2. 学历类
  3. The US$3-million Fundamental physics pri

The US$3-million Fundamental physics pri

资格题库2022-08-02  50
问题 The US$3-million Fundamental physics prize is indeed an interesting experiment,as Alexander Polyakov said when he accepted this year’s award in March.And it is far from the only one of its type.As a News Feature article in Nature discusses,a string of lucrative awards for researchers have joined the Nobel Prizes in recent years.Many,like the Fundamental Physics Prize,are funded from the telephone-number-sized bank accounts of Internet entrepreneurs.These benefactors have succeeded in their chosen fields,they say,and they want to use their wealth to draw attention to those who have succeeded in science.What’s not to like?Quite a lot,according to a handful of scientists quoted in the News Feature.You cannot buy class,as the old saying goes,and these upstart entrepreneurs cannot buy their prizes the prestige of the Nobels,The new awards are an exercise in self-promotion for those behind them,say scientists.They could distort the achievement-based system of peer-review-led research.They could cement the status quo of peer-reviewed research.They do not fund peer-reviewed research.They perpetuate the myth of the lone genius.The goals of the prize-givers seem as scattered as the criticism.Some want to shock,others to draw people into science,or to better reward those who have made their careers in research.As Nature has pointed out before,there are some legitimate concerns about how science prizes—both new and old—are distributed.The Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences,launched this year,takes an unrepresentative view of what the life sciences include.But the Nobel Foundation’s limit of three recipients per prize,each of whom must still be living,has long been outgrown by the collaborative nature of modern research—as will be demonstrated by the inevitable row over who is ignored when it comes to acknowledging the discovery of the Higgs boson.The Nobels were,of course,themselves set up by a very rich individual who had decided what he wanted to do with his own money.Time,rather than intention,has given them legitimacy.As much as some scientists may complain about the new awards,two things seem clear.First,most researchers would accept such a prize if they were offered one.Second,it is surely a good thing that the money and attention come to science rather than go elsewhere,It is fair to criticize and question the mechanism—that is the culture of research,after all—but it is the prize-givers’money to do with as they please.It is wise to take such gifts with gratitude and grace.The critics think that the new awards will most benefitA.the profit-oriented scientists.B.the founders of the new awards.C.the achievement-based system.D.peer-review-led research.
选项 A.the profit-oriented scientists.
B.the founders of the new awards.
C.the achievement-based system.
D.peer-review-led research.
答案 B
解析 事实细节根据题干关键词“critics”可回文定位到文章的第二三段。选项A“以利益为导向的科学家”，文中并未提及此相关信息；选项B“新奖项的创立者”对应原文“The new awards are an exercise in self-promotion for those behind them,say scientists”，也就是说“科学家们称，这些新的奖项其实只是对其背后企业家的自我宣传”，很明显原文中的those指代的是提供资金的人，所以选项B为正确答案。而选项C“以成就为基础的体系”和D“同行评审研究”对应的原文是“They could distort the achievement-based system of peer-review-led research.”也就是说，这样一来，就有可能扭曲以成就为基础的同行评审研究体系。很明显原文中的“distort（扭曲）”与题干中的“benefit（获益）”完全相反，故排除。
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/xueli/2698699.html
本试题收录于： 英语一研究生题库研究生入学分类

英语一研究生

研究生入学

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)