2. 外语
  3. A few weeks ago, a well-meaning professor tried to explain the physiological process behind viruses and the human body in a twee

A few weeks ago, a well-meaning professor tried to explain the physiological process behind viruses and the human body in a twee

admin2022-09-05  55
问题     A few weeks ago, a well-meaning professor tried to explain the physiological process behind viruses and the human body in a tweet and was immediately criticized for a mistake in his information. He then issued an apology and deleted his erroneous tweet.
    Communicating science beyond the academic bubble is necessary to augmenting public understanding of health and environmental issues and helping individuals make well-informed personal decisions.
    However, scientists who engage in science communication must acknowledge that even in their area, their expertise is deep but narrow. They need to recognize the constraints in their own knowledge. That is not to suggest that they only write or present on their own research, but rather, that they consult with an expert if the topic is outside of their discipline. Fact-checking with a scientist who works in the specialty will prevent the unintentional spread of misinformation, and the process of doing so may yield tiny pieces of interesting new information that can be incorporated.
    Some have argued that the public is not educated enough to understand scientific information, especially for any complex phenomena, but this is absurd. Science instruction can be found at all levels of public education with most secondary schools offering classes on biology, physics, and chemistry. If anything, social media has shown that the public craves knowledge based on a solid scientific foundation. Even the public discourse that follows most scientific articles shows that online readers can understand even the most baffling of scientific principles.
    It is equally imperative to emphasize that being an expert on a topic does not automatically make a scholar qualified to communicate it to a nonscientific audience. A number of scientists recently have been offering public-aimed explanations of scientific phenomena. Even though they have appropriate credentials, they often do very little in the way of explaining. One biologist shared an intricate analogy involving a library, books, paper, a recipe, ingredients, and a cake to explain the process behind vaccines. Any explanation that requires a written key to keep track of what each item represents is not a clear example for public consumption.
    Science communication is a science in and of itself. It requires rigorous training and instruction. A scientist should take communication courses that can teach a person how to identify and eliminate jargon and how to develop effective analogies to explain complex concepts. One cannot assume communication expertise-imagine if someone just decided that they were a physicist and started trying to contribute to the field without the necessary background. Doing a poor job communicating science to the public will only create confusion and widen the gap between science and society, a gap that scientists are trying to close.
What does the author advise scientists do to deal with topics outside of their specialty?
选项 A、Write or present on them from new angles.
B、Utilize information from diverse sources.
C、Turn to a specialist for professional help.
D、Fact-check with colleagues in their field.
答案C
解析 由题干中的outside of their specialty定位到第三段第三句。细节理解题。第三段第三句对科学家们提出建议，即如果探讨的话题超出了他们的学科范围，他们应该咨询相关的专家，C项是对定位句后半部分的同义转述，故答案为C。A项是对定位句前半部分的曲解，原文的意思是科学家并非只能撰写或介绍自己的研究，也可以探讨本领域外的话题，故排除A；B项所述内容在原文中并未提及，故排除；定位句之后的第四句提到了核实事实的问题，但核实的对象是其所要探讨领域的专家，而不是自己所在领域的同事，故排除D项。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/DoR7777K
0

大学英语六级

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)