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……”。
The web pages 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 one of his "evidences" provided to the aforementioned Wuhan civil court, he made a “translation” for the citation of his work in "Campbell’s Urology" into Chinese. If his translation is translated back into English, it would mean this: "Xiao (1999) reported an ingenious and artificially reconstructed “skin-CNS-bladder” reflex arc. This new reflex pathway is able to 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。
But the facts are:
1. Campbell’s Urology is a review book rather than “an internationally well-known authoritative textbook.”
2. Campbell’s Urology is a review book with over 4000 pages and covers virtually every research progress related to urology. The research paper by Xiao and de Groat published in 1999, in which a cat was used for experiments, is mentioned in one short paragraph in Chapter 26 of the review book. However, the Xiao-de Groat paper is only one of over 600 references cited in the same chapter and therefore is not outstanding at all.
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。
3. Xiao’s Chinese translation provided to the Wuhan court is far away from the original words in the book. First, the book indicates the experiment was done by Xiao and de Groat, not by Xiao alone. Xiao omitted the co-author’s name in his translation and hence exaggerated his own contribution. Second, the reported experiment was actually a test conducted on a cat, rather than a “clinic” test (which is supposed to be on human patients). Third, the original text, as shown below, does not use any word like “ingenious” to describe the Xiao-de Groat paper; therefore Xiao raised the true evaluation of his work written in the book by adding “ingenious” to his translation. In a word, this is falsified evidence.
Therefore, Xiao’s falsifying the evaluation of his work is actually an academic misconduct of providing false or exaggerated information.
[note: the original text from “campbell’s urology” on xiao’s work:
“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.” ]
-------------------------------------------------------------
建议：一，二，三等，用I, II, III来翻译。
I think I have done my fair share, and will see if I have more time tomorrow.