The review by Goldman et al. (1) is a strong restatement of the free hormone hypothesis (FHH) with its contingent focus on measurement of so-called “free” testosterone (FT). The FHH has even been recently described as a “central dogma of endocrinology” (2), reminiscent of the hubris of Crick’s (3) central dogma of molecular biology stated as a unidirectional information transfer from DNA to RNA to protein, which proved neither a dogma (an unassailable proposition) nor universally correct. The review provides an outstandingly clear and encyclopedic summation of what is and is not known of the molecular mechanisms of testosterone binding to circulating binding proteins. On the other hand, its coverage of FT measurement and its interpretation are both more selective and tendentious. Above all the review’s overall focus on means rather than ends, on how to do it rather than why, the review belies why the application of FT measurements remain contentious so that less expert readers may wonder what controversy there is that the authors hint at fleetingly.

中文翻译：

---

游离睾丸激素：轮胎打气还是结束搭便车？

高盛等人的综述。（1）强烈重申了游离激素假说（FHH），其或有侧重于对所谓的“游离”睾丸激素（FT）的测量。FHH最近甚至被描述为“内分泌学的中心法则”（2），让人想起了克里克（3）分子生物学中心法则的狂妄自大，后者被描述为从DNA到RNA到蛋白质的单向信息转移，事实证明这两个事实都没有。教条（无懈可击的主张）也不是普遍正确的。该综述提供了关于睾丸激素与循环结合蛋白结合的分子机制的已知和未知的非常清晰和百科全书的总结。另一方面，它对FT测量的覆盖范围及其解释都更具​​选择性和倾向性。最重要的是，审查的总体重点是手段而不是目的，而不是目的，