NEWS CENTER

新闻中心

奥博资讯

媒体报道

体系论文

首页

Face Belongs to the Circle, Truth Belongs to All Humanity

发布时间：

2026-08-20

Face Belongs to the Circle, Truth Belongs to All Humanity

Sun Zuodong

In the long course of scientific development, one often encounters a thought-provoking dilemma. When a set of subversive questions is brought to light and placed before the disciplinary community, what unfolds is not always immediate experimental verification—sometimes it is silence, hesitation, or deliberate avoidance.

More often than not, what holds back progress is not necessarily insufficient experimental equipment, nor a complete lack of funding, but the face of the circle, the inertia of established paths, and concerns about personal academic reputation.

The old paradigm has operated for many years. Generations of scholars have conducted research, written papers, and trained students within this framework; textbooks are built upon it, and various research projects advance along established directions. If a competing hypothesis is proposed, directly pointing to a deviation in the understanding of underlying mechanisms—like reversed plumbing or inverted circuit polarity—once this judgment holds, it means a vast body of prior fundamental knowledge needs to be re-examined. For practitioners within the system, this is emotionally difficult to accept.

Thus a dilemma arises: should one preserve the dignity of the circle and choose to avoid verification, or set aside honor and disgrace, remain loyal to objective facts, and proceed with a decisive experiment?

One must understand: face belongs to a small circle, but truth belongs to all humanity.

The reputation of circles, the personal connections among colleagues, and the dignity of prior research are all local matters. If there is a fundamental deviation in the understanding of life's underlying mechanisms, what is affected is not a single type of disease, but nearly all major and difficult illnesses faced by humanity. From neurodegenerative diseases to cardiovascular disorders, to tumors and aging-related problems, the root cause of the long-standing lack of substantive breakthroughs in many stubborn diseases may lie in a misalignment in the understanding of underlying mechanisms. Countless patients place their hopes for survival on the progress of life science; these fundamental verifications that ought to be conducted cannot be shelved because of the embarrassment of academic circles.

I have proposed two origami windmill theoretical models. The first is the Potassium Channel Origami Windmill Shared Pore Model, developed based on the related research of Agre and MacKinnon. The second is the DNA Origami Windmill Tetramer Model. Together with the Theory of Dove-like Particles, these two models pose another fundamental causal puzzle in life science.

The Theory of Dove-like Particles focuses on exploring the causes and mechanisms of neurodegenerative diseases. "Jiuzi" is derived from the Chinese idiom "the dove occupies the magpie's nest": the dove represents non-essential cations, the magpie represents potassium ions, and the nest represents the occupancy sites of potassium ions on the inner side of the cell membrane. The core view of the Theory of Dove-like Particles is that the source of pathogenesis is non-essential cations seizing the membrane positions of potassium ions, reducing the membrane potential and causing abnormal apoptosis of brain cells; while the well-known amyloid plaques are aggregates of cellular remains left behind after neuronal death, which are a consequence of the disease, not its cause.

The current mainstream Aβ amyloid hypothesis regards amyloid substances as the culprit, believing that amyloid proteins first poison cells, which then causes neuronal death.

Which is cause and which is effect is by no means a matter of textual speculation. Once cause and effect are reversed, all drug research and development tracks for related diseases will go astray. Global pharmaceutical companies have spent vast amounts of funding attacking problems along established paths, yet have repeatedly failed. We must ask: where do the initial pathogenesis-related substances ultimately come from? If the judgment of the source is wrong, no matter how much subsequent effort is made, it may yield half the result with twice the effort.

The thinking derived from the two origami windmill models is not limited to the realms of medicine and physiology. It touches the boundary between matter and consciousness, and is expected to build a bridge for scientific examination across the cognitive divide between materialism and idealism, science and metaphysics, guiding humanity to reconsider the ultimate questions of philosophy: why does life exist, where do humans come from, and where are we going, further inquiring into the origin of life and the fundamental nature of the universe. Such questions are destined to become major directions that carbon-based civilization must continuously explore in the twenty-first century and even the twenty-second century. Many of these questions sound unorthodox and may even challenge long-established cognition.

Within academia, a similar alarming situation can arise. Faced with anomalous phenomena that existing theories cannot explain, some researchers do not confront the problems directly, but instead choose to downplay them and deliberately minimize contradictions; once their views are challenged, they easily swing to the extremes of total affirmation or total negation. Clinging to established positions takes priority over pursuing objective facts—this is not the posture science should have. Whether it is total acceptance or complete rejection, both deviate from the core of scientific truth-seeking.

Today is no longer an era when only a few top journals monopolize the voice, nor can capital confine thought. Self-media and preprints leave public traces through multiple channels; hypotheses, logical deductions, and actionable falsification plans are all made public. There is no need for anyone to verbally acknowledge that my views are correct. I have already prepared for the worst: if decisive experiments produce results proving that my related hypotheses cannot hold, I am willing to accept them calmly.

Science allows mistakes. What is truly shameful is not proposing a hypothesis that is later falsified, but deliberately avoiding the verification of major questions when experimental conditions are clearly available. Debate, mockery, and cold treatment cannot solve problems; only experimental data is the final judge. Decisive experiments do not lie—they are the ultimate arbiters of all disputes. This is an open challenge to the global academic community, expecting the qualified scientific community to complete objective verification through decisive experiments.

I do not ask any authority to publicly take a side, nor do I ask anyone to praise these thoughts, nor do I wish to be drawn into endless verbal debates. I only appeal for one simple thing: uphold the conscience of scientists, stand on the basis of all humanity, consider the common well-being of past, present, and future generations, confront these fundamental questions concerning the underlying logic of life, and please test them with experiments. The dignity of circles, when placed before the overall destiny of humanity, weighs almost nothing.

If wrong, it is because my scholarship is insufficient; if right, it is because human cognition has taken a step forward. Regardless of the outcome, this step must be taken.

The mission of science has never been to maintain the dignity of the old system, but to continuously approach the truth. No matter how harsh this truth sounds, no matter how much established cognition it may overturn, it should have the opportunity to be examined by experiments. Set aside all worldly identities and glory, and lay the underlying questions bare in the sunlight. Personal honor and disgrace have long been put aside; all that is considered is for the common well-being of all humanity.

History will not remember the face of any small circle; it will only remember the truths confirmed by evidence.

Disclaimer: The related deductions in this article belong to theoretical hypotheses, which have not yet been confirmed by decisive experiments, and are not intended for clinical diagnosis and treatment reference. Everything remains to be further verified in the laboratory.