Posted at 2014.03.29 Category : 未分類
STAP細胞騒動で知ったロバートゲラー先生のツイッターで以下のNew Scientistの記事が紹介されていました。
英国科学啓蒙雑誌「ニュー・サイエンティスト」は全世界の幹細胞研究分野を調べた。競争は激しすぎ、思い込みは強くて、学術雑誌の査読は主観的であり、小保方氏らの論文の問題は氷山の一角のようだ。
1000名の幹細胞研究者にan anonymous surveyを行ったとありますね。内容に立ち入るのではなく、アンケート結果を伝える時の表現を確認したいと思います。
Stem cell scientists reveal 'unethical' work pressures
Updated 12:31 28 March 2014 by Helen Thomson
Stem cell research is touted as the way to a medical revolution, but all too often accusations of poor practice arise. To glean some insight into why, New Scientist asked 1000 stem cell researchers from around the world to answer an anonymous survey about the pressures of their work. More than 110 replied. Some admitted to faked results, others told of unethical behaviour from superiors, and several placed the blame on high-profile journals.
上記パラグラフの最後の部分、Some …, others … and several ….なんて書き方もありなんですね。
More than 110 replied. Some admitted to faked results, others told of unethical behaviour from superiors, and several placed the blame on high-profile journals.
Just over half believeやAlmost a fifth said、Sixteen per cent saidのように、どれくらいの割合の人が感じていることなのか明示するのは大切なことですね。Some said …, while others said …という書き方もされています。
Just over half believe stem cell research is under greater scrutiny than other biomedical fields. "It is because the implications for therapeutics are greater than in other areas," said one researcher. Almost a fifth said this affects their work. Some said it made them more rigorous, while others said they feel forced to find clinical applications too soon.
Sixteen per cent said they have felt pressure to submit a paper that was incomplete or contained unverified information. "There is a tremendous pressure to publish, in order to receive funding. Shortcuts are, therefore, not unusual," said one respondent. "It happens when we know competitors are going to publish the same story," admitted a principal investigator.
Several researchers said they felt pressure to publish or perish. "You have to rush things out or miss critical career fellowships," said one.
publish or perishなんてのは学界にいる人にとってピンとくる言葉でしょうか。さらに、「全体〜のち、〜の割合が〜である」を説明するときによく使われるOf 112 respondents ..., 55% said …という構文も登場しています。
The stem cell research pressure cooker
Of 112 respondents to a New Scientist survey, 55% said they thought stem cell research is put under more intense scrutiny than other areas of biomedical science They then answered...
Do you feel that this affects your work in any way?
Have you ever felt any pressure to submit a paper for publication that you felt was incomplete or contained unverified information?
Have you ever felt any pressure from your peers or superiors to falsify or augment data or do anything you consider unethical?
Have you or any of your colleagues ever falsified or augmented data that has ended up in a published paper?
Pdfで詳しい回答が読むことができます。If yes, please specify the circumstancesのような指示文にも慣れたいですね。
ゲラーさんが紹介した部分は以下のようです。記事ではNature側の反論も載せています。センセーションを求めるジャーナリズムの風潮を"5 minute attention spans"と語っていますね。
In the extra comments section of our survey, journals came in for criticism: "The review process has become a playground of promoting personal opinions, rather than evaluating the actual science," said one assistant professor. A group leader said the refereeing process at top journals "often asks for over-elaborate, costly and time consuming experiments rather than ensuring the basic core finding is sound".
In response, a spokesperson for Nature, which published the papers being scrutinised (DOI: 10.1038/nature12968; DOI: 10.1038/nature12969), says: "The editors select research for publication on the basis of scientific significance, and each published paper undergoes robust, rigorous peer review. We are always looking for ways to improve our processes to best serve the community and will continue to do so going forward."
Many researchers pinned blame on journalists with "5 minute attention spans", saying they had overhyped the field, making stem cells seem like a cure-all.
The field was described as "a mess" by one senior researcher with 20 years experience, and as having a "very unhealthy, competitive attitude, nourished by top tier journals", by another.
この記事では最後の方に以下のように語っています。一部で問題はあるが、大部分は正確だというのです。確かに、問題が起きたからといって、研究の意義を全否定してしまうのは行き過ぎですよね。
Thankfully, despite these comments, the consensus was that most stem cell research is accurate. "Just because there is an occasional controversy we must be careful not to damn the entire field and throw the baby out with the bathwater," said one scientist.
ここでwe must be careful not to damn the entire field and throw the baby out with the bathwaterと面白いイディオムが使われています。
（プログレッシブ英和辞典）
throw ［empty, pour］ the baby out ［away］ with the bath(water)
貴重なものを無用なものといっしょに捨てる；細事にこだわり大事を逸する
（オックスフォード）
throw the baby out with the bathwater (informal) to lose something that you want at the same time as you are trying to get rid of something that you do not want
（ロングマン）
throw the baby out with the bath water to get rid of good useful parts of a system, organization etc when you are changing it in order to try and make it better
安直なTOEIC批判に対してもwe must be careful not to damn the entire field and throw the baby out with the bathwaterと言えそうですね。
英国科学啓蒙雑誌「ニュー・サイエンティスト」は全世界の幹細胞研究分野を調べた。競争は激しすぎ、思い込みは強くて、学術雑誌の査読は主観的であり、小保方氏らの論文の問題は氷山の一角のようだ。
1000名の幹細胞研究者にan anonymous surveyを行ったとありますね。内容に立ち入るのではなく、アンケート結果を伝える時の表現を確認したいと思います。
Stem cell scientists reveal 'unethical' work pressures
Updated 12:31 28 March 2014 by Helen Thomson
Stem cell research is touted as the way to a medical revolution, but all too often accusations of poor practice arise. To glean some insight into why, New Scientist asked 1000 stem cell researchers from around the world to answer an anonymous survey about the pressures of their work. More than 110 replied. Some admitted to faked results, others told of unethical behaviour from superiors, and several placed the blame on high-profile journals.
上記パラグラフの最後の部分、Some …, others … and several ….なんて書き方もありなんですね。
More than 110 replied. Some admitted to faked results, others told of unethical behaviour from superiors, and several placed the blame on high-profile journals.
Just over half believeやAlmost a fifth said、Sixteen per cent saidのように、どれくらいの割合の人が感じていることなのか明示するのは大切なことですね。Some said …, while others said …という書き方もされています。
Just over half believe stem cell research is under greater scrutiny than other biomedical fields. "It is because the implications for therapeutics are greater than in other areas," said one researcher. Almost a fifth said this affects their work. Some said it made them more rigorous, while others said they feel forced to find clinical applications too soon.
Sixteen per cent said they have felt pressure to submit a paper that was incomplete or contained unverified information. "There is a tremendous pressure to publish, in order to receive funding. Shortcuts are, therefore, not unusual," said one respondent. "It happens when we know competitors are going to publish the same story," admitted a principal investigator.
Several researchers said they felt pressure to publish or perish. "You have to rush things out or miss critical career fellowships," said one.
publish or perishなんてのは学界にいる人にとってピンとくる言葉でしょうか。さらに、「全体〜のち、〜の割合が〜である」を説明するときによく使われるOf 112 respondents ..., 55% said …という構文も登場しています。
The stem cell research pressure cooker
Of 112 respondents to a New Scientist survey, 55% said they thought stem cell research is put under more intense scrutiny than other areas of biomedical science They then answered...
Do you feel that this affects your work in any way?
Have you ever felt any pressure to submit a paper for publication that you felt was incomplete or contained unverified information?
Have you ever felt any pressure from your peers or superiors to falsify or augment data or do anything you consider unethical?
Have you or any of your colleagues ever falsified or augmented data that has ended up in a published paper?
Pdfで詳しい回答が読むことができます。If yes, please specify the circumstancesのような指示文にも慣れたいですね。
ゲラーさんが紹介した部分は以下のようです。記事ではNature側の反論も載せています。センセーションを求めるジャーナリズムの風潮を"5 minute attention spans"と語っていますね。
In the extra comments section of our survey, journals came in for criticism: "The review process has become a playground of promoting personal opinions, rather than evaluating the actual science," said one assistant professor. A group leader said the refereeing process at top journals "often asks for over-elaborate, costly and time consuming experiments rather than ensuring the basic core finding is sound".
In response, a spokesperson for Nature, which published the papers being scrutinised (DOI: 10.1038/nature12968; DOI: 10.1038/nature12969), says: "The editors select research for publication on the basis of scientific significance, and each published paper undergoes robust, rigorous peer review. We are always looking for ways to improve our processes to best serve the community and will continue to do so going forward."
Many researchers pinned blame on journalists with "5 minute attention spans", saying they had overhyped the field, making stem cells seem like a cure-all.
The field was described as "a mess" by one senior researcher with 20 years experience, and as having a "very unhealthy, competitive attitude, nourished by top tier journals", by another.
この記事では最後の方に以下のように語っています。一部で問題はあるが、大部分は正確だというのです。確かに、問題が起きたからといって、研究の意義を全否定してしまうのは行き過ぎですよね。
Thankfully, despite these comments, the consensus was that most stem cell research is accurate. "Just because there is an occasional controversy we must be careful not to damn the entire field and throw the baby out with the bathwater," said one scientist.
ここでwe must be careful not to damn the entire field and throw the baby out with the bathwaterと面白いイディオムが使われています。
（プログレッシブ英和辞典）
throw ［empty, pour］ the baby out ［away］ with the bath(water)
貴重なものを無用なものといっしょに捨てる；細事にこだわり大事を逸する
（オックスフォード）
throw the baby out with the bathwater (informal) to lose something that you want at the same time as you are trying to get rid of something that you do not want
（ロングマン）
throw the baby out with the bath water to get rid of good useful parts of a system, organization etc when you are changing it in order to try and make it better
安直なTOEIC批判に対してもwe must be careful not to damn the entire field and throw the baby out with the bathwaterと言えそうですね。
スポンサーサイト
Tracback
この記事にトラックバックする(FC2ブログユーザー)