首页
登录
职称英语
A triumph for scientific freedom This week’s Nobel
A triumph for scientific freedom This week’s Nobel
游客
2023-07-30
37
管理
问题
A triumph for scientific freedom
This week’s Nobel Prize winners in medicine—Australians Barry J. Marshall and J. Robin Warren— toppled the conventional wisdom in more ways than one. They proved that most ulcers were caused by a lowly bacterium, which was an outrageous idea at the time. But they also showed that if science is to advance, scientists need the freedom and the funding to let their imaginations roam.
Let’s start with the Nobel pair’s gut instincts. In the late 1970s, the accepted medical theory was that ulcers were caused by stress, smoking, and alcohol. But when pathologist Warren cranked up his microscope to a higher-than-usual magnification, he was surprised to find S-shaped bacteria in specimens taken from patients with gastritis. By 1982, Marshall, only 30 years old and still in training at Australia’s Royal Perth Hospital, and Warren, the more seasoned physician to whom he was assigned, were convinced that the bacteria were living brazenly in a sterile, acidic zone—the stomach—that medical texts had declared uninhabitable.
Marshall and Warren’s attempts to culture the bacteria repeatedly failed. But then they caught a lucky breaker rather, outbreak. Drug-resistant staph was sweeping through the hospital. Preoccupied with the infections, lab techs left Marshall’s and Warren’s petri dishes to languish in a dark, humid incubator over the long Easter holiday. Those five days were enough time to grow a crop of strange, translucent microbes.
Marshall later demonstrated that ulcer-afflicted patients harbored the same strain of bacteria. In 1983, he began successfully treating these sufferers with antibiotics and bismuth (the active ingredient in Pepto-Bismol). That same year, at an infectious disease conference in Belgium, a questioner in the audience asked Marshall if he thought bacteria caused at least some stomach ulcers. Marshall shot back that he believed bacteria caused all stomach ulcers.
Those were fighting words. The young physician from Perth was telling the field’s academically pedigreed experts that they had it all wrong. "It was impossible to displace the dogma," Marshall explained to me in a jaunty, wide-ranging conversation several years ago. "Their agenda was to shut me up and get me out of gastroenterology and into general practice in the outback."
At first, Marshall couldn’t produce the crowning scientific proof of his claim: inducing ulcers in animals by feeding them the bacterium. So in 1984, as he later reported in the Medical Journal of Australia. "a 32-year-old man, a light smoker and social drinker who had no known gastrointestinal disease or family history of peptic ulceration"—a superb test subject, in other words—" swallowed the growth from’ a flourishing three-day culture of the isolate."
The volunteer was Marshall himself, Five days later, and for seven mornings in a row, he experienced the classic and unpretty symptoms of severe gastritis.
Helicobacter pylori have since been blamed not only for the seething inflammation ,of ulcers but also for virtually all stomach cancer. Marshall’s antibiotic treatment has replaced surgery as standard care. And the wise guy booed off the stage at scientific meetings has just won the Nobel Prize.
What does all this have to do with scientific freedom? Today, US government funding favors "hypothesis-driven" rather than "hypothesis-generating" research. In the former, a scientist starts with a safe supposition and conducts the experiment to prove or disprove the idea. "If you want to get research funding; you better make sure that you’ve got the experiment half done," Marshall told me. "You have to prove it works before they’ll fund you to test it out."
By contrast, in hypothesis-generating research, the scientist inches forward by hunch, gathering clues and speculating on their meaning. The payoff is never clear. With today’s crimped science budgets and intense competition for grants, such risky research rarely gets funded. Proceeding on intuition, Mar- shall told me, "is a luxury that not many researchers have."
It helps, he added, to be an outsider. "The people who have got a stake in the old technology arc never the ones to embrace the new technology. It’s always someone a bit on the periphery--who hasn’t got anything to gain by the status quo—who is interested in changing it." [br] In 1983, Warren began successfully treating sufferers with antibiotics and bismuth.
选项
A、Y
B、N
C、NG
答案
B
解析
从第四段前两句话可知本句话错误
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/2883630.html
相关试题推荐
Theaimofcontrolledscientificexperimentsis______.[br]Modernsciencecame
Antarcticaisscientificallyimportantinthat______.[br]Theword"discover"
Antarcticaisscientificallyimportantinthat______.[br]Whichofthefollowi
Antarcticaisscientificallyimportantinthat______.[br]Thereasonforthed
Scientificresearchhasrevealedthatthroughouttheanimalworld,communication
AtriumphforscientificfreedomThisweek’sNobel
AtriumphforscientificfreedomThisweek’sNobel
AtriumphforscientificfreedomThisweek’sNobel
AtriumphforscientificfreedomThisweek’sNobel
AtriumphforscientificfreedomThisweek’sNobel
随机试题
Duringthe1980s,unemploymentandunderemploymentinsomecountrieswasas
国家电网有限公司供电服务“十项承诺”明确,城市电网平均供电可靠率达到(),居
对于管理会计职业道德中的诚信,下面哪个描述不正确()。A.诚信,包括诚实和信守承
给家兔静脉注射抗利尿激素后尿量减少,尿液渗透压增高。该动物尿量减少的主要机制是远
下列选项中,不属于瑞士官方语言的是( )。A.德语 B.法语 C.英语
下面四个图形中,只有一个是由上面的四个图形拼合(只能通过上、下、左、右平移)而成
人们经常听到“信息”和“控制”这两个字眼,但往往说不清它们的确切含义。实际上,我
反洗钱国际组织及许多国家都将反洗钱恐怖融资和反扩散融资纳入反洗钱工作范畴,关于恐
苏联心理学家彼得罗夫斯基以中学生为研究对象设计了一个实验:给学生一份问卷,问卷中
经过银行存款余额调节表调节后的存款余额,是企业可动用的银行存款实有数。()
最新回复
(
0
)