2. 考研
  3. Transparency has hit the headlines. In the wake of evidence that many research findings are not reproducible, the scientific com

Transparency has hit the headlines. In the wake of evidence that many research findings are not reproducible, the scientific com

admin2017-02-28  19
问题     Transparency has hit the headlines. In the wake of evidence that many research findings are not reproducible, the scientific community has launched initiatives to increase data sharing, transparency and open critique. As with any new development, there are unintended consequences. Many measures that can improve science —shared data, post-publication peer review and public engagement on social media —can be turned against scientists.
    Endless information requests, complaints to researchers’ universities, online harassment, distortion of scientific findings and even threats of violence: these were all recurring experiences shared by researchers from a broad range of disciplines at a Royal Society-sponsored meeting last year that we organized to explore this topic. Orchestrated and well-funded harassment campaigns against researchers working in climate change and tobacco control are well documented. Some hard-line opponents to other research, such as that on nuclear fallout, vaccination, chronic fatigue syndrome or genetically modified organisms, although less resourced, have employed identical strategies.
    Such attacks place scientists in a difficult position. Good researchers do not turn away when confronted by alternative views. However, their openness can be exploited by opponents who are keen to stall inconvenient research. When people object to science because it challenges their beliefs or jeopardizes their interests, they are rarely committed to informed debate.
    The progress of research demands transparency. But as scientists work to boost rigour, they risk making science more vulnerable to attacks. Awareness of tactics is paramount.
    Scientists should ignore critics who are abusive or illogical and those that make the same points repeatedly despite refutations. Internet trolling has been associated with sadism and psychopathy. Engagement with such bad-faith actors can endanger scientists’ well-being in a way that university ethics committees would never condone in research on human subjects.
    All who participate in post-publication review should identify themselves. The drawbacks of anonymity ( its encouragement of bad behaviour) outweigh its advantages (for example, it allows junior people to criticize senior academics without fear of redress). What’s more, the scientific community should not indulge in games of ’gotcha’ (intentionally turning small errors against a person). Minor corrections and clarifications after publication should not be a reason to stigmatize fellow researchers. Scientific publications should be seen as "living documents," with corrigenda an accepted — if unwelcome — part of scientific progress.
    Similar attention must be devoted to stressors and threats to science that arise in response to research that is considered inconvenient. The same institutions and bodies that have scrutinized science must also start a conversation about how to protect it.
The word "condone" (Para. 5) is closest in meaning to
选项 A、disregard.
B、condemn.
C、reaffirm.
D、defame.
答案A
解析 (1)根据题干关键词本题出处定位至第5段。(2)从构词法看，前缀con加强语气，词根done含义为give，donate(给予)，该词本义与“宽容”(forgive)相关。(3)根据语境分析，“对于无理取闹者，科学家们应该不予理睬”(第5段：ignore)，“与不怀好意者纠缠，会损害科学家的福祉”(第5段：Engagement)，“就人文科目的研究，大学伦理委员绝不会condone这些纠缠的”(第5段：would never condone)。从句子之间的连贯性来看，condone与上文的ignore照应，即科学家们应该采取的策略是什么。故选项[A]正确。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/sobZ777K
0

考研英语一

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)