就在母親節(jié)那天，美國HBO電視臺名嘴,、《上周今夜秀》的主持人約翰?奧利弗扮演了一把“偽科學(xué)斗士之母”,。包括NBC電視臺《今日》（Today）在內(nèi)的一些早間新聞脫口秀節(jié)目，不時會引用所謂最新“研究成果”的聳人聽聞的數(shù)據(jù)來挑戰(zhàn)傳統(tǒng)醫(yī)學(xué)智慧,。奧利弗此次“手撕”的就是這樣的科研結(jié)果,。

為了解釋媒體是如何斷章取義，并且發(fā)揚強大的宣傳機器,，將一些科學(xué)價值有限的科研進展吹得天花亂綴的,，奧利弗給觀眾們上了一堂學(xué)術(shù)打假課。

“現(xiàn)在到處都能看到所謂的研究結(jié)果,，而它們有些是相互矛盾的,。”奧利弗在本周日的節(jié)目中開炮道：“就在最近幾個月,，還有所謂的科研成果聲稱,，喝咖啡能逆轉(zhuǎn)肝損傷，并且有助于預(yù)防結(jié)腸癌,，降低子宮內(nèi)膜癌的風(fēng)險,，但同時也會增加流產(chǎn)的風(fēng)險?！?/p>

他繼續(xù)道：“如今的咖啡就像《舊約》里的上帝,。它可能會救你的命，也可能殺掉你,，這取決于你有多相信它的神力,。”

渴望出名的科學(xué)家

這位英國嘲諷達人在節(jié)目中稱,，之所以會出現(xiàn)這種現(xiàn)象,，問題之一在于科學(xué)界都在急著奔向市場,。科學(xué)家們?yōu)榱双@得資金和學(xué)術(shù)終身職位,，常年承受著必須發(fā)表科研論文的壓力,。而學(xué)術(shù)界也像好萊塢一樣，通常是最“熱辣”的課題反響最好,。奧利弗指出：“科學(xué)家們都知道,，沒人會發(fā)表一篇名叫《巴西莓沒啥療效》的研究論文?！?/p>

更糟糕的是,，這種探索性的研究結(jié)果很少會由其他科學(xué)家再核實一遍?！皩τ谌魏伟l(fā)現(xiàn)來說,，第二個發(fā)現(xiàn)它的人都是拿不到獎勵的。對研究成果進行核實的人不可能拿到諾貝爾獎,。順帶說一句,，‘諾貝爾獎不會發(fā)給真相檢查者’也是布萊恩?威廉姆斯貼在MSNBC電視臺更衣室里的勵志海報上的詞兒。（此處又是在黑威廉姆斯炮制假新聞的事兒,。）

郁悶的科學(xué)

奧利弗繼續(xù)解釋道,，除此之外，科技媒體還會發(fā)布進一步斷章取義的報道,，并對這些科研成果的內(nèi)容信息進行誤讀。等到廣播電視新聞節(jié)目大張旗鼓地將這些已被高度簡化的知識灌輸給普羅大眾時,，這些未經(jīng)確認(rèn)的事實也有了自己的生命力,。“這個問題的部分責(zé)任也在我們廣大觀眾,。人們都喜歡有趣的科學(xué)養(yǎng)生知識,，這樣我們就可以在朋友圈傳來傳去了。而電視新聞的制片人們也明白這一點,?！?/p>

舉個例子：KTVU電視臺去年的一則新聞報道稱，每周喝一到三杯香檳,，可能會推遲癡呆癥和阿爾茨海默癥的發(fā)作時間,。“這消息簡直好得不得了,！”電視主持人說道,。

“但并非這么回事！”奧利弗繼續(xù)說：“更何況,，如果你每周開三次香檳慶祝好事,，其實你的慶祝標(biāo)準(zhǔn)也該提高了,。”更重要的是,，事實證明,，許多被媒體廣泛引用的科研成果都是在老鼠身上實驗的。而這相當(dāng)有問題,，因為有些測試對實驗室的小白鼠管用,，未必對人類也管用?！澳銥槭裁床桓嬖V人們這一點,？你為什么不把實驗的照片給他們看？”奧利弗質(zhì)問到此處,，將畫面切換到了一組所謂的“實驗用小白鼠”上：兩只頗有嬉皮士派頭的小老鼠各戴一頂非常時髦的帽子,，手里端著香檳，身邊是一排排相比之下顯得十分巨大的可卡因粉,?！斑@些老鼠真時尚啊,！”

連Ted演講也很可疑

不過奧利弗也指出,，“早間新聞秀”式的半吊子科學(xué)并非只是電視臺的專寵。他提到了2011年由保羅?扎克主講的一次Ted演講,。在這次演講中,，這位神經(jīng)經(jīng)濟學(xué)家對一種“道德分子”大加吹捧。這種神奇的分子其實就是人體所分泌的一種激素——催產(chǎn)素,，它在人體的某些身體接觸的過程中也會分泌,。“這就是姓‘愛’的醫(yī)生給你開的處方,?！痹嗽谀谴窝葜v中這樣說道，這位“愛醫(yī)生”顯然說的就是他自己,?！懊刻?個擁抱。我們發(fā)現(xiàn),，分泌催產(chǎn)素更多的人會更快樂,。”

奧利弗做了個鬼臉,，然后繼續(xù)歡快地手撕“愛醫(yī)生”,。“首先，不要叫自己‘愛醫(yī)生’,，那是路邊小報給對著麻醉的病人擼管的多情牙醫(yī)起的名字,。其次，每天跟人擁抱8次也不可能讓我更快樂,。我是英國人,！我們活四輩子才能擁抱這么多次?！?/p>

然后,，奧列弗又拿出一篇《生物精神病學(xué)》（Biological Psychiatry）期刊上的科研論文，這篇論文指出,，認(rèn)為催產(chǎn)素能提高人的快樂水平的看法是“可疑的”,。因此奧列弗向觀眾嚴(yán)肅警告道：“如果有個怪蜀黍管自己叫‘愛醫(yī)生’，提出要每天擁抱你8次,，一定要拒絕哦,！”

怒撕NBC《今日》

奧利弗把最猛的火力留給了NBC電視臺《今日》欄目。根據(jù)該欄目的自我描述,，它就是“為了科學(xué)研究而活”的,。這時奧列弗插入了一段視頻，內(nèi)容是《今日》主持人娜塔麗?莫拉萊斯和塔瑪龍?豪爾正在煞有介事地爭論全脂牛奶的利弊,，并各自搬出了一些科研成果作為理論依據(jù),。這時他們的爭論被天氣預(yù)報的主持人艾爾?洛克打斷了，他發(fā)表了自己的意見：“你只要找到聽起來最適合你的科學(xué)研究,，然后按它說的做就行了,。”

“不,！不,！不！”奧利弗一邊說一邊用手拍著桌子,?！澳阋詾榭茖W(xué)是點菜嗎,？如果你不喜歡這一道,，另一道馬上就來了？正因為這樣,，才導(dǎo)致有人相信人為的氣候變化不是真的,；也正因為這樣，才有人相信疫苗會導(dǎo)致自閉癥,。而對這兩個問題,，科學(xué)界的共識已經(jīng)十分清楚了?！?/p>

“科學(xué)是扯淡嗎,？”奧利弗自問自答道：“不是的,，但是當(dāng)前冒充科學(xué)來扯淡的，實在太多了,?！保ㄘ敻恢形木W(wǎng)）

本文作者Chris Lee曾任《娛樂周刊》、《洛杉磯時報》,、《新聞周刊》和《野獸日報》等媒體的特約撰稿人,，主要報道洛杉磯地區(qū)與娛樂、文化和商業(yè)有關(guān)的話題,。

譯者：樸成奎

On Mother’s Day, John Oliver delivered the mother of all scientific mockeries. His aim: to debunk the type of “studies” typically cited on morning talk shows such as NBC’s Today that purport to challenge conventional medical wisdom with surprising new data.

Illustrating how such information gets blown out of proportion by a revved-up news cycle that thrives on out-of-context and unconfirmed breakthroughs of limited scientific merit, the host of HBO’s Last Week Tonight delivered a trash-talking civics lesson as a comedy of errors.

“There are so many studies being thrown around, they can seem to contradict one another,” Oliver said Sunday. “In just the last few months, we’ve seen studies about coffee that claim it may reverse the effects of liver damage, help prevent colon cancer, decrease the risk of endometrial cancer and increase the risk of miscarriage.”

“Coffee today is like God in the Old Testament,” he continued. “It will either save you or kill you depending on how much you believe in its magic powers.”

Publicity-hungry scientists

Problem A, according to the British satirist’s report, is a rush to marketplace that finds scientists under constant pressure to publish research papers in order to land funding and academic tenure. In academia, as in Hollywood, sexy sells. “Scientists know nobody is publishing a study called “Nothing is Up with Acai Berries,” Oliver noted.

Worse, such exploratory studies are seldom double checked by other scientists. “There is no reward for being the second person to discover something,” the host said. “There is no Nobel Prize for fact checking. Incidentally, ‘There is no Nobel Prize for fact checking’ is a motivational poster in Brian Williams’ MSNBC dressing room.”

Dumbed down science

From there, he explained, scientific press releases further dumb-down and misrepresent the studies’ informational content. And by the time broadcast news reports mainline those into popular consciousness, the unconfirmed facts take on a life of their own. “Some of this is on us, the viewing audience,” Oliver said. “We like fun, poppy science that we can share like gossip. And TV news producers know it.”

Exhibit A: KTVU News report from last year stating that drinking one to three glasses of champagne per week may delay the onset of dementia and Alzheimer’s disease. “Fantastic news!” an anchorman snorted.

“No it isn’t!” said Oliver. “Aside from the fact that if you are celebrating with champagne three times a week, your standards of celebration need to be much higher!”

More to the point, it turns out that widely cited study was conducted on rats. Which is problematic considering tests conducted on lab rodents are not always applicable to humans.

“How do you not tell people that? And how do you not show them photos of the experiments?” Oliver railed, cutting away to a supposed photo of the experiments: a pair of hipster rats wearing fashionable hats and holding flutes of champagne near giant lines of cocaine. “Those are chic rats!”

Even Ted Talks are suspect

But Oliver made clear that “morning show-style science” isn’t the exclusive province of television. He pointed toward a 2011 Ted Talk by Paul Zak, during which the neuroeconomist extolled a “moral molecule:” the hormone oxytocin which is manufactured by the human body during a certain physical exchange. “Here’s your prescription from Dr. Love,” Zak says, referring to himself in the third person in a clip from the Ted Talk. “Eight hugs a day. We have found that people who release more oxytocin are happier.”

Grimacing, Oliver proceeded to gleefully shred “Dr. Love.”

“First of all, don’t call yourself Dr. Love,” he said. “That’s the name a tabloid gives a dentist who ejaculated on his sedated patients. And second, there’s no way I would be happier giving eight hugs a day. I’m English! That’s four lifetimes’ worth of hugs.”

From there, Oliver pointed out another scientific research paper from the journal Biological Psychiatry views the idea of increased oxytocin leading to increased happiness “with skepticism.” Ergo: “When a stranger calling himself Dr. Love offers to hug you eight times a day, say no!” the comedian exclaimed.

Up next on “Today”

Oliver saved his most potent vitriol for NBC’s Todaywhich “l(fā)ives for scientific studies” according to its own self-description. That much was teed up in a clip featuring co-hosts Natalie Morales and Tamron Hall gently arguing about the health benefits of whole milk vis a vis scientific studies regarding its pros and cons. They were interrupted by weatherman Al Roker, who opined: “You find the study that sounds best to you. And go with that.”

“No! No! No!” Oliver said, slamming his hand against his desk. “If you start thinking that science is a la carte and if you don’t like it, another study will be along soon, that is what leads people to believe man-made climate change isn’t real. Or thatvaccines cause autism—both of which the scientific consensus is pretty clear on.”

“Is science bullshit?” Oliver asked at one point. “No, but there is a lot of bullshit currently masquerading as science.”

Chris Lee is a former staff writer forEntertainment Weekly, The Los Angeles Times, Newsweek andThe Daily Beast. He covers entertainment, culture and business in Los Angeles.