对于ADC也可以这样做一个外接圆，因为∠ADC是锐角，所以圆心O’会在AC下方，同样连接AO’延长到P’，可以证明这俩直角三角形ACP和ACP’全等，AC这条边是共用的，所以俩直角三角形完全重合。A,B,C,D四点位于直角三角形的外接圆上。

      在一点上，韩国的互联网文化和中国倒是很相似。韩国所有的银行只支持微软浏览器，而且必须安装Active-X插件后才能登录。用户常常需要安装4到6个“安全插件”用来数据加密，防病毒等等才能使用网上银行。韩国本土一家软件公司为“安全插件”提供解决方案。公司的创始人原本是位医生，现在是成功的商人，韩国媒体称赞他抵御网络攻击起到了中流砥柱的角色，他慷慨，富于社会责任，就在上个月，他宣布参加韩国总统竞选。Kim Kee-Chang是韩国一所大学的法学教授，最近几年致力于提高韩国互联网的开放性，呼吁韩国网站改变对非微软的操作系统，浏览器兼容性差的问题。他为此输了一些官司。他将韩国过分依赖于Active-X体系称之为“安全的幻象”，除了通过过时的技术让软件公司挣钱之外什么也没有做。和中国不同的是，韩国的金融安全管理机构规定必须使用Active-X，因为韩国在90年代独创了一套加密算法，而在过去很长一段时间，浏览器必须通过插件才可以支持该算法。

       我认为安全插件并不能有效地保障网银的安全。商家喜欢标榜“安全”，因为这是一个太含糊的词，用户并不知道这里面包含什么。比如安全插件可能会提供验证网站SSL证书的功能，但是浏览器缺省的也具备这项功能。如果用户无法理解系统给出的“无效SSL证书”的提示，我毫不奇怪他会在其他的地方被钓鱼，也许钓鱼的手段更为简陋。但问题是，“安全插件”能在多大程度上避免计算机水平低的人士误操作，这样做往往是有代价的，插件安装常常需要用户以不受任何权限限制的角色登录系统，本身更容易让用户下载，运行恶意程序危害计算机系统的安全。总而言之，安全性是由很多因素所决定，网银的插件能防范一些攻击，但不能就说安装后安全性就提高了。我建议银行方面不妨组织一次大规模的随机对照试验来验证一下网银插件究竟对安全性有多大提高。比方说全国找出20万用户，分成每组10万人的两组。两组试验对象的各种可能影响结果的要素分布尽可能接近，比如年龄，收入，网上银行使用频率，计算机水平等等，在网络银行增加一些设置使得对于一组用户总是需要“安全插件”的安装才能登录，而另外一组不用专门插件而用标准化的新技术保障安全，过一年再来统计看看两组中银行账户被恶意攻击的发生率上是不是有显著性的差异。

       中国的银行应该以西方银行为榜样，充分认识新的网络标准和技术，比如HTML5的优越性，尽快地应用这些技术加强网络的开放性。而不是像韩国现在这样，让用户被少数软件厂商所束缚。而迈出的第一步可以是重新设计一套登录页面，不需要用户安装任何独家的插件，只要有能支持最新HTML标准的浏览器，就能安全使用网络银行。无论你使用何种平台，哪家公司的浏览器，都可以在网站变得更开放的同时受益–更方便地使用网路银行。

1. 中国农村地区儿童血铅水平分析 “结果我国农村儿童血铅均值为74.93μg/L(范围:41.14～193.54μg/L),铅中毒率为19.32%(范围:2.2%～43%)。” — http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-HJYJ200912030.htm
2. 北京市成人血、发及脏器的铅、镉背景值 “结果表明，北京市男性吸烟者、不吸烟者及女性不吸烟者的血铅均值分别为８５．０、７４．６和５６．７μｇ／Ｌ” — http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-WSYJ506.003.htm
3. 深圳市13851例学龄前儿童血铅水平调查 “结果 13 851名儿童血铅均值为47.87μg/L,铅中毒发生率2.642%。” — http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-RDYX201106026.htm
4. 温州市1~13岁儿童血铅水平调查 “结果显示,温州市1~13岁儿童血铅为(60.30±29.57)μg/L,血铅含量≥100μg/L者,占总调查人数的10.99%” — http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-GWYS200509002.htm
5. 苏州市区居民体内铅、镉、汞的蓄积及健康效应的调查 “苏州市区的学龄前儿童体内铅、镉水平 学龄前儿童血铅平均水平为66.3μg／L(8.69～175.98μg／L)” — http://cdmd.cnki.com.cn/Article/CDMD-10285-2004031774.htm
6. 上海市静安区(部分)儿童血铅水平状况调查 “结果４３７名儿童血铅水平从１５μｇ／Ｌ至６９７μｇ／Ｌ，血铅水平均数为９７．０４μｇ／Ｌ，其中血铅水平≥１００μｇ／Ｌ有１６７例，占 ３８．２％” — http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-SHYI908.006.htm

深圳市的血铅水平比其他地方似乎好很多。农村没有化工厂，没有城市化污浊的空气，但是也不太安全。上海静安区的结果显示，血铅平均数高达 97.04ug/L，而需要治疗的儿童比例接近4成。所以大家也许不必为江森蓄电池厂周边出现血铅超标感到惊奇，真实情况也许是，即使没有那座工厂或者其它工厂，周边的居民做做血铅检测的话，照样是有相当大的比例的人超过100ug/L。

美国人的血铅水平如何呢，根据CDC的报告http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5420a5.htm，总体血铅几何平均值只有16ug/L。

注意美国5岁以下儿童血铅值在20ug/L以下。我们是不是可以说中国人和美国人血铅差异巨大？

铅作为一种有毒的重金属可以在体内积聚，所以即使很微量，也会造成身体损伤，特别是铅对儿童的中枢神经系统造成的影响不可恢复。有研究表明铅的暴露水平和少儿时代的暴力活动有关联。甚至有经济学家推断美国全国各地的铅的暴露水平可以解释65%至90%暴力犯罪率的差异。延伸一下，中国和美国血铅差异如此之大，造成的影响或许不仅仅在暴力犯罪率上，政治，经济，文化，科学研究或都将受到影响。

从CDC的统计来看91到02年，美国血铅下降还是很大的。中国也许应该来一次全面调查，有勇气公开发布可能非常令十三多亿人非常不安的铅暴露水平的现状，然后采取措施尽可能降低所有人群中血铅水平，现在媒体和公众所关注的那些蓄电池工厂，可能至多只是问题的1%。关停工厂容易，目前的环境下赔点钱安抚安抚也不难，但是即使这些做的再完美，问题的99%也没有解决。

柳州， 中国 —-当中国教授们需要论文获得升职的时候，很多转而求助于卢克谦。

在一间狭窄的卧室里，卢克谦工作在笔记本电脑上。从前是学校教师的他，现在为教授，学生和政府官员—任何愿意付给他大约300元酬劳的人当枪手写论文。

“我的看法是为别人写论文并不为错”他说“一个人总有需要别人帮忙的时候。即使我们的伟大领袖毛泽东或者邓小平也需要他人帮忙写稿。”

代写，抄袭和捏造结果在中国学术圈中非常泛滥以至于有些专家担忧这会削弱中国成为科学强国的努力。

中国政府将科学视为现代化的关键。并且最近提出今年将政府用于科学技术的开支增长8%至1630亿元。

国营媒体庆祝中国在国际期刊上发表的论文数超过了除美国外任何国家。但并不是所有的科学研究都经得住考验。在去年十二月份，一家英国的期刊撤销了来自中国一所大学的70篇论文。做出撤稿决定的两位有影响力的科学家说论文中的工作是虚构的。

“学术欺骗，不端行为，伦理违背在中国非常常见。这是一个大问题”饶毅教授说。他是在首都的北京大学生命科学学院的院长。

有批评指责惩罚不力和基于发表论文的数量而不是质量的教员晋升和奖励体系。

丹·本·康耐安对剽窃熟悉。

这位以色列教授在中国东北城市哈尔滨的黑龙江大学已经教了9年的书。一个同事2008年因为康耐安记述1933年日本占领期间发生在一位犹太音乐家上的绑架和谋杀案的论文接触他。

“他竟然有胆在我主持的会议上当他自己论文公之于众”康耐安说“没有一丁点羞耻。”

在另外一起事件中，他将自己写的材料给了中国社科院一位很有声望的研究员。他说他对收到该研究员编撰的书中大部分拷贝和翻译康耐安所提供的材料—-而不给任何出处感到震惊。

发表论文的压力催生了代写的繁荣。武汉大学教授沈阳研究显示去年中国有10亿人民币花在学术论文上面，相比2007年翻了5倍。

一家提供这样服务的公司就是卢克谦的公司，在中国一所南方城市柳州。他的卢克学术服务中心号称是一个二，三十人的队伍，有研究生和教授，专业涵盖从计算机技术到军事。

卢是一个58岁的党员，客户通过因特网上的聊天软件联系他。大部分客户是高校的教授争取升职和学生寻求学位论文的帮助。有一次，一所高校同一个班的10 名学生集体向他请求帮助写论文，他说。

“自己独立去做每一件事情理论上可行，但是现实中要非常困难。每个人总需要一些帮助”卢说“这是我看待这项工作的。我不知道这样做是不是对的。”

在卖论文的生意中，存在欺骗。武汉大学的研究发现2007年买卖的论文中，超过七成是剽窃的。

去年早些时候，有网友发现安徽农业大学副校长20篇论文存在剽窃。学校后来撤了他的行政职务但是允许他继续教学。

去年6月份，广州中医大学校长被指控其博士论文中40%剽窃于另外一篇论文。

三月份的时候，中国青年报报道了1997年的一篇医学论文在过去10年中被反复剽窃。报道称来自16家单位的25人从中抄袭，两名学生使用剽窃检测软件开展的调查将会有更多的医生名字曝光。

方是民，一名独立打假人，说他和他的志愿者每年曝光上百起案例，并公之于“新语丝”网站上。

“最普遍的是剽窃和夸大学术成果”方说。

这份英国学术期刊上撤销的论文来自中国东南井冈山大学的研究者。编辑正在检查来自其他高校的论文，并且说将会有更多的撤稿。记者试图电话或者电子邮件联系钟华和刘涛，他们是这些被撤稿的论文的主要作者，但是没有得到答复。在该大学接触其他研究人员也没有给出回应。

这份期刊，《晶体学报》E分卷发表对新晶体结构的发现，很多是来自中国正规的研究。

“中国的作者已经向《晶体学报》E分卷投递了数千份高质量的晶体结构，这是对科学的重要贡献”皮特·斯特里克兰在电子邮件中写道。他是国际晶体学联合会的期刊执行主编，该联合会负责《晶体学报》E分卷。他说这是头一回在旗下期刊中发现伪造的论文。

苏迈德，一位俄勒冈大学中国科学政策专家说这些问题可以追溯到上世纪80年代和90年代初中国努力实现科学系统的现代化而当时中国的科研问责制度和评估制度还相对薄弱。

中国试图找出现成的科研成果评价手段，仿照西方的行事方式而开始集中在高质量的论文发表，但是结果好坏参半，他说。

这个问题会损害这个国家成为全球科研领袖的雄心，苏迈德认为。

“我怀疑中国以外的学者会不太愿意和身处学术不端氛围下的中国同事合作”他说。

上个月中国教育部公布章程成立35人的监督委员会。在传真的问题回复中，它说会要求高校严厉查处此类事件。

饶毅，北京大学的生命科学学院院长，对此持观望态度。

“政府部门乐意资助研究但是不愿意维持秩序”，他说，“权威机构不愿意当恶人。”

美联社Xi Yue对本文亦有贡献

网络：

卢克学术服务中心：http://www.luke99.com

新语丝：http://www.xys.org

Editor: We report a controversial surgery in “Who judges Chuanguo Xiao” on Vol. 20, Oct 28. Since the news, reporters got more information about this surgery.

Jian Peng, a pro bono lawyer, engages in evidence collection. On Oct 16, two mothers of children with spina bifida accused Henan Shenyuan Urological Hospital. The court trial will be started on Dec 28. Jian Peng revealed that around twenty more patients (their parents) would bring lawsuit in the end of this year.

Restart of investigation

“I realize that, the only effective way for this case is that plenty of patients bring accusation together, especially those who took the surgery in the same period.” Jian Peng told Science News that he started to collect information about patients on 2006. At the same year, Zhouzi Fang (a famous freelance in China) seriously questioned academic level of Chuanguo Xiao, who develops an artificial reflex pathway. Fang subsequently lost the lawsuit which Xiao filed.

In the summer of 2007, as the number of patients on the list increased to dozens, Jian had interns make telephone interview. “We got through to more than 40 patients. And we found that outcomes of those cases were not good at all. Almost all patients don’t have any improvements. Some were even worse, suffering from mobility impairment after surgery.” Lin Liu, one of whom conducted interviews told Science News.

But investigation stagnated since then. The major problem is lack of finance. Although a few of pro bono organizations expressed intention to provide financial help, nothing came into being. Meanwhile, patients visited Jian Peng lawyer office frequently to ask for legal aid.

Not until September 2009, was the investigation restarted as finance allows. From more than 150 patients who left contacts in patient-to-patient communication, they got through to 80 persons on phone, and 15 persons in person. Jian Peng said: “the number is increasing. We usually get calls twice every day, sometimes as many as 4 calls to provide more proof.

The interview shows that none of patients who taken the ‘Xiao procedure’ surgery makes complete recovery so far. The percentage of patients with the clear improvement is extremely low, in a marked contrast with “85% of cure rate” as the hospital claims.

More contradictions

Jian Peng also found another tricky contradiction.

Neurourology Surgery Research Center in Zhengzhou University provided a certification on Feb 28, 2007 for Xiao’s application for fellowship of China Academy Society. It claims that the center provided the revolutionary surgery to construct an artificial somatic-central nervous system-autonomic reflex pathway, which Chuanguo Xiao developed, for 117 patients with neurogenic bladder dysfunction caused by spina bifida or meningomyelocele. The more than 8-month post operative visit on 60 patients shows that 85% patients restore bladder/bowel continence.

But Jian Peng found that it was reported by Dahebao on Aug 14 of 2006: “Yesterday, little Shanshan received surgery at Zhenzhou Shenyuan Urological Hospital…the surgery on little Shanshan is the first case in Henan province…Ziming Dong as dean of the basic medicine school of Zhengzhou University said: the surgery on Shanshan is the first case of ‘artificial reflex arc’ in Henan province. And Zhenzhou Shenyuan hospital also makes national record – it is the first multiple-specialty neurourological hospital in China, which is also a product of the combination of science research and clinics in Zhenzhou University.”

In other words, the first case which the center offers the new treatment was as late as Aug 13, 2006. It was only 6 and half months prior to the center providing certification of the cure rate, which contradicts the statements that “we made 8-month post operative visits on 60 patients”.

Jian Peng and his colleagues contacted more than 100 patients underwent ‘Xiao procedure’ in Zhenzhou Shenyuan Urological Hospital between August 2006 and the first half of 2007. No case shows the full recovery of bladder and bowel function. Instead, condition of many patients deteriorated after the surgery.  Given the time of surgeries, those cases should make up a large part of 117 cases which the certification from the research center asserted. So it raises the question of the statement that 85% patients get full recovery of bladder and bowel function.

“Let patients speak out. It is most objective”

As the investigation concludes the cure rate being close to 0%, the result is too astonished – is it related to non-medical professional conducting inquiry? For instance, inaccuracy introduced by Jian Peng during the investigation.

“The folk statistics methodology and results need be reviewed before formal publication. But data may figure out something”  Prof Limin Liao of Beijing Boai hospital comments “so far, only words from patients can address the issue. To restore the justice, patients should stand out. If surgery gets success, the patient is the biggest beneficiary. If surgery gets failed, he/she is the biggest victim. Let patients speak out. It is most objective”

It is the most direct and probably the only feasible way for Jian Peng to obtain evidence by using financial resource and man power to interview patients one by one. “Holding a peer review, is theoretically possible but not in the reality. There are assessments on this surgery, and its related scientific achievements, which made by ‘authorities’ in the field. If we invite experts to make a different assessment, isn’t it too difficult? And in any case, I find that the experts in the same field intentionally skirt around” Jian Peng said.

Jian Peng’s points were confirmed by the peer. “All experts are not willing to be involved in even although we do not want to see the current situation of patients” a famous urology expert told Science News, “It is not true that we don’t want to do something at all. But what we say cannot bring any effect. He could say that we do not know anything. Peers or anybody, from his eyes, could be nothing else.”

Peer review

Nevertheless, some experts dare speak out

“I use two sentences to comment: first, this surgery is absolutely not as effective as what he said, to solve the problem of neurogenic bladder dysfunction. Second, it may be effective for a part of patients. There may be indications. Some patients should take the surgery. But not all of them”. Professor Bo Song from the Third Military Medical University at Chongqing said.

Bo Song also said that he opposed to excessive boast or propaganda over such kind of surgery because it should not be commercial activity. “If they claim to solve the problem of neurogenic bladder dysfunction, I totally disagree. If they apply for the prize for the progress of science and technology, I would unlikely endorse it.” But meanwhile he admits that for the present the evidence is not enough to conclude the surgery is of no avail. “And his research is not finished. We do not know what indications are. If they claim that it solves the big problem, it is unfounded”. Bo Song said.

“He borrows techniques in neurology to urology. But we haven’t seen a few patients in clinics. We haven’t watched the actual surgery either. So we were not able to make any comments. The patients were brought only for demo. I haven’t watched their surgeries. He had few publications then. We even know less about assessment international peers gave on him. Almost all information is what he said. I haven’t seen assessment international peers gave on this kind of surgery. He said that we were unable to perform this surgery. But why not they promote using the surgery themselves? It is our doubt” Yinglu Guo, Professor of Peking University First Hospital, fellow of China Engineering Academy, told Science News.

“In the course of science research, we should allow mistakes, trials and all kinds of efforts. But without complete scientific evidence, or enough proof within evidence-based medicine, scientists are not allowed to claim solving a big problem or creating a new thing. That is unscientific statement. I disagree such kind of statement” Bo Song finally summarized.