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
44
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."
At first, Marshall couldn’t produce the crowning scientific proof of his claim.
选项
A、Y
B、N
C、NG
答案
A
解析
本题是第六段的第一句
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/xCt7777K
0
大学英语四级
相关试题推荐
【B1】【B3】
【B1】【B7】
【B1】【B2】
Whatthepassagetellsuscanbesummarizedbythestatementthat______.Accordingtothepassage,thosewholiveinatraditi
Accordingtothepassage,developmentalistswouldagreewithwhichofthefollowingviews?Theauthorbelievesthat______.
Digitaltechnologiesreallybegantotakeformwhen______.Thepassageisbasedontheauthor’s______.
A、Indifferent.B、Surprised.C、Worried.D、Confident.CWhichofthefollowingismostsuitabletodescribetheauthor’sattitude?
Thispassageismainlyaboutsomesocialandculturalchangesof1970sand1980s.Althoughoncetalkedandsungaboutopenly,_
A、Toplaybasketballwithfriendsfromwork.B、Totryoutforthecompanybaseballteam.C、Togetinshapeandcompeteinacycl
A、ProductionofTVsetswillbestoppedduetoitsbadeffects.B、ThenumberofTVsetswillremainthesameinthefuture.C、Te
随机试题
论述地理环境对埃及和两河流域文明的影响。(北京大学2015年世界史真题)
简述OSI体系中运输层的主要功能。
长腿石膏管型可用于下列哪种骨折的治疗
麻疹初期,透发麻疹为要,若病兼发热恶寒、鼻塞流清涕、舌苔白、指纹淡红,当用下列何种透疹药煎汤温服,促使麻毒外发为宜
住宅开发项目在进行市场分析时应重点分析()等方面的内容。
芦笙是黎族最有代表性的乐器。()
简述多路复用的两种基本形式。
关于微波,下列说法正确的是:
下列关于输入掩码属性的叙述中,正确的是
Whatdoscientiststellusaboutjobsinforeseeablefuture?
最新回复
(
0
)