Composing a Journal Article Critique - University of Dayton—文档、资..
扫扫二维码，随身浏览文档
手机或平板扫扫即可继续访问
Composing a Journal Article Critique - University of Dayton
举报该文档为侵权文档。
举报该文档含有违规或不良信息。
反馈该文档无法正常浏览。
举报该文档为重复文档。
推荐理由：
将文档分享至：
分享完整地址
文档地址：
粘贴到BBS或博客
flash地址：
支持嵌入FLASH地址的网站使用
html代码：
&embed src='/DocinViewer-4.swf' width='100%' height='600' type=application/x-shockwave-flash ALLOWFULLSCREEN='true' ALLOWSCRIPTACCESS='always'&&/embed&
450px*300px480px*400px650px*490px
支持嵌入HTML代码的网站使用
您的内容已经提交成功
您所提交的内容需要审核后才能发布，请您等待！
3秒自动关闭窗口 上传我的文档
 下载
 收藏
||精品，全是精品||有任何问题请发站内信息！本店资源来源于互联网，版权为原作者所有，请下载试用者二十四小时后删除,试用后请购买正版的资源。若侵犯到您的版权, 请提出指正, 我们将立即删除。
 下载此文档
正在努力加载中...
如何写学术论文
下载积分：800
内容提示：如何写学术论文
文档格式：DOC|
浏览次数：0|
上传日期： 15:45:43|
文档星级：
该用户还上传了这些文档
如何写学术论文
官方公共微信您已经赞过此文了。
“这篇论文本不该被发表”
发表时间：浏览量：5226评论数：3挑错数：0
哪是科学那点儿事呢~
"This Paper Should Not Have Been Published" “这篇论文本不该被发表” &&Scientists see fatal flaws in the NASA study of arsenic-based life. 在美国宇航局关于“砷命体”的研究中，科学家们发现了致命的错误。 By Carl Zimmer Carl Zimmer Posted Tuesday, Dec. 7, 2010, at 10:53 AM ET 日，星期二，10:53 AM ET &&【译者注】 这项轰动一时的“以毒攻毒”的实验逻辑是：先采集含砷的水样本，从中提取出新的细菌GFAJ-1，然后，将这种细菌放在培养基中培植，生成可供实验的DNA。在这一过程中，科学家们运用特殊的处理方法逐渐将DNA中的非砷分子洗净，接着，再将其放回先前的水样本中，使其生成GFAJ-1细菌。科学家们试图在此基础上证明，与土星卫星具有类似分子结构的地质环境中是有生命存在的。
社会各界均对这项研究提出了批评，其中，最值得一提的学界批判是，科学家们在处理DNA过程中人为制造了“环境误差”，造成被测DNA仍然是磷结构的而非砷结构的，因此，实验也就不能说明，这种GFAJ-1是一种“砷命体”，这反而证明，介质增加的磷结构促成了细菌的生长。（这项批判是有实证依据的。）
来自外界的批评凸显在媒介方面。个人认为，本项研究运作的高明之处在于，运用公共媒介的工具性进行预热，去除伪科学的外衣之后，在私人媒介中形成科学议题，然后转向专业领域（媒介），达成去感性化（工具性）的学术共识。但这却遭到了媒体人的猛烈抨击——了解事实真相，自主发表评论是他们的批评初衷，而科学家们不置可否的“科学态度”则激怒了媒体。事件之后，只留下泡沫纷飞的“脱序”舆论和不明就里的普罗大众。
个人认为，真正的批判是一个在原有学术研究基础上进行批评，重构自身理论，并在理论争辩中达成共识的连续统——没有孰对孰错，只有真知灼见；没有过往，只有当下。因此，大众媒介/媒体人充其量只是“批评人”，他们留下的大多是“铲除异己”的伪科学轨迹，与真实的科学相去甚远。事实上，批判应该是真正“高素质”（无论是道德上、情感上，还是文化上、知识上的心智和谐的智者）的人才能参与的“头脑游戏”，而所谓的“批判生活”则是近乎完美的智者生活。否则，就只能像尼采那样大声疾呼，“超人”死了…… &———————————————————————————————————————————
On Thursday, Dec. 2, Rosie Redfield sat down to read a new paper called "A Bacterium That Can Grow by Using Arsenic Instead of Phosphorus." Despite its innocuous title, the paper had great ambitions. Every living thing that scientists have ever studied uses phosphorus to build the backbone of its DNA. In the new paper, NASA-funded scientists described a microbe that could use arsenic instead. If the authors of the paper were right, we would have to expand our notions of what forms life can take.
12月2日星期四那天，Rosie Redfield静下来阅读了一篇新发表的论文，名为“一种细菌能够在砷——而不是磷——的作用下生长。”尽管这篇文章选择了一个无害的标题，但是，文章本身却显示出旺盛的学术雄心。在科学界的过往研究中，所有生命体都是使用磷来建立DNA结构的。而在这篇新论文中，由美国宇航局资助的科学家则描述了一种微生物，它能够将砷作为磷的替代品生成DNA。如果这篇论文的作者是正确的，那么，我们将能够拓展对于生命结构的预设。
Redfield, a microbiology professor at the University of British Columbia, had been hearing rumors about the papers for days beforehand. On Monday, NASA released a Sphinxlike press release: "NASA will hold a news conference at 2 p.m. EST on Thursday, Dec. 2, to discuss an astrobiology finding that will impact the search for evidence of extraterrestrial life." Like a virulent strain of bacteria, speculation exploded over the next three days. "Did NASA Discover Life on One of Saturn's Moons?" asked Gawker, a Web site that does not often ask questions about astrobiology. Redfield是英国哥伦比亚大学的微生物学教授，他在此之前曾听说过关于此类论文的一些传闻。星期一，美国宇航局发表了一篇名为Sphinxlike的新闻稿：“美国宇航局将在12月2日星期四下午2点（EST）召开新闻发布会，讨论一项宇宙生命科学的研究发现，它为太空生命提供了证据支持，并将对这一领域产生深远影响。”这一发现堪比剧毒细菌，它在随后三天中引起了轩然大波。“美国宇航局在土星的卫星之中发现了生命吗？” Gawker问道，Gawker是一家网站，它并不经常对宇宙生命科学产生质疑。
The truth was revealed on Thursday. At NASA's press conference, the scientists described their research, which was just then being posted on the Web site of the journal Science. They had not found life on one of Saturn' instead, they had gone to the arsenic-laced waters of Mono Lake in California and isolated a strain of bacteria they dubbed GFAJ-1.
谜底在星期四被揭开。在美国宇航局的新闻发布会上，科学家们描述了他们的调查结果——只是列举了科学期刊网站上的一些结论。他们没有在土星的任何一颗卫星上发现生命；相反，他们只是去过加利福尼亚州的Mono湖，考察了被掺入砷的水，并由此分解出一个被戏称为GFAJ-1的细菌类型。
Back at the lab, they grew the bacteria in a broth of nutrients. When they gradually reduced the supply of phosphate (a molecule composed of one phosphorus atom and four oxygen atoms) and replaced it with arsenate (one arsenic and four oxygen atoms), the bacteria still managed to grow. The scientists examined the DNA of these hardy microorganisms and inferred that it contained arsenic.
返回实验室之后，他们在营养基中使这种细菌生长。当他们逐渐在营养基中减少磷酸盐（这种磷酸盐分子由一个磷酸盐原子和四个氧原子构成）并将其替代成砷（一个砷原子和四个氧原子）的时候，这种细菌仍然能够保持生长。科学家们对这些稳定的微生物进行DNA检测后断言，这种细菌中包含砷。 &&As soon as Redfield started to read the paper, she was shocked. "I was outraged at how bad the science was," she told me. Redfield开始阅读这些论文的时候，她感到震惊了。“当我看到科学研究竟然糟糕到这种地步的时候，我出离愤怒了。”她告诉我。
Redfield blogged a scathing attack on Saturday. Over the weekend, a few other scientists took to the Internet as well. Was this merely a case of a few isolated cranks? To find out, I reached out to a dozen experts on Monday. Almost unanimously, they think the NASA scientists have failed to make their case. "It would be really cool if such a bug existed," said San Diego State University's Forest Rohwer, a microbiologist who looks for new species of bacteria and viruses in coral reefs. But, he added, "none of the arguments are very convincing on their own." That was about as positive as the critics could get. "This paper should not have been published," said Shelley Copley of the University of Colorado. Redfield在星期六撰博一篇对此事予以严厉抨击。整个周末，其他领域的科学家们也在互联网上进行了类似的批评。培养基是一个仅仅只有若干真空输入柄的容器吗？为找到事实真相，我在星期一联络了很多专家。他们几乎一致认为，美国宇航局科学家的培养基是有缺陷的。“如果培养基的漏洞确实存在的话，那么一切将变得不堪一击，”圣地亚哥州大学的Forest Rohwer说道，他是一个微生物学家，一直致力于探寻珊瑚礁中的新细菌和病毒种群。但是，他补充道，“没有一项批评是站得住脚的。”这是该实验所获得的积极且具有批判意味的评价。“这篇论文本不应当被发表。” Colorado 大学的Shelley Copley说道。
None of the scientists I spoke to ruled out the possibility that such weird bacteria might exist. Indeed, some of them were co-authors of a 2007 report for the National Academies of Sciences on alien life that called for research into, among other things, arsenic-based biology. But almost to a person, they felt that the NASA team had failed to take some basic precautions to avoid misleading results. 我接触过的科学家们没有一个能形成自己的理论以解释新细菌可能存在的原因。事实上，他们中的一些人是2007年国家学术报告科学篇的共同撰稿人，这篇报告以外星生命为研究对象，并需要关于其他生物的支持性研究，而以砷培植DNA的生物学研究是其共同的着眼点。但是，他们感觉，美国宇航局在培养基上的失误——由于没有采取基本的预防措施——造成了误导性的结果。
When the NASA scientists took the DNA out of the bacteria, for example, they ought to have taken extra steps to wash away any other kinds of molecules. Without these precautions, arsenic could have simply glommed to the DNA, like gum on a shoe. "It is pretty trivial to do a much better job," said Rohwer. 比如，当美国宇航员的科学家从细菌中提取出DNA的时候，他们可能是采用额外的步骤洗净其他类型分子的。而在没有真空输入柄的（培养基）情况下，砷易于与DNA结合，就像鞋子上面粘上了口香糖一样。“如果要做的更好的话，还有大量的细节工作要做。” Rohwer说道。
In fact, says Harvard microbiologist Alex Bradley, the NASA scientists unknowingly demonstrated the flaws in their own experiment. They immersed the DNA in water as they analyzed it, he points out. Arsenic compounds fall apart quickly in water, so if it really was in the microbe's genes, it should have broken into fragments, Bradley wrote Sunday in a guest post on the blog We, Beasties. But the DNA remained in large chunks—presumably because it was made of durable phosphate. Bradley got his Ph.D. under MIT professor Roger Summons, who co-authored the 2007 weird-life report. Summons backs his former student's critique. 哈佛大学微生物专家Alex Bradley认为，实际上，美国宇航局科学家在无意之中证明了实验的缺陷。本周日他在名为“我们形同野兽”的博客中发表了一篇博文。他指出，科学家们在分析（成分）时，将DNA沉于水中。如果砷确实存在于病毒基因之中的话，那么，砷化合物应当在水中迅速分解，并应该被分解成若干碎片。但是，DNA仍然保持大块——我估计，这是由于不易分解的磷酸盐造成的。Bradley在麻省理工大学教授Roger Summons的指导下获得了博士学位，Roger Summons教授是2007年新生命报告的合作撰稿人之一，而他接受了这位前学生（Bradley）的批判。
But how could the bacteria be using phosphate when they weren't getting any in the lab? That was the point of the experiment, after all. It turns out the NASA scientists were feeding the bacteria salts which they freely admit were contaminated with a tiny amount of phosphate. It's possible, the critics argue, that the bacteria eked out a living on that scarce supply. As Bradley notes, the Sargasso Sea supports plenty of microbes while containing 300 times less phosphate than was present in the lab cultures. 但是，当在实验室环境下一无所获的时候，这种细菌是如何在磷酸盐的作用下生长的呢？（译者注：也即，是外界条件或人为误差而非预设的实验室环境使得细菌生长。）毕竟，这才是实验的关键要害所在。这证明，美国宇航局科学家的培养基中包含一种盐分——这种盐分在任何条件下都会发生反应，并且，只要一丁点磷酸盐就可以污染这种盐分。有批评文章指出，这是有可能的，它使得供给匮乏时细菌得以勉强存活。正向Bradley指出的那样，Sargasso海中支持大量的微生物存活，它所包含的弱磷酸盐是如今实验室条件下的300倍。（译者注：个人认为，这种被污染的盐分便是美国宇航局新发现的所谓“砷命体”，在作为生命物质的磷酸盐匮乏的环境中，它使得目标细菌存活，但是，实际发生作用的是作为污染物的磷酸盐，而非新物质。）
"Low levels of phosphate in growth media, naive investigators and bad reviewers are the stories here," said Norman Pace of the University of Colorado, a pioneer of identifying exotic microbes by analyzing their DNA, who was another co-author on the weird-life report. “低层次的磷酸盐在介质增加的前提下生长，这是敏感的调研者和糟糕的评论者所能达成的共识。” Colorado大学的Norman Pace说道，他能通过DNA分析辨别有毒微生物，并作为这一领域的先行者，他是新生命报告的另一位共同撰稿人。
I asked two of the authors of the study if they wanted to respond to the criticism of their paper. Both politely declined by email.
我（Redfield）向这一研究的两位作者发送了EMAIL，询问他们是否愿意回应关于他们论文的批评，但是，他们都在EMAIL中婉拒了这一邀请。
"We cannot indiscriminately wade into a media forum for debate at this time," declared senior author Ronald Oremland of the U.S. Geological Survey. "If we are wrong, then other scientists should be motivated to reproduce our findings. If we are right (and I am strongly convinced that we are) our competitors will agree and help to advance our understanding of this phenomenon. I am eager for them to do so." “我们不能够忽视媒体论坛在这次讨论中的影响力”美国地理学调查的资深作家Ronald Oremland声称。“如果我们是错误的，那么，其他科学家应当会被激发，并验证结果。而如果我们是正确的，那么，我们的竞争者将同意并自主推进对这一现象的深入理解。我迫切希望他们能够这样做。”
"Any discourse will have to be peer-reviewed in the same manner as our paper was, and go through a vetting process so that all discussion is properly moderated," wrote Felisa Wolfe-Simon of the NASA Astrobiology Institute. "The items you are presenting do not represent the proper way to engage in a scientific discourse and we will not respond in this manner."
“任何研究一定（在某种意义上，是不得不）要在同一情境中反复斟酌，然后还需要对研究过程缜密思考，只有这样，所有的讨论才是适宜的，而我们的论文也如是。” 美国宇航局宇宙生命科学研究室的Felisa Wolfe-Simon如此写道。“你（们）的批评没有以恰当的方式重构科学实验，我们是不会作出回应的。”（译者注：真正的学术批判是在原有研究的基础上进行批评，并重构自身的理论，在理论的争辩中达成共识——没有孰对孰错，只有真知灼见。因此，媒介/媒体人充其量只是“批评人”，他们留下的大多是“铲除异己”的伪科学轨迹，与真实的科学相去甚远。事实上，批判，是真正“高素质”的人方可参与的头脑游戏，而所谓的“批判生活”则是近乎完美的智者生活。）
While Redfield considers Wolfe-Simon's research "flim-flam," she thinks it's fine for the NASA scientists to hold off responding to their critics. She is working on a formal letter to Science detailing her objections. But Jonathan Eisen of UC-Davis doesn't let the scientists off so easily. "If they say they will not address the responses except in journals, that is absurd," he said. "They carried out science by press release and press conference. Whether they were right or not in their claims, they are now hypocritical if they say that the only response should be in the scientific literature." Redfield认为Wolfe-Simon的研究是有益的，它使得美国宇航局科学家得以远离“批评”。Wolfe-Simon目前正在处理一些正式信件，它们构成了学术批评的“科学举证”。但是，UC-Davis 的Jonathan Eisen却不能令科学家们潜心工作。“除了期刊以外，科学家们将不会在其他媒体上回应批评。这种想法简直太荒谬了。”他说。“他们通过新闻报道和新闻发布会（这些现代传媒工具）来推进科学研究。不管上述声明是否正确，科学家们将批评范围局限在科学著作之中的这一做法，就使得批判本身蒙上了一层理想化的色彩。”
Some scientists are left wondering why NASA made such a big deal over a paper with so many flaws. "I suspect that NASA may be so desperate for a positive story that they didn't look for any serious advice from DNA or even microbiology people," says John Roth of UC-Davis. The experience reminded some of another press conference NASA held in 1996. Scientists unveiled a meteorite from Mars in which they said there were microscopic fossils. A number of critics condemned the report (also published in Science) for making claims it couldn't back up. And today many scientists think that all of the alleged signs of life in the rocks could have just as easily been made on a lifeless planet.
一些科学家对美国宇航局在一篇漏洞百出的论文中倾注大量心血而感到疑惑。“我怀疑，美国宇航局可能会因为一个积极的故事而被孤立，因为他们没有听取任何关于DNA或是微观生物学从业者的严肃建议。” UC-Davis的John Roth说道。这与1996年美国宇航局的另一个新闻发布会如出一辙。科学家们揭开了火星上——火星上有很多微生物化石——的陨石之谜。大量的批评主要是谴责这篇报告（也是以科学形式出版的）没有理论支持。而今，大多数科学家认为，岩石上所有已知的生命迹象都能够轻易地在一个无生命的星球发生。（译者注：作者通过火星研究的例证对John Roth的观点提出了异议——这项火星研究甫一问世，便遭到了各方的抨击，但是，在10年之后，它却得到了科学家们的普遍认同。）
The controversy over the Martian meteorite still sputters on today because they contain only a few alleged fossils, rather than living bacteria. There are only a limited number of tests that scientists can run on the rocks, and their results remain murky. Fortunately, that's not the case for GFAJ-1. Critics say that a few straightforward tests on the bacteria would show whether they really do have arsenic-based DNA once and for all. And the NASA scientists say they're ready to hand out GFAJ-1 to researchers who want to study it. This controversy may be burning brightly at the moment, but it probably won't burn for long. 关于火星陨石的悖论在今天看来仍然是逻辑混乱的，因为它们包含一些声称的化石而不是存活的细菌。科学家们也只就有限数量的的岩石进行过测试，并且结果仍然是不明朗的。所幸的是，“GFAJ-1细菌”研究与此不同。批评家们认为对于细菌进行直接的测试能够显示出它们是否的确是在砷的作用下形成DNA，这一现象只是偶然的还是必然的。而美国宇航局的科学家则指出，他们打算将GFAJ-1分发给那些想致力于此的研究人员。这种悖论可能会盛极一时，但却不会持续太久（因为，学术共识迟早会出现）。
Comments 【评论】
skenwrick This is a very eloquent and detailed dissection of some of the potential flaws with this research, but I was wondering whether Felisa's recent response to some of the questions and criticism has been addressed by her recent response here:&& 事实胜于雄辩，其中，也包含了一些对这项研究潜在缺陷进行的细节剖析，但是，我想知道的是，Felisa是否将近期对于质疑和批评的回应全部发表在了以下文章中。 /gfaj/GFAJquestions_Response_16Dec2010.pdf /gfaj/GFAJquestions_Response_16Dec2010.pdf【译者问：研究者将全部回应发表在文章中对“观众”而言又意味着什么呢？】 昨天, 2:16:09 昨天, 2:16:09 &&George Dewey Cody
George Dewey Cody One last thing, I have observed alot of NASA bashing here, but all should be aware that most of the named critics of this story are or were NASA sponsored scientists. The NASA proposal selection process is (in my opinion) one of the most peer reviewed and rigorous that I have ever seen. It is in fact one of the only institutions that I believe truly seeks to have the "cream" rise to the top, independent of reputation or stature. If you disagree, please let me know. Bottom line, the NASA review process (in my opinion) works extremely well. 我一直很关注有关美国宇航局的批评，我发现，所有批评都应当被关注，这是因为大多数署名的批评都（曾经）是由美国宇航局资助的研究组的科学家。美国宇航局的提案筛选程序是我所见到过的最缜密、最严苛的专业行为。事实上，它是我所信任的为数不多的研究机构之一，他们将研究精华层层上报，并具有独立的权威或司法程序。如果你不同意的话，请让我知道。由此可见，美国宇航局的反思过程也是极为出色的。【译者问：美国宇航局实质是最理想的官僚组织了？】
, 10:15:46 , 10:15:46 &&George Dewey Cody
George Dewey Cody The correlation of quality of peer review with impact factor of the journal is non-existent. You are likely to get a better review from a lower impact journal. There are super smart people everywhere, but time is a limited commodity. So if a high profile journal goes after "big name reviewers" for their high impact articles, the number of "big name reviewers" is much smaller than the large number of "small name" qualified reviewers who are routinely asked to review articles in less "high impact" journals. Bottom line, do not "dis" low impact journals as producing lower quality science or less stringent reviews. You have to understand the sociology of science first to understand how real science is contorted by human ambitions. The good news is that (in my opinion) good science utlimately does win, albeit without fan fare. “反复论证的高质量反思”和“学术期刊的影响因素”二者间的相关关系是不存在的。你在低一级的学术评论上可能会得到更好的评价。天才随处可见，但时间却是稀缺商品。如果一家高级别的期刊持续发表著名评论家文章，那么，这说明，著名评论家的数量是少之又少的，且远不及非著名评论家们的总数，而非著名评论家则被那些不太有影响力的期刊持续约稿。时间期限则放大了低影响力期刊的负面（dis）效果，产生了大量低质量的伪科学或并不尖锐的评论。你不得不首先理解社会科学，搞清楚真正的科学是如何被人类的野心所包装的。好消息是，真正的好科学是彻彻底底的赢了，爱因斯坦不再是偶像神话。【译者问：在“哪儿”说话重不重要？“哪儿”全是因为“谁”而存在的！社会科学重不重要？社会科学是对“自然科学”重要，是对“真实社会”重要，但重要的不是“谁”，而是“为什么”！当偶像神话复归偶像神话的地儿时，偶像神话便被叫做“真理”！】
, 9:32:25 , 9:32:25 &&Raul Bloodwurth
Raul Bloodwurth It is worth noting that the name of the organism GFAJ-1 means "Give Felisa a Job." Felisa is the lead author on the paper.&& 化合物命名为GFAJ-1的意思在于给Felisa一项工作（Give Felisa a Job），它本身并不具有任何意义。Felisa是这篇论文的主要作者。
In general it is bad form for scientists to hype their results with press conferences. This is because peer review is not perfect, and you may eventually be proven wrong when the entire scientific community sees your work. Without getting into the technical details, this study is deeply flawed. But Felisa wants a job..... 新闻发布会将科学家们的研究成果吹得天花乱坠，这对科学家们来说，是一种糟糕的表达方式。这是因为，在大胆假设，小心论证的过程中，一切都是不完美的，而在纯粹科学的共同体那里，当下研究将被证明是错误的。如果没有技术细节的支持的话，这项研究则是彻底失败的。但是，Felisa只是需要一个工作……【译者问：Felisa真正需要的工作是什么？】
, 16:33:15 , 16:33:15 &&Cheryl Meril
Cheryl Meril You can't trust NASA anymore because of Project Blue. Blue项目之后，你再不能相信美国宇航局了。 , 15:31:10 , 15:31:10 &&John Smick
John Smick This is what makes science so great. It's self correcting. 这（事件）使得科学是如此的伟大，因为它一直在被正确的实践着。
, 17:48:18 , 17:48:18 &&Kristin
Kristin Even if the article turned out to be sound, what did NASA expect from using the term "extraterrestrial life" in such a misleading way in a press release? The next time NASA cries "Alien!", they may receive crickets instead of a media firestorm. 这篇文章甚至也被认为是合理的了，那么，美国宇航局希望从外星生命这样一种误导公众的新闻稿中获得什么呢？下次，当美国宇航局叫喊着外星人的时候，他们收到的可能是众口一词的附和而不是疾风骤雨的媒体批评。【译者问：当“智者”多了，“沉默螺旋”也就不再是真命题了，而庆幸着“鸡生蛋蛋生鸡”的英明神武的，将是那些一知半解的“假把式”。只是，将有多久？将有多少人？】
, 17:41:54 , 17:41:54 &&Michael Hallden-Abberton
Michael Hallden-Abberton So, what we need is a good, hydrated DNA X-Ray crystal structure with Actual Arsenic atoms in the Phosphorous positions, and good bond lengths and bond angles. That alone should answer many of the skeptics. Beyond that, a functioning DNA that can replicate, and after mitosis still contains Arsenic atoms according to quantitative analysis would be another huge advance. And quite frankly, Charlotte, I don't give a damn whether its exo-planetary or not, that would be a hugely interesting biological advance! Lets stop quibbling, and get on with the science. (But yes, NASA needs to be a little more peer-reviewed in its publication process!) 所以，我们需要的是好东西，是在磷酸盐位置上、经过X光透视过的水化DNA在真正的砷分子作用下成长，而且发生反应的分子在长度和角度上都好的“东西”。这种真空独立回答了很多怀疑者的问题。在此之后，一个动态的DNA是能够被复制的，且经过处理后的DNA中仍然存在砷原子，这样的一个结论应当被更先进的实验和数量更多的分析所支持和验证。坦率讲，Charlotte是生物学人趋之若鹜的前沿领域，但不管前人的研究是否充分，我都不打算抨击它。停止吹毛求疵，继续科学事业吧。（但是，美国宇航局在媒介报道过程中，需要更多的谨慎论证！）
, 12:43:54 , 12:43:54 &&HAP
HAP “Critics say that a few straightforward tests on the bacteria would show whether they really do have arsenic-based DNA once and for all. And the NASA scientists say they're ready to hand out GFAJ-1 to researchers who want to study it. This controversy may be burning brightly at the moment, but it probably won't burn for long.” “批评家们认为对于细菌进行直接的测试能够显示出它们是否的确是在砷的作用下形成DNA，这一现象只是偶然的还是必然的。而美国宇航局的科学家则指出，他们打算将GFAJ-1分发给那些想致力于此的研究人员。这种悖论可能会盛极一时，但却不会持续太久（因为，学术共识迟早会出现）。”
, 13:48:08 , 13:48:08 &&Mark Benford
Mark Benford Sounds like what they need is not "peer" review, but a review by people who actually work in the field they're dabbling in. 他们需要的可能并不是反复论证的严谨态度，但是，从评论中却能够看到这一领域中到底谁才是真正在做事的人。【译者问：或者只是寻找真正动脑子的人？】
, 4:53:35 , 4:53:35 &&Jutta Kueppers
Jutta Kueppers l. Everthing only a hoax? 只是一场恶作剧？ , 2:45:19 , 2:45:19 &&Benny Hutman
Benny Hutman Not a hoax, just sloppy work. 不是恶作剧，只是马虎出了纰漏 , 13:34:33 , 13:34:33 &&seandspector
Seandspector On the point of dissolving in water this article is quite wrong. The whole point is that this DNA is somehow stable even though it has arsenic instead of phosphorous. Simply stating that arsenic containing compounds dissolve in water is no rebuke, it is akin to saying that, upon finding the real santa claus, that santa claus isn't real because in the past we knew he wasn't real. Also, on the "tiny amount" present in crystals if you took the time to analyze the actual amount in the crystals you could prove to us whether there was indeed enough for the DNA, but you didn't take the time did you... 论文中对于溶解于水的论证是非常不正确的。DNA是一种比较稳定的结构，甚至在砷替代磷酸盐的过程中也不例外。论文中的观点“在溶解于水的过程中形成了含砷的化合物”被批评过于草率，这种指责也是不正确的，就好比说，在寻找真圣诞老人的过程中，圣诞老人不是真实存在的，因为，在过去，我们都知道他是不真实的（虚构的）。【译者注：圣诞老人不是真实存在的，这只是个被验证的命题而已，如果被证实，那么，我们可以得出结论说，我们找到了真正的圣诞老人；而如果被证伪，则意味着他确实是不存在的，命题被否定是经由实证检验的，而不是过往命题论证的。】同样的，在“微量结晶”的结论描述中，你也能够发现，不管实际结晶是否足够多以形成DNA，当你花时间去分析实际结晶量时，你已经没有时间去控制实验过程了。【译者问：个人认为，这实际上是一种诡辩方法论，当时间被分割成若干片断，且每个片断中恰又发生了新的变化，研究者能做的只是如实记录现象，待特定周期后返回实验情境，分析变化原因，然后再改变实验条件，进行新的尝试，如此往复，直至发现新物质。而过程记录反而成为建构科学的证据，但，这应当仅限于自然科学。对于社会科学，在没有高科技手段的前提下，复杂社会现象的“解决”大抵是不道德的一厢情愿罢了。】
, 16:51:53 , 16:51:53 &&Kristin
Kristin The point of contention is that in the type of DNA extraction used, all biochemical machinery (meaning protein, specifically enzymes) would have been separated from the DNA. It is this same biochemical machinery that is presumed to be stabilizing the arsenate-incorporated DNA. From the Science article: "we hypothesized that AsO4 3- could specifically substitute for PO4 3- in an organism possessing mechanisms to cope with the inherent instability of AsO4 3- compounds". &
这项新发现在于DNA的提纯方法，所有生化科学都会对DNA进行分离。而同类生化科学的研究可以得出“砷化合形成DNA”的假设。有科学文章指出，“我们假设AsO4 3-能够在化合作用中替代PO4 3-，形成内在稳定的AsO4 3-的化合物。”
*Also, DNA is supposed to dissolve in water. Dr. Bradley's argument is that the arsenate-containing DNA should have hydrolyzed in water during the extraction (dissolve = hydrolyze = break apart).&& 也就是说，DNA被假设是溶于水的。Bradley博士批评的是含砷DNA在提纯过程中是应该在水中被分解的。（dissolve = hydrolyze = break apart）
&&**Also, the amounts of arsenic and phosphorous were analyzed by the Wolfe-Simon group. So yes, they did take the time. I think we will see a lot of upcoming debate on whether or not the amount of phosphorous present was enough for the bacteria to have "normal DNA". 也就是说，砷和磷酸盐的量是Wolfe-Simon集团的分析结果。所以，的确，它们是需要花时间的。我认为，更多的讨论将围绕磷的量是否足够产生“正常DNA”。
, 17:11:15 , 17:11:15
来自无觅插件
我在你的上一篇译文《超高温条件下的陨石中首次发现了生命元素》(http://article.yeeyan.org/view/)下作的评论【恕我再次直言，以你的英文理解能力和对相关学科的认识，你还远未达到能够翻译这类文章的水平】，也完全适用于这一篇。译文前的【译者注】，内容不知所谓，清楚表明你根本看不懂这项研究如何进行、得出什么结果，以及引起什么争议。
之所以在译文前作【译者注】，就是想说明，这是个人观点，或者说，这是译者本人希望借译文表达的个人观点。对于文字，谁和谁都有不同的看法；关于文字选择，谁都有谁的自由。而所谓科学的、社会的、政治的、道德的抑或是其他的结果与争议，只是翻译，与理解无关……
我在你的上一篇译文《超高温条件下的陨石中首次发现了生命元素》(http://article.yeeyan.org/view/)下作的评论【恕我再次直言，以你的英文理解能...
这评论太深刻了
还没有人赞过这篇文章
Copyright & 2014 yeeyan.org
公司全称：北京译言协力传媒科技有限公司
公司地址：北京市朝阳区阜安西路望京SOHO-T1-A座-2202室
联系方式：010-
京ICP备号&&京公网安备99号
&&|&&&&|&&&&|&& &&|&& &&|&&&&|&&