[你能點出這些標題 要如何改進嗎?]
"New drug may cure cancer." "Aspirin may reduce risk of heart attacks." "Eating breakfast can help you lose weight."
「新藥可能可以治癌症」 「阿司匹林可能會 降低心臟病發作的風險」 「吃早餐可以幫助減重」
Health headlines like these flood the news, often contradicting each other. So how can you figure out what’s a genuine health concern or a truly promising remedy, and what’s less conclusive?
像這樣充斥新聞的醫藥標題, 往往相互矛盾。 那麼,你如何辨別 哪些是真正的健康議題 或真正有希望的療法, 以及哪些是較沒有確證的呢?
In medicine, there’s often a disconnect between news headlines and the scientific research they cover. That’s because a headline is designed to catch attention— it’s most effective when it makes a big claim. By contrast, many scientific studies produce meaningful results when they focus on a narrow, specific question.
醫學上, 新聞標題與其報導的 科學研究之間常不一致。 這是因為標題旨在吸引注意── 當新聞做出重大宣佈時是最有效的。 相對地, 許多科學研究專注於 限定的特定問題時, 才會產生有意義的結果。 彌補這一差距的最佳方法
The best way to bridge this gap is to look at the original research behind a headline. We’ve come up with a simplified research scenario for each of these three headlines to test your skills. Keep watching for the explanation of the first study; then pause at the headline to figure out the flaw. Assume all the information you need to spot the flaw is included.
是去查看標題背後的原始研究。 針對下面三個標題, 我們分別給出了簡單的研究情境, 來測試你的技巧。 接下來看第一項研究的解說, 然後在標題處暫停,找出問題所在。 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: a study using mice to test a new cancer drug. The study includes two groups of mice, one treated with the drug, the other with a placebo. At the end of the trial, the mice that receive the drug are cured, while those that received the placebo are not.
我們先從這個假設場景開始: 一項使用老鼠 測試新抗癌藥物的研究。 該研究包括兩組老鼠, 一組用藥物治療,另一組用安慰劑。 在研究結束時, 服用藥物的老鼠痊癒了, 而服用安慰劑的老鼠則沒有。
Can you spot the problem with this headline: "Study shows new drug could cure cancer"
你能點出 「研究顯示新藥可能會治癒癌症」
Since the subjects of the study were mice, we can’t draw conclusions about human disease based on this research. In real life, early research on new drugs and therapies is not conducted on humans. If the early results are promising, clinical trials follow to determine if they hold up in humans.
這個標題的問題所在嗎? 因為研究對象是老鼠, 我們無法根據這項研究 來對人類疾病下定論。 實際上,新藥及治療的早期研究 並不在人體上執行。 如果早期結果是可行的, 隨後的臨床實驗 會確認在人體是否也可行。
Now that you’ve warmed up, let’s try a trickier example: a study about the impact of aspirin on heart attack risk. The study randomly divides a pool of men into two groups. The members of one group take aspirin daily, while the others take a daily placebo. By the end of the trial, the control group suffered significantly more heart attacks than the group that took aspirin.
現在你已小試牛刀, 我們來試一個更棘手的例子: 「阿司匹林對心臟病發作 風險影響的研究」。 研究將一群男性隨機分為兩組, 一組成員每天服用阿司匹林, 而另一組每天服用安慰劑。 實驗結束時, 對照組的心臟病發作 明顯多於服用阿司匹林組。
Based on this situation, what’s wrong with the headline: "Aspirin may reduce risk of heart attacks"
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?
In this case, the study shows evidence that aspirin reduces heart attacks in men, because all the participants were men. But the conclusion “aspirin reduces risk of heart attacks” is too broad; we can’t assume that results found in men would also apply to women. Studies often limit participants based on geographic location, age, gender, or many other factors. Before these findings can be generalized, similar studies need to be run on other groups. If a headline makes a general claim, it should draw its evidence from a diverse body of research, not one study.
此例中,研究證據顯示 阿司匹林減少男性心臟病發作, 因為所有參與者都是男性。 但「阿司匹林降低心臟病發作風險」 這樣的結論涵蓋太廣; 我們不能假定男性的結果 也適用於女性。 研究常根據地理位置、年齡、性別 或許多其他因素來限制參與者。 在這些結果能被普遍適用前, 需要對其他群體進行類似的研究。 如果標題作了普遍適用的聲明, 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? Try this example about the impact of eating breakfast on weight loss. Researchers recruit a group of people who had always skipped breakfast and ask them to start eating breakfast everyday. The participants include men and women of a range of ages and backgrounds. Over a year-long period, participants lose an average of five pounds.
你能把前兩題的技巧再提升一級嗎? 試試這個關於 吃早餐對減重影響的例子。 研究人員招募了一群不吃早餐的人, 要求他們開始每天吃早餐。 參與者包括不同年齡和背景的男女。 經過一年, 參與者平均減了 5 磅。
So what’s wrong with the headline: "Eating breakfast can help you lose weight"
「吃早餐有助於減重」的標題 有什麼問題呢?
The people in the study started eating breakfast and lost weight— but we don’t know that they lost weight because they started eating breakfast; perhaps having their weight tracked inspired them to change their eating habits in other ways. To rule out the possibility that some other factor caused weight loss, we would need to compare these participants to a group who didn’t eat breakfast before the study and continued to skip it during the study. A headline certainly shouldn’t claim the results of this research are generally applicable. And if the study itself made such a claim without a comparison group, then you should question its credibility.
實驗對象開始吃早餐後減重── 但我們不知道他們減重 是否是開始吃早餐的緣故; 也許是體重被追蹤, 促使他們改變了飲食習慣。 為了排除某些其他因素 導致減重的可能性, 我們需要將這些參與者 與另一組在研究前及研究中 都不吃早餐的人進行比較。 標題真的不應該聲稱這研究成果 是普遍適用的。 如果研究本身 沒有對照組就做出斷言, 那麼你應該懷疑其可信度。
Now that you’ve battle-tested your skills on these hypothetical studies and headlines, you can test them on real-world news. Even when full papers aren’t available without a fee, you can often find summaries of experimental design and results in freely available abstracts, or even within the text of a news article. Individual studies have results that don’t necessarily correspond to a grabby headline. Big conclusions for human health issues require lots of evidence accumulated over time. But in the meantime, we can keep on top of the science, by reading past the headlines.
在虛擬研究和標題中實戰後, 你不妨在真實新聞中試試身手。 雖然完整的研究報告是付費的, 實驗設計和結果的概要 還是可以在免費的摘要、 甚至新聞報導中找到。 個別研究的結果 不一定非要寫出聳動的標題。 人類健康議題的重大結論, 需要時間來累積大量證據。 但與此同時, 藉由超越標題的深入閱讀, 我們能和科學並駕齊驅。