首页
外语
计算机
考研
公务员
职业资格
财经
工程
司法
医学
专升本
自考
实用职业技能
登录
外语
How science goes wrong Scientific research has changed the world. Now it needs to change itself. [A] A simple idea underlies
How science goes wrong Scientific research has changed the world. Now it needs to change itself. [A] A simple idea underlies
admin
2018-09-15
59
问题
How science goes wrong
Scientific research has changed the world. Now it needs to change itself.
[A] A simple idea underlies science: "trust, but verify". Results should always be subject to challenge from experiment. That simple but powerful idea has generated a vast body of knowledge. Since its birth in the 17th century, modern science has changed the world beyond recognition, and overwhelmingly for the better. But success can breed extreme self-satisfaction. Modern scientists are doing too much trusting and not enough verifying, damaging the whole of science, and of humanity.
[B] Too many of the findings are the result of cheap experiments or poor analysis. A rule of thumb among biotechnology venture-capitalists is that half of published research cannot be replicated (复制). Even that may be optimistic. Last year researchers at one biotech firm, Amgen, found they could reproduce just six of 53 "milestone" studies in cancer research. Earlier, a group at Bayer, a drug company, managed to repeat just a quarter of 67 similarly important papers. A leading computer scientist worries that three-quarters of papers in his subfield are nonsense. In 2000-10, roughly 80,000 patients took part in clinical trials based on research that was later withdrawn because of mistakes or improperness.
What a load of rubbish
[C] Even when flawed research does not put people’s lives at risk—and much of it is too far from the market to do so—it blows money and the efforts of some of the world’s best minds. The opportunity costs of hindered progress are hard to quantify, but they are likely to be vast. And they could be rising.
[D] One reason is the competitiveness of science. In the 1950s, when modern academic research took shape after its successes in the Second World War, it was still a rarefied (小众的) pastime. The entire club of scientists numbered a few hundred thousand. As their ranks have swelled to 6m-7m active researchers on the latest account, scientists have lost their taste for self-policing and quality control. The obligation to "publish or perish (消亡)" has come to rule over academic life. Competition for jobs is cut-throat. Full professors in America earned on average $135,000 in 2012—more than judges did. Every year six freshly minted PhDs strive for every academic post. Nowadays verification (the replication of other people’s results) does little to advance a researcher’s career. And without verification, uncertain findings live on to mislead.
[E] Careerism also encourages exaggeration and the choose-the-most-profitable of results. In order to safeguard their exclusivity, the leading journals impose high rejection rates: in excess of 90% of submitted manuscripts. The most striking findings have the greatest chance of making it onto the page. Little wonder that one in three researchers knows of a colleague who has polished a paper by, say, excluding inconvenient data from results based on his instinct. And as more research teams around the world work on a problem, it is more likely that at least one will fall prey to an honest confusion between the sweet signal of a genuine discovery and a nut of the statistical noise. Such fake correlations are often recorded in journals eager for startling papers. If they touch on drinking wine, or letting children play video games, they may well command the front pages of newspapers, too.
[F] Conversely, failures to prove a hypothesis (假设) are rarely even offered for publication, let alone accepted. "Negative results" now account for only 14% of published papers, down from 30% in 1990. Yet knowing what is false is as important to science as knowing what is true. The failure to report failures means that researchers waste money and effort exploring blind alleys already investigated by other scientists.
[G] The holy process of peer review is not all it is praised to be, either. When a prominent medical journal ran research past other experts in the field, it found that most of the reviewers failed to spot mistakes it had deliberately inserted into papers, even after being told they were being tested.
If it’s broke, fix it
[H] All this makes a shaky foundation for an enterprise dedicated to discovering the truth about the world. What might be done to shore it up? One priority should be for all disciplines to follow the example of those that have done most to tighten standards. A start would be getting to grips with statistics, especially in the growing number of fields that screen through untold crowds of data looking for patterns. Geneticists have done this, and turned an early stream of deceptive results from genome sequencing (基因组测序) into a flow of truly significant ones.
[I] Ideally, research protocols (草案) should be registered in advance and monitored in virtual notebooks. This would curb the temptation to manipulate the experiment’s design midstream so as to make the results look more substantial than they are. (It is already meant to happen in clinical trials of drugs.) Where possible, trial data also should be open for other researchers to inspect and test.
[J] The most enlightened journals are already showing less dislike of tedious papers. Some government funding agencies, including America’s National Institutes of Health, which give out $30 billion on research each year, are working out how best to encourage replication. And growing numbers of scientists, especially young ones, understand statistics. But these trends need to go much further. Journals should allocate space for "uninteresting" work, and grant-givers should set aside money to pay for it. Peer review should be tightened—or perhaps dispensed with altogether, in favour of post-publication evaluation in the form of appended comments. That system has worked well in recent years in physics and mathematics. Lastly, policymakers should ensure that institutions using public money also respect the rules.
[K] Science still commands enormous—if sometimes perplexed—respect. But its privileged status is founded on the capacity to be right most of the time and to correct its mistakes when it gets things wrong. And it is not as if the universe is short of genuine mysteries to keep generations of scientists hard at work. The false trails laid down by cheap research are an unforgivable barrier to understanding.
"Publish or perish" has become the dominant rule over academic life now.
选项
答案
D
解析
本题涉及学术造假的环境因素,可知答案应在What a load of rubbish标题下的内容查找。由“Publish or perish”和rule可以定位到D段第5句。原文提到,由于竞争激烈,发表学术成果和论文在一个人的学术生涯中逐渐占据主导地位,从而导致了不发表就完蛋亡的现象,题干中的dominant rule对应原文的come to rule over…,故本题来源于D段。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/mj47777K
0
大学英语四级
相关试题推荐
A、Thewaypeoplesleepshowstheirpersonality.B、Itiseasytochangeaperson’ssleepingstyle.C、Crouchedinthefetalpositi
A、Thedangeroustwistsandturnsalongthecourse.B、ThechangeableweatherinasingledayinNorthGermany.C、Thepreparation
A、Veryfewofthemareengagedinresearch.B、Theywerenotawardeddegreesuntil1948.C、Theyhaveoutnumberedmalestudents.D
A、Histravelingexperiences.B、Hisknowledgeoflanguages.C、Hispolicy-makingability.D、Hishard-working.B男士说他会法语和德语,这意味着他擅长在
Officialhealthadvicethatsaidhouseholdchoreshelpkeepyouactivehasbeenprovedwrongbytheresearch,whichshowsthatt
Whatdodietingandenergypolicyhaveincommon?TheSnackWelleffect.Thenamecomesfromthosetastylittlecookiesthatare【
Whatdodietingandenergypolicyhaveincommon?TheSnackWelleffect.Thenamecomesfromthosetastylittlecookiesthatare【
A、Thechangingofweather.B、Thehealthofteenagers.C、Energydrinksandtheirnutrition.D、Thedangerofenergydrinks.D短文先用天
A、TheU.S.centralbankdecidesmonetarypolicy.B、TheU.S.centralbankhasraisedaninterestrate.C、TheU.S.economicgrowth
A、Automobilesaremoredestructivetohumansociety.B、Peacebreakerspaylittleattentiontolawandmorality.C、Moderntechnolo
随机试题
尿道损伤后,有排尿困难,导尿管能插入膀胱,应将导尿管留置多久
在一个达到弱式有效的资本市场上,下列表述不正确的是()。
2017年2月20日23时左右,甲、乙二人因酒后忘记面包车停放地点,在唱响KTV门口拨打110报警称面包车被盗。在处警民警登记现场信息,开始查找车辆的情况下,二人要求民警立即找到其车辆,并在此后的两个多小时内连打了60多次110,谩骂处警民警和110接警员
股票价格与股息收入成正比,与存款利息率成反比。()
“旅行者1号”空间探测器历经36年的人类星际探索,沿途探测①木星、②土星、③土卫二、④土卫六是否存在生命痕迹,并发回资料。阅读表格,依据探测资料判断将来最有可能孕育生命的天体是()。
()之于学校相当于士兵之于()
下列选项中,不属于解放战争时期调解的种类是()。
打开考生文件夹下的演示文稿yswg.pptx,按照下列要求完成对此文稿的修饰并保存。1.使用“极目远眺”主题修饰全文,将全部幻灯片的切换方案设置成“擦除”,效果选项为“自顶部”。2.在第一张幻灯片前插入一张版式为“空白”的新幻灯片,在水平为5
Hemighthavelosthisdaughter______thetimelyarrivalofthepolicemen.
LandfillsYouhavejustfinishedyourmealatafastfoodrestaurantandyouthrowyouruneatenfood,foodwrappers,drinkc
最新回复
(
0
)