旗剑文章<<肖传国学术不端行为的主要表现>>之英译v.01,欢迎修正主义者


所有跟贴·加跟贴·新语丝读书论坛

送交者: polik 于 2007-02-10, 06:33:32:

Note: 最后一段没有译,因为觉得相比肖教授的其他不肖之处,算不上什么过错,加上去不但没有什么帮助,可能还有凑数之嫌。


\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
肖传国学术不端行为的主要表现
A Brief Summary of Academic Misconduct of Xiao Chuan-Guo

作者:旗剑
Author: Flagsword
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

一.谎称国外任职
1. Lie on Overseas Academic Appointment

肖传国从未担任纽约大学医学院副教授(associate professor)职务,但是,在其供职的武汉协和医院、在其任主编的(武汉)临床泌尿外科杂志、在其任董事的上海铭源控股有限公司等单位的网站对肖传国的简介中,均显示肖传国担任纽约大学医学院副教授职务。

Xiao never held an associate professorship of NYCU medical school, but this nonexistent academic experience is included in his official resumes on the webpages of Wuhan Xiehe Hospital where he works, of the Journal of Clinic Urological Surgery (Wuhan) of which he is the editor and of the Shanghai Ming Yuan Holdings Ltd of which he is on the board of directors.

“何梁何利基金”、“全国高等学校精品课程建设工作”等任一个中国网站若提及肖传国在纽约大学医学院的任职,均称其是纽约大学医学院副教授。

Xiao is also portrayed as an associate professor of NYCU medical school by each and every Chinese website which mentions Xiao. These websites include the well-known Ho-Leung-Ho-Lee Foundation, National League of Online Fine Courses for Universities and Colleges etc.

众多信息足以说明,肖传国刻意谎称其在纽约大学医学院的任职情况。

This great amount of evidence shows that Xiao lies intentionally about his job experience at NYCU medical school.

二.虚报获奖信息
2. False Information on Academic Award

肖传国是国家973计划人口与健康领域“神经损伤修复和功能重建的应用基础研究”项目的首席科学家。973计划项目申请书中须填写“推荐项目首席科学家研究工作简历、主要学术业绩”等信息;科技部规章规定“对在填写国家科技计划项目有关材料时弄虚作假的”,一经发现并核实后,将严肃处理。

Xiao is the chief scientist in charge of the project “Repair of Neurological Injury and Restoration of Neurological Functions” in the field of Population and Health which is a part of the National 973 Program for Key Scientific Research and Development (the special grant for cutting-edge, large-scale fundamental research and development, funded by the Ministry of Science and Technology, with each award typically from 1 million USD to tens of million USD over a three-year period.) For assisting peer review, a 973 applicant must fill out a form to describe his working experience and major academic achievement. The regulation of MOST specifies clearly that “those who provide false or exaggerated information in applying for a research grant are to be punished with severity upon exposure and confirmation.”

国家重点基础研究发展计划网站肖传国简介中称肖传国获得“美国泌尿学会杰出成就奖(2000)”,而事实是其从未获得美国泌尿学会颁发的成就奖(AUA Certificate of Achievement),在美国泌尿学会网站公布的各奖项获奖名单中
也没有肖传国的名字,且肖传国在有关案件的庭审中也自认没有获得“美国泌尿学会杰出成就奖”。

However, Xiao’s resume listed at the webpage of the 973 Program (http://www.973.gov.cn/) claims that he won the prestigious Certificate of Achievement of the American Urology Association (2000). The fact is that he never won such an honor; his name is not found in the name list of the winners. Furthermore, in his confession in front of judges at a Wuhan civil court, Xiao admitted that he never won AUA’s Certificate of Achievement.

鉴于国家重点基础研究发展计划网站的所有者科技部基础研究司不可能为肖传国编造获奖信息,因此,足以断定肖传国在申报973计划项目时故意虚报获奖信息。

It is obvious that it is impossible for the owner of homepage of the 973 Program, the Fundamental Research Division of MOST, to fabricate an academic honor for Xiao. The only possibility is that Xiao provided this false information to boost his application for a big grant.

三.谎报自己“理论”被国外权威教科书采纳
3. Lie that his “theory” is adopted in an authoritative international textbook

国家重点基础研究发展计划、武汉协和医院等网站还显示:肖传国“人工建立体神经-内脏神经反射弧”新概念被国外权威教科书——《CAMPBELL‘S UROLOGY》采纳;肖传国提交给法院的证据材料中将有关资料翻译为:“肖(1999)报告了一个巧妙的人工建立的‘皮肤-中枢-膀胱’反射弧。这个新的反射通道能在脊髓损伤后启动排尿而不伴有逼尿肌-尿道括约肌协同失调……”。

Information on Xiao available at webpages of Wuhan Xiehe Hospital and the 973 Program also indicate that Xiao’s new concept of “Artificial Reflex Arc” or “Xiao’s Reflex Arc” has been adopted in an internationally well-known authoritative textbook “Campbell’s Urology”. In his affidavit offered to the aforementioned Wuhan civil court, he “translated” the lines in that book mentioning Xiao into Chinese as follows:
“肖(1999)报告了一个巧妙的人工建立的‘皮肤-中枢-膀胱’反射弧。这个新的反射通道能在脊髓损伤后启动排尿而不伴有逼尿肌-尿道括约肌协同失调……”。
(Xiao (1999) reported a brilliant artificially reconstructed “skin-CNS-bladder” reflex arc. This new reflex pathway could initiate voiding without striated sphincter dyssynergia.” )

而事实是:

1.《CAMPBELL‘S UROLOGY》是综述著作而不是“国外权威教科书”;
2.《CAMPBELL‘S UROLOGY》是一部长达4000页的综述著作,提及了有关泌尿学的各项研究进展,在该书第26章有一小段引用了肖传国在1999年与德格罗特合作发表的一篇用猫做实验的论文,但这只是该章节引用的600多篇文献中的一篇,并不突出。
3.肖传国提交的中文翻译与原文严重不符。经核对原文,文中指出实验是肖和德格罗特做的,并非肖一人所为,肖传国在翻译中删去合作者的名字,夸大了自己的贡献;原文介绍的是一个猫的实验,而不是临床试验;原文并无“巧妙的”这种用语,肖传国通过添加这一“巧妙的”评价,拔高了原文的评价。总之,这是一个伪证。

可见,肖传国谎报评价的行为已构成提供虚假信息的科研不端行为。

The facts are:
(1) Campbell’s Urology is a review periodical rather than “an internationally well-known authoritative textbook.”
(2) Campbell’s Urology is a huge review book with over 4000 pages and covers virtually everything and anything, good, fair, bad, or wrong, related to urology. The collaborative work of Xiao and de Groat is mentioned in a few sentences in the Chapter 26 of the review as follows:
“One fascinating set of experiments that relates to the concept of establishing or promoting a reflex pathway for micturition are those reported by [650] Xiao and de Groat (1999). These individuals created
a skin to CNS to bladder reflex pathway in cats by intradural microanastomosis of the left L7 ventral root to the S1 ventral root, leaving the L7 dorsal root intact to conduct cutaneous afferent signals.
A detrusor contraction was able to be initiated by scratching the skin or by percutaneous electrical stimulation in the L7 dermatome. This new reflex pathway could initiate voiding without striated sphincter dyssynergia. This reflex could be elicited after transecting the spinal cord at the L2–L3 or L7–S1 levels. The pathway is mediated by cholinergic transmission at both ganglionic and peripheral levels, as shown by cholinergic blockade experiments. Thus, in this experimental model, somatic motor axons can innervate parasympathetic bladder ganglion cells and thus transfer somatic reflex activity to the lower
urinary tract.”

The Xiao-de Groat paper is just one of over 600 references cited by Chapter 26 alone and by no means holds any special status in that chapter.

(3) In Xiao’s Chinese translation of above sentences, Xiao’s work is grossly exaggerated. First, the reported experiment was test conducted on a cat rather than a “clinic” test (on human patient as Xiao intends to mislead the audience). Second, the original text, as shown above, does not use “brilliant” to describe the Xiao-de Groat report, but Xiao’s translation added it to mislead the reviewers (particularly those nonprofessional leaders) into believing that his work impressed international colleagues. In addition, the original text shows that the experiment was carried out by Xiao and de Groat, but the collaborator’s name de Groat has never appeared in any Chinese materials.
All in all, Xiao’s claim that his “ new theory” or “new concept” has been accepted by international colleagues and adopted by authoritative textbooks is a sheer lie.

四.隐瞒前人研究,自创“新概念”。
4. Hide the achievement of previous researchers by giving new name to old discovery

肖传国宣传其在国际上首次提出了“人工体神经-内脏神经反射弧”新概念。而实际上,这一原理早在1907年就由澳大利亚医生Basil Kilvington 提出并在狗身上进行了实验。在此后的近百年中有不同的学者前赴后继运用Kilvington提出的通过神经搭桥来取得膀胱神经再生的原理、试图治疗由截瘫和脊髓脊膜膨出引起的膀胱功能障碍,最后都以失败告终。

Xiao claims that he is the first person in the world to establish the new concept of “artificial somatic-central nervous system-autonomic reflex arc”. The truth is that such a “new pathway” was proposed and tested in dogs by the Australian surgeon Basil Kilvington as early as 1907. In the subsequent 100 years, many scientists, one generation after another, attempted to employ Kilvington’s idea of regenerating bladder neuron by crossover to cure the bladder malfunctions caused by paralysis and myelomeningocele. However, to date, none of them has succeeded.
[1] Kilvington B: An investigation on the regeneration of nerves with regard to surgical treatment of certain paralyses, Br. Med J 1907;1:988.

1907年之后的相关实验为:
动物实验:
1935年 Trumble将狗的腹壁下神经的近端与盆神经(支配膀胱)的远端吻合。
1939年 Ottaviani和Binotto将狗的闭孔神经与膀胱逼尿肌神经吻合。
1968年-1972年 Carlsson 和Sundin将猫的腹侧及背侧腰神经根与骶神经根吻合,取得了猫的排尿反射。
1985-1986年 Vorstman等将猫的腰神经根与不同的骶神经根吻合。
人体实验:
1907年 Kilvington将一截瘫病人的胸神经与骶神经吻合。
1912年 Frazier和Mills在JAMA上载文报道将一截瘫病人腰神经根与骶神经根吻合。
According to Vorstman et al. (Investigations on urinary bladder reinnervation. Historical perspective and review. Urology. 1987 Aug. 30(2):89-96.), numerous animal experiments has been done since 1907, such as
1935: Trumle established in dogs the end-to-end neurorrhaphy between the inferior epigastric nerve and pelvic splanchnic nerve.
[2] Trumble HC: Experimental reinnervation of the paralyzed bladder, Med J Aust 1935;1: 118.
1939: Ottaviani and Binotto conducted in dogs neurorraphy between the obturator and detrusor nerves.
[3] Ottaviani G and Binotto A: Aspetti istologici della rigeneratione del moncone centrale del nervo otturaratore innestato nella parete
vesicale, Boll Soc Ital Biol Sper 1939; 14:623.
1968-1972: Carlson and Sundin tested in cats the neurorrhaphy between ventral and dorsal lumbar and sacral spinal nerve roots and acquired micturition reflex.
[4] Carlsson CA and Sundin T: Reconstruction of severed ventral roots innervating the urinary bladder: an experimental study in cats, Scand J Urol Nephrol 1968; 2:199.
[5] Sundin T and Carlsson CA: Reconstruction of severed dorsal roots innervating the urinary bladder: an experimental study in cats. II. Regneration studies. Scand J Urol Nephrol 1972; 6:185.

1985-1986: Vorstman reported his neurorhaphy result in cats.
[6] Sundin T, Carlsson CA. [reinnervation of the afferent denervated urinary bladder after coupling of the dorsal spinal roots. experimental study in cats] Nord Med. 1971 Feb 11;85(6):189. Swedish.
[7] Vorstman B, Schlossberg S, Landy H, Kass L. Nerve crossover techniques for urinary bladder reinnervation: animal and human cadaver studies. J Urol. 1987 May;137(5):1043-8.
[8] Vorstman B, Schlossberg SM, Kass L, Devine CJ Jr. Urinary bladder reinnervation. J Urol. 1986 Oct;136(4):964-9.

Furthermore, tests on human patients were conducted as early as 1907 [1] and 1912 [9], respectively.

[9] Frazier CH and Mills CK: Intradural root anastomosis for the relief of paralysis of the bladder. JAMA 1912;59:2202.

而肖传国的“发明”为:1994年在《Paraplegia》发表文章,报告他的“伟
大”发现:用24只老鼠进行了实验,将它们的腰神经腹侧根与腰神经做了吻合,
并称建立了一个皮肤-中枢神经-膀胱反射弧。

对照历史文献就不难发现其所谓的“反射弧”就是外国学者已经做了近一个世纪的神经搭桥术。

In contrast, Xiao’s “invention”, as he boasts profusely, contained in an article published in Paraplegia is no more than a low-level repetition on rats of the Carlsson-Sundin experiment in 1968 which used cats as test animal.
Therefore, with sligth effort of literature check, it is straightforward that the so-called “Xiao’s Reflex Arc” is just his unique term for neurorraphy, a crossover procedure studied and practiced near a century in the west.

五.将尚需加强基础研究的理论应用于临床,涉嫌违反知情同意原则开展手
术。
5. In violation of the Principle of Informed Consent

对肖传国的成果及理论,有关的科学技术成果鉴定意见写的是:

(1)1999年3月17日鉴定意见:进一步总结经验,提高疗效,推广应用,加强基础研究。
(2)2004年8月28日鉴定意见:建议尽快推广应用,并进一步加强基础研究。

Here are two conclusions cited from the review reports on Xiao’s research:
(1) 17 March 1999: This project needs to accumulate more experience, to raise the healing effect, to extend to clinic applications and to enhance fundamental studies.
(2) 28 August 2004: This project is urged to be extended to practical applications and further enhance related fundamental research.

2003年立项、至今仍未完成项目研究的肖传国主持的“神经损伤修复和功能重建的应用基础研究”项目的预期目标之一是:“深入阐明人工体神经—内脏神经反射弧的机制,为解决脊髓损伤和其他脊髓病变所致大小便功能障碍提供完善治疗技术和理论基础”。

In his description of the project “Application Oriented Fundamental Research on Repair of Nerve Injuries and Reconstruction of Functions”, started in 2003, Xiao writes that one of the anticipated goals is “to offer a deep interpretation of the mechanism behind the artificial somatic-central nervous system-autonomic reflex arc, laying the theoretical and technological foundations for resolving the malfunctions caused by injuries or other pathological effects on the spinal cord. ”

由此可见,肖传国的成果 “缺乏必要的基础研究”,且在2004年时未得到
“推广应用”。

但是,2006年4月刊发的《肖氏反射弧:开辟世界神经泌尿学新领域》一文宣传:“在这一理论指导下,肖传国在国内外多家医院运用‘人工反射弧’手术,治疗患者共达218例,有效率高达80%”。

This statement and above evaluation comments reveal that Xiao’s “invention” does not have minimal support from fundamental research and it had not been “extended to practical application” up to 2004.
However, in an article published in April 2006, entitled “Xiao’s Reflex Arc: Opening Up a New Field in World Neurological Urology”, hypes “under the guidance of his theory, Dr. Xiao has performed ‘artificial reflex arc’ procedure in many hospitals both at home and abroad, curing 218 patients with a high success rate of 80%.”

而媒体正面报道之外的事实是:

(1)武汉钢铁公司翁秋明等人致信中国科学院领导,反映:“本人系高位
截瘫患者,于2001年4月在黎园医院接受协和医院教授肖传国的神经修复手术,
以解决大小便问题,至现在已4年多,没有任何效果,并且同时做手术的病友,
和我联系的没有一个成功”。

(2)患儿家长来信反映:“我们同一个月(2003年11月)做肖氏手术的孩子一共有6个,其中最大的20岁,最小的3岁(我的女儿)”,均失败。

……

The real-life facts behind such media hype, however, are quite a disturbing story:
(1) In a letter addressed to the leadership of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Weng Qiu-ming of Wuhan Steelmaking Company writes “I’m a high-level paraplegia patient and received a neurorrhaphy operation by Professor Xiao Chuan-Guo of Wuhan Xiehe Hospital in the hope of solving the problems of urination and bowel motion. However, no healing effect has occurred to me four years after the surgery, nor for any people who keep contact with me and received the same operation at the same time.”

(2) A letter from the representative of a group of parents reads “in November 2003, six children aged from 3 (my daughter) to 20, received Xiao’s operation …all ended up with failure.”
……

值得注意的是,许多患者并不知道施加自己身上的手术所依据的理论还需要加强基础研究;许多患者并不知道自己要成为国家科研项目中的人体实验品!

可见,有关方面对“肖氏反射弧”的报道不仅涉嫌虚假宣传,而且侵犯患者的知情权。肖传国对此有不可推卸的责任。

It should be noted that none of the patients who received the operation is aware of fact that the surgery lacks necessary theoretical support from fundamental research. They are not informed that they are no more than some guinea pigs useful in a medical research!
Therefore, the involved institutions, by providing those propaganda articles promoting “Xiao’s Reflex Arc”, committed falsification of news and by hiding the information from patients of the danger of the surgery, violate the lawful rights of the patients. Undoubtedly, Xiao must take the responsibility for these violations.

六.自吹获得“国际神经泌尿学领域最高奖”
6. “ I Am the Winner of the Highest Prize in International Neurological Urology”

肖传国说“Jack Japides奖根本不是什么很容易获得的美国泌尿学会会议摘要竞赛奖,而是独立基金会颁发的国际神经泌尿学领域最高奖,该奖的获得者均系国际知名的学者,而且原告是二十年来唯一获得两次特等奖者”。

In the aforementioned Wuhan civil court, Xiao testified: “ Jack Japides Prize is not an easy pick for essay contest held by the American Urology Association as descried by the defendant, instead, it is the highest honor in international neurological urology community, awarded by an independent foundation and all of its awardees are internationally well-known scholars. The plaintiff is the only person who has won the grand prize twice.”

而事实是:

(1)肖传国持有的相关奖英文原文为:
'Jack Lapides Essay Contest    Established in 1984
Urodynamic and Neurourology Research   Grand Prize Winner',中文翻译为: 'Jack Lapides短文竞赛 始于1984年
泌尿动力学与神经泌尿学研究 特等奖'

(2)肖传国在国内对该奖的介绍中,从来不提及奖项中的“Essay”(短文)。

(3)颁发“国际神经泌尿学领域最高奖”——Jack Japides奖的“独立基金会”不仅没有自己的网站,而且美国泌尿学会也没有对该奖项或基金会给于介绍。

(4)除了颁发Jack Japides奖的人和获奖人肖传国,没有人声称Jack Japides Essay竞赛特等奖是“国际神经泌尿学领域最高奖”。

如上事实,足见肖传国的吹嘘行径。

The facts:

(1) The original text related to Xiao’s prize is as follows:
“Jack Lapides Essay Contest, Established in 1984, Urodynamic and Neurourology Research, Grand Prize Winner.” It clearly shows that it is an essay contest.
(2) While Xiao never misses any opportunity to boast his “highest international honor”, he never mentions “essay” in any occasion in China.
(3) Intriguingly, the “independent foundation” that awards the Jack Japides Prize, “the highest honor of the international neurological urology”, does not have a web site, nor are the prize and foundation mentioned by American Urology Association.
(4) None else, except the man who awards the prize and Xiao, would believe that Jack-Japides Essay Contest’s Grand Prize is the “highest honor in international neurological urology.”
This is just one instance of how Xiao brags of himself.

七.违背常识惯例荒谬定义“国际期刊”

在学术界,许多场合,“国际期刊”指“国外学术期刊”。

(1)中国科学院管理、决策与信息系统重点实验室网页“近期发表的部分
国际期刊论文”题目下均是国外学术期刊论文。

(2)中国科学院自动化研究所复杂系统与智能科学重点实验室网页“国际
期刊论文”题目下均是国外学术期刊论文。

(3)中国科学院过程研究所多相反应重点实验室网页“2004年国际期刊发
表文章一览表”下均是国外学术期刊论文。

……

许多学者在写作时将“国内期刊”和“国际期刊”视为对应词组。

在肖传国之前,从来没有中国科技工作者公开宣称“国际期刊包括中国在国
际上公开发行的期刊”。

而肖传国在有关案件庭审中对“国际期刊”提出“国际期刊应当是在国际上公开发行的期刊,包括中国在国际上公开发行的期刊,而不是国外期刊”的崭新定义,令舆论一片哗然,贻笑大方,严重败坏了中国科技工作者的声誉。

2006年12月14日

(XYS20070208)




所有跟贴:


加跟贴

笔名: 密码: 注册笔名请按这里

标题:

内容: (BBCode使用说明)