2. 考研
  3. There is, writes Daniele Fanelli in a recent issue of Nature, something rotten in the state of scientific research—an epidemic o

There is, writes Daniele Fanelli in a recent issue of Nature, something rotten in the state of scientific research—an epidemic o

admin2022-07-29  101
问题     There is, writes Daniele Fanelli in a recent issue of Nature, something rotten in the state of scientific research—an epidemic of false, biased, and falsified findings where "only the most egregious cases of misconduct are discovered and punished." Fanelli is a leading thinker in an increasingly alarming field of scientific research: one that seeks to find out why it is that so many scientific researches turn out to be wrong.
    For a long time the focus has either been on industry funding as a source of bias, particularly in drug research, or on those who deliberately commit fraud, such as the spectacular case of Diederik Stapel, a Dutch social psychologist who was found to have fabricated at least 55 research papers over 20 years. But an increasing number of studies have shown that flawed research is a much wider phenomenon, especially in the biomedical sciences. Indeed, the investigation into Stapel also blamed a "sloppy" research culture that often ignored inconvenient data and misunderstood important statistical methods.
    "There’s little question that the scientific literature is awash in false findings—findings that if you try to replicate you’ll probably never succeed or at least find them to be different from what was initially said," says Fanelli. "But people don’t appreciate that this is not because scientists are manipulating these results, consciously or unconsciously; it’s largely because we have a system that favors statistical flukes instead of replicable findings."
    This is why, he says, we need to extend the idea of academic misconduct (currently limited to fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism) to "distorted reporting"—the failure to communicate all the information someone would need to validate your findings. Right now, he says, we’re missing all the "unconscious biased, the systemic biases, the practices, mistakes, and problems that hardly ever count as cheating", even though they have a very important—and probably the largest—effect on creating technically false results in the literature.
    One particularly challenging bias is that academic journals tend to publish only positive results. As Isabelle Boutron, a professor of epidemiology at Rene Descartes University in Paris, points out, studies have shown that peer reviewers are influenced by trial results; one study showed that they not only favored a paper showing a positive effect over a near-identical paper showing no effect, they also gave the positive paper higher scores for its scientific methods. And Boutron has herself found extensive evidence of scientists spinning their findings to claim benefits that their actual results didn’t quite support.
    "We need a major cultural change," says Fanelli. "But when you think that, even 20 years ago, these issues were practically never discussed, I think we’re making considerable progress."
The example of Diederik Stapel is used to________.
选项 A、prove the severe phenomenon of academic misconduct
B、call for relevant punishment
C、show that it is easy to commit academic fraud in social psychology
D、prove that the professor is unworthy of the title
答案A
解析 本题关键词是人名Diederik Stapel，属于例证题，问的是引用狄德利克.斯塔佩尔这个例子的目的何在。答案可以定位到第二段。根据第二段第一句话，长久以来，人们的关注点主要在两方面。可知接下来要对科研界的长久现状进行阐述。其中一方面是科研界故意造假行为(deliberately commit fraud)，然后举了狄德利克.斯塔佩尔伪造论文的例子。因此，狄德利克.斯塔佩尔的例子首先说明了学术造假现象；本段第三句讲到斯塔佩尔事件要归咎于科研界“草率的”研究文化(a “sloppy” research culture)，即这种学术氛围导致了此类事件的发生，因此选项A与原文属于相同含望，为正确选项。第二段只是陈述了科研界的不良风气，并附以实例，并没有探讨如何解决应对的问题，所以选项B无中生有。选项C属于主观推导，狄德利克.斯塔佩尔确实是社会心理学家，但这与他的造假行为没有直接的因果逻辑关系，不能因为他一个人造假就说社会心理学领域很容易学术造假。选项D属于就事论事，作者举狄德利克.斯塔佩尔的例子是为了说明当今学术研究的不良风气和恶劣的大环境，并不是为了对其进行个人评价。第二段：研究错误现象十分广泛。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/OCi4777K
0

考研英语二

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)