She presented data charts, including perplexing anomalous results and initial solutions. During the explanation, she gradually forgot her nervousness, her eyes shining with pure enthusiasm for scientific questions.
"This discovery is interesting," said Professor Li, "but how do you ensure safety? An excessive immune response could lead to autoimmunity or a cytokine storm."
"That’s exactly what we are researching," Jiang Jitong replied, "We are looking for a ’safety window’—adjusting the chemical structure of the vaccine boosters, or pre-regulating the intestinal tract microbiota to turn excessive reactions into controlled strong responses. This requires nurous experints, but the preliminary data is promising."
The inspection team mbers exchanged glances, visible admiration in each other’s eyes.
At noon, Yang Ping invited the inspection team to lunch at the institute’s cafeteria. No special arrangents were made; it was just a regular work al—simple three dishes and one soup.
"The atmosphere here reminds of the laboratories I worked in during my youth," Professor Carlson remarked, "People discuss science without regard to seniority, unafraid of debates. Such an environnt nurtures true innovation."
"Science requires equal dialogue," Yang Ping said, "Not only dialogue between researchers but also between researchers and research subjects—whether they are cells, animals, or patients. We listen to the data’s voice, even if it doesn’t et our expectations."
After lunch, the inspection team visited more laboratories and communicated with different teams. At three in the afternoon, as per the schedule, Yang Ping needed to have a closed-door eting with the inspection team.
The eting was held in a small eting room. On either side of the long table were mbers of the Nobel Committee and Yang Ping with his core team.
"Professor Yang," Professor Carlson began straightforwardly, "Your systemic regulation theory indeed holds revolutionary potential. However, so mbers of the committee are concerned that it might be too theoretical, with unclear clinical application prospects. How do you respond to such concerns?"
Yang Ping gestured for Song Zimo to turn on the projector. The screen showed a world map, marked with dozens of light spots.
"These are clinical centers applying the systemic regulation concept," Yang Ping said, "So are testing personalized immune regulation plans, so developing diagnostic tools based on systems thinking, and so exploring the connection between tabolism and neurological diseases. Although most are still in early stages, they have already accumulated so encouraging cases."
He presented several anonymous case reports: a woman with a complex autoimmune disease whose illness was controlled through a multi-system regulation plan; a depression patient unresponsive to traditional treatnts who improved through tabolic and immune regulation; even so early cancer cases where systemic regulation as an adjunct treatnt showed potential in enhancing effects and reducing side effects.
"These are not large-scale clinical trials, insufficient to prove the theory’s universal effectiveness," Yang Ping said honestly, "But they are important proof of concept, showing the possibilities of new thinking directions. Scientific progress often begins with small-scale exploration."
Dr. Sara asked, "Your theory emphasizes ’holism’ and ’complexity,’ but this also brings challenges of reproducibility. Each patient is a unique system. How do you ensure the predictability of the treatnts?"
"That’s a key question," Yang Ping nodded, "Our answer is that although the human body is individual, it also has commonalities, through more refined stratification and more intelligent predictive models. Traditional dicine tends to categorize patients into a limited number of types, but systems thinking requires us to acknowledge diversity while seeking common patterns."
He presented a patient stratification system under developnt: based on multi-omics data (genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, tabolomics, microbio) and clinical phenotypes, patients are divided into hundreds of subtypes. Each subtype has a specific systemic imbalance pattern corresponding to different regulation strategies.
"That sounds like a huge amount of work," Professor Li said.
"Yes, which is why we need artificial intelligence’s help," Yang Ping switched the display to show a machine learning platform interface, "We are training models to identify patterns from massive data and predict intervention effects. This is not to replace doctors’ judgnts, but to provide stronger decision support."
The eting lasted for two hours. The committee mbers’ questions ca one after another, from theoretical foundations to clinical practice, from technical challenges to ethical considerations. Yang Ping and the team responded to each, not avoiding difficulties or exaggerating achievents.
Finally, Professor Carlson said, "Professor Yang, I have one more personal question. Your decision not to go to Stockholm to receive the award is rare in Nobel Prize history. Could you tell us the real reason?"
The eting room fell silent. All eyes focused on Yang Ping.
After a mont of thought, Yang Ping slowly spoke, "This is not out of disrespect for the Nobel Prize. On the contrary, it’s because I highly respect the spirit it represents, the recognition of scientific exploration. And in my understanding, this exploration happens in the laboratory, at the clinical front line, and in daily interactions with the team and patients."
He looked out the window at the institute’s courtyard, where several young researchers were walking and discussing, gesturing animatedly.
"If I went to Stockholm, I would stand under the spotlight, give a speech, and receive congratulations. This is, of course, an honor. But at the sa ti, etings here would miss my involvent, Lele’s treatnt plan design would be delayed, and young researchers’ questions wouldn’t get tily answers. For , the greatest value of the Nobel Prize is its ability to inspire more people to engage in scientific exploration. And my best contribution is to continue exploring itself."
Professor Carlson was silent for a while, then stood up and extended his hand to Yang Ping, "Thank you for your honesty. Today we have seen not just an outstanding scientist, but a true embodint of the spirit of science."
After the inspection team left, the institute returned to calm. But change had already happened invisibly.
Chu Xiaoxiao found Yang Ping, "Professor, after today’s communication with the committee experts, I have so new ideas. About the research on that strain’s tabolites, perhaps we can explore its application in regulating autoimmunity, not just enhancing vaccines."
"Let’s hear it," Yang Ping encouraged.
"If we can precisely control the concentration and timing of this tabolite’s action, maybe we can ’train’ the immune system to be less sensitive to self-antigens. This could be safer and more effective than broadly suppressing the immune system."
Yang Ping’s eyes lit up, "Great idea. Write up a preliminary proposal, and we’ll discuss it next week."
"Yes!" Chu Xiaoxiao left excitedly.
Elsewhere, Lele’s parents called. The child had a good day.
In the evening, Yang Ping finished his day’s work and was preparing to go ho when Tang Shun and Song Zimo ca to him.
"Professor, the committee gave us so feedback," Tang Shun said, "They were deeply impressed by our team’s cooperative atmosphere. Professor Carlson specifically ntioned that in too many places, he sees research driven by personal heroism, but here, he saw a true scientific community."
"Also," Song Zimo added, "They understood your decision not to accept the award. Professor Carlson said they would respect your choice and ensure that this spirit is conveyed at the award ceremony."
"Thank you," Yang Ping said, "Please handle the preparations for going to Stockholm. Rember, you are representing the entire team and everyone who supports us."
"We’ll be ready," Tang Shun said earnestly.
On the way ho, Yang Ping rembered what Professor Carlson said upon parting, "Professor Yang, history of science will rember two kinds of people: those who made great discoveries, and those ntors who pioneered new research models and cultivated a new generation of scientists. You are both."
User Comments
0 comments from readers