國家地理:為了結(jié)束這場流行病 我們必須相信科學(xué)(8)

Second, the science itself might suffer. If researchers take shortcuts for the sake of expediency or jump too far ahead of their data to offer advice, they might unwittingly tarnish the very process they depend on. Indeed, not long after I spoke to Morse, I read a report from a team of epidemiologists and biostatisticians from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health that suggested a lot of the early research was too perfunctory to be of much use.

再者，科學(xué)本身可能會(huì)受到損害。如果研究人員為了一時(shí)權(quán)宜而走捷徑，或者在數(shù)據(jù)仍不足時(shí)就給予建議，也許會(huì)在不知不覺中讓他們所仰賴的科學(xué)程序染上污名。事實(shí)上，我在和摩爾斯談話后不久，讀到一份來自約翰霍普金斯大學(xué)彭博公共衛(wèi)生學(xué)院流行病學(xué)家和生物統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)家團(tuán)隊(duì)的報(bào)告，內(nèi)容暗示了很多早期研究過于草率，以至于用處不大。

The scholars analyzed the first 201 COVID-19 clinical trials, which had been conducted in China, the U.S., and other countries. It seemed there had been a lot of corner cutting. One-third of the trials had no clear definition of treatment success; nearly one-half were so small (100 or fewer patients) they weren't really informative; and two-thirds lacked the gold standard safeguard known as "blinding," which keeps investigators from knowing which subjects are getting the treatment under study.

團(tuán)隊(duì)學(xué)者分析了在中國、美國和其他國家進(jìn)行的最早201個(gè)COVID-19臨床試驗(yàn)，發(fā)現(xiàn)似乎有許多便宜行事之處。其中三分之一沒有清楚定義何謂治療成功；將近一半樣本數(shù)太少（100名病患以下），無法說明什么；還有三分之二缺乏名為“遮盲”的黃金標(biāo)準(zhǔn)防護(hù)措施，它可避免研究人員知道哪些受試者正在接受研究中的治療方法。

These less-than-ideal clinical trials were reported anyway, partly because leading scientific journals, such as the New England Journal of Medicine and those published by PLOS, had pledged to accelerate the peer review process, rushing coronavirus articles into print in half the usual time. Another avenue of publication involves preprint servers, which post articles online before they're peer-reviewed. These servers, created to promote transparency in scientific research, predate the pandemic, but they exploded in popularity as coronavirus studies were churned out.

但這些不盡理想的臨床試驗(yàn)還是獲得報(bào)導(dǎo)，部分原因是像《新英格蘭醫(yī)學(xué)期刊》和公共科學(xué)圖書館的出版品等具權(quán)威的科學(xué)期刊，承諾會(huì)加速同儕審查過程，以平常一半的時(shí)間讓新冠病毒相關(guān)論文火速印刷出版。另一個(gè)出版途徑是預(yù)印本服務(wù)器，會(huì)在線上發(fā)布尚未經(jīng)同儕審查的論文。這些服務(wù)器早在大流行前就存在，是為了促進(jìn)科學(xué)研究透明化而創(chuàng)設(shè)，不過隨著新冠病毒的研究大量產(chǎn)出，它們也受到廣泛關(guān)注。