Question

帮忙翻译一篇英语文章 ，不要翻译器翻译的 。谢谢 。

Since its first breakthrough in the streptomycin studies, randomization of trials has quickly become a vital part of an ethical trial. It is essential to assure an unbiased test, as it literally places each subject randomly into control and experimental groups. This ensures that one group is not purposely made of a certain demographic to skew test results.176 Today, it is common for tests to also be double blinded, meaning that both researchers and subjects are unaware of which group they are placed in.177 This often means that a placebo, a pill identical in looks but not containing the actual treatment, will be given to the control group, fooling both doctors and patients.178 An alternative to placebo-controlled trials called active-controlled trials exists. For control groups in these studies, patients are given an already existing drug instead of an ineffective placebo, and results are compared to what has already been created and tested rather than to the lack of treatment.179 The advantage of using active trials is that all subjects will still receive treatment, but the style’s shortcoming is that it cannot measure how beneficial a treatment is to doing nothing, but merely how close the treatment measures to existing treatment.180 Though one would assume that doing nothing would have an effect of zero change, it is actually not the general case. Many studies have shown that placebos appear to have a mental effect on patients, possibly due to optimism and attitude changes that study participants have.181 In a fully controlled experiment, all factors must be isolated, so that the only influences being measured are the drugs and treatments. Though correlated with receiving treatment, these attitude changes are clearly distinct, and it is important for researchers to take them into consideration. Generally, when planning studies, researchers must decide the danger of using a placebo and undergoing a particular treatment. If a placebo poses little health risk or if there are still risks associated with an existing drug, the using a placebo-controlled trial may be preferable. Conversely, there are instances where a patient’s health is quite fragile, and if a placebo will place patients in positions of unnecessary risk, then groups generally use an active-controlled trial.

Answer 1

自从在链霉素研究的第一次突破以来，实验的随机化已成为伦理实验的重要部分。显然随机化能保证测试结果不失偏颇，因为它随机的把目标置于控制和实验中。这样能确保一个研究组不会被有意的做成某种人口统计以致歪曲实验结果。
现在，测试的双重盲目很普遍，即研究者和研究对象都不知道该置于哪一类别。
这意味着是一个安慰剂，一个表面看来（和治疗药丸）一样却没有实际治疗效果的药丸，被使用与控制组中，愚弄着医生和病人。
一个名为积极控制实验的控制安慰剂是为备用而存在的。对于研究中的控制组来说，给病人一种已存的药物来替代无作用的安慰剂，再把结果与使用安慰剂的组比较，而不是与不治疗的组比较。
积极实验的优势是所有的目标都得到治疗，但是这种方式的缺点是不能衡量一种治疗的受益性，仅仅能衡量这种治疗和已存治疗有多接近。
虽然有人肯定不治疗是零改变效果，但事实上并非普遍如此。多数研究表明可能因为参与者的乐观和态度变化，安慰剂对于病人有一种精神作用。
在完全控制的试验中，所有的因素必须是独立，因此治疗中仅有的影响因素是药物和治疗。
虽然（有些因素）与接受治疗相关，但态度的改变是容易区分的，对于研究者来说考虑这些因素是很重要的。一般来说，计划研究时，研究者必须解决使用安慰剂的危险并进行特别治疗。
如果安慰剂具有健康风险或者配合已存药物使用有风险，可能要优先使用可控安慰剂。相反地，有的病人健康很脆弱，如果安慰剂把病人置于不必要的风险中，这个组一般应用积极的控制实验。