調查局三等
110年
[調查工作組] 外國文(英文)
第 28 題
📖 題組：
請依下文回答第 26 題至第 30 題 In Feb. 2014, 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 Everything in the company’s clinical research vaults, including unpublished raw data, will be available for independent review. Today, more than half of the clinical trials in the United States are not published within two years of their completion or 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, implying 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 the 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, and that incompetent scientists will misconstrue the data and come to mistaken conclusions. So Johnson & Johnson and companies like Medtronic that have made 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 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 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 doesn’t mean that 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, and exclude those who seek data for commercial or legal purposes. The applicants have to complete a short course on responsible conduct and sign an agreement that restricts them to their proposed research questions. Most important, they must agree to share whatever they find. 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.
請依下文回答第 26 題至第 30 題 In Feb. 2014, 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. Today, more than half of the clinical trials in the United States are not published within two years of their completion or 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, implying 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 the 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, and that incompetent scientists will misconstrue the data and come to mistaken conclusions. So Johnson & Johnson and companies like Medtronic that have made 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 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 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 doesn’t mean that 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, and exclude those who seek data for commercial or legal purposes. The applicants have to complete a short course on responsible conduct and sign an agreement that restricts them to their proposed research questions. Most important, they must agree to share whatever they find. 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.
According to the passage, what happened after more companies made their data available to the public?
- A These companies gained benefits.
- B Lawyers won more lawsuits for them.
- C People learned more about their products.
- D They received more orders from hospitals.
思路引導 VIP
在文章的後半段，作者提到 Medtronic 公司公開數據後，獨立研究員對該產品進行了審查並發表結果。請思考：當原本保密的原始數據被不同科學家分析並討論後，對一般大眾而言，關於這項產品的資訊量會增加還是減少？這對我們理解產品有什麼幫助？
🤖
AI 詳解
AI 專屬家教
太棒了！你的觀察非常敏銳
- 大力肯定：做得好！你能從長篇文章中精準掌握「資訊透明化」帶來的正向影響，這代表你具備優秀的資訊整合能力與閱讀深度。
- 觀念驗證：文中第 6 段提到，數據公開後雖然有不同研究結論，但重點在於「數據已公開供進一步研究」，且第 7 段強調其目的是為了「增進整體科學知識」（overall scientific knowledge）。當數據不再被鎖在保險箱，大眾對產品的真實效能與風險自然能有更全面的認知。
▼ 還有更多解析內容