Artificial heart development: a long effort.
Artificial heart development: a long effort.
复制标题
人工心脏的研制：需要长期的努力。
DOI：
10.1126/science.254.5032.630-c
复制
发表时间：
1991
期刊：
影响因子：
56.9
通讯作者：
G. T. Harrell
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
G. T. Harrell
Simon LeVay关于异性恋者和同性恋者之间大脑差异的有趣报告(Reports，8月30日，第1034页)在随后的辩论中引发了一些关于生物学在行为中所起作用的微妙但重大的错误说法，这不仅有助于-而且加剧了对同性恋的进一步误解。他们读到这样的东西：生物学从未被认为在同性恋中起到作用，所以勒维支持同性恋的生物底物的证据令人惊讶，并为这场辩论增添了新的元素。它还具有挑衅性，因为它表明同性恋是与生俱来的，抵制改变。总而言之，同性恋的生物学基础是一个“爆炸性的概念”。这些观点在LeVay的论文的新闻报道中得到了广泛的表达，包括Marcia Barinaga的文章《同性恋是双性的吗？》(News&Comment，8月30日，第956页)，令人惊讶的是，这些似乎反映了科学家和科学作家的观点。首先，经验主义的问题从来不是“同性恋是生物的吗？”莱维的发现具有重要的科学意义，因为他们为异性恋和同性恋男性在生物学上可能存在的不同之处提供了一个关键的“第一把手”。他之所以成功，部分原因是他的假设不是无限制的，而是专注于特定潜在大脑底物的性质。然而，同性恋的生物学基础的证据并不是什么新闻，因为这一命题从未受到严重质疑，至少作为自然科学的一个问题。这是因为行为的生物学基础是心理生物学的前提。换句话说，正如40多年前Hebb指出的那样[参见他的《行为组织》的序言(1)]，我们不应该把我们对生物学在心理功能中作用的性质的无知视为生物学实际上没有作用的证据。其次，早期经验、社会学习或选择与生物学的对立仍然很常见，但这些都是错误的二分法。这是因为大脑已经被证明或被认为是这些过程中的潜在机制。几十年的实证研究表明，大脑是早期经验、社会环境和遗传指令的产物。因此，它体现了后天和先天的工作方式。此外，虽然
Simon LeVay's fascinating report of brain differences between heterosexual and homosexual men (Reports, 30 Aug., p. 1034) has elicited in the ensuing debate some subtle but significant misstatements about biology's role in behavior that can-not help but fuel further misperceptions about homosexuality. They read something like this: Biology was never thought to play a role in homosexuality, so LeVay's evidence in support of a biological sub-strate for homosexuality is surprising and adds a new element to the debate. It is also provocative because it suggests that homosexuality is innate and resistant to change. All in all, a biological basis for homosexuality is an" explosive notion." These senti-ments were widely expressed in the news coverage of LeVay's paper, including Marcia Barinaga's article" Is homosexuality bi-ological?"(News & Comment, 30 Aug., p. 956), and surprisingly appear to reflect the views of both scientists and science writers. First, the empirical question never was," Is homosexuality biological?" LeVay's findings are important scientifically because they provide a critical" first handle" on what may be different biologically about heterosexual and homosexual men. He was successful in part because his hypothesis was not open-ended, but focused on the nature of a specific potential brain sub-strate. However, evidence for a biological basis for homosexuality is hardly news, because this proposition was never serious-ly in doubt, at least as an issue of natural science. This is because the biological basis of behavior is a premise for psychobiology. Put another way, as Hebb pointed out more than 40 years ago [see the preface to his Organization ofBehavior (1)], we should not treat our ignorance of the nature of biology's role in psychological functioning as evidence that biology in fact has no role. Second, it is still all too common to see early experience, social learning, or choice pitted against biology, but these are false dichotomies. This is because the brain has been shown or is assumed to be the underlying mechanism in these processes. Several decades of empirical work have shown that the brain is a product of early experience, social environment, and genetic instruc-tions. So, it manifests the workings of both nurture and nature. Moreover, while the