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
2017-01-16
32
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 In 2000-10, roughly 80,000 patients took part in clinical trials based on research that was later withdrawn because of mistakes or improperness.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.
Some government funding agencies have already granted money to figure out how best to encourage replication.
选项
答案
J
解析
本题涉及对于目前学术问题的整治办法,可知答案应在If it’s broke,fix it标题下的内容查找。由government funding agencies和encourage replication可以定位到J段第2句。原文提到一些政府机构正着手研究如何鼓励复现已有的科研成果,题中的grant money对应原文的give out $30 billion,而figure out则对应work out,故可确定答案为J段。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/3Bi7777K
0
大学英语四级
相关试题推荐
PerhapsbecausegoingtocollegeissomuchapartoftheAmericandream,manypeoplegoforno【B1】______reason.Somegobecause
PerhapsbecausegoingtocollegeissomuchapartoftheAmericandream,manypeoplegoforno【B1】______reason.Somegobecause
A、Hehasneverbeenilltillnow.B、Hehasn’thadanyinjuries.C、Hehassomehealthproblemsnow.D、Hestoppedgrowingbecause
A、Itisveryboring.B、Itisverydifficult.C、Itisveryspecial.D、Itisverywonderful.D
FixingAmericanSchools:CharterVocationalHighSchoolA)PubliceducationinAmericaisamess.Toooften,parentsareabsento
A、Timisabraveman.B、Tim’splanisfoolish.C、Timiswisetoquit.D、Timhasfoundanewjob.B题目询问男士持什么观点。关键在于理解foolish是mad的
Sinceearlytimes,peoplehavebeenfascinatedwiththeideaoflifeexistingsomewhereelsebesidesearth.Untilrecently,scie
AnewstudyfromtheUniversityofNewSouthWaleshasdiscoveredthatduringtheworkingweek,Australianfathersonlyspendan
飞速发展的经济引发了中国的旅游热潮。目前看来,东南亚是最受欢迎的目的地。中国团队游的激增,成为这一地区重要的收人来源。大批的中国人正在作为旅游者走出国门,从而引发了前所未有的旅游热潮。如果目前的预测准确,全球的旅游业需要马上接受有关中国的各种培训,以满足很
ChildrenAreWhattheMothersAre1.阐明此谚语的含义2.说明产生此现象的原因3.该谚语给予的启示
随机试题
光表面中可辨加工痕迹方向其表面粗糙度值应小于多少?用哪些加工方法可达到?
《金匮要略•妇人杂病》中的中药外洗方是( )
病理性自身免疫应答发生机制有下述哪项
关于基金管理公司一般决策程序,下列叙述正确的有()
学生在做问答题时的记忆性活动主要是再认。()
江北大营
下面关于UART、RS-232、RS-485的叙述中,错误的是()。
某级数的前两项A1=1,A2=1,以后各项具有如下关系:An=An-2+2An-1下列程序的功能是:要求依次对于整数M=100,1000和10000求出对应的n值,使其满足:Sn<M且Sn+1≥M,这里Sn=A1+A
要从数据库中删除一个表,应该使用的SQL语句是
Theinaccessibletransportation______thedevelopmentofthelocalbusiness.
最新回复
(
0
)