評論
打印
A bigger can?
一個更大的罐頭？
By the end of 2010, Dr Potti had resigned from Duke,
到2010年底，Potti博士已經從杜克大學辭職，
the university had stopped the three trials for good,
學校永久停止了那三項臨床試驗，
scientists from elsewhere had claimed that Dr Potti had stolen their data for inclusion in his paper in the New England Journal,
另有科學家稱Potti博士在其在新英格蘭雜志發表的文章中竊取了他們的數據，
and officials at Duke had started the process of retracting three prominent papers, including the one in Nature Medicine.
杜克大學方面也開始撤回他那三篇出名的文章，《自然-醫學》的那篇也包括在內。
At this point, the NCI and officials at Duke asked the Institute of Medicine, a board of experts that advises the American government, to investigate.
到了這時候，國家癌癥研究所和杜克大學都請求負責向美國政府提出建議的美國醫學協會對此事進行調查。
Since then, a committee of the institute, appointed for the task, has been trying to find out what was happening at Duke that allowed the problems to continue undetected for so long,
之后，協會的一個專為此事成立的委員會就一直在努力查清是什么使得杜克大學長時間對問題不管不問，
and to recommend minimum standards that must be met before this sort of work can be used to guide clinical trials in the future.
并建議在今后碰到此類可供指導臨床試驗的研究時，需要其達到一個最低標準。
At the committee's first meeting, in December 2010, Dr McShane stunned observers by revealing her previously unpublished investigation of the Duke work.
在2010年12月舉行的該委員會的第一次會議上，McShane博士披露了此前未發表的她關于杜克大學事件的調查，
Subsequently, the committee's members interviewed Dr Baggerly about the problems he had encountered trying to sort the data.
這些材料震撼了在場的學者。結果，委員會的成員詢問了Baggerly博士關于他在嘗試整理那些數據時遇到的問題。
He noted that in addition to a lack of unfettered access to the computer code and consistent raw data on which the work was based,
他指出，那些急于出版Potti博士的論文的雜志不僅沒有獲得研究結果所涉及的計算機程序代碼和可信的原始數據，
journals that had readily published Dr Potti's papers were reluctant to publish his letters critical of the work.
甚至還不情愿刊登他對于該成果質疑的文章。
Nature Medicine published one letter, with a rebuttal from the team at Duke, but rejected further comments when problems continued.
《自然-醫學》雜志刊登了一篇文章，并附上了來自杜克大學研究組的辯駁，可是當問題繼續存在時就拒絕了進一步的評論。
Other journals that had carried subsequent high-profile papers from Dr Potti behaved in similar ways.
其他刊載了來自Potti博士的高曝光文章的雜志也采取了相似的態度。
Eventually, the two researchers resorted to publishing their criticisms in a statistical journal, which would be unlikely to reach the same audience as a medical journal.
最后，兩位研究員只好把他們的評論文章發到了一個統計雜志，這就很難被醫學雜志的讀者群看到了。
Two s ubsequent sessions of the committee have included Duke's point of view.
委員會接下來的兩次會議都包含了杜克方面的觀點。
At one of these, in March 2011, Dr Nevins admitted that some of the data in the papers had been “corrupted”.
在2011年3月的一次會議中，Nevins博士承認文章中的一些數據被“玷污”了。
He continued, though, to claim ignorance of the problems identified by Dr Baggerly and Dr Coombes until the Rhodes scandal broke,
但他聲稱直到Rhodes丑聞被揭發才得知Baggerly博士和Coombes博士指出的問題，
and to support the overall methods used in the papers—though he could not explain why he had not detected the problems even when alerted to anomalies.
而且雖然他沒法解釋為什么他沒能在被指出異常時發現問題，但是他仍然在總體上支持文章中采用的方法。
At its fourth, and most recent meeting, on August 22nd, the committee questioned eight scientists and administrators from Duke.
在第四次，也就是在8月22號舉行的最近一次會議上，委員會質問了8位科學家和杜克大學的管理人員。
Rob Califf, a vice-chancellor in charge of clinical research, asserted that what had happened was a case of the “Swiss-cheese effect” in which 15 different things had to go awry to let the problems slip through unheeded.
Rob Califf, 一位負責臨床研究的的副校長，稱該事件是一個“瑞士奶酪效應”的例子，它需要15件不同的事都出了錯才有可能讓問題不被察覺。
Asked by The Economist to comment on what was happening,
當被《經濟學人》的記者問到他關于這件事的評價時，
he said, “As we evaluated the issues, we had the chance to review our systems and we believe we have identified, and are implementing, an improved approach.”
他說“對這些問題的評估，使得我們有機會重新審視我們的體系，而且我們相信我們已經確認并且在采取改進后的方式了。”
The university's lapses and errors included being slow to deal with potential financial conflicts of interest declared by Dr Potti,
校方的過失和錯誤包括在處理潛在利益沖突時反應遲緩。
Dr Nevins and other investigators, including involvement in Expression Analysis Inc and CancerGuide DX, two firms to which the university also had ties.
這些沖突方包括Potti博士和Nevins博士，其他的調查者，還有兩家與大學有關系的公司Expression Analysis和CancerGuide DX。
Moreover, Dr Califf and other senior administrators acknowledged that once questions arose about the work, they gave too much weight to Dr Nevins and his judgment.
除此之外，Califf博士和其他高級管理者承認，當出現有關于研究成果的質疑時，他們過分地看重了Nevins博士和他的判斷。
That led them, for example, to withhold Dr Baggerly's criticisms from the external-review committee in 2009.
這導致了2009年他們把Baggerly博士的評論擋在外部評審委員會之外。
They also noted that the internal committees responsible for protecting patients and overseeing clinical trials lacked the expertise to review the complex, statistics-heavy methods and data produced by experiments involving gene expression.
他們還提到了，負責保護病人和監督臨床試驗的內部委員會缺乏專業知識來評審由涉及基因表達的實驗產生的復雜、側重統計的方法和數據。
That is a theme the investigating committee has heard repeatedly.
這是一個調查委員會反復聽到的說法。
The process of peer review relies on the goodwill of workers in the field, who have jobs of their own and frequently cannot spend the time needed to check other people's papers in a suitably thorough manner.
同行審查制度依靠著內行人的善意，大家都有自己的工作，所以常常不能花足夠的時間來對其他人的論文進行恰當細致的檢查。
Moreover, the methods sections of papers are supposed to provide enough information for others to replicate an experiment, but often do not.
而且，文章的介紹實驗方法的部分本應該為其他人提供重現實驗結果所需的信息，但事實經常不是這樣。
Dodgy work will out eventually, as it is found not to fit in with other, more reliable discoveries.
摻假的研究結果最終會被淘汰，因為它們不能與其他更加可靠的發現相兼容。
But that all takes time and money.
但是，這些都需要時間和金錢。
The Institute of Medicine expects to complete its report, and its recommendations, in the middle of next year.
美國醫學協會計劃在明年年中完成這個報告和相關的建議。
In the meantime, more retractions are coming, according to Dr Califf.
在此期間，據Califf博士說將會有更多論文撤回。
The results of a misconduct investigation are expected in the next few months and legal suits from patients who believe they were recruited into clinical trials under false pretences will probably follow.
關于此次學術不端的的調查結果預計將在未來幾個月內獲得，而認為自己被欺詐進入臨床試驗的病人則可能會在之后提起訴訟。
The whole thing, then, is a mess.
整件事就是一團糟。
Who will carry the can remains to be seen.
誰將會承擔責任目前還不清楚。
But the episode does serve as a timely reminder of one thing that is sometimes forgotten.
但是這一連串事件的確及時地提醒了我們一件常常被忽略的事實：
Scientists are human, too.
科學家也是人。
