Surgery Godfather-Chapter 1954 - 1335: Interview_4

Tang Shun smiled, "Professor, don’t you think we are witnessing the birth of a ’media response school’? Zhang Lin-style rhetoric, it could be written into textbooks in the future."

"He already has his imitators." Song Zimo was browsing on his phone, "Look, someone online has organized a ’Collection of Zhang Lin’s Speeches’, and the views have exceeded ten million.

The real test came two weeks later.

The Lancet’s editorial department dispatched a deputy editor known for his sharpness, Harrison, accompanied by a copy of an open letter co-signed by twelve international experts. The letter meticulously listed the ’seven unsolved issues’ of the systemic regulation theory, ranging from mechanistic ambiguity to clinical applicability, with wording that was both rigorous and pointed.

More importantly, Harrison had done his homework in advance. He interviewed the head of the European collaboration center that reported the adverse reactions and obtained more details: those three cases not only experienced side effects, but one individual also had a more severe rebound after stopping the treatment, questioning Yang Ping’s team’s treatment plan as ’possible irreversible systemic disturbance’.

This was an accusation that could shake the theoretical foundation.

The interview was arranged in the largest meeting room. Harrison didn’t bring a filming team, just a voice recorder and a thick file. He was in his fifties, with neatly groomed gray hair, and his eyes scrutinized as if examining a paper full of loopholes.

"Dr. Zhang, let’s get straight to the point." Harrison didn’t even engage in pleasantries, "This is a detailed case report provided by the European Center, showing that after ceasing your regulation program, patient P-07’s intestinal inflammation indicators rebounded to 180% of pre-treatment levels, accompanied by systemic dermatitis. The head of the center believes this proves your intervention ’disrupted the patient’s original fragile compensatory balance, causing more complex systemic chaos than the original disease.’

He pushed the report in front of Zhang Lin, "Please explain."

The air in the meeting room solidified. In the monitoring room, everyone held their breath. This wasn’t a problem that could be bypassed with rhetoric; it was specific, with data and expert endorsements.

Zhang Lin didn’t look at the report. He was silent for so long that Harrison started to frown.

Then, Zhang Lin did something that surprised everyone.

He stood up, walked to the window, and turned his back to Harrison. Outside the window was the institute’s courtyard, where several young researchers were walking and discussing, holding cups of coffee.

"Mr. Harrison," Zhang Lin’s voice was low, completely different from his usual poised performance, "Do you know what I’m most afraid of?"

Harrison was taken aback, "What?"

"It’s not doubt, not failure, not even theoretical error." Zhang Lin turned, with no smile on his face but only a deep fatigue that Tang Shun and Song Zimo had never seen in him, "What I fear most is that when we strive to help a person, we end up harming them."

He returned to his seat and finally picked up the report, but did not open it.

"You asked me to explain? I can give you an explanation. I can tell you that patient P-07 has unique SNP loci in his genome affecting drug metabolism enzyme activity; I can analyze his abnormal intestinal flora composition that interacted unexpectedly with our prebiotic plan; I can also say that any innovative treatment carries risks, and medical progress is always accompanied by unforeseen costs." Zhang Lin spoke slowly, each word seemed to have weight.

"But can these explanations alleviate the patient’s suffering? Can they make his dermatitis disappear? Can they restore his trust in science?" Zhang Lin stared straight at Harrison, "No."

Harrison’s expression changed, from aggressive scrutiny to complex contemplation.

"So," Zhang Lin took a deep breath, "First, we have dispatched a team to Europe within 72 hours to deal with this case together with local doctors, bearing all expenses and being responsible for all subsequent treatments. Second, we have suspended the same program for all similar phenotype patients and are reanalyzing the data. Third, we invite international peers, including these twelve signed experts, to form an independent review committee, transparent in the full assessment of this matter."

He paused, then said, "But most importantly is the fourth point: we were wrong, not the theory, but we underestimated the extreme complexity of individual systems and failed to sufficiently collect unknown special case data, our error lies in the lack of practical experience."

In the monitoring room, Tang Shun gasped, "Did he admit it? Could this—"

"Wait." Song Zimo kept his eyes on the screen, "Look at Harrison’s reaction."

Harrison was indeed shocked. He had prepared a series of follow-up questions, ready to throw out when Zhang Lin defended himself, but the words "we were wrong" disrupted all his plans.

"Every major advancement in the history of science has been built on the courage to admit mistakes." Zhang Lin continued, his voice regaining a certain strength, "Pasteur admitted the failure of earlier vaccines, Fleming admitted the limitations in penicillin purification, even Einstein acknowledged the cosmological constant as his ’biggest blunder’. Mistakes are not terrible; what is terrible is the inability to face them, wrapping them in layers of rhetoric to make them appear as a part of success."

He stood up and bowed slightly to Harrison, "Thank you, thank you to those twelve experts, thank you to the European Center for their candor. Because of these doubts and reports, we will become better, the theory will become stronger, and future patients will receive safer treatments. Isn’t this the power of scientific self-correction?"

Harrison was silent for a full minute. Then, he turned off the voice recorder.

"Teacher Zhang," his voice turned gentle, "before I came, I expected to hear defense and counterattack. I didn’t expect..."

Zhang Lin smiled, and it was a sincere, bitter smile, "Professor Yang often says, medicine is an occupation for the humble, an occupation for the reverent because we are facing life, and life is always smarter than us."

The interview ended early. When Harrison left, he shook Zhang Lin’s hand, "I will report truthfully, thank you, Teacher Zhang."

"Thank you!" Zhang Lin nodded.

Harrison walked to the door and told the accompanying staff, "This conversation changed some of my stereotypes about the Chinese scientific community."

Soon, interview clips appeared online. In front of the institute, Harrison made a brief statement to the waiting media, "Today, I saw the most valuable qualities in science: honesty and courage. The response from Yang Ping’s team has made me more confident in the future of this theory."

The comment section was unusually free of arguments, filled instead with remarks such as "This is the demeanor of great nation science", "Admitting mistakes is true strength", and "I’m a fan now".

The sound of footsteps and laughter came from the corridor, it was colleagues finishing work. Zhang Lin packed his things and prepared to leave. When he passed the hall of honor, he paused. In the display case, those two Nobel Prize Medals quietly glowed under the light.

He suddenly understood why Yang Ping refrained from receiving the award.

Because true honor is not in standing under the spotlight receiving the medal, but in the unseen laboratories, in the face of difficult decisions, and in the courage to admit one’s mistakes, repeatedly choosing to adhere to the conscience of science.

And his "highlight moment" was not in effortlessly performing in front of the camera, but in the moment he put aside all performance and said, "We were wrong."

The clamor outside the wall would continue, influencers would still come to check in, the media would still pose sharp questions. But it didn’t matter, he already knew what to do: perform when it’s time to perform, admit mistakes when it’s time to admit mistakes. Between authenticity and strategy, find the path that safeguards science.