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
2017-01-16
85
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 In 2000-10, roughly 80,000 patients took part in clinical trials based on research that was later withdrawn because of mistakes or improperness.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.
Science can gain respect only when it is basically right and is able to correct mistakes.
选项
答案
K
解析
本题阐述了科学的使命,根据respect,basically right和correct mistakes可以定位到K段。该段前两句阐述了科学基于基本正确与有错就改的能力才能保住受尊重的地位,题中的basically right对应原文be right most of the time,而is able to则对应the capacity to,可知本题是对K段前两句的归纳,选K。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/JBi7777K
0
大学英语四级
相关试题推荐
Thetypicalpre-industrialfamilynotonlyhadagoodmanychildren,butnumerousotherdependentsaswell—grandparents,uncle
ImaginebeingaslaveinancientRome.Nowrememberbeingone.Thesecondtask,unlikethefirst,iscrazy.If,asI’mguessing,
ImaginebeingaslaveinancientRome.Nowrememberbeingone.Thesecondtask,unlikethefirst,iscrazy.If,asI’mguessing,
BullyingandChildrenA)Whatyoursonisdescribingisbullying,plainandsimple.Althoughitislateintheschoolyear,yous
BullyingandChildrenA)Whatyoursonisdescribingisbullying,plainandsimple.Althoughitislateintheschoolyear,yous
Whatdostudentsthinkofe-textbooks?AdministratorsatNorthwestMissouriStateUniversitywantedto【B1】______.Earlierthisy
A、Childrenreallyneedpraiseatschool.B、Childrenshouldn’tbepraisediftheybehavebadlyatschool.C、Childrenshouldbepr
Sinceearlytimes,peoplehavebeenfascinatedwiththeideaoflifeexistingsomewhereelsebesidesearth.Untilrecently,scie
AnewstudyfromtheUniversityofNewSouthWaleshasdiscoveredthatduringtheworkingweek,Australianfathersonlyspendan
随机试题
组成骨组织的是
治疗消化性溃疡的药物根据作用方式不同,可分为
某案,被害人刘某在大街上因为小事与王某争吵,争吵过程中,王某拔出水果刀朝着刘某的腹部捅了一刀,然后逃跑,经鉴定构成轻伤。刘某到当地公安机关报案,要求公安机关立案侦查。那么下列说法中正确的是:()
在甲方案下,就其遗产应纳遗产税( )万美元。当某公民遗产为( )万美元时,两种方案下应纳税额相等。
截止到2008年年底,我国大约已有()名执业中国注册资产评估师。
借款人购买()时,可以向银行申请个人耐用品消费贷款。
在与同业人员接触时,以下行为恰当的是()。
申先生,39岁,北京某小区的居民。家中有五口人,父母年近70岁,妻子学历低,下岗在家,靠晚上在街上摆地摊来补贴家用,儿子正在读高中。一家人居住在30多平方米的旧楼房里。申先生工资很低,家庭收入还要靠父母的退休金和低保来维持。最近,申先生和妻子都愁眉不展,因
梅奥领导的霍桑实验的结论认为提高生产效率的主要原因是()。
Theperiodofadolescence,i.e.,theperiodbetweenchildhoodandadulthood,maybelongorshort,dependingonsocialexpectati
最新回复
(
0
)