Science and science funding have enjoyed a good run over the past 20 years or so. During the unusually long economic boom after

admin2016-10-15  61

问题     Science and science funding have enjoyed a good run over the past 20 years or so. During the unusually long economic boom after the end of the cold war, governments of all political stripes have accepted the argument that it is in their interest to support "the best science". Something like a global consensus has emerged on the value of curiosity-driven, basic research. The predominant argument behind this consensus has been the belief that excellent science—of whatever discipline—is likely to spur innovation, which will in turn foster economic growth.
    At the same time, direct government sponsorship of technology development has fallen out of vogue. Considerable expenditure continues, of course, and if the military sphere is included, it still dwarfs the resources devoted to basic science. But the idea of explicit state support for the development of drugs or circuit boards or civilian airliners has been pretty well driven off the table. There has been an assumption—even in comparatively centrist nations such as France and Japan—that governments aren’t good at "picking winners".
    This particular era of science and technology policy may now be drawing to a close. Even before last week’s juddering stock markets sparked talk about a possible U. S. , or even global, recession, policymakers in industrialized countries were watching the flight of much industrial production to China and India with intensifying alarm.
    As a result, the word "competitiveness" is back on the agenda, particularly in the United States.
    When political leaders look at research budgets in the light of competitiveness, they are always prone to be more drawn to the direct support of innovation through technology programmes, than to its indirect support, through basic science. Asa result, they may start asking questions that are inherently difficult for scientists to answer, such as, what will be the economic spin-off from this work? What are we getting for our money?
    These questions are currently being posed most directly in the United Kingdom, where the research councils, which support most university science, seem to be undergoing a subtle change of direction. Some scientist groups are already nervous about a paper, "Increasing the economic impact of the research councils", that was published in January by the councils’ steering group.
    There is a risk that this process could result in perceived economic relevance displacing scientific merit, to a significant extent, as the determining factor in the selection of research-council grants. Before that happens, it would be reassuring if the leaders of the research councils emphatically reiterated that their primary function is to promote scientific excellence—and that they will best support Britain’s national interests, economic and otherwise, by doing exactly that.
The author suggests that the research councils in the U. K. should______.

选项 A、increase their impact on the economy
B、try their best to foster excellent science
C、displace scientific merit with economic one
D、emphasize their primary function repeatedly

答案B

解析 根据全文最后一句中的“Before that happens,it would be reassuring if the leaders of theresearch councils emphatically reiterated that their primary function is to promote scientific excellence…”,B应为答案。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/AToZ777K
0

最新回复(0)