首页
登录
职称英语
How science goes wrong Scientific research has chang
How science goes wrong Scientific research has chang
游客
2024-02-01
26
管理
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 In 2000-10, roughly 80,000 patients took part in clinical trials based on research that was later withdrawn because of mistakes or improperness.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. [br] "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“Publish 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完蛋亡的现象,题干中的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://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3412853.html
相关试题推荐
Workerswithskillsinscience,technology,engineering,andmathematics(STE
Workerswithskillsinscience,technology,engineering,andmathematics(STE
Americanresearchersfoundfemalesarethemoretalkativesexbecauseofas
Americanresearchersfoundfemalesarethemoretalkativesexbecauseofas
Childrenwhosemindswandermighthavesharperbrains,researchsuggests.A
Childrenwhosemindswandermighthavesharperbrains,researchsuggests.A
Childrenwhosemindswandermighthavesharperbrains,researchsuggests.A
Childrenwhosemindswandermighthavesharperbrains,researchsuggests.A
Childrenwhosemindswandermighthavesharperbrains,researchsuggests.A
Childrenwhosemindswandermighthavesharperbrains,researchsuggests.A
随机试题
His_______incomputergamesaffectshisacademicperformanceseriously.A、indul
Hemadesuchacontributiontothetownthat__________(以他的名字为其中一条路命名).theynam
Manythings--goingabroad,owningacar,______impossibleinthepastarenowv
阳历solarcalendar
下述空气处理过程中,不属于减湿过程的是()。A.升温等d过程 B.降温等d
某企业2019年5月末在岗职工100人,劳务派遣人员10人,6月10日招用临时人
《有效风险数据加总和风险报告原则》要求风险报告要具有( )。A.准确性 B.
A.核素标记抗原B.核素标记抗体C.限量D.等量E.过量放射免疫分析中标记物的使
下列泌尿系统检查,需要做碘过敏试验的是()。A.尿路平片 B.静脉肾盂造影
下列各项说法中,符合流动性溢价理论的是( )。A.长期即期利率是短期预期利率的
最新回复
(
0
)