美国医生挺肖：百名华人学者联名倒方

肖传国是“世界上最伟大的医生之一”，“他不仅属于中国，也属于全世界”

——美国科学家高度评价肖传国和“肖氏反射弧”，强烈质疑所谓肖氏袭方说

Evan Kass MD

Chief of Pediatric Urology

Beaumont Children's Hospital

I have known Dr Xiao for years and in my opinion, he is a good man, a caring physician, gifted surgeon, and an honest investigator. The scientific basis for his surgical procedure was initially developed in the animal laboratory and the results published in peer reviewed journals. Only after years of research was it applied to humans. We have been involved in a prospective study to evaluate this procedure and have constructed a valid research protocol for this project. Dr Xiao, has been involved with the deveopment of the research protocol and has cooperated fully with us and understands that the results of this study will be published. He has not tried to hide any of his research results or any other information. He is considered by the physicians and scientists in the United States as a respected colleague. Mr Fang, on the other hand, is an individual who is reported to have published research that was not his, and was reportedly called on it by Dr Xiao.

He has conducted himself as a man seeking revenge at all costs and has tried to discredit Dr Xiao at every turn. One has to wonder if these claims of assault are real or imaginary. It makes no sense for a man of Dr Xiao's stature to hire some fools to punch Mr Fang and then return to China sometime later to be arrested. If he had hired someone for this task, wouldn't he have known that they were arrested prior to his return to China from Argentina and avoided arrest?? Dr Xiao is a brilliant man, and this reported assault attempt seems to be the work of a fool, not Dr Xiao.

Evan Kass，医学博士

博蒙特儿童医院泌尿外科主任

我认识肖医生很多年了，在我看来，他是一个好人，一个充满爱心的医生，天才的外科专家，诚实的研究者。他的外科手术（反射弧手术）的科学基理首先是通过动物实验研究得来的，其成果发表在专业学术期刊上。经过多年的研究，这个成果才被用于人类。我们参与了一项前瞻性研究来评价这个手术，而且已经为这项研究建立了一套切实可行的操作规则。肖医生从一开始就参与了这项操作规则的建立，与我们进行了充分合作，并清楚该研究结果将被公布。他没有试图掩盖他的任何研究结果或者任何相关信息。他被美国的医生和科学家们认作是一个值得尊敬的同事。另一方面，方先生（方舟子）是一个曾经被揭发剽窃他人成果的人，而肖医生就是那个揭发者。方先生因此不顾一切地寻求报复，利用各种机会试图诋毁肖医生。这种攻击是令人难以想象和置信的。说肖医生这样的人会去雇佣几个傻瓜去打方先生、不久回国去让人逮捕，这样的事是没有道理的。如果他真的雇人做这种事，难道他不会知道这些人在他自阿根廷回国前就会被逮捕，而避免回国吗？肖医生是个聪明的人，而制造这个袭击企图的人是某个傻瓜，不会是肖医生。【张清翻译】

Gary

Over the past few days, I have only slept three hours each day and have read a lot online about Dr. Xiao and Mr. Fang. I feel that it is my obligation to let the world know what kind of person Dr. Xiao is.I frankly tell everyone that I make friends only with those who are unselfish and care about others. Even though we are friends from the

same school or same class if I find him selfish, then we are not friends anymore. I have known Dr. Xiao for thirty years since 1980. Dr. Xiao is my friend because he meets my standards for being a friend. Dr. Xiao is a decent unselfish and upright fellow, who works very hard for his patients and for the health of all mankind.

In 1986 we lived in the same building and same floor, with our doors facing each other, separated by the hallway. Later on he went to England, and I came to the United States. We met again in Washington DC in 1988. In January 1995 my brother came to the US for Graduate Studies and he was supposed to arrive at 6:30pm. Unfortunately my car completely broke down on that day at 3pm. It takes two hours from Philadelphia to JFK airport. I was nervous and sweating. I called my friends in NY; there was no one available to help. When I called Dr. Xiao, he agreed to help without any hesitation. I couldn’t imagine how my brother would feel if no one showed up to pick him up at the airport. I went to Xiao’s home at 9pm to collect my brother. My brother always appreciated Dr. Xiao’s kind help for his first arrival in the United States. Xiao said it is too trivial to mention it, and that you would do the same if you were me. When we had moved from University of Pennsylvania to New York in 1995, we contacted each other more often.In the new year of 1997 my wife and I invited Dr. Xiao to a restaurant; we tried to persuade him to stay in the US to pursue Surgical Urology.

He said he is going to have a big grant from NIH for another five years. He would continue to do research here. In the meantime he would also return to china, because there were many paralyzed patients in China from coal mine collapses needed him. He could have had a US citizenship very easily, however he didn’t want it. He stated after he finished this five year grant, he would return to china permanently.

Gradually he spent more and more time in China than here at NYU until finally he symbolically traveled to NYU twice a year. He was invited to give lectures all over the world to tell urologists and neurosurgeons about this procedure he invented; so that they may help more people worldwide. Unlike Fang’s claim that Dr. Xiao’s procedure had a 73% failure rate, Dr. Xiao’s revolutionary surgical procedure can be successfully reproduced all over the world, from United States to Chile and Argentina.

However Mr. Fang started to claim that Dr. Xiao was a full time professor at NYU, therefore not qualified to apply for member/fellow of Chinese Medical Academy. Besides that he claimed that Dr. Xiao’s procedure was not medically sound. Mr. Fang also tried to undermine Dr. Xiao’s professional and academic contributions.Dr. Xiao sued Fang in Wuhan, China for Libel/slander and won that case. Mr. Fang claimed that Xiao had won the case because that it was Xiao’s home City. Dr. Xiao then sued Fang in his home city which was Beijing.

But Fang claimed and the Beijing Court agreed that he is a permanent resident of the US, and that Chinese law did not apply to him, although he lived in Beijing all year round. Dr. Xiao then sued Mr. Fang in the United States. But when the summons was delivered to Fang’s Address in California, there was no such person living there at all. Because Dr. Xiao exhausted all the legal ways that he may counter Mr. Fang with no success. Mr. Fang attacked Dr. Xiao even more aggressively in any opportunity he had without any fear of reprimand.Please note it is illegal, immoral, and unethical for someone with bad faith to instigate patients or make fake stories to sue Dr. Xiao.

However, no matter how aggressive and dirty Mr. Fang treated Dr. Xiao, Dr. Xiao should tolerate and tolerate again. We condemn all kinds of violence no matter who did it. Our world is not perfect. We have people with personal interest, who intentionally attack Dr. Xiao with bad faith.

Now Mr. Fang has won, and Dr. Xiao is in police custody. It is a tragedy for Dr. Xiao and a tragedy for the world. The world will lose one of the greatest doctors. Do you think Mr. Fang bad faith slander and Beijing Courts unjust are responsible for this?

Dr. Xiao is a great doctor, who not only belongs to China, but also to the whole world. He travels around the world to teach other urologists and neurosurgeons the method he invented to help paralyzed patients gain control over their lives. Doctors all over the world will respect, salute, and sympathize with Dr. Xiao.

来源：[news.sciencemag.org]

我们是一群生活，学习和工作在海外的华人。时值中秋和国庆佳节，在思念故乡亲人的同时，我们十分关注肖传国教授涉嫌雇人报复方舟子先生一案（以下简称肖方案）。方舟子和肖传国都曾经和我们一样在海外生活学习和工作过，但他们先后回到了祖国。前者从事科普写作和打假活动;后者继续从事他的专业泌尿神经外科的教学，科研和实践，成为一位知名的教授和医学科学家。通过网络，我们中的大多数或多或少知道方舟子和肖传国各自的经历以及在过去十年中他们之间的争论和恩怨, 但我们万万没有料到事情会发展到一方涉嫌雇人报复另一方的地步。毋庸置疑，雇人行凶是犯法行为，罪犯理应受到社会的谴责和法律的惩罚。肖方案一经媒体报道，舆论导向和公众反应自然是一边倒的.方舟子是打假英雄和受害者，而肖传国则是昔日的骗子今日的罪犯。但是对许多象我们这样了解他们两人和他们之间恩怨的人来说，肖方案并非那么简单那么单纯；对我们来说，也许用离奇两字来形容此案更为恰当。在回顾了肖方两人争执的历史，特别是方舟子对肖传国的打假历史，和研读有关肖方案的媒体报道之后，我们感到有必要向审理此案的机构和关注此案的公众讲一讲我们的想法，疑惑，和建议。我们不仅希望肖方案能得到公正透明的审理，也希望所有人都能从此案学到些什么，更希望这样的悲剧不再发生。首先，我们真诚的希望警方能提供和公开详实确凿客观的证据，证明肖传国有计划有步骤的买凶报复，而不是他一时的冲动。我们也真诚的希望法院在审理肖方案过程中，允许足够的透明度，允许主流媒体列席，允许肖传国的亲朋好友旁听。我们祝愿肖传国能找到最能代表他利益的辩护律师。

其次，我们由衷的希望法院在审理肖方案的过程中，充分考虑方舟子和肖传国在过去约十年的争执史，特别是在过去约六年内方舟子策动和主导的对肖传国全面，包括全球中文网和国内其他各种媒体，的打假运动，充分考虑这一运动对肖传国心理和身理造成的阴影和伤害。和我们中许多从事科学研究和科技开发的经历一样，肖传国的泌尿神经外科特别是肖氏弧的研究是从零开始一步一个脚印经过多年努力逐渐发展起来，其中有成功也有失败；这是科技发展的普遍规律。肖传国多年的科研历程是有记录可查的，比如他获得的美国国家健康所的科研基金和在国际顶级泌尿科杂志上发表的论文，所以把肖传国批判成一个彻头彻尾的骗子，不是意气用事就是别有用心。根据我们的了解，方舟子主导的对肖传国的多年全方位的打假运动已经远远超过了学术争论的范畴。我们深深怀疑这种打假是否可以被认为是一种通过网络对肖传国的长期骚扰甚至迫害。时至今日，方舟子在其新语丝网页上仍展示着他收集（包括自己撰写）的近660多篇自2005来对肖传国及其科研的批判文章，其中不包括在新语丝论坛对肖传国及其家人亲属的侮辱和谩骂。这些文章在全球中文网络和其他媒体影响很广；我们中多数人读过其中很多文章。我们认为，如此数量庞大的针对一个人大批判，是让人惊心动魄的，匪夷所思的，罕见的，也许在文革的浩劫中也是不多见的；这种大批判对被批判者肖传国造成的生理和心理的创伤想必是巨大的，对他的工作和生活造成的困扰也是令人无法想象的。三者，我们进一步希望法院在审理此案的过程中充分考虑肖传国自2005年以来一直在寻求使用正当的法律程序来讨还公道，保护自己，撇清方舟子对自己科研的诬蔑。他曾在武汉北京美国等地多次状告方舟子诽谤。我们非常好奇，如果肖传国真的象方舟子所批判宣传的那样是一个彻头彻尾的大骗子，那他怎么敢到中美各地的法院和方舟子对簿公堂？这样的“大骗子”实在闻所未闻。由于方舟子对肖传国的批判总是以学术打假为名由，法院倾向于把方舟子对肖传国的攻击看作学术争论，其结果是肖传国状告方舟子效果甚微。即使肖传国在武汉胜诉，当地法院对方舟子的判决无关痛痒，更何况在北京肖传国居然败诉。在上文中，我们提到我们怀疑方舟子对肖传国的批判超越了学术争论范围，几近网络迫害，可惜网络迫害罪还有被正式立法，肖传国无法以网络迫害罪起诉方舟子。方舟子对肖传国的攻击并没有因为肖传国告状而停止，事实上不但没有停止，反而变本加厉。如果肖传国雇人报复方舟子证据确凿，那么我们认为，对通过用法律程序来维护自己清白的绝望，可能是导致肖传国想到采用别的途径来寻求公道的一个重要原因。

最后，我们想就肖方案谈谈方舟子打假特别是其学术打假的正当性问题。2006年，120位中美华人学者联名发表公开信倡导学术机构建立完善自我监督机构，并且置疑非学术人员主导学术打假行为的正当性。肖方案的发生不得不再一次让我们思考这种一人登高急呼群情响应打之（即涉嫌造假者）的所谓方舟子式打假特别是学术打假方式的合理合法性。我们认为作为社会一员，在发现或怀疑涉嫌造假的人和事后，每个人有向官方媒体，单位，政府，和其他机构举报或揭发的权利，但是个人似乎不应该拥有直接打击涉嫌造假的人和事的权利。如果个人可以自己或伙同他人对涉嫌造假者实行打击，这很容易发展为私设公堂动用私刑。这显然不符合文明社会的基本法则，其弊端也是显而易见的。方舟子曾在媒体采访中表示，可惜自己打假只有揭发权，没有惩罚权，并抱怨社会对造假者惩处不严。我们认为，这是方舟子有意无意的低估了自己打假的能量和实际后果，为自己推卸责任。将涉嫌造假的人在全世界中文网上游街示众大肆批斗以至于再揭其隐私辱其亲友师长，长年累月，比如方舟子对肖传国的打假，早已超过了仅仅揭发的范围，事实上这比许多普通的惩罚措施要严厉的多的多。西方许多国家如美国已经意识到网络跟踪骚扰暴力等行为的危害，并开始逐步制定相关法律予以制裁。我们希望中国立法机构能尽快考虑制定有关网络暴力的法律，使得受害者有法可依，违法者受到应有的惩罚。在非学术领域，我们呼吁国家应该尽快建立完善各种对涉嫌造假的人事的举报机制，逐渐取消方舟子式打假；在学术领域，我们强烈呼吁国家尽快取缔方舟子式打假行为。科学研究无疑需要接受社会的监督，但由于科学研究的特点和规律，我们认为非专业人员和社会大众对科研工作者个人及其研究工作的直接干涉是完全不正当的。

在美国，我们中一些学者所从事的科研会涉及一些并不为全社会成员接受的课题，比如非常有争议性的人体胚胎细胞的研究。反对人体胚胎细胞的研究的民众，并不会直接针对我们这些个体研究人员进行干扰和抗议，因为如果有人胆敢这么做，很可能会被以恐吓罪以至于从事社会恐怖活动罪被控告。他们能做的是通过种种方式向政府和科研机构申诉或抗议，以期影响国家和科研机构的政策修订及实施，最后才会影响到每个从事科研的个体人员。所以，社会民众如果对某些科研项目及科研人员有异议，正常的做法是向国家相关单位或相关学术机构提出交涉甚至抗议，以期这些单位或机构对个别科研人员和及其所从事的课题进行查办，而绝对不应该私自打击这些个别科研人员和无端攻击他们的科研结果。

科学研究中的是与非真与假成与败的判决远比其他领域的要来得困难，这不是普通民众能简单判断的。在科学发展历史上，很多突破性的成就，一开始甚至被很多所谓的专家们认定是假的错误的，未受过专业训练的普通民众更无从判断。懂得科技发展史和有过真正科研经历的人都知道，科技的发展是在失败和成功的交替中进行的，往往失败多于成功。中国成语有失败是成功之母之说，英语成语也有失败是通向成功的阶梯之谓；在科技发展中，正是如此。爱迪生从想到用碳做灯芯到真正实现这个想法，据说经历了成千上万个方案的失败，但由于他的坚持不懈，最后还是取得成功。试想，如果在一千个失败的方案后，爱迪生自动放弃或由于被人打假而放弃，那么这一发明创造就会腹死胎中，实用电灯的发明会被推后。在医药领域，药物或其他治疗方法效果的建立需要依靠严格控制的科学实验和数据分析，并不能有一些病人自我的感受好的坏来简单决定，用几个特例更不能说明问题。这也远远超出了普通民众或非专业人员的感性认知和判断的范畴。科学研究的这些特点进一步说明在科学研究领域，个人带领大众进行学术或科技打假的荒谬性和不现实性。我们认为离奇的肖方案正是方舟子式学术打假所造成的一个悲剧。取缔方舟子式学术打假方式就是为了避免这类悲剧再次重演。方舟子式学术打假必将严重影响和干扰中国科研人员的正常科研活动，从而阻碍中国科技的发展。我们再次申明，我们呼吁取缔方舟子式学术打假，并非呼吁取消学术打假，而是希望用社会监督专家评议机构主导这种更健康更符合科学研究内在规律的方式取而代之。谢谢您的阅读和关注；如果您同意我们的想法和观点，欢迎加入我们的行列。