首页
外语
计算机
考研
公务员
职业资格
财经
工程
司法
医学
专升本
自考
实用职业技能
登录
外语
A triumph for scientific freedom This week’s Nobel Prize winners in medicine—Australians Barry J. Marshall and J. Robin Warr
A triumph for scientific freedom This week’s Nobel Prize winners in medicine—Australians Barry J. Marshall and J. Robin Warr
admin
2010-01-10
62
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."
If science is to advance, scientists need the ______ and the ______ to let their imaginations roam.
选项
答案
freedom; funding
解析
答案在第一段最后一句
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/PCt7777K
0
大学英语四级
相关试题推荐
【B1】【B2】
Underthecoverofdifferentbrands,______.Thephrase"potentialbuyer"(Line1,Para.3)mostprobablymeans______.
Inacompetitiveeconomy,theconsumerusuallyhasthechoiceofseveraldifferentbrandsofthesameproduct.Yetunderneathth
Fromthepassagewelearnhowadigitalcameraworkswithsomeprinciplesandprocesses.Somecompressionroutinesmakeuseof
Fromthepassagewelearnhowadigitalcameraworkswithsomeprinciplesandprocesses.Theflashmemorydevicesthatdigital
ElNinoisawarmoceancurrent______.Thispassageisdevotedtointroductionto______.
A、Heinformedthetouristsoftheiritinerary.B、Hetriedtosellatour.C、Heansweredthequestionsfromthetourists.D、Heta
AfterWorldWarIImostAustralianswerecautiousaboutprospectsforthefuture.InTasmaniantownsthe______and______wer
Bythetimeyouarrivehome,I_________________(已经动身去巴黎了).
Informationhighwaymeanspeoplecan______.Accordingtothelastparagraph,withtheincreaseduseofnetwork,peoplewill____
随机试题
如果外周阻力不变,每搏输出量增大,则动脉血压的变化为
实热型崩漏的治法是虚热型崩漏的治法是
法治与德治
影响资金等值的因素中,非正确选项()。
下列各图为某网络网中的一部分,满足工作A、B、C均完成后进行工作D,工作B、C均完成后进行工作E的要求的图为()。
根据以下资料。回答下列问题。2016年,全年原创首演剧目1423个,扶持了100名京剧、地方戏表演艺术家向200名青年演员传授经典折子戏。第十一届中国艺术节共汇聚67台参评参演剧目和1000余件美术作品,观众达40万人次。国家艺术基金2016年共
宋儒朱熹有诗云:“半亩方塘一鉴开,天光云影共徘徊。问渠那得清如许,为有源头活水来。”朱熹认为知识及做人的“源头活水”是()。
正是因为有了第二味觉,哺乳动物才能够边吃边呼吸。很明显,边吃边呼吸对保持哺乳动物高效率的新陈代谢是必要的。以下哪种哺乳动物的发现,最能削弱以上断言?
有如下程序段:inti=1;intj=4;intmain(){intj=i,i=8;cout
已知序列{17,18,60,40,7,32,73,65,85},采用冒泡排序法对该序列作降序排序时,第四趟的结果是【】。
最新回复
(
0
)