2018-5-5 SAT亚太卷写作考情速递

-回复 -浏览
楼主 2020-03-25 18:46:11
举报 只看此人 收藏本贴 楼主


本次亚太写作题目为Give the data to the people ,全文主旨是the results of clinical trials should be available to future researchers. 

全文开篇点名作者自己的研究小组YODA参与到一个新的项目中,这个项目旨在推动医学临床研究结果的公开化。作者指出,这个计划对目前医学研究领域的做法是一种改进,因为目前的研究中,实验数据的不透明是普遍的问题。作者在给出对于该计划进一步的论述之前,先通过concession的方式承认了企业和研究者对于公开数据可能会持有的疑虑,并且通过斩钉截铁的语言进行rebuttal:只要我们开始了这项计划,那么这些问题都不是事。进而,作者详细描述了2011年YODA项目与一个医疗器械公司合作的经过。在开发新的设备时,该公司公开数据,获得各方面独立研究者的反馈,为做出理性客观的决策提供了帮助。这样一个example证实了作者的提议并非空谈,而是有了成效。在文章结尾部分,作者强调了数据公开计划的诸多benefits ,不仅是对于研究者本身,而且是对于病人康复以及整个医学研究领域的健康发展都至关重要。文章结尾用了排比的方式进行列举,加强语气。

纵观全文,虽然没有同学们最钟爱的Statistics 证据,但是具有很多关键的factual evidence 。这其中采用了concession and rebuttal的论证关系来阐明公开早就数据的可行性。对于目前的现状,通过irony来表明数据公开的紧迫性和必要性。而在文章末尾,又通过parallelism来列举该项计划的好处。可以组织的点比较多,但是一定要注意作者自身的参与是本文的一大亮点,也就是通过自身付出的努力来获得读者进一步的信任,以专家的姿态展现对于困难与好处的理解,并以科学的严谨态度和责任感来获得共鸣。


Give the Data to the People

By Harlan M. Krumholz

Feb. 2, 2014

LAST week, Johnson & Johnson announced that it was making all of its clinical trial data available to scientists around the world. It has hired my group, Yale University Open Data Access Project, or YODA, to fully oversee the release of the data. Everything in the company’s clinical research vaults, including unpublished raw data, will be available for independent review.

This is an extraordinary donation to society, and a reversal of the industry’s traditional tendency to treat data as an asset that would lose value if exposed to public scrutiny.

Today, more than half of the clinical trials in the United States, including many sponsored by academic and governmental institutions, are not published within two years of their completion. Often they are never published at all. The unreported results, not surprisingly, are often those in which a drug failed to perform better than a placebo. As a result, evidence-based medicine is, at best, based on only some of the evidence. One of the most troubling implications is that full information on a drug’s effects may never be discovered or released.

Even when studies are published, the actual data are usually not made available. End users of research — patients, doctors and policy makers — are implicitly told by a single group of researchers to “take our word for it.” They are often forced to accept the report without the prospect of other independent scientists’ reproducing the findings — a violation of a central tenet of the scientific method.

To be fair, the decision to share data is not easy. Companies worry that their competitors will benefit, that lawyers will take advantage, that incompetent scientists will misconstrue the data and come to mistaken conclusions. Researchers feel ownership of the data and may be reluctant to have others use it. So Johnson & Johnson, as well as companies like GlaxoSmithKline and Medtronic that have made more cautious moves toward transparency, deserve much credit. The more we share data, however, the more we find that many of these problems fail to materialize.

In 2011, YODA struck a deal with Medtronic to release all the data on one of its products — a device that stimulates the production of bone. At the time, questions had been raised about the device’s safety, including whether it caused cancer, and about the conflicts of interests of some of the company’s researchers. Medtronic made the unusual decision to respond to the debate by releasing the device’s data for independent review. We commissioned and then published two independent reviews of the data, and now have made them globally available.

Interestingly, the reviews produced somewhat conflicting results. One found that the device was no better than a bone graft and might be associated with a slight increase in cancer, while the other found that the device was effective and the cancer risk inconclusive. To us these differences reinforce the value of open science: now the data are out there for further study.

This program doesn’t mean that just anyone can gain access to the data without disclosing how they intend to use it. We require those who want the data to submit a proposal and identify their research team, funding and any conflicts of interest. They have to complete a short course on responsible conduct and sign an agreement that restricts them to their proposed research question. Most important, they must agree to share whatever they find. And we exclude applicants who seek data for commercial or legal purposes. Our intent is not to be tough gatekeepers, but to ensure that the data are used in a transparent way and contribute to overall scientific knowledge.

There are many benefits to this kind of sharing. It honors the contributions of the subjects and scientists who participated in the research. It is proof that an organization, whether it is part of industry or academia, wants to play a role as a good global citizen. It demonstrates that the organization has nothing to hide. And it enables scientists to use the data to learn new ways to help patients. Such an approach can even teach a company like Johnson & Johnson something it didn’t know about its own products.

For the good of society, this is a breakthrough that should be replicated throughout the research world.