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

譯者: Ann Chen 審譯者: Carol Wang

[你能點出這些標題 要如何改進嗎？]

"New drug may cure cancer."

「新藥可能可以治癌症」

"Aspirin may reduce risk of heart attacks."

「阿司匹林可能會 降低心臟病發作的風險」

"Eating breakfast can help you lose weight."

「吃早餐可以幫助減重」

Health headlines like these flood the news,

像這樣充斥新聞的醫藥標題，

often contradicting each other.

往往相互矛盾。

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

那麼，你如何辨別 哪些是真正的健康議題

or a truly promising remedy,

或真正有希望的療法，

and what’s less conclusive?

以及哪些是較沒有確證的呢？

In medicine,

there’s often a disconnect between news headlines

醫學上，

新聞標題與其報導的 科學研究之間常不一致。

and the scientific research they cover.

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

這是因為標題旨在吸引注意──

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

當新聞做出重大宣佈時是最有效的。

By contrast,

相對地，

many scientific studies produce meaningful results

許多科學研究專注於 限定的特定問題時，

when they focus on a narrow, specific question.

才會產生有意義的結果。

The best way to bridge this gap

彌補這一差距的最佳方法

is to look at the original research behind a headline.

是去查看標題背後的原始研究。

We’ve come up with a simplified research scenario

針對下面三個標題， 我們分別給出了簡單的研究情境，

for each of these three headlines to test your skills.

來測試你的技巧。

Keep watching for the explanation of the first study;

接下來看第一項研究的解說，

then pause at the headline to figure out the flaw.

然後在標題處暫停，找出問題所在。

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

假定你點出問題所需要的信息 都已涵蓋在內了。

Let’s start with this hypothetical scenario:

我們先從這個假設場景開始：

a study using mice to test a new cancer drug.

一項使用老鼠 測試新抗癌藥物的研究。

The study includes two groups of mice,

該研究包括兩組老鼠，

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

一組用藥物治療，另一組用安慰劑。

At the end of the trial,

在研究結束時，

the mice that receive the drug are cured,

服用藥物的老鼠痊癒了，

while those that received the placebo are not.

而服用安慰劑的老鼠則沒有。

Can you spot the problem with this headline:

你能點出

「研究顯示新藥可能會治癒癌症」

"Study shows new drug could cure cancer"

這個標題的問題所在嗎？

Since the subjects of the study were mice,

因為研究對象是老鼠，

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

我們無法根據這項研究 來對人類疾病下定論。

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

實際上，新藥及治療的早期研究 並不在人體上執行。

If the early results are promising,

如果早期結果是可行的，

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

隨後的臨床實驗 會確認在人體是否也可行。

Now that you’ve warmed up,

現在你已小試牛刀，

let’s try a trickier example:

我們來試一個更棘手的例子：

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

「阿司匹林對心臟病發作 風險影響的研究」。

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

研究將一群男性隨機分為兩組，

The members of one group take aspirin daily,

一組成員每天服用阿司匹林，

while the others take a daily placebo.

而另一組每天服用安慰劑。

By the end of the trial,

實驗結束時，

the control group suffered significantly more heart attacks

對照組的心臟病發作

明顯多於服用阿司匹林組。

than the group that took aspirin.

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

根據這情況，

「阿司匹林可能降低心臟病發作 風險」的標題有什麼錯誤呢？

"Aspirin may reduce risk of heart attacks"

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

此例中，研究證據顯示 阿司匹林減少男性心臟病發作，

because all the participants were men.

因為所有參與者都是男性。

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

但「阿司匹林降低心臟病發作風險」 這樣的結論涵蓋太廣；

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

我們不能假定男性的結果 也適用於女性。

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

研究常根據地理位置、年齡、性別

or many other factors.

或許多其他因素來限制參與者。

Before these findings can be generalized,

在這些結果能被普遍適用前，

similar studies need to be run on other groups.

需要對其他群體進行類似的研究。

If a headline makes a general claim,

如果標題作了普遍適用的聲明，

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

它應該從多種研究群體獲得證據， 而不是單一研究。

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

你能把前兩題的技巧再提升一級嗎？

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

試試這個關於 吃早餐對減重影響的例子。

Researchers recruit a group of people who had always skipped breakfast

研究人員招募了一群不吃早餐的人，

and ask them to start eating breakfast everyday.

要求他們開始每天吃早餐。

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

參與者包括不同年齡和背景的男女。

Over a year-long period,

經過一年，

participants lose an average of five pounds.

參與者平均減了 5 磅。

So what’s wrong with the headline:

「吃早餐有助於減重」的標題

"Eating breakfast can help you lose weight"

有什麼問題呢？

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

實驗對象開始吃早餐後減重──

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

但我們不知道他們減重 是否是開始吃早餐的緣故；

perhaps having their weight tracked

也許是體重被追蹤，

inspired them to change their eating habits in other ways.

促使他們改變了飲食習慣。

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

為了排除某些其他因素 導致減重的可能性，

we would need to compare these participants

我們需要將這些參與者

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

與另一組在研究前及研究中

and continued to skip it during the study.

都不吃早餐的人進行比較。

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

標題真的不應該聲稱這研究成果

are generally applicable.

是普遍適用的。

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

如果研究本身 沒有對照組就做出斷言，

then you should question its credibility.

那麼你應該懷疑其可信度。

Now that you’ve battle-tested your skills

在虛擬研究和標題中實戰後，

on these hypothetical studies and headlines,

you can test them on real-world news.

你不妨在真實新聞中試試身手。

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

雖然完整的研究報告是付費的，

you can often find summaries of experimental design and results

實驗設計和結果的概要

in freely available abstracts,

還是可以在免費的摘要、

or even within the text of a news article.

甚至新聞報導中找到。

Individual studies have results

個別研究的結果

that don’t necessarily correspond to a grabby headline.

不一定非要寫出聳動的標題。

Big conclusions for human health issues

人類健康議題的重大結論，

require lots of evidence accumulated over time.

需要時間來累積大量證據。

But in the meantime,

但與此同時，

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

藉由超越標題的深入閱讀， 我們能和科學並駕齊驅。