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
50
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 In 2000-10, roughly 80,000 patients took part in clinical trials based on research that was later withdrawn because of mistakes or improperness.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.
Some government funding agencies have already granted money to figure out how best to encourage replication.
选项
答案
J
解析
本题涉及对于目前学术问题的整治办法,可知答案应在If it’s broke,fix it标题下的内容查找。由government funding agencies和encourage replication可以定位到J段第2句。原文提到一些政府机构正着手研究如何鼓励复现已有的科研成果,题中的grant money对应原文的give out $30 billion,而figure out则对应work out,故可确定答案为J段。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/xka7777K
0
大学英语四级
相关试题推荐
A、Itisonemilelong.B、Itcost32milliondollars.C、Itisthelargestintheworld.D、Itwascompletedin1936.B短文最后提到兴建金门大桥
A、Toshowhowsimplethemechanicalaidsfordivingcanbe.B、Toprovidereasonsforhischangeablecharacter.C、Toexplorethe
Newresearchshowsthatchildrenbornafterunplannedpregnanciesdevelopmoreslowlythanchildrenwhoseparentshadplannedth
Newresearchshowsthatchildrenbornafterunplannedpregnanciesdevelopmoreslowlythanchildrenwhoseparentshadplannedth
Newresearchshowsthatchildrenbornafterunplannedpregnanciesdevelopmoreslowlythanchildrenwhoseparentshadplannedth
Newresearchshowsthatchildrenbornafterunplannedpregnanciesdevelopmoreslowlythanchildrenwhoseparentshadplannedth
A、Hehasdifficultiesgoingonwithhisresearch.B、Hedoesn’tunderstandtheworkplacefriendshipC、Hehasn’treadanyliteratu
随机试题
综合评价法
MostAmericansdon’tliketogetadvicefrommembersoftheirfamily.Whentheyneedadvice,theydon’tusually【61】peoplethey
A.急性非特异性心包炎B.急性病毒性心肌炎C.急性心肌梗死D.感染性心内膜炎E.肺栓塞患者,男,20岁。发热、胸痛3天。查体:胸骨左缘3~4肋间闻及与呼吸无关的摩擦音,心电图示各导联(除aVR导)ST段抬高,心肌酶谱正常。最可能的诊断是
以按压颈动脉窦法治疗室上性心动过速,下列哪项不正确
影响药物稳定性的环境因素不包括()。
关于卷材防水屋面铺贴方向的说法,错误的是()。
某公司拟用新设备取代已使用3年的旧设备。旧设备原价14950元,当前估计尚可使用5年,每年操作成本2150元,预计最终残值1750元,目前变现价值为8500元;购置新设备需花费13750元,预计可使用6年,每年操作成本850元,预计最终残值2500元。该
把钢材弯曲成钢夹,考虑钢夹的间隙距离,其规范限为0.6mm,若加工过程平稳,钢夹的间隙距离X~N(6.8,0.32)。经技术革新改进工艺,该加工过程的标准差减少到0.15mm,而过程中心不变,此时Cp为()。
theycarefulbefacttakewouldotherstandwhatdecideIameighteenyearsoldthisyea
从所给的四个选项中,选择最合适的一个填入问号处,使之呈现一定的规律性:
最新回复
(
0
)