Listen to this articleDispersing the Shroud over Tu Youyou’s Achievement
As the Nobel Prize Award Ceremony draws near, Tu Youyou’s two months in the spotlight is reaching its crescendo. On the afternoon of December 7, Tu delivered a speech entitled “Artemisinin – A Gift from Traditional Chinese Medicine to the World” at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden. Quoting Mao Zedong’s saying that Chinese medicine and pharmacology is “a great treasure-house”, Tu walked the audience through her breakthrough discovery of the anti-malarial compound artemisinin.
Both the speech, delivered in the Mecca of natural sciences, and the awarding of the Nobel Prize to Tu are celebrated as a vindication of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM). Not only has Chinese medicine and pharmacology gained international recognition at the forefront of medical research, but it is also now part of a dialogue involving the international medical community. This dialogue has been made possible thanks to the milestone contribution by Tu and her team in removing the mystery surrounding TCM, and promoting communication across medical fields to advance medical research.
Some media have interpreted Tu’s speech as an endorsement of TCM, and some even portray her achievements as a challenge to Western medicine. Such views, while well-intentioned, run counter to what Tu truly means. A passing familiarity with her speech or a cursory knowledge of her research convinces us that the discovery of artemisinin benefited from both TCM and Western medicine, with the former being the source of inspiration and cumulative knowledge, and the latter providing the methodology of rigorous experimentation. If either were lacking, events could very possibly have taken a different turn. It is therefore fair to say that the accomplishments of Tu and her peers came from the interaction between TCM and Western medicine, a relationship that had begun long before Tu won the Nobel Prize.
The perennial debate over TCM versus Western medicine has, to some extent, drifted from constructive interaction into a race for supremacy. Advocates of TCM dismiss the prescriptive mechanical procedures of Western medicine as being inflexible. Proponents of Western medicine spurn the apparent whims of TCM as being arbitrary. Chinese practitioners ignore that the rigid western approach is grounded in solid empirical study, while Western practitioners fail to appreciate that the flexible Chinese approach is rooted in time-honored culture. Why must we pit them head-to-head when they can, in fact, be complementary and mutually reinforcing?
In her speech, Tu pointed out, “Through my research of artemisinin, I feel that Chinese and Western medicine are complementary, each with its own advantages. The combination of the two will boost the prospects and potential for development.” This is as much a statement from a TCM scientist to Western academia promoting recognition of TCM, as one from a beneficiary of Western medicine to TCM advocates on the value of modern science. Indeed, the Nobel laureate has shed some light on the nature of scientific work.
Many scientists have learned first-hand how challenging and unpredictable academic research can be, a fact even we non-scientists can appreciate. Yet what we may not be cognizant of is the thought process such research demands. While few people can aspire to what Tu and her team have accomplished, there is much we can gain from their professionalism and dedication. They are true believers in the old Chinese saying “It takes decades to make a great sword.” The determination they have demonstrated coupled with holistic thinking deserves applause.
Such an approach represents an integration of TCM and Western medicine. It aims to promote interaction between the two systems, and more importantly, a connection between the two ways of thinking. Tu and like-minded people are creative enough to draw inspiration from TCM, and rigorous enough to adopt evidence-based Western medicine. The ability to strike a balance between imagination and critical thinking is a key trait of eminent scientists. This balance not only prevents creativity from being fantasy, but also breathes life into the mechanics of empirical study.
屠呦呦秉持的，不是好事者争论的
随着诺贝尔奖颁奖典礼的临近，持续2个月的“屠呦呦热”正在渐入高潮。当地时间7日下午，屠呦呦在瑞典卡罗林斯卡学院发表题为“青蒿素——中医药给世界的一份礼物”的演讲，详细回顾了青蒿素的发现过程，并援引毛泽东的话称，中医药学“是一个伟大的宝库”。
对中医药而言，无论是自然科学“圣殿”中的这次演讲，还是即将颁发到屠呦呦手中的诺奖，自然都提供了极好的“正名”。置于世界科学前沿的平台上，中医药学不仅真正被世界“看见”，更能因这种“看见”获得同世界对话的机会。拨开层层迷雾之后，对话是促成发展的动力。将迷雾拨开、使对话变成可能，是屠呦呦及其团队的莫大功劳。
但如果像部分舆论那样，将屠呦呦的告白简单视作其对中医的“背书”，乃至将其成就视作中医向西医下的“战书”，这样的心愿固然可嘉，却可能完全背离科学家的本意。听过屠呦呦的报告，或是对其研究略作了解就知道，青蒿素的发现既来自于中医药“宝库”提供的积淀和灵感，也来自于西医严格的实验方法。缺了其中任意一项，历史很可能转向截然不同的方向。换言之，在“诺奖级”平台上促成中西医对话之前，屠呦呦及其团队的成果，正是长期“对话”的成果。
而此前绵延不绝的“中西医”之争，多多少少都游离了对话的本意，而陷于一种单向化的“争短长”。持中医论者，不屑于西医的“按部就班”；持西医论者，不屑于中医的“随心所欲”。双方都没有看到，“按部就班”背后本是实证依据，“随心所欲”背后则有文化内涵，两者完全可以兼容互补，何必非得二元对立？屠呦呦在演讲中坦言，“通过抗疟药青蒿素的研究历程，我深深地感到中西医药各有所长，两者有机结合，优势互补，当具有更大的开发潜力和良好的发展前景”。这既是站在中医药立场上对西方科学界的一次告白，反过来也可理解为西医立场上对中医拥趸们的提醒。毋宁说，这是一个科学家对科学研究实质的某种揭示。
科学研究之艰深莫测，科学家多有体认，作为旁观者的我们也屡屡耳闻。而科学研究所需要的思维方式，人们未必有足够认识。对屠呦呦和她的团队，做出的学问未必人人能学，其治学的精神和观念却很值得借鉴。这既包括“几十年磨一剑”的硬功夫，也包括一种巧妙平衡的思维方式。
这种思维方式，就体现在其对中西医有机的结合。表面上，这是两种科学体系的对话，而实质上，这也是两种思维方式的平衡——从中医传统中寻觅灵感，屠呦呦们的想象力值得叹服；用西学方法做论证，屠呦呦们的理性思维亦值得重视。想象力与理性思辨的高度平衡，恰恰是优秀科学家具备的关键素质。这两者的平衡，使他们的创新从不是漫谈空想，而实证又绝不会死气沉沉。（朱珉迕《解放日报》2015 年12 月9日）
