首页
外语
计算机
考研
公务员
职业资格
财经
工程
司法
医学
专升本
自考
实用职业技能
登录
外语
How science goes wrong Scientific research has changed the world. Now it needs to change itself. [A] A simple idea underlies
How science goes wrong Scientific research has changed the world. Now it needs to change itself. [A] A simple idea underlies
admin
2018-09-15
36
问题
How science goes wrong
Scientific research has changed the world. Now it needs to change itself.
[A] A simple idea underlies science: "trust, but verify". Results should always be subject to challenge from experiment. That simple but powerful idea has generated a vast body of knowledge. Since its birth in the 17th century, modern science has changed the world beyond recognition, and overwhelmingly for the better. But success can breed extreme self-satisfaction. Modern scientists are doing too much trusting and not enough verifying, damaging the whole of science, and of humanity.
[B] Too many of the findings are the result of cheap experiments or poor analysis. A rule of thumb among biotechnology venture-capitalists is that half of published research cannot be replicated (复制). Even that may be optimistic. Last year researchers at one biotech firm, Amgen, found they could reproduce just six of 53 "milestone" studies in cancer research. Earlier, a group at Bayer, a drug company, managed to repeat just a quarter of 67 similarly important papers. A leading computer scientist worries that three-quarters of papers in his subfield are nonsense. In 2000-10, roughly 80,000 patients took part in clinical trials based on research that was later withdrawn because of mistakes or improperness.
What a load of rubbish
[C] Even when flawed research does not put people’s lives at risk—and much of it is too far from the market to do so—it blows money and the efforts of some of the world’s best minds. The opportunity costs of hindered progress are hard to quantify, but they are likely to be vast. And they could be rising.
[D] One reason is the competitiveness of science. In the 1950s, when modern academic research took shape after its successes in the Second World War, it was still a rarefied (小众的) pastime. The entire club of scientists numbered a few hundred thousand. As their ranks have swelled to 6m-7m active researchers on the latest account, scientists have lost their taste for self-policing and quality control. The obligation to "publish or perish (消亡)" has come to rule over academic life. Competition for jobs is cut-throat. Full professors in America earned on average $135,000 in 2012—more than judges did. Every year six freshly minted PhDs strive for every academic post. Nowadays verification (the replication of other people’s results) does little to advance a researcher’s career. And without verification, uncertain findings live on to mislead.
[E] Careerism also encourages exaggeration and the choose-the-most-profitable of results. In order to safeguard their exclusivity, the leading journals impose high rejection rates: in excess of 90% of submitted manuscripts. The most striking findings have the greatest chance of making it onto the page. Little wonder that one in three researchers knows of a colleague who has polished a paper by, say, excluding inconvenient data from results based on his instinct. And as more research teams around the world work on a problem, it is more likely that at least one will fall prey to an honest confusion between the sweet signal of a genuine discovery and a nut of the statistical noise. Such fake correlations are often recorded in journals eager for startling papers. If they touch on drinking wine, or letting children play video games, they may well command the front pages of newspapers, too.
[F] Conversely, failures to prove a hypothesis (假设) are rarely even offered for publication, let alone accepted. "Negative results" now account for only 14% of published papers, down from 30% in 1990. Yet knowing what is false is as important to science as knowing what is true. The failure to report failures means that researchers waste money and effort exploring blind alleys already investigated by other scientists.
[G] The holy process of peer review is not all it is praised to be, either. When a prominent medical journal ran research past other experts in the field, it found that most of the reviewers failed to spot mistakes it had deliberately inserted into papers, even after being told they were being tested.
If it’s broke, fix it
[H] All this makes a shaky foundation for an enterprise dedicated to discovering the truth about the world. What might be done to shore it up? One priority should be for all disciplines to follow the example of those that have done most to tighten standards. A start would be getting to grips with statistics, especially in the growing number of fields that screen through untold crowds of data looking for patterns. Geneticists have done this, and turned an early stream of deceptive results from genome sequencing (基因组测序) into a flow of truly significant ones.
[I] Ideally, research protocols (草案) should be registered in advance and monitored in virtual notebooks. This would curb the temptation to manipulate the experiment’s design midstream so as to make the results look more substantial than they are. (It is already meant to happen in clinical trials of drugs.) Where possible, trial data also should be open for other researchers to inspect and test.
[J] The most enlightened journals are already showing less dislike of tedious papers. Some government funding agencies, including America’s National Institutes of Health, which give out $30 billion on research each year, are working out how best to encourage replication. And growing numbers of scientists, especially young ones, understand statistics. But these trends need to go much further. Journals should allocate space for "uninteresting" work, and grant-givers should set aside money to pay for it. Peer review should be tightened—or perhaps dispensed with altogether, in favour of post-publication evaluation in the form of appended comments. That system has worked well in recent years in physics and mathematics. Lastly, policymakers should ensure that institutions using public money also respect the rules.
[K] Science still commands enormous—if sometimes perplexed—respect. But its privileged status is founded on the capacity to be right most of the time and to correct its mistakes when it gets things wrong. And it is not as if the universe is short of genuine mysteries to keep generations of scientists hard at work. The false trails laid down by cheap research are an unforgivable barrier to understanding.
Registered and monitored research protocols would help to resist the temptation to manipulate the experiment’s design.
选项
答案
I
解析
本题涉及对于目前学术论文问题的解决办法,可知答案应在If it’s broke,fix it标题下的内容查找。由Registered and monitored research protocols,manipulate和experiment’s design可定位到I段。原文提到理想状态下采用注册(registered)及通过虚拟记录簿监控(monitored in virtual notebooks)来确保草案不被任意更改,这可抑制学术造假的诱惑(curb the temptation to manipulate the experiment’s design…),本题与I段第1句相符,故选I。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/Gj47777K
0
大学英语四级
相关试题推荐
A、Professorsandresearchers.B、Foreignguestsandstudents.C、Newspeopleandentertainers.D、Professorsandleaders.C文中谈到,“常常
A、Veryfewofthemareengagedinresearch.B、Theywerenotawardeddegreesuntil1948.C、Theyhaveoutnumberedmalestudents.D
A、Anexportsalesmanworkingoverseas.B、Atraineeworkingthrougheverybranch.C、Aproductionmanagerinabranch.D、Apolicy
A、Itdeliversthenarrator’sthoughtsclearly.B、Itinvolvesthoroughdescriptionoftheworld.C、Itgivesspecificinformation
Officialhealthadvicethatsaidhouseholdchoreshelpkeepyouactivehasbeenprovedwrongbytheresearch,whichshowsthatt
Officialhealthadvicethatsaidhouseholdchoreshelpkeepyouactivehasbeenprovedwrongbytheresearch,whichshowsthatt
Whatdodietingandenergypolicyhaveincommon?TheSnackWelleffect.Thenamecomesfromthosetastylittlecookiesthatare【
A、Thechangingofweather.B、Thehealthofteenagers.C、Energydrinksandtheirnutrition.D、Thedangerofenergydrinks.D短文先用天
随机试题
影响流通时间的主要因素不包括()
简述患者的权利。
A.动脉血压降低B.心输出量减少C.两者均有D.两者均无颈动脉窦内压力升高时,可引起
男,15岁。3年前出现发作性意识丧失,全身抽搐,持续约5分钟恢复,发作时面色青紫,有时伴尿失禁,舌咬伤,有时夜间睡眠中发作。查体及各项检查均正常。患者的姑姑有与患者相同的疾病史。该患者最可能的诊断是
女,21岁。右大腿下端肿痛2个月。查体:体温36.9℃,脉搏85次/分,呼吸18次/分,血压110/60mmHg,双肺呼吸音清,未闻及干湿啰音。心律齐,未闻及杂音,腹软,无压痛,未触及包块。右大腿下端肿胀、压痛。X线检查示股骨下端有界限不清的骨质破坏区、骨
单一经营战略就是企业把自己的经营范围限定在某一种产品或服务上的经营战略。()
根据《水利水电工程施工通用安全技术规程》SL398—2007,用火作业区距所建的建筑物和其他区域不得小于()m。
在自营账户的审核和稽核制度中,以下不属于禁止行为的是()。
下列符合《银行业从业人员职业操守》中关于银行业从业人员与所在机构相关规定的是()。
2
最新回复
(
0
)