高中英语外刊阅读27-发表负结果有益于科学进步(2)

文章主要亮点有：①“科学界应重视发表那些负向或失败的研究结果”观点不同寻常，有助于科学界深思；②论证手法多样（对比，因果，引用等）；③结构明确，按照“提出观点（第一段）——论证观点（第二至五段）——分析观点所涉错误现象产生的原因（第六段）——总结收篇，重申观点（第七段）”的脉络展开论述。 【原文】

ⅠHypothesis-driven research is at the heart of scientific endeavor, and it is often the positive,confirmatory data that get the most attention and guide further research. But many studies produce non-confirmatory data—observations that refute current ideas and carefully constructed hypotheses. And it can be argued that these “negative data,” far from having little value in science, are actually an integral part of scientific progress that deserve more attention.

ⅡAt first glance, this may seem a little nonsensical; after all, how can non-confirmatory results help science to progress when they fail to substantiate anything? But in fact, in a philosophical sense, only negative data resulting in rejection of a hypothesis represent real progress. As philosopher of science Karl Popper stated: “Every refutation should be regarded as a great success; not merely a success of the scientist who refuted the theory, but also of the scientist who created the refuted theory and who thus in the first instance suggested, if only indirectly, the refuting experiment.”

ⅢOn a more practical level, Journal of Negative Results in Biomedicine (JNRBM) was launched on the premise that scientific progress depends not only on the accomplishments of individuals but requires teamwork and open communication of all results—positive and negative. After all, the scientific community can only learn from negative results if the data are published.

ⅣThough not every negative result will turn out to be of groundbreaking significance, it is imperative to be aware of the more balanced perspective that can result from the publication of non-confirmatory findings. The first and most obvious benefits of publishing negative results are a reduction in the duplication of effort between researchers, leading to the acceleration of scientific progress, and greater transparency and openness.

ⅤMore broadly, publication of negative data might also contribute to a more realistic appreciationof the “messy” nature of science. Scientific endeavors rarely result in perfect discoveries of elements of “truth” about the world. This is largely because they are frequently based on methods with real limitations and hypotheses based on uncertain premises.

ⅥIt is perhaps this “messy” aspect of science that contributes to a hesitation within the scientific community to publish negative data. In an ever more competitive environment, it may be that scientific journals prefer to publish studies with clear and specific conclusions. Indeed, Daniele Fanelli of the University of Edinburgh suggests that results may be distorted by a “publish or perish” culture in which the progress of scientific careers depends on thefrequency and quality of citations. This leads to a situation in which data that support a hypothesis may be perceived in a more positive light and receive more citations than data that only generate more questions and uncertainty.

ⅦDespite the effects of this competitive environment, however, a willingness to publish negative data is emerging among researchers. Publications that emphasize positive findings are of course useful, but a more balanced presentation of all the data, including negative or failed experiments, would also make a significant contribution to scientific progress.

【词汇短语】

1.hypothesis [haɪˈpɒθəsɪs] n.假设

2.confirmatory [kən'fɜ:məˌtərɪ] a.证实的，确实的 3.refute [rɪˈfju:t] v.驳斥 4.negative [ˈnegətɪv] a.否定的

5.integral [ˈɪntɪgrəl] a.构成整体所必须的 6.nonsensical [nɒnˈsensɪkl] a.荒谬的 7.substantiate [səbˈstænʃieɪt] v.证明 8.rejection [rɪ'dʒekʃn] n.拒绝，驳回

9.launch [lɔ:ntʃ] v.发射，发起，推出 10.premise ['premɪs] n.前提

11.accomplishment [əˈkʌmplɪʃmənt] n.成就 12.community [kəˈmju:nəti] n.团体，界 13.groundbreaking [ˈgraʊndbreɪkɪŋ] a.创新的 14.significance [sɪgˈnɪfɪkəns] n.意义 15.imperative [ɪmˈperətɪv] a.必要的 16.duplication [ˌdju:plɪ'keɪʃn] n.双重，重复 17.acceleration [əkˌseləˈreɪʃn] n.加速 18.transparency [trænsˈpærənsi] n.透明度 19.contribute to 增益，有助于

20.appreciation [əˌpri:ʃiˈeɪʃn] n.欣赏，评论 21.messy [ˈmesi] a.散乱的 22.endeavor [ɪn'devə] n.努力 23.hesitation [ˌhezɪ'teɪʃn] n.犹豫 24.distort [dɪˈstɔ:t] v.扭曲 25.perish [ˈperɪʃ] v.毁灭 26.frequency [ˈfri:kwənsi] n.频率 27.emerge [iˈmɜ:dʒ] v.出现，显露

【翻译点评】

Ⅰ①Hypothesis-driven research is at the heart of scientific endeavor, and it is often the positive, confirmatory data that get the most attention and guide further research. ②But many studies produce non-confirmatory data—observations that refute current ideas and carefully constructed hypotheses. ③And it can be argued that these “negative data,” far from having little value in science, are actually an integral part of scientific progress that deserve more attention.

翻译：假设驱动型研究对于科学事业至关重要, 且经常是那些正向的、验证性数据最受关注并引导深入研究。然而许多研究却是会生成“非验证性数据”——那些反驳现有观点及精心构建的假设的观察结果。可以这样说，这些“负向数据”远非对于科学没有任何价值，而实际是科研进步整体中的一部分，理应得到更多重视。

点评：段Ⅰ提出观点：负向数据也有利于科学研究，理应受到关注。首先指出：假设驱动型研究对于科学事业至关重要，正向的、验证性数据引发关注；随后转折指出： 研究难免生成“非验证性数据”；最后指出：“非验证性数据”，即“负向数据”理应得到更多重视。主要逻辑衔接是：①首句引出假设驱动型研究，并指出其受关注点；中间句转折指出其不受关注点；末句指出不受关注点也是重要组成部分，理应受到关注；②But，And实现段落句间衔接，But后内容为作者观点的重要体现，要着重注意。

Ⅱ①At first glance, this may seem a little nonsensical; after all, how can non-confirmatory results help science to progress when they fail to substantiate anything? ②But in fact, in a philosophical sense, only negative data resulting in rejection of a hypothesis represent real progress. ③As philosopher of science Karl Popper stated: “Every refutation should be regarded as a great success; not merely a success of the scientist who refuted the theory, but also of the scientist who created the refuted theory and who thus in the first instance suggested, if only indirectly, the refuting experiment.”

翻译：乍一看，这显得有些荒谬；毕竟非验证性数据没能证明任何东西——这怎么能帮助科学取得进步呢？但事实上，从哲学角度来说，只有那些导致假设被驳倒的负向数据才代表着真正的进步。就像科学哲人卡尔·波普尔所述的那样：“应当把每一个反驳都看成巨大的成功，不仅是驳倒这一理论的科学家的成功，而且也是创造这一被驳倒的理论的科学家，从而也是首先提示（也许只是间接地）这一反驳实验的科学家的成功。”

点评：段Ⅱ从哲学角度解释非验证性数据对于科学进步的重要性。首先转承上段末句设问：“重视负向数据”怎么能帮助科学取得进步呢？接着转而从哲学角度指出：只有那些导致假设被驳倒的负向数据才代表着真正的进步；最后引用科学哲人的名言以辅佐该观点。主要逻辑衔接是：①本段共三句，为“设问——作答——辅佐答案”的结构；②首句this指代上段末句观点“非验证性数据值得更多关注”，实现段际衔接；seem a little nonsensical为某观点表达；But转而反驳首句观点；As（像……一样）则辅佐中间句观点，双引号的使用体现了引证法的运用，旨在说明或反驳某一观点，（即说明第二句观点，反驳首句观点）。

Ⅲ①On a more practical level, Journal of Negative Results in Biomedicine (JNRBM) was launched on the premise that scientific progress depends not only on the accomplishments of individuals but requires teamwork and open communication of all

results—positive and negative. ②After all, the scientific community can only learn from negative results if the data are published.

翻译：就更实际的层面来看，《生物医学否定结果期刊》创办的前提是：科学进步不仅取决于个人成就，还需要团队协作及所有研究结果的公开交流，这包括正向结果也包括负向结果。毕竟，只有数据得以发表，科学界才可从负向结果中得以教益。

点评：段Ⅲ从实践角度解释非验证性数据对于科学进步的重要性。首先借《生物医学否定结果期刊》的创建宗旨指出：科学进步需要发表正向结果也要发表负向结果；随后解释说明：只有负向数据得以发表，科学家才可从中学习。主要逻辑衔接是：①首句On a more practical level对应上段in a philosophical sense，表明此两段是从不同角度对同一个问题的解释，实现段际衔接；②After all表示解释说明，实现段内句间衔接。

Ⅳ①Though not every negative result will turn out to be of groundbreaking significance, it is imperative to be aware of the more balanced perspective that can result from the publication of non-confirmatory findings. ②The first and most obvious benefits of publishing negative results are a reduction in the duplication of effort between researchers, leading to the acceleration of scientific progress, and greater transparency and openness. 翻译：尽管并非所有负向结果都具有开创性意义，我们却必须意识到应采取一种更为平衡的态度，而非验证性结果的发表就可产生这种态度。发表负向结果首先且最为明显的益处是可以减少研究者重复劳动，从而加快科学进步，使得科研更为透明与公开。

点评：段Ⅳ承接上段末句具体解释发表负向数据所带来的益处之一。首先以退为进指出：尽管它不一定带来开创性意义，但仍须以平衡的心态来对待负向结果；随后明确指出它的首要意义：减少研究者重复劳动，加快科学进步、使科研更透明与公开。主要逻辑衔接是：①两句成段，首句指出对待负向结果应有的态度，imperative表明该态度的必要性；末句介绍负向结果的首要意义，以说明首句中所呈态度的理据；②第二句中reduction...acceleration...greater...具体解释benefits，为上下义词的关系。

Ⅴ①More broadly, publication of negative data might also contribute to a more realistic appreciation of the “messy” nature of science. ②Scientific endeavors rarely result in perfect discoveries of elements of “truth” about the world. ③This is largely because they are frequently based on methods with real limitations and hypotheses based on uncertain premises.

翻译：更广泛地说，发表负向数据亦可能有助于人们更为实际地了解科学的“杂乱性”本质。科学努力很少能引发对世界的完美发现，这主要是因为科研往往建立于存有缺陷的研究方法以及基于不确定性前提所提出的假设之上。

点评：段Ⅴ接续上段末句从更广的角度（More broadly）解释发表负数据所带来的益处之二。首先指出发表负向数据好处之二：便于人们了解科学的“杂乱性”本质；随后就“杂乱性”作解释：科学努力很少能引发对世界真理的完美发现。主要逻辑衔接是：①本段实际接续上段末句，继续说明负向结果的益处，以说明对待它的正确态度，More broadly...might also...表明该段与上段的并列关系，a more realistic appreciation...再次解释benefits；②后两句进一步解释首句，第三句This指代第二句，because表明两句间因果逻辑关系，real limitations/uncertain premises呼应messy。

Ⅵ①It is perhaps this “messy” aspect of science that contributes to a hesitation within the scientific community to publish negative data. ②In an ever more competitive environment, it may be that scientific journals prefer to publish studies with clear and specific conclusions. ③Indeed, Daniele Fanelli of the University of Edinburgh suggests that results may be distorted by a “publish or perish” culture in which the progress of scientific careers depends on the frequency and quality of citations. ④This leads to a situation in which data that support a hypothesis may be perceived in a more positive light and receive more citations than data that only generate more questions and uncertainty.

翻译：或许正是科学的“杂乱性”本质使得科学界对发表负向数据产生犹豫。在竞争日趋激烈的环境下，科学杂志可能更愿意发表有确切结论的研究结果。确实，爱丁堡大学的丹尼尔·法内利就说，“要么发表要么毁灭”的文化可能会扭曲科研结果，因为在这种环境下，科学事业的进步取决于引用的频率及质量。这导致那些支持假设的数据被更为积极地看待，也比那些只会生成更多问题和不确定性的数据得到更多的引用。

点评：段Ⅵ由上段的“杂乱性”进而分析科学界发表负向数据犹豫不决的原因。首先明确指出：科学的“杂乱性”本质是对发表负向数据犹豫不决的可能性原因；随后对其进行解释，竞争激烈、文化氛围所致。主要逻辑衔接是：①本段为原因分析段，首句指出人们不乐于发表负向数据的原因：科学的“杂乱性”；第二句描述现实状况：竞争日益激烈，科学界更倾向于发表正向数据；第三句引用他人话语指出这种现状背后的原因：“要么发表要么毁灭”的文化氛围所致；第四句为引言的具体解释，也是第二句现状的原因分析，This回指第三句文化氛围。

Ⅶ①Despite the effects of this competitive environment, however, a willingness to publish negative data is emerging among researchers. ②Publications that emphasize positive findings are of course useful, but a more balanced presentation of all the data, including negative or failed experiments, would also make a significant contribution to scientific progress.

翻译：尽管受这种竞争性环境影响，但研究者发表负向数据的意愿还是呈上升趋势。发表那些强调正向研究结果的文章固然很有用，但更为平衡地展现所有数据，包括那些负向或失败的实验结果也会对科学进步做出重要贡献。

点评：段Ⅶ转而指出发表负向数据正呈上升趋势，给读者以完美想象空间。首先指出好兆头：研究者发表负向数据的意愿呈上升趋势；随后呼应首段，重申观点：发表积极的研究结果固然很有用，但否定性或失败的研究结果也会对科学进步做出重要贡献。主要逻辑衔接是：①本段呼应首段，总结收篇；两句成段，均采用让步转折手法来表述作者观点；②首句以退为进呼应上段指出：虽然竞争性环境导致了负向结果发表的滞后，但发表负向结果的意愿却在上升；第二句再次以退为进呼应首段内容指出：虽然发表正向结果有利于科研，但发表负向结果一样对科学进步起着重要作用。