出版与作家生涯2017bloomberg.com
孟山都曾为自己的部分安全审查充当影子写手
Monsanto Was Its Own Ghostwriter for Some Safety Reviews
导读
这篇报道揭露孟山都曾为部分安全评估充当影子写手，评论则把话题延伸到科研资助、发表偏差与公众信任。对写作者来说，它提醒我们写科学或企业议题时，不能只复述结论，还要追问谁出钱、谁代笔、谁决定发表，以及证据链是否经得起检验。
可以直接用的写作要点
- 01
写科学或企业议题时，先交代“谁资助、谁代笔、谁发布”，把利益关系作为叙事结构的一部分，而不是只写结论。
- 02
引用研究时要追问是否存在选择性发表：不利结果是否因资助方压力被压下，这往往比单篇结论更能说明问题。
- 03
区分“被怀疑”与“被证实”，用具体证据和机制说明利益冲突，避免用情绪或阴谋论替代论证。
- 04
讨论争议科学时，不要把质疑研究简单写成“反科学”；应具体解释资助偏差、监管俘获等机制，让批评有据可依。
HN 评论精选
科研经费依赖私人资助会造成发表偏差：不利结果可能因担心失去资助而被压下。
你应该意识到今天科研中金钱有多重要。研究实验室首席研究员（PI）现在的主要工作就是写经费申请。实验室通常经费不足，必要时会接受任何私人资助。例如我所在营养实验室的 PI 接受了一家加拿大农业公司资助来研究芥花油；研究结果被审查时（我记不清细节），结果并不利于芥花油，于是 PI“自愿”决定不发表。我问她为什么，她说一旦发表，就很可能再也拿不到这家公司的资助。我的观点是，今天很多研究背后都有别有用心的动机——政治的、私人的，或像孟山都这样的公司。我完全预料孟山都会这么做。纯粹/基础研究的时代已经死了，尤其公共部门经费在枯竭。
rubatuga查看英文原文
You should realize how important money is in research today. The main job nowadays of principal investigators (PI) for research labs is to write applications for grants and fundings. These labs are usually underfunded and will accept any private funding if necessary. For example, the PI for my nutrition lab received funding from a Canadian agricultural company for a study on Canola oil. When the test results of the study were investigated (which I don't exactly recall), they were not in favour of Canola oil. The PI therefore "voluntarily" decided not to publish the results. I asked her why, and she said that if she published the results she would not be likely to ever receive funding from the company again. My point is that a lot of research conducted today is funded by ulterior motives, be it political, private interest, or a company like Monsanto. I fully expected a company like Monsanto to be engaged in this behaviour. The days of pure/basic research are dead, especially with funding from the public sector drying up. edit: oops i meant to write principal investigator (PI)
报道的重点应是从怀疑到证实；反讽独立研究并不独立。
在我看来，真正的“新闻”只是这件事能被证明——他们被当场抓住了。我常梦想看到这样的新闻：“独立研究真的被证明是独立的。”
jaclaz查看英文原文
The actual "news" are IMHO only that this can proven as they have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar. I often dream of some news like "Independent research actually found to be independent".
质疑资助研究不应被扣上反科学帽子；写作者要揭示经济利益如何制造“后真相”并影响公共认知。
这个时机对我很有意思。我昨天刚读了大西洋月刊《美国如何失去理智》。文章大意是美国人越来越倾向于创造自己的现实、相信自己愿意相信的东西，包括政府故意扣留癌症治疗、疫苗导致自闭症等阴谋论；文章还暗示选择相信什么是美国性的一部分。我不完全同意，因为文章严重低估了经济利益在故意误导、制造后真相世界中的破坏作用。在 HN 上，我和一些人“辩论”过，他们几乎把草甘膦说成人类史上最好的东西。我提醒过度使用有安全担忧时，就得到标准的研究链接；你若质疑研究，就会被说成反科学阴谋论者——尽管我们大体都知道研究如何做、监管俘获有多普遍。我的意思是，当我们本该信任的机构大多被俘获，直接有经济动机误导人的公司又能决定什么是真的，这就是对真相和理性的攻击。忽略这一点、鼓励盲信这些机构，只会让问题更糟。
unclebucknasty查看英文原文
Interesting timing for me. I just yesterday read an Atlantic article titled "How America Lost Its Mind" [0]. The tldr; of that article is that Americans have had an increasing tendency to create our own realities and to believe anything we choose. This includes conspiracy theories like the government is purposely allowing cancer treatments to be withheld, as well as the idea that vaccines cause autism, etc. The article then goes on to suggest that choosing what to believe is part of being American. I don't necessarily agree, as I think the article was woefully inadequate in assessing the damage that financial interests play in willfully misleading people and creating a post-truth world. Here on HN, I've had "debates" with people who nearly suggested that glyphosate is the greatest thing that ever happened to mankind. When I cautioned about safety concerns due to overuse, I got the standard pointer to the studies, etc. If you question the studies, then you find yourself being painted as some sort of anti-science conspiracy-theorist. This, when we essentially all know how research is done and the degree of rampant regulatory capture that exists. I guess my point is that when many of the institutions we're supposed to trust are largely captured and firms that have direct financial incentive to mislead are allowed to decide what's real, then it is an assault on truth and reason. When we ignore this fact and encourage blind-belief in these institutions (worse, allowing them to act as proxies for "the ultimate truth of science"), then we are aiding in the creation of the very post-fact world we claim to abhor. [0] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/how-america-lost-its-mind/534231/
同类还值得读
写书：值得吗？
Writing a book: is it worth it?
Martin Kleppmann（《设计数据密集型应用》作者）复盘写书到底值不值：金钱回报低、耗时极长，但带来了可见度、信任和职业机会。
出版与作家生涯2020 · 642 分 · 287 评4 条写作要点编辑精选写书并不是个好主意
Writing books is not really a good idea
这篇文章讨论靠写书谋生的现实难度，评论区从版税数学、收入预期和写作目标三个角度补充了作者视角。
出版与作家生涯2021 · 577 分 · 609 评4 条写作要点编辑精选如何自助出版一本书：实用资源清单
How to self-publish a book: A handy list of resources
这是一份关于「如何自助出版一本书」的资源清单帖，涵盖从编辑、排版到 ISBN、销售渠道的实操工具与花费。
出版与作家生涯2018 · 558 分 · 88 评4 条写作要点编辑精选我自助出版一本Ruby on Rails书，赚了7万美元
How I Made $70k Self-Publishing a Book about Ruby on Rails
这是一篇 Ruby 开发者自述：他把一套 Rails 性能课程（书＋视频＋答疑）自出版，一年毛收入约 7 万美元，并总结了选题、定价、营销等经验。
出版与作家生涯2017 · 539 分 · 175 评4 条写作要点编辑精选石黑一雄警告年轻作家因“恐惧”而自我审查
Sir Kazuo Ishiguro warns of young authors self-censoring out of 'fear'
石黑一雄提醒年轻作者因“恐惧”而自我审查，即这条帖子讨论的核心。
出版与作家生涯2021 · 396 分 · 641 评5 条写作要点编辑精选