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
Read the following passage carefully and then write a summary of it in English in about 150 words. A simple idea underpins s
Read the following passage carefully and then write a summary of it in English in about 150 words. A simple idea underpins s
admin
2015-09-25
73
问题
Read the following passage carefully and then write a summary of it in English in about 150 words.
A simple idea underpins 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 complacency. Modern scientists are doing too much trusting and not enough verifying—to the detriment of the whole of science, and of humanity.
Too many of the findings that fill the academic ether are the result of shoddy experiments or poor analysis(see article). A rule of thumb among biotechnology venture-capitalists is that half of published research cannot be replicated. Even that may be optimistic. Last year researchers at one biotech firm, Amgen, found they could reproduce just six of 53 "landmark" 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 frets that three-quarters of papers in his subfield are bunk. In 2000—2010 roughly 80, 000 patients took part in clinical trials based on research that was later retracted because of mistakes or improprieties.
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 squanders money and the efforts of some of the world’s best minds. The opportunity costs of stymied progress are hard to quantify, but they are likely to be vast. And they could be rising.
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 pastime. The entire club of scientists numbered a few hundred thousand. As their ranks have swelled, to 6m—7m active researchers on the latest reckoning, scientists have lost their taste for self-policing and quality control. The obligation to "publish or perish" has come to rule over academic life. Competition for jobs is cutthroat. Full professors in America earned on average $ 135, 000 in 2012—more than judges did. Every year six freshly minted PhDs vie for every academic post. Nowadays verification(the replication of other people’s results)does little to advance a researcher’s career. And without verification, dubious findings live on to mislead.
Careerism also encourages exaggeration and the cherry-picking 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 pepped up a paper by, say, excluding inconvenient data from results "based on a gut feeling". And as more research teams around the world work on a problem, the odds shorten that at least one will fall prey to an honest confusion between the sweet signal of a genuine discovery and a freak of the statistical noise. Such spurious correlations are often recorded in journals eager for startling papers. If they touch on drinking wine, going senile or letting children play video games, they may well command the front pages of newspapers, too.
Conversely, failures to prove a hypothesis 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.
The hallowed process of peer review is not all it is cracked up 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.
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 sift through untold oodles of data looking for patterns. Geneticists have done this, and turned an early torrent of specious results from genome sequencing into a trickle of truly significant ones.
Ideally, research protocols should be registered in advance and monitored in virtual notebooks. This would curb the temptation to fiddle with 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, but compliance is patchy.)Where possible, trial data also should be open for other researchers to inspect and test.
The most enlightened journals are already becoming less averse to humdrum papers. Some government funding agencies, including America’s National Institutes of Health, which dish 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.
Science still commands enormous—if sometimes bemused—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 shoddy research are an unforgivable barrier to understanding.
选项
答案
In this passage, the author points out a serious problem existing in modern science, that is, scientists are doing too much trusting and not enough verifying, which has deteriorated the whole science and humanity. In the latter passage, the author analyzed the reasons with the detailed examples as proofs. The first reason is the competitiveness of science. The greatly increasing population of the scientists imposed fierce competition and forced them to publish their articles regardless of the academic quality. What’s more, high rejection rates of the leading journals encourage negatively researchers to exclude inconvenient data from results based only on sensations to optimize their research and win the opportunity to be published. Later on, the author offers some suggestions to solve the problem. One priority is to make disciplines tighten standards. Journals should spare space for "uninteresting" work and accept those papers concerned with the "negative results". Government funding agencies should set aside money to support and encourage replication. Peer review should be tightened. Lastly, policymakers should ensure that institutions using public money also respect the rules. At last, the author restates and emphasizes the importance for science to be right and its capacity to be corrected. The false researches can only hinder the process of understanding.
解析
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/IOLO777K
0
考博英语
相关试题推荐
ManypeopleinWaleshaveanaffinitywithmusic.
Smallbusinessownersmustaccepttheburdensofentrepreneurship.Beinginbusinessforyour-selfrequiresyourfullattention
Youmighthavetogobacktotheinitialepochprintingpresstofindapublishingtechnologyasdisruptive.Theinternetcanre
Despitetheirmanydifferencesoftemperamentandofliteraryperspective,Emerson,Thoreau,Hawthorne,Melville,andWhitmansh
Mountainbikingdemandshill—walkingstrengthaswellastrack-ridingskills.Initially,choosegentleroutesamongfamiliart
AnintelligentTVviewermayoccasionallybecomeenragedbythe______argumentationincommercials.
Asforthemissingfunds,thecompanymanager,whendemandedtogiveanexplanation,couldnotevencomeupwitha______one.(北京大
(浙江大学2010年试题)ThecharacterofEuropeaneducationdemandsthatthestudentdevelop【1】andsocialindividuality.TheAmerican
随着工业的快速发展,人类使用化石能源,创造了巨大的物质财富,但同时也产生了大量污染物和温室气体。全球能源、气候变化和环境问题越来越突出,成为我们面临的共同挑战。这次会议就这个重大战略性问题交换看法,反映出本地区国家加强合作,应对挑战的愿望和决心。
Alicecamebackfromhertrip,______thehousecompletelydeserted.
随机试题
在针对某个具体的组织确定不良质量成本时,应当注意哪些问题?
桡骨远端骨折,骨折线经关节面,远端骨折片向背侧移位,该骨折诊断为
我国导致直接肺损伤的原因中,占首位的是
在事先确定企业资金规模的前提下,吸收一定比例的负债资金,可能产生的结果有()。
银行为避免借款企业无力还本付息可能造成的危害,除了在发放贷款时通过认真征信、预测和分析以规避风险外,另一种有效途径就是()
金融机构的工作人员严重不负责任,造成大量外汇被骗购或者逃汇的,应以()论处。
下列哪一项是关于厌学症的最准确的描述?()
现代管理学有一个著名的“木桶原理”,即一个木桶的最大容量,不是由围成木桶的最长木板或平均长度决定的,而是由最短的那一块木板决定的。要最大限度地增加木桶的容量,必须着重解决好“短木板”的“补短”问题。这一原理的哲学寓意是()。
根据给定资料,回答以下问题。2013年,全国林产品出口644.55亿美元,同比增长9.82%,增幅比上年增加3.18个百分点,占全国商品出口额的2.92%。林产品进口640.88亿美元,同比增加3.45%,增幅比上年增加8.58个百分点,占全国商
Shop-lifterscanbedividedintothreemaincategories;theprofessionals,thedeliberateamateurs,andthepeoplewhojustcan
最新回复
(
0
)