Name: 科學真的會跟大眾意見打架嗎？：Crash Course 科學思辨 #7 (What Happens When Science Clashes with the Public?: Crash Course Scientific Thinking #7)
Uploaded: 2026-03-18T21:36:57.000Z
Duration: 12 min 26 s
Description: 【看影片學英語】數萬部 YouTube 影片，搭配英漢字典即點即查，輕鬆掌握單字發音與用法，長久累積看電影不必再看字幕。

程度副詞

I know that, you know that, and the tobacco industry definitely knows that.

我知道，你知道，菸草公司當然也知道。

But not all that long ago, you couldn't even watch Saturday morning cartoons without being bombarded with messages that cigarettes aren't that bad for you.

但在不久之前，你連看週六早上的卡通都會被菸草公司洗腦，說香菸沒那麼傷身。

Tobacco companies ran ads in magazines and periodicals saying that numerous scientists question smoking's risks, that there are many possible causes of lung cancer, and

菸草公司在雜誌和期刊上刊登廣告，說很多科學家質疑抽菸的風險，說肺癌有很多可能的原因，而且

that there's no proof cigarette smoking is one of them.

沒有證據顯示抽菸是其中之一。

So if you had been there, how would you have figured out what was true?

所以如果你當時在場，你會怎麼知道真相呢？

Hi, I'm Hank Green, and this is Crash Course Scientific Thinking.

嗨，我是 Hank Green，這裡是 Crash Course 科學思維。

Before scientific knowledge reaches people like you and me, it takes a long, arduous journey, and

科學知識在傳達給像你我這樣的人之前，要經歷一段漫長而艱辛的旅程，

big stretches of it are dedicated to collecting, testing, and

其中很大一部分是用來收集、測試，

scrutinizing empirical evidence, information collected through rigorous scientific methods that either support or refute an idea.

並仔細審查實證證據，也就是透過嚴謹的科學方法收集到的、用來支持或反駁一個想法的資訊。

The the vast majority of scientific progress hums along quietly, its evidence becoming widely accepted without much hullabaloo.

大部分的科學進展都是默默進行的，證據被廣泛接受，不會引起太多騷動。

You won't hear pundits debate whether carbon has six protons, and

你不會聽到專家們爭論碳原子有沒有六個質子，

there won't be dramatic headlines about the mating behavior of sea slugs, though I for one definitely would and do read those articles.

也沒有關於海蛞蝓交配行為的戲劇性頭條新聞，雖然我個人肯定會想看、也會看那些文章。

But here's the Sometimes science produces a nugget of knowledge that resists the status quo.

但有時候，科學會產生一個挑戰現狀的知識。

It challenges an economic system or a hierarchy or a choice people make in their lives.

它挑戰一個經濟體系、一個階級，或人們生活中做出的選擇。

And when it lands with the public, tensions can flare, which is what happened in 1964 with smoking.

當這個知識傳播給大眾時，緊張氣氛就會升溫，這就是 1964 年香菸事件發生的情況。

So in this episode, we're going to do two things.

所以，在這個單元，我們要做兩件事。

First, we'll peel back the curtain on how the scientific process pieced together evidence about the risks of smoking.

首先，我們會揭開科學過程如何拼湊出香菸風險證據的內幕。

And then we'll unpack why that knowledge got so much pushback and what we can learn from the tale about the public consumption of science news.

然後，我們會深入探討為什麼這些知識會受到如此大的阻力，以及我們能從這個關於科學新聞大眾傳播的故事中學到什麼。

At the Beginning of the 20th century, lung cancer was so rare, doctors treated cases of it like once in a lifetime learning opportunities.

在二十世紀初期，肺癌非常罕見，醫生們會把病例當成一生一次的學習機會。

But then, in the 1920s and 30s, lung cancer rates started to spike, and

但到了 1920 年和 30 年代，肺癌的發生率開始飆升，

scientists began working to figure out why.

科學家們也開始著手研究原因。

There were a lot of early ideas about the possible cause.

當時有很多關於可能原因的初步想法。

Maybe it was atmospheric pollution or newly paved roads.

也許是空氣汙染或新鋪設的道路造成的。

Maybe it was X rays, poison gas from World War I, or the after effects of the 1918 flu pandemic.

也許是 X 光、第一次世界大戰的毒氣，或是 1918 年流感大流行的後遺症。

But as we learned in an earlier episode, correlation doesn't mean causation.

但正如我們在之前的單元學到的，相關性不等於因果關係。

So over two decades, scientists tested different explanations and shared the results with each other.

所以，在二十多年的時間裡，科學家們測試了各種解釋，並互相分享研究結果。

Each study was like a pebble added to a pile of evidence.

每一項研究都像是一顆小石頭，堆積成證據的山。

Scientists had to weigh that evidence by examining each study skeptically and asking things like how well was the study designed?

科學家們必須仔細審視每一項研究，並提出像「這項研究的設計有多好？」之類的問題，來衡量這些證據。

Did it find a strong or weak relationship to lung cancer.

And how directly did the methods actually get at the question they were trying to answer?

這些方法在多大程度上直接回答了他們試圖回答的問題？

For some explanations, no evidence emerged.

對於一些解釋，並沒有出現證據。

But eventually, four main lines of evidence pointed to one suspect.

但最終，有四個主要的證據指向了一個嫌疑犯。

Observational studies which had followed groups of people over a period of time showed that smokers developed lung cancer at higher rates than non smokers.

觀察性研究，追蹤了一群人一段時間，顯示吸菸者罹患肺癌的機率比不吸菸者高。

But there were other factors in people's lives that could be affecting cancer rates.

但人們的生活中還有其他可能影響癌症發生率的因素。

Experimental studies were done on mice because you can better control conditions in a lab, and

實驗性研究是在老鼠身上進行的，因為你可以在實驗室裡更好地控制條件，而且

mice exposed to tobacco developed tumors.

暴露於菸草的老鼠出現了腫瘤。

What actually happens when lungs are exposed to smoke?

肺部暴露在煙霧中時，到底會發生什麼事？

Further studies showed that cigarette smoke destroys cilia, the tiny structures in lungs that keep out bad stuff.

進一步的研究顯示，香菸煙霧會破壞纖毛，也就是肺部用來阻擋有害物質的微小結構。

Tobacco smoke itself contains a chemical compound that was previously shown to cause cancer in people exposed to coal tar.

菸草煙霧本身含有一種化學物質，這種化學物質先前已被證實會導致接觸煤焦油的人罹患癌症。

All that evidence, when weighed collectively, began to tip the scales.

所有這些證據，當綜合權衡時，開始有了定論。

By the late 1950s, scientists had reached a consensus, widespread agreement, given all of the evidence, that smoking was the leading cause of lung cancer.

到了 1950 年代後期，科學家們根據所有證據，已經達成了一項共識，廣泛的認同，抽菸是導致肺癌的主要原因。

So in 1964, the US Surgeon General, himself a smoker, announced to reporters that cigarettes cause lung cancer.

所以到了 1964 年，美國的首席醫療官，他自己也是個老菸槍，向記者宣佈，香菸會導致肺癌。

But for the public, that message got drowned out by a lot of noise.

但對大眾來說，這個訊息卻被很多雜音淹沒了。

this time, let's look at what was going on in the public view.

這次，我們來看看當時大眾的看法。

Even in the 1930s, people suspected smoking wasn't exactly great for you.

早在 1930 年代，人們就懷疑抽菸對身體似乎不太好。

But tobacco companies worked to stay ahead of the narrative, boasting that their cigarettes were healthier, safer, gentler, fresh as mountain air.

但菸草公司努力掌握話語權，吹噓他們的香菸更健康、更安全、更溫和，就像山間的空氣一樣清新。

reynolds Tobacco Company ran ads citing studies that claimed more doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette.

雷諾菸草公司刊登廣告，引用研究聲稱，有更多的醫師抽 Camel 香菸，勝過其他任何香菸。

And you want to know how they got that statistic?

你想知道他們是如何得到這個統計數據的嗎？

By giving doctors free Camel cigarettes and then asking them what kind of cigarettes they smoked.

他們是免費送醫生 Camel 香菸，然後問醫生他們抽哪種香菸。

By the 1950s, tobacco companies knew about the mounting scientific evidence, but

到了 1950 年代，菸草公司已經知道越來越多的科學證據，但

they were still invested in selling their product.

他們還是投入在販售他們的產品。

Instead of our cigarettes are better for you, the ads became, we don't know yet if cigarettes are bad for you.

廣告從「我們的香菸對你比較好」變成「我們還不知道香菸是不是對身體不好」。

And by doing so, they manufactured a controversy that didn't actually exist.

就這樣，他們製造了一個根本不存在的爭議。

In 1954, a committee called the Tobacco industry Research Committee, which was formed by the tobacco companies, released a statement claiming the link between smoking and lung cancer wasn't settled and they would be researching the issue themselves.

1954 年，一個由菸草公司組成的「菸草產業研究委員會」發表聲明，宣稱抽菸和肺癌之間的關聯還沒定論，他們自己會研究這個問題。

These people would have thrived on social media.

這些人要是活在社群媒體時代，肯定會紅翻天。

This went on for decades, Long after the scientific consensus had been settled.

這情況持續了好幾十年，甚至在科學界早就有了定論之後。

The tobacco industry, distracted from smoking's harms by funding and publicizing research looking into alternative explanations for lung cancer.

菸草產業透過資助和宣傳研究尋找肺癌的其他解釋，來轉移對抽菸危害的注意力。

They suppressed and criticized studies that found smoking was bad for you.

他們壓制和批評那些發現抽菸對身體有害的研究。

And all the while, they publicly denied that smoking was risky or addictive and blasted ads that made cigarettes seem as enticing as possible.

同時，他們公開否認抽菸有風險或會上癮，並大力播放廣告，讓香菸看起來極具吸引力。

They did all of this knowingly and strategically to keep making money.

他們這麼做都是明知故犯、有策略地為了持續賺錢。

A 1969 internal memo at the tobacco company Brown and williamson stated, doubt is our product.

菸草公司 Brown and Williamson 在 1969 年的一份內部備忘錄中提到，懷疑就是我們的產品。

Since it is the best means of competing with the body of fact that exists in the mind of the general public, it is also the means of establishing a controversy.

因為這是與公眾心中既有的事實抗衡的最佳方式，同時也是製造爭議的方法。

哇，他們真的就這樣說出來了。

The tobacco industry preyed upon people's cognitive biases, those predictable patterns our brains tend to take that can sway us away from accepting valid information, Especially when it challenges something we already do or think.

菸草產業利用了人們的認知偏誤，也就是我們大腦容易出現的、會讓我們偏離接受有效資訊的固定模式，特別是當這些資訊挑戰了我們既有的行為或想法時。

The news that smoking causes cancer just didn't vibe with a world where smoking was common, widely accepted, and

抽菸會致癌的消息，在當時抽菸普遍、廣泛被接受、

大家都抽的社會裡，實在不太能讓人接受。

醫生、太空人、電影明星，大家都抽。

When you're addicted to something, you pay more attention to reasons to keep doing that thing.

當你對某件事物上癮時，你會更關注那些讓你繼續做下去的理由。

And the tobacco industry was willing to give smokers those reasons, even though the reasons were made up.

而菸草公司很樂意提供癮君子這些理由，即使這些理由是捏造的。

They systematically attacked the widely accepted scientific explanation in order to sow doubt among the public.

他們系統性地攻擊廣泛被接受的科學解釋，目的是要在公眾中散播懷疑。

But here's what finally turned the tide against in the 1990s, scientists uncovered evidence of exactly how cigarette smoke can trigger a normal cell to become a cancerous cell.

但到了 1990 年代，情況終於出現轉機，科學家們發現了香菸煙霧如何觸發正常細胞變成癌細胞的證據。

Then, in 1998, a major settlement required the tobacco industry to pay up billions of dollars for the damage they had caused.

然後，在 1998 年，一項重大的和解案要求菸草產業為造成的損害支付數十億美元。

the tobacco industry still tried to spin the narrative, the message this time.

菸草公司仍然試圖扭轉說法，這次傳達的訊息。

They claimed they'd always been transparent about the risks of smoking and said that it had always been an individual's choice to take those risks.

他們聲稱一直以來都對抽菸的風險保持透明，並表示這一直是個人選擇是否要承擔這些風險。

Which brings me to another common point of tension that can make scientific knowledge seem controversial.

這讓我想到另一個常見的緊張點，它會讓科學知識看起來充滿爭議。

Sometimes scientific knowledge clashes with people's values.

有時候科學知識會跟人們的價值觀產生衝突。

There's stuff science can tell us, like the precise mechanism that causes a cell to become cancerous, or how much smoking increases your individual risk of developing cancer.

科學可以告訴我們很多事情，像是導致細胞癌變的精確機制，或是抽菸會增加多少罹癌的個人風險。

But science can't tell us what to do with that knowledge.

但科學無法告訴我們該如何運用這些知識。

It's on us as individuals and as societies to decide what to do now that we know what we know.

身為個人和社會，我們必須決定在知道這些事情後，接下來該怎麼做。

For example, in the early 2000s, as the dangers of secondhand smoke became more widely known, Many cities and states began banning smoking.

例如，在 2000 年代初期，隨著二手菸的危險性越來越廣為人知，許多城市和州開始禁止抽菸。

並不是每個人都同意這個做法。