学术报告。“肖传国的这些文章，我以前都仔细读过。我们也作过这方面的实验研究，我在我的报告中，末尾用了1张幻灯片提出了这个反射弧尚有许多问题没有搞清，需要进一步研究。会后我们也与肖教授当面交流过这些有待解决的问题。”张世民告诉《科学新闻》。

In the 42th International Spinal Cord Conference held in Beijing, Zhang Shi-min from Shanghai Tongji Hospital and Xiao Chuan-guo reported this field one after the other. “I had read previously all these papers by Xiao. We also had performed experimental research in this field; in the last slide of my presentation, I proposed that many questions were still open in this reflex arc and needed further research. After the presentation we have also discussed with Prof. Xiao about these open problems.”

此后，张世民写成针对“人工反射弧”的大约500个单词的评论，发表在2004年的美国《泌尿学杂志》上。

Afterwards, Zhang Shi-min wrote a comment (?) of about 500 words aiming on “Artificial Reflex Arc”, which is published on The Journal of Urology in 2004.

而作为同行的北京朝阳医院泌尿科主任杨勇拒绝发表任何评论，此领域唯一的院士郭应禄也因“身体不好”的原因婉拒了记者的采访。

(而?)As a peer, Yang Yong, the director of Urology Department of Beijing Chaoyang Hospital declined to address any comment; and Guo Ying-lu, the only Member of Chinese Academia of Sciences in this field, excused himself from the reporter’s interview for “health reason”.

由于临床的权威检验并没有进行，有关这一手术具体的治愈率并没有一个来自第三方的统计结果出现——而郑州的这家医院已经停止做此项手术。

Since no authorized clinical inspection has been carried out, there have been no statistical results by the third party about the detailed cure rate of the related operations; meanwhile the hospital in Zhengzhou already stopped this operation.