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
58
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."
Chinese scientists will win the Nobel Prize soon.
选项
A、Y
B、N
C、NG
答案
C
解析
文中并没有提到中国科学家获得诺尔奖的时间问题
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/RCt7777K
0
大学英语四级
相关试题推荐
【B1】【B14】
Accordingtothepassage,developmentalistswouldagreewithwhichofthefollowingviews?Theauthor’smainpurposeinwriting
Joeisnotgoodatsports,but__________(说到数学),heisthebestintheclass.
A、Hewantstochangethetimeoftheappointment.B、HewantstomakeanappointmentwithMr.Smith.C、Hewantstomakesurethat
Digitaltechnologiesreallybegantotakeformwhen______.Byusingthephrase"staytunedforgoodnews"(Para.3)theauthor
AfterWorldWarIImostAustralianswerecautiousaboutprospectsforthefuture.UndertheleadershipofPrimeMinisterChifle
Languagelearningbeginswithlistening.Individualchildrenvarygreatlyintheamountoflisteningtheydobeforetheystarts
A、Abookaboutcomputerprogramming.B、Abookaboutcomputerscience.C、Abookaboutnaturalscience.D、Abookaboutphysics.BW
Thepurposeofthisselectionisto______.Oneofthesolutionssuggestedtoimprovetheconditionsofunderdevelopmentis___
HarlemRenaissancereferstoaperiodlastingformorethan10years,duringwhichagroupofAfricanandAmericanwritersprodu
随机试题
依据观察者是否参与被观察者的活动,可把观察分为()。
下列项目中,属于会计基本职能的是()。
A.正中神经损伤B.尺神经损伤C.肌皮神经损伤D.桡神经深支损伤小指不能内收提示
核酸变性后,可发生()。
研究者或其指定的代表必须向受试者说明的临床试验的详细情况包括
梁与柱的连接如图,钢材为Q235A·F(A3F),采用B级螺栓连接,螺栓直径d=20mm,孔径d0=20.5mm。
概述型评估报告的内容必须与评估的预期用途相一致,其不包括()。
我国对于非公开募集基金的监管的重点集中在()环节。
黄龙景区内黄龙后寺的门匾额上字迹从左、中、右不同角度看去,分别是()
下列作家作品配对有误的一项是()。
最新回复
(
0
)