Hypothesis-driven research is at the heart of scientific endeavor, and it is often the positive, confirmatory data that get the

admin2014-06-25  53

问题     Hypothesis-driven research is at the heart of scientific endeavor, and it is often the positive, confirmatory data that get the most attention and guide further research. But many studies produce non-confirmatory data—observations that refute current ideas and carefully constructed hypotheses. And it can be argued that these "negative data," far from having little value in science, are actually an integral part of scientific progress that deserve more attention.
    At first glance, this may seem a little nonsensical; after all, how can non-confirmatory results help science to progress when they fail to substantiate anything? But in fact, in a philosophical sense, only negative data resulting in rejection of a hypothesis represent real progress. As philosopher of science Karl Popper stated; "Every refutation should be regarded as a great success; not merely a success of the scientist who refuted the theory, but also of the scientist who created the refuted theory and who thus in the first instance suggested, if only indirectly, the refuting experiment. "
    On a more practical level, Journal of Negative Results in Biomedicine(JNRBM)was launched on the premise that scientific progress depends not only on the accomplishments of individuals but requires teamwork and open communication of all results -positive and negative. After all, the scientific community can only learn from negative results if the data are published.
    Though not every negative result will turn out to be of groundbreaking significance, it is imperative to be aware of the more balanced perspective that can result from the publication of non-confirmatory findings. The first and most obvious benefits of publishing negative results are a reduction in the duplication of effort between researchers, leading to the acceleration of scientific progress, and greater transparency and openness.
    More broadly, publication of negative data might also contribute to a more realistic appreciation of the "messy" nature of science. Scientific endeavors rarely result in perfect discoveries of elements of "truth" about the world. This is largely because they are frequently based on methods with real limitations and hypotheses based on uncertain premises.
    It is perhaps this "messy" aspect of science that contributes to a hesitation within the scientific community to publish negative data. In an ever more competitive environment, it may be that scientific journals prefer to publish studies with clear and specific conclusions. Indeed, Daniele Fanelli of the University of Edinburgh suggests that results may be distorted by a "publish or perish" culture in which the progress of scientific careers depends on the frequency and quality of citations. This leads to a situation in which data that support a hypothesis may be perceived in a more positive light and receive more citations than data that only generate more questions and uncertainty.
    Despite the effects of this competitive environment, however, a willingness to publish negative data is emerging among researchers. Publications that emphasize positive findings are of course useful, but a more balanced presentation of all the data, including negative or failed experiments, would also make a significant contribution to scientific progress.
To which of the following might Daniele Fanelli agree?

选项 A、The frequency and quality of citations reflect the quality of a paper.
B、Positive data hinder us from understanding the messy nature of science.
C、The competitive environment makes it impossible to publish negative data.
D、The present publication culture is adverse to scientific progress.

答案D

解析 根据题干中的人名关键词定位到第六段。该段第三句援引丹尼尔.法内利原话指出,“要么发表要么毁灭”的文化可能会扭曲科研结果,因为在这种环境下,科学事业的进步取决于引用的频率及质量”,由distorted一词可见其对目前出版文化的否定态度,[D]选项正确。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/6GK4777K
0

最新回复(0)