第二十八天：《经济学家》文章讲解之一

今天有两个任务。一是有一篇关于学术造假方面的文章，是应有些同学的要求提供的。注意文中的粗体部分，是一些可以借鉴的词汇与句子。二是选了《经济学家》的文章，文章本身并不难，如果不明白，可以看文章后面的摘要。

今天的结束语是：唯一不变的是变化本身（The only thing that does not change is change itself）。

一、学术造假方面的文章（Emf 研究人员科研数据造假）

学术行为不端 academic misconduct

伪造数据 falsify and fabricate data

Emf Researcher Made Up Data, Ori Says

In a blow to a research area hungry for credible findings, the federal Office of Research Integrity (ORI) reported last month that a biochemist "engaged in scientific misconduct... by intentionally falsifying and fabricating data and claims" in two studies on how electromagnetic fields (EMFs)--the kind shed by power lines and home appliances--affect living cells. The researcher, Robert P. Liburdy, formerly of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) in California, has agreed to ask the journals to retract the results. "There's a lot of acrimony in the debate, and this won't calm things down," says Richard G. Stevens, a cancer epidemiologist at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Hanford, Washington.

Liburdy's findings were among the first to offer a plausible mechanism for a possible link between EMF exposure and cancer or other diseases. In a pair of 1992 papers of which he is the sole author, Liburdy offered evidence that EMFs increase the flow of calcium into lymphocytes, a kind of immune cell produced in the thymus. The papers created a stir, as calcium ions signal cells to turn genes on and off, and play a role in cell division. Because tumor growth is tied to cell proliferation, an alteration in calcium signaling could conceivably lead to cancer. But in an analysis obtained by Science, ORI states that "Liburdy's claims that EMF causes cellular effects related to calcium signaling [in three figures in the two journal articles] are not supported by the primary data."

Responding to an unknown whistle-blower's allegations of scientific misconduct by Liburdy, LBNL in January 1995 appointed a panel of four lab scientists to investigate. After reviewing raw data and interviewing Liburdy and other scientists, the panel concluded in a July 1995 report that Liburdy "deliberately created 'artificial' data where no such data existed" in a figure in FEBS Letters. In addition, it found, he fabricated data noise for a figure in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences "in order to mislead the reader." These actions, the panel stated, "fall within the definition of scientific misconduct." When contacted by Science, LBNL officials declined to comment, other than to confirm that Liburdy no longer works at the lab.

Because Liburdy had been awarded more than $3.3 million in federal grants for his EMF research, ORI launched a formal review of LBNL's report in fall 1997. ORI approved a request by Liburdy for an interview with ORI staff and two outside experts, which took place in March 1998. At the meeting, Liburdy produced original data he had not shared with LBNL investigators, according to the ORI report. But the data failed to exculpate him: In its analysis, ORI accuses Liburdy of having lied to LBNL and ORI investigators, and it "concurs with [LBNL's] findings of scientific misconduct." "Some of the numbers, essentially, he made up," says John Krueger, an ORI investigator involved in the case.

In a May 1999 agreement signed by Liburdy and ORI acting director Chris Pascal, Liburdy agreed to retract the tainted figures in the two papers and not to receive federal funds for 3 years. He "neither admits nor denies ORI's findings of scientific misconduct," the document states. Liburdy did not respond to requests for an interview.

The misconduct findings are unlikely to shift the playing field in EMF research. Since 1992, 20 to 30 scientific papers have looked at EMF exposures and calcium signaling, without settling the issue, says Christopher Portier, associate director of the environmental toxicology program at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). In a report to Congress released on 15 June, NIEHS director Kenneth Olden states the scientific evidence that EMF exposures "pose any health risk is weak" and that mechanistic and toxicology studies "fail to demonstrate any consistent pattern." The day before the report came out, National Institutes of Health officials had asked NIEHS to determine quickly whether any of Liburdy's research had influenced the report's conclusions, Portier says. The truth was simple, he says: "It had no impact whatsoever."

二、《经济学家》文章：休克疗法（分析为何油价上涨不会让美国经济衰退，但上涨较多也会伤害美国经济）

Shock treatment

Oil prices have a special place in economic folklore. The two nastiest global recessions of recent decades were preceded by huge and sudden rises in the price of oil, first in 1973 and then in 1979. These twin spikes, both engineered by the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries limiting its oil shipments, are still the textbook example of an economic “shock”—a sudden change in business conditions. Abrupt increases in the oil price have prompted anxiety about stunted growth ever since.

Higher oil prices hurt the economy because they act like a tax increase. Firms that use oil face higher costs which, if they cannot be passed on in higher prices, might mean that some production becomes unprofitable. Consumers paying more for their petrol and heating oil have less to spend on other things. If they look for higher wages to compensate for a drop in purchasing power, that will only lead to job losses.

Oil-producing countries benefit from higher crude prices so the impact on global demand depends how their extra income is spent. But even if oil windfalls are spent largely on goods produced by oil importers, the abrupt shift in the distribution of global income will still be destabilising.

Given the gloomy history, the lingering unease about higher oil prices is understandable. A demonstration of this came on November 13th when, after a rough few days, stockmarkets rose on news that the oil price had fallen below $93. After all the talk of breaking the three-figure barrier, a drop towards a mere $90 spurred a relief rally.

Yet for all that, something has changed. Today's oil prices would have been unthinkable until very recently. Six years ago, when a barrel of crude could be bought for as little as $20, oil prices at today's levels would have raised fears of deep recession. Notwithstanding the spectre of past oil shocks, crude prices have risen to ever-dizzier heights without derailing a five-year period of strong global growth. But why has the oil bogeyman become less scary? Two new papers* by three well-known economists set out to explain. They come to similar conclusions: oil shocks do not hurt as much because oil is used less intensively than before, because the economy is more flexible and because central banks are better at controlling inflation.

What makes oil special is that it is a uniquely dense and portable form of energy. It is not easy to switch to alternatives very quickly, so disruptions to supply are damaging. Yet improvements in energy efficiency mean dependence on oil is not what it once was. Rich countries use less than half as much oil as they did in 1970 for each inflation-adjusted dollar of GDP. So although prices in real terms have returned to levels last seen in the 1970s, their impact is not as powerful when set against the diminished economic importance of oil.

The blow from dearer oil is less powerful than it was and compared with their rigid state in the 1970s, today's more flexible economies are better able to take a punch. Higher oil prices have some unavoidable direct consequences on companies' production costs and on prices paid by consumers for oil-derived products. Wider damage to jobs and output depends on how well these increased costs are absorbed. If workers insist on higher cash wages to maintain their spending power, firms' costs will take an additional hit, resulting in lay-offs, higher unemployment and depressed demand. To the extent that workers take it on the chin, accepting higher oil prices as a temporary tax increase that lowers their real take-home pay, the collateral damage will be smaller. The rigidity of the 1970s economies, where union power and indexed contracts meant wages were unyielding, only magnified the adverse effects of oil shocks. Today's flexible jobs markets allow oil shocks to be absorbed less harmfully. If consumers are more forgiving of oil shocks, it is partly because they have become more accustomed to volatile prices and partly because they have

内容摘要：

This article attempts to explain why record setting oil prices have not sent the U.S. into recession. The author says that two papers on the subject by economists say that the oil prices do not hurt so much because oil is used less than before, because the economy is more flexible and because central banks like the Federal Reserve are better at controlling inflation. The author says even with this encouraging news, enough increases in prices could still damage the U.S. economy.