HAN Yong-Gang
Abstract: Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) belongs to the category of primitive metaphysics, rather than the so-called “metaphysics” that emerged after the “controversy over science and metaphysics”. TCM has dual attributes of science and philosophy, with its scientific attribute being primary and its philosophical attribute secondary. The western scientific system is an empirical science system based on reductionism, whereas the ancient Chinese scientific system is an a priori science system based on ontology.
Keywords: Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), Metaphysics, Philosophy, Science.
“To be, or not to be, that is the question.” Shakespeare poses this profound question through Hamlet. Though famous, this question pertains merely to individual emotional confusion.
“Who am I? Where did I come from? Where am I going?” The tripartite query of ancient Greek philosopher Plato holds more universal significance, representing humanity’s ultimate 3 questions.
Regarding Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), I also pose an ultimate question: “Is TCM metaphysics, philosophy, or science?” This is a crucial question that the modern TCM community must confront and explain, and one that remains unresolved. It concerns the very survival of TCM. This is not alarmism; both domestic and international communities are awaiting a reasonable explanation of TCM’s disciplinary attributes.
Practitioners of TCM often proudly state, “Medicine is intention”. However, westerners and those educated in modern systems believe TCM is overly subjective and lacks objectivity; it relies too heavily on personal experience and not enough on scientific logic. In short, TCM is considered unscientific. So, how can people in and outside of China trust TCM? How can they dare to use an unscientific modality like TCM to treat illnesses?!
Yu Yunxiu graduated from Osaka Medical University in Japan in 1916. In 1917, Yu authored Ling Su Shang Dui [Discussions on Ling Shu and Su Wen]. Huangdi Neijing [The Yellow Emperor’s Inner Canon] is composed of Ling Shu [The Magic Pivot] and Su Wen [Plain Questions], and is considered the “Bible” of TCM. Ling Su Shang Dui ostensibly engages in a discussion, but in reality, it criticizes and invalidates Huangdi Neijing. Yu Yunxiu’s fundamental approach to invalidate TCM is to start by invalidating Huangdi Neijing; to invalidate Huangdi Neijing, Yu starts by invalidating yin, yang, and the 5 phases. “No clearly defined experiments, no solid evidence.” This is Yu Yunxiu’s standpoint for criticizing Huangdi Neijing. “What they call yin and yang is mysterious and inconceivable.” “As for the theory of the 5 phases, it is even more unfounded. In India and the west, there are 4 elements: earth, water, wind, and fire. In China, there are 5 elements: metal, wood, water, fire, and earth. Given the differences between the east and west, which one is true? It is indeterminable.” This is Yu Yunxiu’s basic rationale for negating yin, yang, and the 5 phases. Yu Yunxiu firmly believed that by breaking the theory of yin, yang, and 5 phases, the entire TCM system would collapse.
After Yu Yunxiu’s personal criticism of TCM, prominent cultural figures in the New Culture Movement, such as Liang Qichao, Liang Shuming, Zhang Taiyan, and Yan Fu, began collectively challenging the core theory of TCM—yin, yang, and the 5 phases, leading to the famous “controversy over science and metaphysics” in 1923. Science, representing western scientific principles, and metaphysics, representing philosophical principles, have 2 key distinctions: empirical verification and repeatability. Science can be empirically verified and repeated, while metaphysics cannot. TCM was thus labeled as metaphysics in this debate. The many cultural figures listed above have indeed made significant contributions in certain fields, but their research on the concepts of yin, yang, and the 5 phases was likely too superficial. As a result, they criticized or dismissed what they did not understand. When renowned scholars hold such attitudes, it is natural for the general public to agree with the opinions of these so-called experts and scholars.
To determine whether TCM is metaphysics, we must first define what constitutes metaphysics. According to Yan Zhitui of the Northern Qi dynasty in volume 3 of Yanshi Jiaxun [The Family Precepts of Master Yan], entitled “Diligent Study”: “Zhuangzi, Laozi [or Dao De Jing], and Zhouyi [or Yi Jing, Classic of Changes] are collectively referred to as the ‘3 profound [or metaphysical] texts’.” A primitive form of metaphysics emerged as a mode of philosophical thought during the Wei, Jin, Southern, and Northern dynasties, designating Laozi, Zhuangzi, and Zhouyi as the ‘3 profound texts’. Since their subjects of study are abstract metaphysical concepts rather than concrete physical matters, this body of thought is referred to as “the study of the profound and distant.” Thus, it is evident that the metaphysics of the “3 profound texts” falls within the realm of philosophy.
Yang Xiong of the Western Han dynasty stated in the Taixuanjing [The Classic of the Supreme Profound]: “The profound is the way of heaven, the way of earth, and the way of humanity; encompassing all 3 ways, it is thus named by heaven.” Primitive metaphysics belonged to the domain of science, encompassing the way of heaven, the way of earth, and the way of humanity. In brief, it is called the way of heaven; differentiated in detail, it is divided into the 3 attributes: heaven, earth, and humanity. Therefore, in ancient times, “metaphysics” was an absolutely positive term, belonging to the realms of philosophy and science, and was filled with positive energy.
In modern scientific and metaphysical debates, the essence of metaphysics has been distorted, with everything unknown or inexplicable by modern science being lumped into the realm of metaphysics. Disciplines like geomancy, TCM, astrology, physiognomy, and divination, known as the “5 techniques of Chinese metaphysics,” were all categorized under metaphysics by modern scholars. Consequently, the connotation of metaphysics evolved into a thoroughly derogatory term, diametrically opposed to science. To many modern individuals, TCM is synonymous with metaphysics, not science.
Therefore, the answer to the question of whether TCM is metaphysics is clear: TCM belongs to the primitive metaphysics category, rather than the so-called “metaphysics” that emerged after the “controversy over science and metaphysics”.
Next, is TCM, especially its theory of yin, yang, and the 5 phases, philosophical?
The modern textbook Zhongyi Jichu Lilun [Foundations of TCM Theory] defines the theories of yin, yang, and the 5 phases as follows: “The theory of yin and yang belongs to the category of ancient Chinese philosophical theory. The opposition and unity of yin and yang are the fundamental laws of movement and change in the universe. TCM uses the principles of interaction, opposition, mutual rootedness, waxing and waning, conversion, and spontaneous harmonization of yin and yang to understand and explain life, health, and disease.”
“The so-called 5 phase theory categorizes the attributes of things or phenomena based on the functional properties of wood, fire, earth, metal, and water. It discusses and deduces the relationships among things or phenomena and their complex laws of movement and change based on the principles of mutual generation and mutual restraint among the 5 phases. It is an important component of ancient Chinese materialist philosophy.”
Since the establishment of TCM universities in 1950, there have been 11 editions of TCM textbooks. Overall, textbooks clearly classify the theories of yin, yang, and the 5 phases as belonging to the category of ancient Chinese philosophy. However, is this classification reasonable? If TCM is merely philosophical, wouldn’t every TCM practitioner essentially be practicing philosophy rather than medicine?!
Imagine if we could travel back to ancient times and carefully consider what our ancestors’ greatest concern was. Of course, it was survival. Setting aside natural disasters and predatory animals, the key to survival was food. Food doesn’t appear out of thin air; our ancestors first needed to master agricultural techniques for planting and harvesting. The agricultural level at that time can be summarized as “dependent on the weather,” so the planting and harvesting of crops depended on advanced astronomy and calendar systems, which are part of ancient Chinese science. TCM originated from ancient Chinese science, especially astronomy and calendar systems. Astronomy was the first science in China and the calendar system was the first law in China. The ancient Chinese astronomical and calendar system formed the basis of other academic systems. Compared to the rest of the world, only the Chinese people placed such great importance on astronomy and calendar systems.
The text Guanzi [Writings of Master Guan] states: “When the granaries are full, we know the rites and customs; when we have enough clothing and food, we know honor and disgrace.” Modern people enjoy art such as music, theater, movies, and television, and often say “art originates from life.” In other words, life comes first and art follows. Art abstracts and elevates life. TCM is the same; it originated from ancient Chinese science and later evolved into ancient philosophy. The philosophical aspect of TCM emerged after our ancestors had solved the problem of survival. TCM has a dual nature of science and philosophy, with its scientific aspect preceding its philosophical aspect.
The Institute for the History of Natural Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences published a list of “85 major scientific and technological inventions and creations in ancient China” in 2015. Among them, 8 items, nearly 10%, are related to TCM, including the theory of channels and vessels, the 4 examinations, herbal foundation, the study of formulas, the system of forensic medicine, the classification system in the Bencao Gangmu [Herbal Foundation Compendium], acupuncture, moxibustion, and variolation. Based on this, it is clear and indisputable that TCM is a part of ancient Chinese science.
Some TCM scholars lament: “TCM can cure diseases, but it cannot cure the ignorance and superstition of modern people.” Now, in the historical process of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, we TCM practitioners have an obligation to step forward and reveal the scientific nature of TCM using language that modern people can understand.
The modern western scientific system is based on an empirical science system grounded in reductionism. Its characteristics include hypothesizing based on phenomena, proving through experiments, and forming theories through induction and summarization. It progresses from details to the whole and from micro to macro; it reduces the local to the global and continually revises previously established laws through practice. It is akin to completing a puzzle piece by piece to ultimately form a grand model.
The ancient Chinese scientific system is based on an a priori science system grounded in ontology. Its characteristic is progressing from source to flow, from macro to micro. It first grasps the core laws of the universe and builds a grand model, then extends the core laws to different fields through deduction and with the help of the grand model. It is like understanding architectural laws, drawing blueprints, constructing models, and then building individual houses and buildings in different regions. It is like the Zen Buddhist concept of “pointing directly to the human mind, seeing one’s true nature, and becoming a Buddha,” from the inside out, or like the Big Bang, originating from a singularity. TCM stems from this a priori science system. In other words, TCM is a science, but unlike western medicine, it is a science rooted in a different system.
Chapter 69 of Huangdi Neijing, entitled “Great Treatise on Mutations at Qi Intersections” states: “Those who are good at describing heaven’s principles must respond to people. Those who are good at describing ancient times must be verified by the present. Those who are good at describing qi must manifest [what they describe] in material things. Those who are good at describing responses must follow the transformation of heaven and earth. Those who are good at describing transformation must understand the principles of spirit light.”
The western empirical science system focuses on “local details”, while the Chinese a priori science system focuses on “overall directions”. The western empirical science system centers on “the material realm”, while the Chinese a priori science system centers on “heaven, earth, and humanity”. The western empirical science system separates time and space; the Chinese a priori science system unifies time and space. The western empirical science system studies the earth, heaven, people, and things from a static perspective, separating them from each other; the Chinese a priori science system studies them from a dynamic perspective, closely integrating them. Thus, chapter 2 of Zhuangzi, entitled “On the Equality of Things” states: “Heaven and earth are born with me, and all things are one with me.” While the west advocates “putting humanity first”, this perspective is limited to that of white westerners. The Chinese a priori scientific system truly embodies “putting humanity first” with all people on Earth as its focus!
These 2 scientific systems have different cores and references, and the terms used by each system are also different. For example, the western empirical scientific system refers to the “natural world”, while the Chinese a priori scientific system refers to “heaven, earth, and humanity”. The western empirical scientific system refers to “matter”, while the Chinese a priori scientific system refers to “forms” and “receptacles”. The western empirical scientific system refers to “fields”, “particles”, “energy”, and “information”, while the Chinese a priori scientific system refers to “qi”. The western empirical scientific system refers to the “4 fundamental forces”, while the Chinese a priori scientific system refers to “mutual engendering and mutual restraining”, and so on. As modern Chinese people, we should not only be familiar with western terminology, but also understand the terms that have been passed down in China for thousands of years.
Life is the most advanced and complex form of material movement in the world, and humans are the most advanced and complex life forms among all living beings. Modern western medicine, based on reductionism, has deviated from the complexity inherent in life in the real world. This complexity also accounts for the “incommensurability” between TCM and western medicine. Western medicine, being an empirical scientific system founded on reductionism, is suitable for studying simple phenomena. In contrast, TCM, rooted in ontological and a priori scientific principles, is well-suited for exploring complex phenomena, such as life.
TCM possesses both scientific and philosophical attributes. The primary focus of its study—human health and disease—is characterized by complexity, making TCM a pioneer in the global study of complexity. The 21st century has been recognized as the century of complexity science; TCM, as a pioneer in the exploration of complexity, is destined to become a leader in the new medical revolution in this new century and millennium.
About the author：
Han Yonggang earned his doctoral degree from the Institute of Basic Research in Clinical Medicine at the China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences. He studied under Wang Yongyan, a member of the Chinese Academy of Engineering, and Professor Gao Sihua, former president of Beijing University of Chinese Medicine. He is currently employed at Chelsea Natural Health Clinic and the London Academy of Chinese Acupuncture. He serves as vice-chairman of the EU TCM Wuyunliuqi Association and is a standing member of the World Federation of Chinese Medical Societies Expert Committee on Prescription-Dose Effects. He also serves as an executive council member of the World Federation of Chinese Medical Societies Targeted Diagnosis and Treatment Committee and the World Federation of Chinese Medical Societies Pulse Manifestation Committee. In addition, he is the head of the Education and Academic Department of the Huatuo International Medical Research Association, academic director of the Chinese Acupuncture and Herbal Medicine Alliance UK (CAHMA), associate editor of the New England Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, and vice-chairman of the Swiss edition of the World Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine.
Email:[email protected] WeChat：yonggang01
中醫是玄學、哲學，還是科學？
作者：韓永剛
摘要：中醫屬於原始的玄學範疇，而不是“科玄之爭”之後的所謂“玄學”。中醫具有科學、哲學的雙重屬性，中醫的科學屬性在前，哲學屬性在後。西方的科學體系是基於還原論的經驗性科學體系，中國古代的科學體系是基於本體論的先驗性科學體系。
關鍵字：中醫，玄學，哲學，科學。
“To be, or not to be, that is the question.” “生存還是毀滅，這是一個問題！”莎士比亞借哈姆雷特之口，有了這震撼一問。這一問雖然很著名，卻只不過屬於個人的情感困惑。
“Who Am I ? Where Did I Come From? Where Am I Going?”“我是誰？我從哪裡來？我要到哪裡去?”古希臘哲學家柏拉圖的三聯問更加具有普世意義，堪稱人類的終極三問。
關於中醫，筆者也提出一個終極之問：“Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) is metaphysics, philosophy, or science?” “中醫是玄學、哲學，還是科學？”這是現代中醫界必須要面對、必須要解釋，並且至今沒有解釋清楚的關鍵問題，事關中醫的生死存亡。筆者在此並非危言聳聽，實在是國內、國外的人士都在等著我們對中醫的學科屬性做出合理的闡釋。
中醫人掛在嘴邊的“醫者，意也”，並且引以為豪。西方人，或者國內接受過現代教育的人卻認為中醫的主觀性太強，客觀性不足；個人經驗性太強，科學邏輯性不足。簡而言之，中醫不科學。那麼中外民眾怎麼敢於相信中醫？怎麼敢於使用不科學的中醫來治病呢？！
餘雲岫，1916年畢業於日本大阪醫科大學。1917年，餘雲岫著《靈素商兌》。《黃帝內經》由《靈樞》和《素問》組成，相當於中醫的《聖經》。《靈素商兌》名義上是商兌，實際上是批判、否定《黃帝內經》。否定中醫，從否定《黃帝內經》入手；否定《黃帝內經》，從否定陰陽五行入手，這是餘雲岫的基本思路與方法。“無明確之實驗，無鞏固之證據。”這是餘雲岫批判《黃帝內經》的立足點。“彼所謂陰陽者，神秘不可思議。”“至於五行之說，尤屬不根。其在印度、歐西分四行，曰地、曰水、曰風、曰火。中夏則別為五行，曰金，曰木，曰水，曰火，曰土，是東西已不相同，孰得其真？已不可辨。”這是餘雲岫否定陰陽五行的基本依據。餘雲岫堅信，擊破陰陽五行學說，整個中醫體系就會崩潰。
余雲岫個人對中醫發難之後，新文化運動中的著名文化人，梁啟超、梁漱溟、章太炎、嚴複等名人，也開始了對中醫學的核心理論——陰陽五行的集體發難，1923年發生了著名的“科玄之爭”。科，科學也。玄，玄學也。科學與玄學有兩個重要的區分特徵：是否能夠實證，是否能夠重複。科學能夠實證，能夠重複；玄學不能實證，不能重複。中醫從此被扣上了玄學的帽子。以上列舉的眾多文化名人，確實在某些領域做出了巨大的貢獻，但是他們對陰陽五行的研究恐怕太淺薄，以至於讀不懂就罵，讀不懂就否定。著名學者們持這種態度，普通大眾當然會認同這些所謂專家、學者的意見。
中醫是不是玄學，首先要定義何為玄學。北齊顏之推《顏氏家訓•勉學》：“《莊》、《老》、《周易》，總謂三玄。”原始的玄學是魏晉南北朝時期出現的哲學思想，將《老子》、《莊子》、《周易》稱作“三玄”，由於其研究物件是抽象的形而上，而不是形而下的具體事物，因此被稱為“玄遠之學”。由此可見，“三玄”的玄學屬於哲學範疇。
（西漢）楊雄《太玄經》：“夫玄也者，天道也，地道也，人道也，兼三道而天名之。”原始的玄學屬於科學範疇，囊括了天道、地道、人道。簡言之，稱為天道；詳細區分，則分天、地、人，三才之道。可見，在古代，“玄學”是絕對的褒義詞，屬於哲學、科學範疇，充滿了正能量。
而在近代科學與玄學的論戰中，玄學的內涵被曲解，一切不可知的、近現代科學不能解釋的，都被包攬進了玄學的範疇。被稱為“玄門五術”的風水學、中醫學、命理學、觀相學、占卜學等等，統統被近代人歸入到了玄學的範疇。到了現代，玄學這個詞彙的內涵已經演變為一個徹底的貶義詞，玄而又玄、神乎其神、子虛烏有、不接地氣，玄學徹底成為科學的對立面。在很多現代人的認識中，中醫就是玄學，不是科學。
至此，關於中醫是不是玄學的答案很清楚了：中醫屬於原始的玄學範疇，而不是“科玄之爭”之後的所謂“玄學”。
接下來，中醫，尤其是中醫的陰陽五行學說是不是哲學呢？
現代教科書《中醫基礎理論》對陰陽學說和五行學說的定義：“陰陽學說，屬於中國古代哲學理論範疇，陰陽的對立統一是天地萬物運動變化的根本規律。中醫學以陰陽交感、對立、互根、消長、轉化及自和規律，認識和說明生命、健康和疾病。”
“所謂五行學說，是用木、火、土、金、水功能屬性來歸類事物或現象的屬性，並以五者之間相互資生、相互制約的規律來論述和推演事物之間或現象之間的相互關係及其複雜的運動變化規律的學說，是我國古代唯物主義哲學的重要內容。”
自從1950年建立中醫藥大學至今，中醫教科書已經出版了11版。總體上，教科書明確將陰陽五行學說歸屬為中國古代哲學範疇。那麼，教科書的這種界定是否合理呢？如果中醫僅僅是哲學，那麼每位中醫師豈不是頂著哲學家的帽子在做醫生的工作？！
想像一下，如果我們能夠穿越回到遠古時期，設身處地，仔細思考，祖先們當時面臨的最大問題是什麼？當然是生存。自然災害、猛獸毒蟲暫且不談，生存的關鍵是糧食。糧食不會憑空而來，祖先們首先要掌握的技術就是糧食的種植和收穫。當時的農業水準可以總結為“靠天吃飯”，因此糧食的種植、收穫取決於高水準的天文學、曆法學，屬於中國古代科學。中醫源於中國古代的科學，尤其是天文學、曆法學。天文學是中國第一學，曆法學是中國第一法，古中國天文曆法體系是其它學術體系的基礎。世界上只有中華民族如此重視天文學、曆法學。
《管子》：“倉廩實，則知禮節；衣食足，則知榮辱。”現代人喜歡音樂、戲劇、電影、電視等藝術，也經常說“藝術來源於生活”。也就是說，生活在前，藝術在後，藝術是對生活的抽象和昇華。中醫也是如此，中醫源於中國古代科學，之後才發展為古代哲學，中醫的哲學化是發生在祖先解決生存問題之後的事情。中醫具有科學、哲學的雙重屬性，中醫的科學屬性在前，哲學屬性在後。
中國科學院科學史研究所於2015年公佈的“中國古代重要科技發明創造”85項中，屬於中醫的有8項，占比接近10%，包括經脈學說、四診法、本草學、方劑學、法醫學體系、《本草綱目》分類體系、針灸、人痘接種術。據此，中醫屬於中國古代科學，明確無誤。
有中醫學者感歎：“中醫能夠治病，卻治不好現代人的愚昧和迷信”。在當今中華民族偉大復興的歷史進程中，我輩中醫人責無旁貸，自當挺身而出，用現代人能夠聽懂的語言，揭示中醫的科學屬性。
近現代西方的科學體系是基於還原論的經驗性科學體系，其特點是根據現象來假設，通過實驗來證明，通過歸納總結形成理論，從流到源，從微觀到宏觀，將局部還原為整體，通過實踐不斷地對之前得出的規律進行修正；如同做拼圖遊戲，一片兩片千萬片，終於成就大模型。
中國古代的科學體系是基於本體論的先驗性科學體系，其特點是從源到流，從宏觀到微觀，先掌握宇宙核心規律，搭建好大模型，再將核心規律通過演繹、借助大模型向不同領域進行擴展；如同掌握了建築規律，畫好圖紙，搭建好模型，再把一個個房屋、一棟棟大樓分別建設在不同的地區；如同佛家禪宗的“直指人心，見性成佛”，由內而外；亦如同宇宙大爆炸，起於奇點。中醫就是來源於這個先驗性科學體系。也就是說，中醫是科學，但是與西醫不同，是源自不同體系的科學。
《黃帝內經•氣交變大論》：“善言天者，必應於人；善言古者，必驗於今；善言氣者，必彰於物；善言應者，同天地之化；善言化言變者，通神明之理。”
西方式的經驗科學體系的優勢在“局部細節”，中國式的先驗性科學體系的優勢在“整體方向”。西方式的經驗科學體系以“物”為中心，中國式的先驗性科學體系以“人”為核心。西方式的經驗科學體系，時間與空間分離；中國式的先驗性科學體系，時間與空間合一。西方式的經驗科學體系從靜止的角度研究天、地、人、物，四者相互分離；中國式的先驗性科學體系從動態的角度研究天、地、人、物，四者緊密合一。故《莊子•齊物論》曰：“天地與我並生，而萬物與我為一。”西方提出“以人為本”，但是僅僅以西方白種人為本。中國式的先驗性科學體系才真的是“以人為本”，以全體地球人為本！
兩個科學體系的核心、參照物不同，兩個體系使用的術語也不同。例如，西方式的經驗性科學體系稱之為“自然界”，中國式的先驗性科學體系稱之為“天地人”；西方式的經驗性科學體系稱之為“物質”，中國式的先驗性科學體系稱之為“形”、“器”；西方式的經驗性科學體系稱之為“場”、“粒子”、“能量”、“資訊”，中國式的先驗性科學體系稱之為“氣（炁）”；西方式的經驗性科學體系稱之為“四大基本力”，中國式的先驗性科學體系稱之為“相生、相克”；等等。作為現代中華兒女，不但要知道西方式的術語，更要懂得在中國已經流傳萬年的術語。
生命是世界上最高級、最複雜的物質運動方式，人是所有生命中最高級、最複雜的生命體。近現代西方醫學基於還原論，背離了真實世界中生命的複雜性，複雜性也是造成中醫與西醫“不可通約”的學術鴻溝。西醫是基於還原論的經驗性科學體系，適合於研究簡單性的事物；中醫是基於本體論的先驗性科學體系，適合於研究複雜性的事物，例如生命。
中醫具有科學、哲學的雙重屬性，其研究物件主體——人的健康和疾病，具有複雜性，中醫是全世界研究複雜性的先驅。21世紀是複雜性科學的世紀，在新世紀、新千年的未來發展中，中醫也必將成為新醫學革命的領導者！
作者簡介：
韓永剛，中國中醫科學院臨床醫學基礎研究所博士，師從中國工程院王永炎院士和原北京中醫藥大學校長高思華教授。現就職於Chelsea Natural Health Clinic和倫敦中醫針灸學院。擔任歐洲中醫五運六氣學會副會長，世界中聯方藥量效專業委員會常務理事，世界中聯態靶專業委員會常務理事，世界中聯脈象專業委員會常務理事，世界華佗醫學研究會教育和學術部長，英國中醫聯盟學會學術部長，新英格蘭中醫雜誌副主編，世界中醫藥瑞士版副主任委員。
