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
2017-12-08
67
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 In 2000-10, roughly 80,000 patients took part in clinical trials based on research that was later withdrawn because of mistakes or improperness.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.
Modern science began in the 17th century.
选项
答案
A
解析
本题涉及描述学术问题之前对现代科学的概述,由题目中的began in the 17th century可定位至A段,本题是对A段第3句的Since its birth in the 17th century的改写。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/Rka7777K
0
大学英语四级
相关试题推荐
A、Toshowhowsimplethemechanicalaidsfordivingcanbe.B、Toprovidereasonsforhischangeablecharacter.C、Toexplorethe
Newresearchshowsthatchildrenbornafterunplannedpregnanciesdevelopmoreslowlythanchildrenwhoseparentshadplannedth
Newresearchshowsthatchildrenbornafterunplannedpregnanciesdevelopmoreslowlythanchildrenwhoseparentshadplannedth
Newresearchshowsthatchildrenbornafterunplannedpregnanciesdevelopmoreslowlythanchildrenwhoseparentshadplannedth
Newresearchshowsthatchildrenbornafterunplannedpregnanciesdevelopmoreslowlythanchildrenwhoseparentshadplannedth
A、Theychangedtheirwaysoftalking.B、Theychangetoanothertopic.C、Theymadetheirwaytochoosethewallpaperthatisfavo
A、Hehasdifficultiesgoingonwithhisresearch.B、Hedoesn’tunderstandtheworkplacefriendshipC、Hehasn’treadanyliteratu
随机试题
《爱尔克的灯光》中,写我走过故居时,“这条街、这个建筑物开始在我的眼前隐藏起来,像在躲避一个久别的旧友”,这里运用的修辞手法是()
凡士林纱布引流条适用于
若在迈克尔逊干涉仪的可动反射镜M移动0.620mm过程中,观察到干涉条纹移动了2300条,则所用光波的波长为()。
如图4-60所示均质圆盘放在光滑水平面上受力F作用,则质心C的运动为()。
账户的对应关系是指()。
某旅游团在旅游行程中发生了一次安全事故,造成旅游团中一名海外旅游者重伤,且此次事故的经济损失为10万元人民币。该事故属于()事故。
众所周知,瓦特发明的蒸汽机使整个世界走向工业时代,然而有人说莫兹利发明的移动刀架可与瓦特的发明相比。问题:请谈谈你是如何理解这段话的。
编译器和解释器是两种基本的高级语言处理程序。编译器对高级语言源程序的处理过程可以划分为词法分析、语法分析、语义分析、中间代码生成、代码优化、目标代码生成等阶段,其中,__________(19)并不是每个编译器都必需的。与编译器相比,解释器________
TheLondonMarathonisadifficultrace.______,thousandsofrunnersparticipateeveryyear.
A、Areport.B、Abookreview.C、Aresearchstudy.D、Aten-pagecomposition.A选项中的report,review和ten—pagecomposition表明,本题可能与课程作业或考
最新回复
(
0
)