碳基生物生存指南

About 碳基生物生存指南

用很科学的角度，去爱很鲜活的生命 🌱 =关于主播= 我是梦妮，牛津大学生物医学博士。读博时不爱读文献，现在却在科研数据的坑里越挖越深 🎓 年纪轻轻便腰酸背痛的我，在枸杞秋裤和热水都表示束手无策后，决心利用自己读文献的速度和能力，开辟一条日常实用的生存指南，帮助大家也帮助自己更了解自身，更了解彼此，更了解这个世界 💝 我们接受一切批评和质疑，拒绝玄学养生 🙅🏻♀️ 以生物学原理为锚点，高质量数据为支撑产出内容 📚 这不只是一份人类生存指南，还是猫猫狗狗动物植物..各种各样鲜活生命的说明书 🌱 =节目荣誉= 2024年度 Apple 播客年度编辑精选，2024年度 CPA（Chines Podcast Award）年度播客，2024年小宇宙趋势播客 & 年度特别推荐单集

Publisher

梦妮爱读文献

Category

health & fitness · science

Language

zh

Explicit

No

First episode

13 Aug 2023

Latest episode

30 Oct 2026

Latest episodes

51 episodes in the feed.

1. 

   30 Oct 2026

   【万圣节特辑】法证迷雾：当冤假错案，以科学之名宣判

   如果走进一个凶案犯罪现场搜证，你会从何找起？ 墙上喷溅的血迹、尸体上的咬痕、指尖的头发、凶器上的指纹、和散落各处的DNA。尽管我们不是法医法证专业，但这些证据，似乎都值得收集，也应该要被用于定罪，对吧？ Hmmm 对，但也不对：血迹喷溅分析在过去半个世纪里都极为粗糙，这个领域的奠基人甚至都没有考虑到重力和阻力的影响；咬痕也极不可靠，完全无法用来准确区分任何人；毛发分析也不靠谱，检验员连人发和狗发可能都分不清；而即使是指纹和 DNA，也一样会导致误判，有些是人为原因，而有些，就是科学的局限。 从小被刑侦案吸引的我们，对案发现场和法证实验室都不会陌生，这可能我们第一次看到白大褂，显微镜，看到科学最直观也可以说是最酷的应用。但法证的发展，其实在相当层面，和科学其实是背道而驰的。 可是，如果证据都不可靠，那我们，还能相信法庭里的什么呢？ 特别感谢 黑猫侦探社 (https://www.xiaoyuzhoufm.com/podcast/60c9efbc21a514053c1e73e5) 咪仔一起来聊天！我正沉浸收听 🔍 爱泼斯坦深度调查案 (https://www.xiaoyuzhoufm.com/podcast-topic/69c35c154145c7784424e044) ... 停不下来！ 【时间轴】 07:04 咬痕、毛发、血迹、DNA、指纹，这些证据的靠谱程度，如何排序？ 11:37 指纹是如果长成现在的样子，它们真的是独一无二的吗？ 17:11 探案现场，我们如何比对指纹 24:29 远在美国的嫌疑犯，指纹为何会出现在了西班牙 32:37 咬痕证据：毫无科学可言的法证 37:47 毛发分析：一样毫无科学可言 41:20 血液喷溅分析：有科学，但不多 45:33 鞋印、轮胎、笔迹、弹道分析：靠谱，但局限 48:43 法证科学，到底出了什么问题？ 52:15 DNA：最靠谱的证据，却因为太精确依旧会导致错判 57:29 案件实例中 DNA 的滥用 65:00 专家的经验和直觉，真的靠谱吗？ 67:17 如果证据都不可靠，那我们，还能相信法庭里的什么呢？ 📃 本期播客提到的文献素材传送门： 美国司法部关于 Brandon Mayfield 案件的回顾报告： https://oig.justice.gov/sites/default/files/legacy/special/s0601/final.pdf (https://oig.justice.gov/sites/default/files/legacy/special/s0601/final.pdf) 我们的指纹，是怎么长出来的： https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36764291/ (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36764291/) 指纹辨认，12年准确率几乎保持稳定： https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4507210/ (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4507210/) 指纹相似概率几何？ https://archive.org/details/fingerprints00galt/page/n19/mode/2up，https://biometrics.cse.msu.edu/Publications/Fingerprint/PankantiPrabhakarJain_FpIndividuality_PAMI02.pdf (https://archive.org/details/fingerprints00galt/page/n19/mode/2up，https://biometrics.cse.msu.edu/Publications/Fingerprint/PankantiPrabhakarJain_FpIndividuality_PAMI02.pdf) ， https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4291566 (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4291566) 指纹专家时隔7个月后的结论可重复率研究： https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0032800 (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0032800) 利用马德里爆炸案验证指纹专家指纹辨认前后一致性的研究： https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16325362/ (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16325362/) 指纹专家会拿到关于指纹拥有者的信息： https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0379073818306558 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0379073818306558) 咬痕研究的问题： https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S135503060171859X?via%3Dihub (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S135503060171859X?via%3Dihub) ， https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19040674/ (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19040674/) ， https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/228091.pdf (https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/228091.pdf) 因为咬痕被定罪的知名案例： https://www.exonerationregistry.org/cases/10283 (https://www.exonerationregistry.org/cases/10283) ， https://exonerationregistry.org/cases/10883 (https://exonerationregistry.org/cases/10883) 毛发分析调查： https://www.nacdl.org/newsrelease/NewsRelease-04-20-2015 (https://www.nacdl.org/newsrelease/NewsRelease-04-20-2015) ， https://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/following-fbi-ad (https://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/following-fbi-ad) ， https://exonerationregistry.org/cases/11115 (https://exonerationregistry.org/cases/11115) 麦克唐纳血液喷溅分析历史回顾： https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/1747NCJRS.pdf (https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/1747NCJRS.pdf) ， https://features.propublica.org/blood-spatter-analysis/herbert-macdonell-forensic-evidence-judges-and-courts/ (https://features.propublica.org/blood-spatter-analysis/herbert-macdonell-forensic-evidence-judges-and-courts/) 血液喷溅可靠性研究： https://www.nature.com/articles/srep11461 (https://www.nature.com/articles/srep11461) ， https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/247180.pdf (https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/247180.pdf) 2009 年美国国家科学院对法医学发展的回顾： https://www.nationalacademies.org/projects/STLP-Q-06-03-A (https://www.nationalacademies.org/projects/STLP-Q-06-03-A) 接触 DNA 和微量 DNA 研究发现： https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28363122/ (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28363122/) ， https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1344622314001576 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1344622314001576) ， https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28608145/ (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28608145/) 接触 DNA 和微量 DNA 实例： https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-dna-implicates-the-innocent/ (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-dna-implicates-the-innocent/) ， http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7966641.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7966641.stm) 多人 DNA 分辨实验： https://www.fsigenetics.com/article/S1872-4973(18)30248-5/fulltext (https://www.fsigenetics.com/article/S1872-4973(18)30248-5/fulltext) 本期音乐：片尾曲 heavy 沉重 by 乐 小红书账号：梦妮爱读文献 (https://www.xiaohongshu.com/user/profile/634f04ca000000001802a8c3?xhsshare=CopyLink&appuid=634f04ca000000001802a8c3&apptime=1710018935) （ID：4196506308） 在小宇宙查看该单集文稿 (https://oia.xiaoyuzhoufm.com/player/6ae407fec96c8942ec148e63?openTranscript=true&utm_source=rss&as=cHQ9MTIyNjE5MjQ3JmN0PXJzcyZtdD04&autoOpen=false)

2. 

   30 Sept 2026

   E35 抄袭、造假、洗稿，学术的象牙塔里为什么丑闻层出不穷？

   今年学术很火，但可惜不是以好的方式火。抄袭、造假、洗稿，为什么学术好像突然变成了一个“流氓圈“？ 当你看到无数标题党想马上按下结论，拉下院长，觉得中国学术已经无可救药的时候，我想邀请你停下来，听听中、欧，文、理科学者怎么说，听听学术造假吹哨人怎么说，听听专门研究学术造假的学者怎么说，甚至，来听听论文工厂的运营怎么说。 事实上，学术造假这件事，涉及到的不只是一两位学者，还有一整个产业链、以及整个学术评价和晋升体系。而就连学术造假纠察这件事儿也没那么容易，很多看似应该随机的小数点，在学术里，它真的就不随机。 讽刺很容易，理解却需要时间。而只有真正理解这件事的复杂性，也许，我们才能开始讨论，该如何解决。 【时间轴】 00:00 调查记者梦妮深入论文工厂👀 08:45 如何系统性研究学术造假产业链 16:35 学术造假对咱普通人有什么影响呢 20:29 谁该为学术造假负责 21:12 从理解做学问，是怎样一种职业开始 24:28 中国学术圈现状 30:39 欧洲学术圈现状（德国） 33:19 这套学术评价体系，适合什么样的人 41:20 多少博士，能最终成为教授 42:38 所以，到底是谁在造假？ 48:36 造假调查：斯坦福真实&嘉宾分享 60:24爆火全网的“随机数生成器”指控，其实有很大风险 67:57 耿同学，冤枉了学者？？ 69:38 对学术造假吹哨人，是否需要约束 72:21 学术体系，该如何改进 74:49 方案一：更多钱，抽奖式经费申请？ 80:39 方案二：更少钱，让领域更纯粹？ 87:10 所以，为什么学术的象牙塔里，丑闻层出不穷？ 87:45 一些小心翼翼地时事评论 96:31 最后一个问题 💌 📃 本期播客提到的文献素材传送门： 假论文，已经成为一项产业： https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2420092122 (https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2420092122) 被撤回的论文由少数编辑负责审稿：“The 45 PLOS ONE editors whom we were able to flag due to the anomalous rate at which they accepted retracted or PubPeer commented publications or had their submissions handled by other flagged editors comprise only 0.25% of all editors. These individuals edited 1.3% of all articles published in PLOS ONE by 2024 but 30.2% of retracted articles. More than half of these editors (25 of 45) also authored articles retracted by PLOS ONE.” 论文撤回比例集中于特定子学科 ：“Consistent with most scientists’ expectations concerning egregious errors or scientific fraud, for CRISPR-Cas9, we find that the rate of retractions is only about 0.1%. The rate of retractions increases from tRNA (peak of ∼1% for tRNA and cancer) to circular RNAs (peak of ∼2.5%), miRNAs (peak of ∼4% for miRNA and cancer), and lncRNAs (peak of ∼4%). We also find higher rates of retractions for subfields focused on cancer than on development.Retraction rates can be highly variable across publishers for articles in these subfields. Indeed, for studies concerning “lncRNAs” and “miRNAs and cancer” published in certain journals, the retraction rate exceeds 10%, while for some other journals the rate is close to zero, far below expectation.” 假论文数量增长，远高于真论文：”We also find that the number of retracted articles has been increasing exponentially over the last 30 y (Fig. 5B). Remarkably, and testifying to the enormous impact of postpublication review efforts, we find the number of articles with PubPeer comments has also been increasing exponentially. To provide perspective, we note that the number of retracted articles and PubPeer-commented articles has been doubling every 3.3 y and every 3.6 y, respectively, while the total number of publications has been doubling every 15.0 y. ” 英国皇家学会2010报告《科学世纪：确保我们未来的繁荣》，涉及到博士就业流向： https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/publications/2010/4294970126.pdf (https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/publications/2010/4294970126.pdf) 0.45%的博士生，最后会成为博士：图1.6 学者中的男女比例失衡：“Despite progress in the past decade, ensuring a diverse scientific workforce remains a challenge. Women are still under-represented in the latter stages of scientific careers, particularly in the physical sciences. While 35% of all researchers in science- related disciplines are women, the proportion falls to 30% for lecturers, 21 % for senior lecturers and just 11 % for professors.” Marc 斯坦福学术造假事件调查报告： https://boardoftrustees.stanford.edu/sites/g/files/sbiybj31576/files/media/file/scientific-panel-final-report.pdf (https://boardoftrustees.stanford.edu/sites/g/files/sbiybj31576/files/media/file/scientific-panel-final-report.pdf) ：“Dr. Tessier-Lavigne did not have actual knowledge of any manipulation of research data, did not have a material role in the preparation of the data and/or figures that have been publicly challenged, and was not in a position where a reasonable scientist would be expected to have detected any such misconduct.”； “The Scientific Panel has concluded that Dr. Tessier-Lavigne did not have actual knowledge of the manipulation of research data that occurred in his lab and was not reckless in failing to identify such manipulation prior to publication.” 因为人的参与，随机数就并不随机： https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12589620/ (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12589620/) ：“Previously, the phenomenon of end digit (ED) preference has been described for several measurement types in social sciences, public health, and epidemiology”， https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279544736_It_Seems_Factual_But_Is_It_Effects_of_Using_Sharp_versus_Round_Numbers_in_Advertising_Claims：“ (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279544736_It_Seems_Factual_But_Is_It_Effects_of_Using_Sharp_versus_Round_Numbers_in_Advertising_Claims：“) An experiment is described that examines whether consumers make the false assumption that claims using sharp numbers are less likely to be estimates (i.e., are more factual) than those using round numbers and, if so, whether this makes sharp-number claims more believable.” 抽签式科研基金发放： https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-02082-7 (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-02082-7) ：“If reviewers can’t reliably tell the difference between top grant proposals, why should they pretend they can? A new wave of funders is turning to lotteries to break the tie.” 科普/记者频道 Christophe - I tried to buy a scientific paper： https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEwiOykoXXc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEwiOykoXXc) 本期音乐：片尾曲 Battles and Wasteland by Neo Retros 封面设计特别感谢：wow lab 小红书账号：梦妮爱读文献 (https://www.xiaohongshu.com/user/profile/634f04ca000000001802a8c3?xhsshare=CopyLink&appuid=634f04ca000000001802a8c3&apptime=1710018935) （ID：4196506308） 在小宇宙查看该单集文稿 (https://oia.xiaoyuzhoufm.com/player/6abcea5ce742e36efcbd2baa?openTranscript=true&utm_source=rss&as=cHQ9MTIyNjE5MjQ3JmN0PXJzcyZtdD04&autoOpen=false)

3. 

   26 Aug 2026

   【串台】透明质酸、肉毒杆菌、胶原蛋白：你真的知道自己在往脸上抹什么吗？

   Host Mengni from "Carbon-Based Life Survival Guide" and guest Ken from "Beauty Industry Ken Big Melon" explore the evolution of skincare ingredients like hyaluronic acid and botulinum toxin, revealing their scientific origins and future potential.

Who has been a guest on 碳基生物生存指南

Names identified in recent episode analyses. Showing up to five guests.

• 梦妮
• Ken
• Qianying
• ZHONG MING

Reach and audience

Public platform figures. Ratings count people who left a rating, not total listeners.

Apple Podcasts (US)

4.8 / 5

12 ratings

Spotify

4.7 / 5

40 ratings

Shows with a similar audience

• 

  好好吃饭～

• 

  思文，败类

• 

  自习室 STUDY ROOM

• 

  知行小酒馆

• 

  出逃在即

• 

  天真不天真