2. 考研
  3. Transparency has hit the headlines. In the wake of evidence that many research findings are not reproducible, the scientific com

Transparency has hit the headlines. In the wake of evidence that many research findings are not reproducible, the scientific com

admin2017-02-28  52
问题     Transparency has hit the headlines. In the wake of evidence that many research findings are not reproducible, the scientific community has launched initiatives to increase data sharing, transparency and open critique. As with any new development, there are unintended consequences. Many measures that can improve science —shared data, post-publication peer review and public engagement on social media —can be turned against scientists.
    Endless information requests, complaints to researchers’ universities, online harassment, distortion of scientific findings and even threats of violence: these were all recurring experiences shared by researchers from a broad range of disciplines at a Royal Society-sponsored meeting last year that we organized to explore this topic. Orchestrated and well-funded harassment campaigns against researchers working in climate change and tobacco control are well documented. Some hard-line opponents to other research, such as that on nuclear fallout, vaccination, chronic fatigue syndrome or genetically modified organisms, although less resourced, have employed identical strategies.
    Such attacks place scientists in a difficult position. Good researchers do not turn away when confronted by alternative views. However, their openness can be exploited by opponents who are keen to stall inconvenient research. When people object to science because it challenges their beliefs or jeopardizes their interests, they are rarely committed to informed debate.
    The progress of research demands transparency. But as scientists work to boost rigour, they risk making science more vulnerable to attacks. Awareness of tactics is paramount.
    Scientists should ignore critics who are abusive or illogical and those that make the same points repeatedly despite refutations. Internet trolling has been associated with sadism and psychopathy. Engagement with such bad-faith actors can endanger scientists’ well-being in a way that university ethics committees would never condone in research on human subjects.
    All who participate in post-publication review should identify themselves. The drawbacks of anonymity ( its encouragement of bad behaviour) outweigh its advantages (for example, it allows junior people to criticize senior academics without fear of redress). What’s more, the scientific community should not indulge in games of ’gotcha’ (intentionally turning small errors against a person). Minor corrections and clarifications after publication should not be a reason to stigmatize fellow researchers. Scientific publications should be seen as "living documents," with corrigenda an accepted — if unwelcome — part of scientific progress.
    Similar attention must be devoted to stressors and threats to science that arise in response to research that is considered inconvenient. The same institutions and bodies that have scrutinized science must also start a conversation about how to protect it.
Which of the following is the best title of the text?
选项 A、Openness Is What Is Essential to the Progress of Science.
B、A Frank Conversation: Protect Researchers from Attacks.
C、The Prestige of the Scientific Community Is Often Stained.
D、Research Integrity: Don’t Let Transparency Damage Science.
答案D
解析 (1)本题的思考角度与上题一致。(2)文章第1、第2段介绍了“透明”(transparency)给研究者带来的麻烦，第3段介绍“攻击给研究者造成的困境”(第3段：difficult position)，也许危害到研究的进步。(3)第5、6、7段涉及面对“无理、匿名和偏激的攻击”(illogical，stressors and threats)，科学家们应该如何应对。最后，文章说“科学团体必须就如何保护科研展开对话”(第7段：must also start)。概括全文内容并理解了作者的言外之意后，可知选项[D]为最佳答案。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/7sbZ777K
0

考研英语一

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)