【1.3】竞选院士惹的祸？
Trouble from CAS Member Election?
鉴定会上成果获得通过，似乎为肖传国竞选院士奠定了良好的基础。但2005年9月14日，搜狐公司和中国协和医科大学出版社邀请方舟子在搜狐健康频道在线谈《生物医学的规范》，对于“肖氏反射弧”的学术地位提出质疑；2005年9月21日，方舟子在搜狐新闻频道发表文章《脚踏两只船，中国院士越选越滥》中，进一步指出肖传国在国际上毫无影响，而“肖氏反射弧”在国内医学界也没有得到认可。
The passing of the achievements in the evaluation meeting seemed to have settled the basis for Xiao Chuan-guo to elect the member of Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS). But on September 14, 2005, Sohu Corporation and the Publishing Press of Peking Union Medical College invited Fang Zhou-zi address on “Academic Regulations in Biology and Medicine”, who questioned the academic status of “Xiao’s Reflex Arc”. On September 21, 2005, Fang Zhou-zi in his paper “A Foot in Two Camps: CAS Member Election More and More Inferior” published on Sohu News Channel pointed out further that Xiao Chuan-guo had no international influence at all, and “Xiao’s Reflex Arc” had not been confirmed by medical communications in China.
肖传国认为，这些不符合实际情况的报道和污蔑，特别是对他的学术工作和所获国际认可的各项指控均完全背离事实，严重损害了他的名誉权。由此，肖传国依法向人民法院提起诉讼。
Xiao Chuan-guo considered these as untrue reports and slanders; especially all the accusation on his academic works and their international confirmation deviated totally from the facts, and caused his moral damage seriously. Therefore, Xiao Chuan-guo sued in court in the name of the law.
从2005年10月8日，肖传国向武汉江汉区法院正式递交诉状算起，直到2007年11月30日，北京市高级人民法院做出终审判决为止，基于大致相同的诉求，肖传国先后在武汉、美国、北京提起诉讼近十次，状告核心人物方舟子侵权。
Since October 8, 2006, the date when Xiao Chuan-guo brought the suit formally to the Jianghan Disctrict, Wuhan, till November 30, 2007, the date when the Beijing High People's Court pronounced a final adjudication, Xiao Chuan-guo had sued nearly ten times one after another in Wuhan, in the U.S., and in Beijing for basically identical appeal: suit against the key person, Fang Zhouzi, for his tort.
2006年7月25日，武汉江汉区法院一审宣判，方舟子败诉。不久，先后有600多人在《海内外知识分子关于肖传国诉方舟子案的公开信》上签名，抗议法院判决不公。信中称，方舟子撰写评论文章对院士候选人肖传国进行质疑，是正当的学术批评与舆论监督，完全符合中国科学院公布院士候选人名单以加强社会各界对院士增选工作的监督的目的，同时也是作为公民的正当权利。
On July 25, 2006, the Jianghan District Court in Wuhan pronounced the sentence of the first instance, and Fang Zhou-zi lost the lawsuit. Soon afterwards, totally over 600 hundred people signed on the “Open Letter by Scholars in China and Abroad on the Lawsuit of Xiao Chuan-guo vs. Fang Zhou-zi”, and protested against the unjust of the judgment of the court. The letter says, Fang Zhou-zi’s writing comment to question Xiao Chuan-guo, a candidate of CAS member election, is legitimate academic criticism and public opinion for supervision; it is totally consistent with the purpose of CAS to publicize the candidates’ name list, which is to ensure the supervision by various circle of the society on new member election; it is also legitimate civil right.
“我觉得打官司也没意思。”鞠躬说，“人家在网上爱怎么说你，你是什么就是什么，你要较真，没必要。大概没人能陪得起他打官司。打官司很贵，拖下去，别人陪都陪不起。”
“I don’t think lawsuit interesting either,” said Ju Gong, “Other people can criticize you however they like; but you are what you are. There is no need if you take it seriously. Probably nobody can afford to accompany him with the lawsuit. A lawsuits is expensive; if it lasts, other people cannot afford to keep him accompany. ”
2007年11月30日，北京市高级人民法院的判决书从法律的角度说明了双方在肖传国本人的学术水平以及“肖氏反射弧”的国际影响方面存在较大争议。法院认为：“上述争议均属学术领域范围内的争议，应局限于学术领域依靠学术自治妥善解决，法院不应更没有能力对此做出法律评判。”
On November 30, 2007, the judgment by the Beijing High People's Court illustrated 【什么叫“从法律的角度”？】that the bilateral have obvious disputation on the academic status of Xiao Chuan-guo himself and the international influence of “Xiao’s Reflex Arc”. The court considered, “the above disputation belongs to academics, and should be limited in academics for an appropriate solution based on academic autonomy; the Court ought not, and is not able to make a judgment by the law.”