請依下文回答第 26 題至第 30 題 In Feb. 2014, Johnson & Johnson announced that it was making all of its clinical trial data available to scientists around the world. It has hired my group, Yale University Open Data Access Project, or YODA, to fully oversee the release of the data. Everything in the company’s clinical research vaults, including unpublished raw data, will be available for independent review. Today, more than half of the clinical trials in the United States are not published within two years of their completion or never published at all. The unreported results, not surprisingly, are often those in which a drug failed to perform better than a placebo. As a result, evidence-based medicine is, at best, based on only some of the evidence, implying that full information on a drug’s effects may never be discovered or released. Even when studies are published, the actual data are usually not made available. End users of research—patients, doctors and policy makers—are implicitly told by the researchers to “take our word for it.” They are often forced to accept the report without the prospect of other independent scientists’ reproducing the findings—a violation of a central tenet of the scientific method. To be fair, the decision to share data is not easy. Companies worry that their competitors will benefit, that lawyers will take advantage, and that incompetent scientists will misconstrue the data and come to mistaken conclusions. So Johnson & Johnson and companies like Medtronic that have made moves toward transparency deserve much credit. The more we share data, however, the more we find that many of these problems fail to materialize. In 2011, YODA struck a deal with Medtronic to release all the data on one of its products—a device that stimulates the production of bone. At the time, questions had been raised about the device’s safety and about the conflicts of interests of some of the company’s researchers. Medtronic made the unusual decision to respond to the debate by releasing the device’s data for independent review. We commissioned and published two independent reviews of the data, and now have made them globally available. Interestingly, the reviews produced somewhat conflicting results. One found that the device was no better than a bone graft and might be associated with a slight increase in cancer, while the other found that the device was effective and the cancer risk inconclusive. To us, these differences reinforce the value of open science: now the data are out there for further study. This doesn’t mean that anyone can gain access to the data without disclosing how they intend to use it. We require those who want the data to submit a proposal and identify their research team, funding and any conflicts of interest, and exclude those who seek data for commercial or legal purposes. The applicants have to complete a short course on responsible conduct and sign an agreement that restricts them to their proposed research questions. Most important, they must agree to share whatever they find. Our intent is not to be tough gatekeepers, but to ensure that the data are used in a transparent way and contribute to overall scientific knowledge.