生物与医学2020ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
慈善跳伞：五年审计
Parachuting for Charity: A 5-year audit (1999)
入门 · 约 25 分钟读完前置知识：基础统计、医学论文阅读
导读
这篇1999年的论文对慈善跳伞活动做了5年审计，统计参与者受伤情况（评论提到受伤率约为11%），并讨论这类活动给医疗系统带来的负担。它实质上质疑了用高风险运动替慈善筹款的合理性：参与者的受伤风险和公共医疗成本可能并不值得。
HN 关注点：HN读者被“慈善跳伞受伤率约11%”这一数字震惊，并延伸到对慈善跑步/跳伞是否只是让参与者买体面、让服务商赚钱的讨论。
HN 评论精选
这几条评论里：质疑 2 补充 1 亲历 1
质疑质疑11%受伤率是否真实、如此高风险活动为何被允许。
“慈善跳伞者的受伤率是11%”——这高到让人怀疑他们怎么还能被允许运营。这真的对吗？
im3w1l查看英文原文
> The injury rate in charity-parachutists was 11% That's how-are-they-even-allowed-to-operate high. Can this really be right?
补充指出研究基于过时的静态绳跳伞，并批评慈善跳伞的财务逻辑与参与者动机。
这项研究发表于1999年，是激励扭曲的绝佳例子，但也过时了。文中说研究里的慈善跳伞 apparently 都是静态绳方法，从2500±3000英尺（原文如此）跳下；静态绳意味着参与者单独跳，出舱时绳索自动开伞，和如今更常见、也安全得多的双人串联跳伞很不一样。但这仍不意味着慈善跳伞在财务上合理：想跳伞的人向朋友募钱，却预期只有一小部分捐款最终到慈善机构，这在我看来很荒谬——NHS每跳30英镑，其他组织显然更多。不过这也来自一个正试图说服世界“戴一天小丑鼻子就是慈善”的国家。你们就不能单纯为了给予而给予吗？;-)
skue查看英文原文
This study was published in 1999 and while it is a wonderful example of incentives gone awry, it’s also dated. Per the article, “All charity parachuting in our study was apparently done by static line methods from 2500± 3000 feet.” [1] Static line parachuting means the participant jumps solo and a cord automatically opens the parachute for them when they exit the plane. It’s very different than skydiving tandem, which is far more common these days and much safer. That still doesn’t mean that skydiving for charity makes any sense financially. It strikes me as absurd that people who want to skydive collect money from friends under the expectation that a small percentage of the donated funds make their way to a charity —- £30 per jump for the NHS, though apparently more for other organizations. [2] But then this comes from a country that is trying to convince the rest of the world that wearing a clown nose for a day is a charitable act. [3] Y’all can’t just give for the sake of giving? ;-) [1] https://www.gwern.net/docs/sociology/1999-lee.pdf [2] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3224643/Why-tell-charity-skydivers-running-JUMP-Good-causes-fraction-cash-NHS-pay-injuries.html [3] https://rednoseday.org/
亲历亲历说明慈善活动外包服务可能吞掉大部分捐款，筹款活动沦为买体面。
多年前我为慈善组织过桥牌活动（是纸牌桥牌，不是定点跳伞地点），流程很简单：选一个值得支持的项目、签协议把款项转交、收款、交付。后来我觉得“趣味跑”可能更好筹款，便去打听怎么组织，被介绍给一家提供这类服务的公司。他们请我吃了顿不错的午餐，我觉得这不是好兆头——老话说“别在有吊灯的房间里买东西”，餐厅虽没吊灯，道理一样。等我拿到跑步活动的实际细节，发现公司费用会远远超过最终到慈善手里的钱。我猜测这类服务的“市场”是那些想买点体面的人：活动成功，大家都会觉得我是好人，哪怕数字显示我是在为服务公司的收入做好事。当然 N=1，但从此我对慈善活动非常愤世嫉俗；似乎有一整个产业在吸走靠近慈善的每一美元的90%-99%。
braythwayt查看英文原文
Some years ago I organized some bridge* events for charity. It was as simple as selecting a worthy cause (a children’s hospital), signing an agreement that we were going to turn over the funds, collecting the funds, and handing them over. These were a minuscule success, and I later thought that a “fun run” would be a good way to raise some money. I asked around about how to organize such things, and I was connected to a firm that organized these things as a service. They took me to a nice lunch, which I thought was a bad sign. “Never buy anything in a room with a chandelier,” is the old saying, and while there was no chandelier in the restaurant, the metaphor was nevertheless on point. When I finally got the actual details of how the run would operate, I realized that the firm’s fees would greatly exceed the amount of money that would end up going to the charity. I speculate that the “market” for these services are people who want to buy some respectability. Had I gone though with the deal and the run was a success, everyone would think I was a nice person doing nice things for people in need, even if the actual numbers would show that I was a nice person doing nice things for a service company’s revenues. N=1, of course, but I have had an extremely cynical view of charity events ever since. There appears to be an entire industry built around siphoning away 90%-99% of every dollar adjacent to charity. ——— * Bridge the card game, not the BASE-jumping location.
质疑认为筹款活动把捐赠与无关的个人行为绑定，逻辑不通。
我一直觉得“为慈善而跑”或“为慈善而跳”的前提很奇怪。如果我认为某个事业值得，我会直接捐。别人跑步或跳伞跟我捐钱有什么关系？
RcouF1uZ4gsC查看英文原文
I have always found the premise of “run for charity” or “jump for charity” weird. If I thought a cause was worthwhile, I would donate to it. Why does someone running or jumping have anything to do with me donating?
历次讨论
- 2020Hacker News 讨论帖210 分 · 136 评
同领域还值得读
CRISPR 在活体动物中消除 HIV-1 感染
CRISPR eliminates HIV-1 infection in live animals
报告利用 CRISPR/Cas9 基因编辑技术在活体动物中清除 HIV-1 感染：研究人员通过腺病毒载体递送特定的 Cas9 系统，从被感染细胞中切除嵌入的 HIV 病毒 DNA。
生物与医学2017 · 1,455 分 · 239 评入门 · 约 30 分钟编辑精选保护区飞行昆虫生物量27年下降75%
75% decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas
这篇发表于 PLOS ONE 的研究通过在德国保护区长达 27 年的昆虫生物量监测，发现飞行昆虫总量下降了约 75%。
生物与医学2017 · 901 分 · 432 评入门 · 约 45 分钟编辑精选为什么大多数已发表的研究发现是错的
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)
这篇 2005 年发表于 PLOS Medicine 的经典论文由 John Ioannidis 撰写，论证了在统计功效不足、研究偏倚和多重检验等因素下，大多数已发表的医学研究发…
生物与医学2022 · 388 分 · 351 评入门 · 约 60 分钟编辑精选人类免疫系统的物理接线图
A physical wiring diagram for the human immune system
这篇 Nature 论文系统绘制了人类免疫系统的“物理接线图”：通过大规模实验鉴定免疫细胞表面受体之间的相互作用（包括约 30 种此前未知的受体互作），并结合定量计算模型模拟免疫…
生物与医学2022 · 342 分 · 49 评专业 · 约 90 分钟编辑精选脂肪组织在减重后仍保留肥胖的表观遗传记忆
Adipose tissue retains an epigenetic memory of obesity after weight loss
这篇 Nature 论文研究了肥胖对脂肪组织的长期影响：即使减重成功，脂肪细胞仍保留着肥胖时期的表观遗传记忆，可能解释为什么减重后容易反弹。
生物与医学2025 · 263 分 · 327 评进阶 · 约 45 分钟编辑精选