Can you spot the problem with these headlines? (Level 1) - Jeff Leek & Lucy McGowan

翻译人员: Yue Zhang 校对人员: Lipeng Chen

"New drug may cure cancer."

“新型药品可能治愈癌症”,

"Aspirin may reduce risk of heart attacks."

“阿司匹林可降低心脏病发作的风险”,

"Eating breakfast can help you lose weight."

“吃早餐有助于减肥”，

Health headlines like these flood the news,

类似的健康新闻标题泛滥成灾，

often contradicting each other.

也常常自相矛盾。

So how can you figure out what’s a genuine health concern

那么，你如何能分辨出 什么才是真正的健康问题

or a truly promising remedy,

或真正有前景的治疗手段，

and what’s less conclusive?

而哪些又不太可信呢？

In medicine,

there’s often a disconnect between news headlines

在医学上，

新闻标题和它们所涉及的科学研究

and the scientific research they cover.

往往出现断层。

That’s because a headline is designed to catch attention—

这是因为，新闻标题的设计 旨在吸引注意力——

it’s most effective when it makes a big claim.

当其夸大效果时最为有效。

By contrast,

相反，

many scientific studies produce meaningful results

许多科学研究的结果是非常有意义的，

when they focus on a narrow, specific question.

它们只专注于某个很小的具体问题。

The best way to bridge this gap

弥补这两者之间的断层的最佳方式

is to look at the original research behind a headline.

则是着眼于标题背后的原始研究。

We’ve come up with a simplified research scenario

我们为这三个新闻标题 均设定了一个简化的研究情景

for each of these three headlines to test your skills.

来测试你的（辨别）能力。

Keep watching for the explanation of the first study;

继续观看第一项研究的解释，

then pause at the headline to figure out the flaw.

当出现标题时， 暂停视频来找出其中的逻辑错误。

Assume all the information you need to spot the flaw is included.

假设找出逻辑问题的所有必要信息 都被包含其中。

Let’s start with this hypothetical scenario:

那我们从这一个假设情景开始吧：

a study using mice to test a new cancer drug.

一项研究用老鼠来测试 一种新型抗癌药物。

The study includes two groups of mice,

这项研究采用两组老鼠，

one treated with the drug, the other with a placebo.

一组用药物， 另一组用安慰剂。

At the end of the trial,

在试验结尾，

the mice that receive the drug are cured,

药物组老鼠被治愈，

while those that received the placebo are not.

而安慰剂组老鼠没有被治愈。

Can you spot the problem with this headline:

你能从这个标题中发现问题吗：

"Study shows new drug could cure cancer"

“研究表明新药能治愈癌症”

Since the subjects of the study were mice,

因为研究对象是老鼠，

we can’t draw conclusions about human disease based on this research.

我们不能基于这项研究 而对人类疾病（的药物治疗）作出结论。

In real life, early research on new drugs and therapies is not conducted on humans.

在实际生活中，新药和治疗方法的 早期研究并不会在人类身上进行。

If the early results are promising,

如果早期研究结果有前景，

clinical trials follow to determine if they hold up in humans.

临床试验会进一步判断 它们是否会在人体上起作用。

Now that you’ve warmed up,

现在你已经有了基础，

let’s try a trickier example:

接下来我们再看一个更有意思的案例：

a study about the impact of aspirin on heart attack risk.

关于阿司匹林对心脏病发作风险 的影响的一项研究。

The study randomly divides a pool of men into two groups.

这项研究将一群人随机分为两组。

The members of one group take aspirin daily,

其中一组人员每天服用阿司匹林，

while the others take a daily placebo.

而另一组每天服用安慰剂。

By the end of the trial,

在试验结尾，

the control group suffered significantly more heart attacks

对照组人员心脏病发作的次数明显更多

than the group that took aspirin.

相比服用阿司匹林组人员。

Based on this situation, what’s wrong with the headline:

基于这样的情景， 以下标题有什么问题：

"Aspirin may reduce risk of heart attacks"

“阿司匹林能降低心脏病发作风险”

In this case, the study shows evidence that aspirin reduces heart attacks in men,

在这个案例中，研究证明阿司匹林减少了 男性（患者）的心脏病发作次数，

because all the participants were men.

因为所有的参与者都是男性。

But the conclusion “aspirin reduces risk of heart attacks” is too broad;

但是 “阿司匹林降低了心脏病发作风险” 的这一结论太宽泛；

we can’t assume that results found in men would also apply to women.

我们不能假设（试验中）男性患者的结果 会同样适用于女性患者。

Studies often limit participants based on geographic location, age, gender,

研究常常根据地理位置、年龄、 性别或许多其他因素，

or many other factors.

来限制参与者。

Before these findings can be generalized,

在这些研究结果能被普遍推广之前，

similar studies need to be run on other groups.

需要对多组不同的 其他参与者进行类似的研究。

If a headline makes a general claim,

如果标题要作一个普遍适用性申明，

it should draw its evidence from a diverse body of research, not one study.

它应该从多种不同的研究获取证据， 而不是凭借单项研究。

Can you take your skills from the first two questions to the next level?

那么从前两个问题中， 你能将你的辨别能力进一步提升吗？

Try this example about the impact of eating breakfast on weight loss.

那么再看一个案例， 关于吃早餐对减肥的影响。

Researchers recruit a group of people who had always skipped breakfast

研究者招纳了一组人员， 他们总是不吃早饭，

and ask them to start eating breakfast everyday.

并且让他们每天开始吃早饭。

The participants include men and women of a range of ages and backgrounds.

参与者包括男性和女性， 有着不同的年龄范围和背景。

Over a year-long period,

在一年之久的这段期间，

participants lose an average of five pounds.

参与者平均减少了五磅体重。

So what’s wrong with the headline:

所以，下面这则标题有什么问题呢：

"Eating breakfast can help you lose weight"

“吃早餐能帮助你减少体重”

The people in the study started eating breakfast and lost weight—

参与这项研究的人 开始吃早饭，体重下降——

but we don’t know that they lost weight because they started eating breakfast;

但是我们并不知道 他们体重下降是否因为开始吃早饭；

perhaps having their weight tracked

也许是记录他们的体重

inspired them to change their eating habits in other ways.

影响了他们， 让他们改变了饮食的习惯。

To rule out the possibility that some other factor caused weight loss,

要排除其他因素 会造成体重下降的可能，

we would need to compare these participants

我们需要将这些研究参与者

to a group who didn’t eat breakfast before the study

与另一组人员进行对比， 这一组（对照组）人员在实验之前不吃早餐，

and continued to skip it during the study.

实验过程中也继续不吃早餐。

A headline certainly shouldn’t claim the results of this research

当然，一个新闻标题 不能宣称这项研究的结果

are generally applicable.

是普遍适用的。

And if the study itself made such a claim without a comparison group,

并且，如果研究本身 不采用对照组就作出断言，

then you should question its credibility.

那么你应该质疑它的可信度。

Now that you’ve battle-tested your skills

既然，通过这些假设性研究和标题，

on these hypothetical studies and headlines,

你完成了辨别能力的实战训练，

you can test them on real-world news.

你不妨在真实新闻中试试身手。

Even when full papers aren’t available without a fee,

即便当你没有付费， 不能阅读全篇文章时，

you can often find summaries of experimental design and results

实验设计和结果的概要

in freely available abstracts,

也可以在免费的文章摘要，

or even within the text of a news article.

甚至新闻报道中找到。

Individual studies have results

个别研究的结果

that don’t necessarily correspond to a grabby headline.

并不需要一个夺人眼球的标题。

Big conclusions for human health issues

人类健康问题的重大结论，

require lots of evidence accumulated over time.

需要日积月累的大量（实验）证据。

But in the meantime,

但与此同时，

we can keep on top of the science, by reading past the headlines.

通过超越标题的深入阅读， 我们则能与科学并驾齐驱。