It wasn’t until after my retirement that I had the time to read scientificpapers in medical journals with anything like close attention. Until then, Ihad, like most doctors, read the authors’ conclusions and assumed that they boresome necessary relation to what had gone before. I had also naively assumed thatthe editors had done their job and checked the intellectual coherence andprobity of the contents of their journals.
It was only after I started to write a weekly column about the medicaljournals, and began to read scientific papers from beginning to end, that Irealized just how bad — inaccurate, misleading, sloppy, illogical — much of themedical literature, even in the best journals, frequently was. My discoverypleased and reassured me in a way: for it showed me that, even in advancing age,I was still capable of being surprised.
I came to recognize various signs of a bad paper: the kind of paper thatpurports to show that people who eat more than one kilo of broccoli a week were1.17 times more likely than those who eat less to suffer late in life frompernicious anaemia. 46) There is a great deal of this kind of nonsense in themedical journals which, when taken up by broadcasters and the lay press,generates both health scares and short-lived dietary enthusiasms.
Why is so much bad science published?
A recent paper, titled ‘The Natural Selection of Bad Science’, published onthe Royal Society’s open science website, attempts to answer this intriguing andimportant question.
According to the authors, the problem is not merely that people do badscience, as they have always done, but that our current system of careeradvancement positively encourages it. They quote ananonymous researcher who saidpithily: ‘Poor methods get results.’ What is important is not truth, let aloneimportance, but publication, which has become almost an end in itself. There hasbeen a kind of inflationary process at work: 47) nowadays anyone applying for aresearch post has to have published twice the number of papers that would havebeen required for the same post only 10 years ago. Never mind the quality, then,count the number. It is at least an objective measure.
In addition to the pressure to publish, there is a preference in journalsfor positive rather than negative results. To prove that factor a has no effectwhatever on outcome b may be important in the sense that it refutes ahypothesis, but it is not half so captivating as that factor a has somemarginally positive statistical association with outcome b. It may be anelementary principle of statistics that association is not causation, but inpractice everyone forgets it.
The easiest way to generate positive associations is to do bad science, forexample by trawling through a whole lot of data without a prior hypothesis. Forexample, if you took 100 dietary factors and tried to associate them with flatfeet, you would find some of them that were associated with that condition,associations so strong that at first sight they would appear not to have arisenby chance.
Once it has been shown that the consumption of, shall we say, red cabbageis associated with flat feet, one of two things can happen: someone will try toreproduce the result, or no one will, in which case it will enter scientificmythology. The penalties for having published results which are notreproducible, and prove before long to be misleading, usually do not cancel outthe prestige of having published them in the first place: and therefore it isbetter, from the career point of view, to publish junk than to publish nothingat all. A long list of publications, all of them valueless, is alwaysimpressive.
48)Attempts have been made to (control this inflation命题人改编为curb this kindtendency),(for example by trying, when it comes to career advancement这部门被出题人删除),to incorporate some measure of quality as well as quantity into the assessmentof an applicant’s published papers. This is the famed citation index, that is tosay the number of times a paper has been quoted elsewhere in the scientificliterature, the assumption being that an important paper will be cited moreoften than one of small account. 49) This would be reasonable enough if it werenot for the fact that scientists can easily arrange to cite themselves in theirfuture publications, or get associates to do so for them in return for similarfavors.
Boiling down an individual’s output to simple, objective metrics, such asnumber of publications or journal impacts, entails considerable savings in time,energy and ambiguity. Unfortunately, the long-term costs of using simplequantitative metrics to assess researcher merit are likely to be quitegreat.
50) If we are serious about ensuring that our science is both meaningfuland reproducible, we must ensure that our institutions
incentivize that kind ofscience.
In other words, what we need is more emphasis on personal contact and evennepotism in the way careers are advanced: but tell it not in Gath, publish itnot in the streets of Askelon; lest the daughters of the Philistinesrejoice…
翻译解析：
46) There is a great deal of this kind of nonsense in the medical journalswhich, when taken up by broadcasters and the lay press, generates both healthscares and short-lived dietary enthusiasms.
第一步：切分句子
1.There is a great deal of this kind of nonsense in the medicaljournals
2., when taken up by broadcasters and the lay press,
3.which generates both health scares and short-lived dietaryenthusiasms.
第二步：翻译分句
1.There is a great deal of this kind of nonsense in the medicaljournals(常识点：there be句型)
医学期刊中存在着大量的谬论
2., when taken up by broadcasters and
the lay press,(常识点：被动句)
由播送公司和消息媒体所盘踞的
3.which generates both health scares and short-lived dietaryenthusiasms.(常识点：定语从句)
这不但致使了康健发急，还引发了短暂的饮食狂热
第三步：整合句子
医学期刊中存在大量的这类谬论，若是由播送公司和消息媒体报导，不但会致使康健发急，还将引发短暂的饮食狂热
47) nowadays anyone applying for a research post has to have publishedtwice the number of papers that would have been required for the same post only10 years ago.
第一步：切分句子
1.nowadays anyone applying for a research post
2.has to have published twice the number of papers
3.that would have been required for the same post only 10 years ago.
第二步：翻译分句
1.nowadays anyone applying for a research post (常识点：非谓语作后置定语)
现在任何申请钻研职位的人
2.has to have published twice the number of papers (常识点：比力布局)
必需颁发两倍的论文
3.that would have been required for the same post only 10 yearsago.(常识点：定语从句)
在10年前申请一样职位所必要的
第三步：整合句子
现在，任何申请钻研职位的人都
必需颁发两倍于10年前一样职位所需的论文。
48) Attempts have been made to curb this kind tendency to incorporate somemeasure of quality as well as quantity into the assessment of an applicant’spublished papers.
第一步：切分句子
1.Attempts have been made to curb this kind tendency
2.to incorporate some measure of quality as well as quantity
3.into the assessment of an applicant’s published papers.
第二步：翻译分句
1.Attempts have been made to curb this kind tendency (常识点：被动句)
人们已在试图停止这类趋向
2.to incorporate some measure of quality as well as quantity(常识点：固定词组)
以此将一些质量和数据权衡连系在一块儿
3.into the assessment of an applicant’s published papers.(常识点：长介词短语)
在评估申请人颁发的论文评料中
第三步：整合句子
人们已在试图停止这类趋向，将一些质量和数目权衡连系在申请人颁发的论文的评估傍边。
49) This would be reasonable enough if it were not for the fact thatscientists can easily arrange to cite themselves in their future publications,or get associates to do so for them in return for similar favors.
第一步：切分句子
1.This would be reasonable enough
2.if it were not for the fact that scientists can easily arrange to citethemselves in their future publications,
3.or get associates to do so for them in return for similar favors.
第二步：翻译分句
1.This would be reasonable enough (常识点：无)
这将会是很是公道的
2.if it were not for the fact that scientists can easily arrange to citethemselves in their future publications, (常识点：状语从句)
若是不是由于科学家可以很轻易地在将来的出书物中援用本身
3.or get associates to do so for them in return for similarfavors.(常识点：固定词组)
亦或是让同事这么做来换取雷同的益处
第三步：整合句子
若是不是由于科学家可以很轻易地在将来的出书物中援用本身的论文，亦或是让同事这么做来换取雷同的益处，这将会是很是公道的。
50)If we are serious about ensuring that our science is both meaningful andreproducible, we must ensure that our institutions incentivize that kind ofscience.
第一步：切分句子
1.If we are serious about ensuring
2.that our science is both meaningful and reproducible,
3.we must ensure that our institutions incentivize that kind ofscience.
第二步：翻译分句
1.If we are serious about ensuring(常识点：状语从句)
若是咱们确切想确保
2.that our science is both meaningful and reproducible,(常识点：宾语从句)
科学既成心义又可再生
3.we must ensure that our institutions incentivize that kind ofscience.(常识点：宾语从句)
咱们就必需确保咱们的轨制可以鼓励这类科学前进。
第三步：整合句子
若是咱们确切想确保科学既成心义又可复制，那末咱们就必需确保咱们的轨制可以鼓励这类科学前进。
