【Phat Yeti出品】60-SECOND SCIENCE 官方听力文稿 + 讨论帖 （更新至：2008.03.07）

sxczUID: 2159731

60-Second Science_ July 18, 2008
People Found Who Don't Use Numbers
The Piraha people of the Amazon don't seem to use individual numbers, only words for relative amounts. Karen Hopkin reports, assisted by Mel F. Louis
Counting is one of the first things we teach our kids. I mean, every parent’s probably said, “You had better be in that bed by the time I count to three.” Followed by “One…two…two-and-a-half…” But counting might not be as universal as it seems. Because scientists from M.I.T. have found that a tribe living in the Amazon has no words for numbers.
Back in 2004, the M.I.T. team reported that the Piraha people seemed to have terms that described “one,” “two,” or “many.” This was based on asking tribe members to count objects, like sticks or nuts or AA batteries, as the researchers laid them out. This time, the scientists had the subjects count backward as they removed things. And they discovered that tribe members used the word previously thought to mean “two” for as many as five or six objects. And they used the word “one” for anything less than that. So the words don’t stand for numbers, so much as relative amounts. The findings appear in the online edition of the journal Cognition.
Although the Piraha people might not need numbers, think of what they’re missing. “A large number of trombones led the big parade, with an even larger number of cornets close at hand…”
—Karen Hopkin, assisted by Mel F. Louis

sxczUID: 2159731

sxczUID: 2159731

sxczUID: 2159731

60-Second Science_ July 21, 2008
Hutterites Are Model Gene Community
South Dakota's Hutterites are a tightly-woven community with detailed genealogical records--which makes them an excellent group for geneticists to study. Cynthia Graber reports
You may have heard of genetic research being done in Iceland. It’s a rich venue, because Icelanders have a limited gene pool and highly detailed genealogical records. Well, it looks like we have our own version of Icelanders here in the U.S. They’re called the Hutterites, and they live in rural South Dakota. Researchers from the University of Chicago and Northwestern have been studying the Hutterites for decades. Almost 1,300 members of the community emigrated from Germany to South Dakota in 1874. Today they number in the tens of thousands. They live similar communal farming lifestyles, so they experience common environmental influences.
Researchers provide medical care and batteries of expensive tests in return for the opportunity to study community members. They have a database of information on 13,000 people. The most recent published study on the group appeared in The New England Journal of Medicine. A protein had previously been linked to asthma. And scientists studied data from Hutterites to find a variation in the gene that encodes the protein. That’s just one of the ways in which researchers are trying to learn more about the genes of the Hutterites, ­and apply the results to the general population.
—Cynthia Graber

sxczUID: 2159731

sxczUID: 2159731

sxczUID: 2159731

60-Second Science_ July 22, 2008
Fewer Studies Cited in Internet Age
A study of millions of journal articles finds that the availability of info online has paradoxically led to fewer studies being cited. Christopher Intagliata reports
Not too long ago, scientists had to hoof it to the library to review the literature. And they had to flip through a card catalog to find that dusty old volume with the article they wanted. Not so today—the internet’s made things a lot easier. But maybe it’s a bit too easy. That’s what one sociologist writes in the latest issue of Science.
He analyzed a database of 34 million scholarly articles and their citations, spanning six decades of research. The conclusion? He says articles from the online age actually cite fewer studies, from a shrinking pool of journals. And the same popular studies are mentioned over and over. It’s a bit counterintuitive, considering the internet’s made more articles available than ever before.
So what’s going on? First, internet searches are really precise. Scientists might miss tangential stuff they would have encountered browsing through a print journal. And the author says the internet leads scientists to the most popular, talked-about research—which could overshadow the lone dissenter. But perhaps the joy that scientists find in arguing with each other can be counted on to keep the enterprise from turning into an echo chamber.
—Christopher Intagliata

sxczUID: 2159731

sxczUID: 2159731

sxczUID: 2159731

60-Second Science_ July 23, 2008
Steve Ashley on the Coming Water Crisis
Scientific American editor Steve Ashley talks about the future of fresh water and the steps we can take to ensure that we all have potable water in the years ahead. Steve Mirsky reports

sxczUID: 2159731

sxczUID: 2159731

sxczUID: 2159731

sxczUID: 2159731

sxczUID: 2159731