國外的打假課 HBO名嘴炮轟僞科學

On Mother’s Day, John Oliver delivered the mother of allscientific mockeries. His aim: to debunk the type of “studies”typically cited on morning talk shows such as NBC’s Today thatpurport to challenge conventional medical wisdom withsurprising new data.

就在母親節那天，美國HBO電視臺名嘴、《上週今夜秀》的主持人約翰•奧利弗扮演了一把“僞科學鬥士之母”。包括NBC電視臺《今日》(Today)在內的一些早間新聞脫口秀節目，不時會引用所謂最新“研究成果”的聳人聽聞的數據來挑戰傳統醫學智慧。奧利弗此次“手撕”的就是這樣的科研結果。

Illustrating how such information gets blown out of proportion by a revved-up news cycle thatthrives on out-of-context and unconfirmed breakthroughs of limited scientific merit, the host ofHBO’s Last Week Tonight delivered a trash-talking civics lesson as a comedy of errors.

爲了解釋媒體是如何斷章取義，並且發揚強大的宣傳機器，將一些科學價值有限的科研進展吹得天花亂綴的，奧利弗給觀衆們上了一堂學術打假課。

“There are so many studies being thrown around, they can seem to contradict one another,”Oliver said Sunday. “In just the last few months, we’ve seen studies about coffee that claim it mayreverse the effects of liver damage, help prevent colon cancer, decrease the risk of endometrialcancer and increase the risk of miscarriage.”

“現在到處都能看到所謂的研究結果，而它們有些是相互矛盾的。”奧利弗在本週日的節目中開炮道：“就在最近幾個月，還有所謂的科研成果聲稱，喝咖啡能逆轉肝損傷，並且有助於預防結腸癌，降低子宮內膜癌的風險，但同時也會增加流產的風險。”

“Coffee today is like God in the Old Testament,” he continued. “It will either save you or kill youdepending on how much you believe in its magic powers.”

他繼續道：“如今的咖啡就像《舊約》裏的上帝。它可能會救你的命，也可能殺掉你，這取決於你有多相信它的神力。”

Publicity-hungry scientists

渴望出名的科學家

Problem A, according to the British satirist’s report, is a rush to marketplace that finds scientistsunder constant pressure to publish research papers in order to land funding and academic academia, as in Hollywood, sexy sells. “Scientists know nobody is publishing a study called“Nothing is Up with Acai Berries,” Oliver noted.

這位英國嘲諷達人在節目中稱，之所以會出現這種現象，問題之一在於科學界都在急着奔向市場。科學家們爲了獲得資金和學術終身職位，常年承受着必須發表科研論文的壓力。而學術界也像好萊塢一樣，通常是最“熱辣”的課題反響最好。奧利弗指出：“科學家們都知道，沒人會發表一篇名叫《巴西莓沒啥療效》的研究論文。”

Worse, such exploratory studies are seldom double checked by other scientists. “There is noreward for being the second person to discover something,” the host said. “There is no NobelPrize for fact checking. Incidentally, ‘There is no Nobel Prize for fact checking’ is a motivationalposter in Brian Williams’ MSNBC dressing room.”

更糟糕的是，這種探索性的研究結果很少會由其他科學家再覈實一遍。“對於任何發現來說，第二個發現它的人都是拿不到獎勵的。對研究成果進行覈實的人不可能拿到諾貝爾獎。順帶說一句，‘諾貝爾獎不會發給真相檢查者’也是布萊恩•威廉姆斯貼在MSNBC電視臺更衣室裏的勵志海報上的詞兒。(此處又是在黑威廉姆斯炮製假新聞的事兒。)

Dumbed down science

鬱悶的科學

From there, he explained, scientific press releases further dumb-down and misrepresent thestudies’ informational content. And by the time broadcast news reports mainline those intopopular consciousness, the unconfirmed facts take on a life of their own. “Some of this is on us,the viewing audience,” Oliver said. “We like fun, poppy science that we can share like gossip. AndTV news producers know it.”

奧利弗繼續解釋道，除此之外，科技媒體還會發布進一步斷章取義的報道，並對這些科研成果的內容信息進行誤讀。等到廣播電視新聞節目大張旗鼓地將這些已被高度簡化的知識灌輸給普羅大衆時，這些未經確認的事實也有了自己的生命力。“這個問題的部分責任也在我們廣大觀衆。人們都喜歡有趣的科學養生知識，這樣我們就可以在朋友圈傳來傳去了。而電視新聞的製片人們也明白這一點。”

Exhibit A: KTVU News report from last year stating that drinking one to three glasses ofchampagne per week may delay the onset of dementia and Alzheimer’s disease. “Fantastic news!”an anchorman snorted.

舉個例子：KTVU電視臺去年的一則新聞報道稱，每週喝一到三杯香檳，可能會推遲癡呆症和阿爾茨海默症的發作時間。“這消息簡直好得不得了!”電視主持人說道。

“No it isn’t!” said Oliver. “Aside from the fact that if you are celebrating with champagne threetimes a week, your standards of celebration need to be much higher!” More to the point, it turnsout that widely cited study was conducted on rats. Which is problematic considering testsconducted on lab rodents are not always applicable to humans. “How do you not tell people that?And how do you not show them photos of the experiments?” Oliver railed, cutting away to asupposed photo of the experiments: a pair of hipster rats wearing fashionable hats and holdingflutes of champagne near giant lines of cocaine. “Those are chic rats!”

“但並非這麼回事!”奧利弗繼續說：“更何況，如果你每週開三次香檳慶祝好事，其實你的慶祝標準也該提高了。” 更重要的是，事實證明，許多被媒體廣泛引用的科研成果都是在老鼠身上實驗的。而這相當有問題，因爲有些測試對實驗室的小白鼠管用，未必對人類也管用。“你爲什麼不告訴人們這一點?你爲什麼不把實驗的照片給他們看?”奧利弗質問到此處，將畫面切換到了一組所謂的“實驗用小白鼠”上：兩隻頗有嬉皮士派頭的小老鼠各戴一頂非常時髦的帽子，手裏端着香檳，身邊是一排排相比之下顯得十分巨大的可卡因粉。“這些老鼠真時尚啊!”

Even Ted Talks are suspect

連Ted演講也很可疑

But Oliver made clear that “morning show-style science” isn’t the exclusive province of pointed toward a 2011 Ted Talk by Paul Zak, during which the neuroeconomist extolled a“moral molecule:” the hormone oxytocin which is manufactured by the human body during acertain physical exchange. “Here’s your prescription from Dr. Love,” Zak says, referring to himselfin the third person in a clip from the Ted Talk. “Eight hugs a day. We have found that people whorelease more oxytocin are happier.”

不過奧利弗也指出，“早間新聞秀”式的半吊子科學並非只是電視臺的專寵。他提到了2011年由保羅•扎克主講的一次Ted演講。在這次演講中，這位神經經濟學家對一種“道德分子”大加吹捧。這種神奇的分子其實就是人體所分泌的一種激素——催產素，它在人體的某些身體接觸的過程中也會分泌。“這就是姓‘愛’的醫生給你開的處方。”扎克在那次演講中這樣說道，這位“愛醫生”顯然說的就是他自己。“每天8個擁抱。我們發現，分泌催產素更多的人會更快樂。”

Grimacing, Oliver proceeded to gleefully shred “Dr. Love.” “First of all, don’t call yourself Dr. Love,”he said. “That’s the name a tabloid gives a dentist who ejaculated on his sedated patients. Andsecond, there’s no way I would be happier giving eight hugs a day. I’m English! That’s fourlifetimes’ worth of hugs.”

奧利弗做了個鬼臉，然後繼續歡快地手撕“愛醫生”。“首先，不要叫自己‘愛醫生’，那是路邊小報給對着麻醉的病人擼管的多情牙醫起的名字。其次，每天跟人擁抱8次也不可能讓我更快樂。我是英國人!我們活四輩子才能擁抱這麼多次。”

From there, Oliver pointed out another scientific research paper from the journal BiologicalPsychiatry views the idea of increased oxytocin leading to increased happiness “with skepticism.”Ergo: “When a stranger calling himself Dr. Love offers to hug you eight times a day, say no!” thecomedian exclaimed.

然後，奧列弗又拿出一篇《生物精神病學》(Biological Psychiatry)期刊上的科研論文，這篇論文指出，認爲催產素能提高人的快樂水平的看法是“可疑的”。因此奧列弗向觀衆嚴肅警告道：“如果有個怪蜀黍管自己叫‘愛醫生’，提出要每天擁抱你8次，一定要拒絕哦!”

Up next on “Today”

怒撕NBC《今日》

Oliver saved his most potent vitriol for NBC’s Todaywhich “lives for scientific studies” according toits own self-description. That much was teed up in a clip featuring co-hosts Natalie Morales andTamron Hall gently arguing about the health benefits of whole milk vis a vis scientific studiesregarding its pros and cons. They were interrupted by weatherman Al Roker, who opined: “Youfind the study that sounds best to you. And go with that.”

奧利弗把最猛的火力留給了NBC電視臺《今日》欄目。根據該欄目的自我描述，它就是“爲了科學研究而活”的。這時奧列弗插入了一段視頻，內容是《今日》主持人娜塔麗•莫拉萊斯和塔瑪龍•豪爾正在煞有介事地爭論全脂牛奶的利弊，並各自搬出了一些科研成果作爲理論依據。這時他們的爭論被天氣預報的主持人艾爾•洛克打斷了，他發表了自己的意見：“你只要找到聽起來最適合你的科學研究，然後按它說的做就行了。”

“No! No! No!” Oliver said, slamming his hand against his desk. “If you start thinking that science isa la carte and if you don’t like it, another study will be along soon, that is what leads people tobelieve man-made climate change isn’t real. Or thatvaccines cause autism—both of which thescientific consensus is pretty clear on.”

“不!不!不!”奧利弗一邊說一邊用手拍着桌子。“你以爲科學是點菜嗎?如果你不喜歡這一道，另一道馬上就來了?正因爲這樣，才導致有人相信人爲的氣候變化不是真的;也正因爲這樣，纔有人相信疫苗會導致自閉症。而對這兩個問題，科學界的共識已經十分清楚了。”

“Is science bullshit?” Oliver asked at one point. “No, but there is a lot of bullshitcurrently masquerading as science.”

“科學是扯淡嗎?”奧利弗自問自答道：“不是的，但是當前冒充科學來扯淡的，實在太多了。”(財富中文網)

Chris Lee is a former staff writer forEntertainment Weekly, The Los Angeles Times, NewsweekandThe Daily Beast. He covers entertainment, culture and business in Los Angeles.

本文作者Chris Lee曾任《娛樂週刊》、《洛杉磯時報》、《新聞週刊》和《野獸日報》等媒體的特約撰稿人，主要報道洛杉磯地區與娛樂、文化和商業有關的話題。