"Just stick to science." This is a common admonition that Science receives when we publish commentaries and news stories on poli

admin2022-11-16  120

问题     "Just stick to science." This is a common admonition that Science receives when we publish commentaries and news stories on policies that readers disagree with. It turns out that "stick to science" is a tired-but-very-much-still-alive political talking point used to suppress scientific advice and expertise. According to a recent issue of The Washington Post, "stick to science" is what the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator said in criticizing and silencing its own Scientific Advisory Board, of which two-thirds of the members were appointed by the current administration. The scientific community should not let this cycle continue because facts that have stood up to, in some cases, years of scrutiny are being suppressed in the service of politics.
    The latest go-round is one of the most egregious. On New Year’s Eve, the EPA posted four reports from its Scientific Advisory Board commenting on upcoming changes in EPA rules. Three of the four consensus reports from the administration’s own panel are highly critical of upcoming EPA rule changes.
    One of the four proposed rules addresses data transparency. The EPA Scientific Advisory Board agreed with the statement that the proposal’s push for transparency would suppress the use of relevant scientific evidence in policy-making. The Board articulated, among other criticisms, that the EPA’s proposed rule was "vague, and as a result, can be interpreted in different ways."
    The scientific community needs to step out of its labs and support evidence-based decision-making in a much more public way. The good news is that over the past few years, scientists have increasingly engaged with the public and policy-makers on all levels, from participating in local science cafes, to contacting local representatives and protesting in the international March for Science in 2017 and 2018. Science and the American Association for the Advancement of Science will continue to advocate for science and its objective application to policy in the United States and around the world, but we too must do more.
    Scientists must speak up. In June 2019, Patrick Gonzalez, the principal climate change scientist, testified to Congress on the risks of climate change even after he was sent a cease-and-desist letter by the administration. That’s the kind of courage that deserves the attention of the greater scientific community. There are many more examples of folks leading federal agencies and working on science throughout the government. When their roles in promoting science to support decision-making are diminished, the scientific community needs to raise its voice in loud objection.
    The upcoming EPA public conference is an excellent opportunity for the scientific community to mobilize. All who value evidence and inductive reasoning should support the conclusions of the Scientific Advisory Board through feedback to the EPA, local representatives, scientific societies, and other science advocacy organizations. Because we need to make the science stick.
According to the last paragraph, the author argued that________.

选项 A、it is a perfect timing for scientists to take action
B、it is EPA’s responsibility to collect all feedback
C、the public should cultivate the inductive reasoning ability
D、the public should form their own scientific conclusions

答案A

解析 根据题干关键词the last paragraph定位至尾段。该段首句先说明即将召开的环保署公开会议是科学界行动起来的绝佳机会(…an excellent opportunity for the scientific community to mobilize)。所有尊重科学依据和注重归纳推理的人都应该支持科学顾问委员会的结论。最后一句点明文章主旨:因为我们需要坚守科学。观察四个选项,A项中a perfect timing是文中an excellent Opportunity的同义重述,take action是mobilize的同义重述,故正确答案为A项。选项B意思是“美国环保署有责任收集所有反馈意见”,文中只是说到人们应通过提供反馈来支持科学顾问委员会的结论,其中反馈的渠道之一就是给美国环保署提意见,但不是说收集反馈意见是美国环保署的责任,故排除。C项意思是“公众应该培养归纳推理能力”,文中只是说所有尊重科学依据和注重归纳推理的人都应该支持科学顾问委员会的结论,但并未提到公众应培养这种能力,故排除。选项D意思是“公众应该得出自己的科学结论”,文中只是提到人们应支持科学顾问委员会的结论,故排除。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/5bMD777K
0

最新回复(0)