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 underli
How science goes wrong Scientific research has changed the world. Now it needs to change itself. A)A simple idea underli
admin
2016-04-26
56
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 In 2000-10, roughly 80,000 patients took part in clinical trials based on research that was later withdrawn because of mistakes or improperness.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 lake 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.
"Publish or perish" has become the dominant rule over academic life now.
选项
答案
D
解析
本题涉及学术造假的环境因素,可知答案应在What a load of rubbish标题下的内容查找。由“Pubfish or perish”和rule可以定位到D段第5句。原文提到,由于竞争激烈,发表学术成果和论文在一个人的学术生涯中逐渐占据主导地位,从而导致了不发表就消亡的现象,题千中的dominant rule对应原文的come to rule over…,故本题来源于D段。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/b0e7777K
0
大学英语四级
相关试题推荐
Untiltheinventionofthemodernwashingmachine,mostpeoplewashedtheirclothesbyhand.Inthe20thcentury,however,washi
TheArtofFriendshipA)OneeveningafewyearsagoIfoundmyselfinananxiety.Nothingwasreallywrong—myfamilyandIwere
EndangeredPeoplesA)Today,itisnotdistance,butculturethatseparatesthepeoplesoftheworld.Thecentralquestionofour
Kodak’sdecisiontofileforbankruptcyprotectionisasad,thoughnotunexpectedturningpointforaleadingAmericancorpora
TheEndoftheBook?A)Amazon,byfarthelargestbooksellerinthecountry,reportedonMay19thatitisnowsellingmorebook
Itishardtopredicthowscienceisgoingtoturnout,andifitisreallygoodscience,itisimpossibletopredict.Iftheth
Thepredictabilityofourmortalityratesissomethingthathaslongpuzzledsocialscientists.Afterall,thereisnonaturalr
Howdoyouknowifyourhomeisaneasyaimforthefts?Aroundtheholidays,manyfamiliesdon’tconsidertakingpropermeasures
A、Peopleof65yearsold.B、Peopleover65yearsold.C、Peoplebetween60and65yearsold.D、Retiredpeople.B事实细节题。题目问的是在美国多大年
随机试题
下列选项中,兼有债券和股票的双重特点,并且是一种附认股权的债券的是()
简述在选择购买信息时需要考虑的因素。
薏苡仁的功效是石韦的功效是
脑出血引起发热的主要原因是
药品生产企业应当经常考察监测期内新药的
下列各级数发散的是:
[背景资料]某工程承包商按照甲方代表批准的时标网络计划组织施工。时标网络计划如下图2-5-3所示,图中箭线上方字母为工作名称,数据为每周计划费用。在工程进展到第6周未检查的工程实际进度为:工作D完成了4/5工作量,工作E完成 1/3工作量,工作F完成
下列设备中,具有输入输出设备特点的有( )。
下列有关德尔菲法的表述,正确的是()。
根据我国法律规定,以下选项中,属于民事法律关系客体的是()。
最新回复
(
0
)