首页
登录
职称英语
How science goes wrong Scientific research has c
How science goes wrong Scientific research has c
游客
2024-02-06
22
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 In 2000-10, roughly 80,000 patients took part in clinical trials based on research that was later withdrawn because of mistakes or improperness.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 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. [br] The flawed research wastes not only money but also the energy of other talents.
选项
答案
C
解析
本题阐述了学术造假的危害,可知答案应在What a load of rubbish标题下的内容查找。由flawedresearch,wastes money和energy of talents可以定位到C段第1句,原文提到即使现在的各种虚假学术不会危及生命,但是依旧浪费了大量的金钱和精英的努力,题中的wastes money对应文中的blows money,而the energy of talents对应文中的efforts of some of the world’s best minds,故本题选C。
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3428299.html
相关试题推荐
Weallliketofeelneeded.Butnewresearchsuggestshavingasenseofpurp
Weallliketofeelneeded.Butnewresearchsuggestshavingasenseofpurp
Weallliketofeelneeded.Butnewresearchsuggestshavingasenseofpurp
Weallliketofeelneeded.Butnewresearchsuggestshavingasenseofpurp
Weallliketofeelneeded.Butnewresearchsuggestshavingasenseofpurp
Weallliketofeelneeded.Butnewresearchsuggestshavingasenseofpurp
Newresearchshowsgirlswhoregularlyhavefamilymealsaremuchless【S1】__
Newresearchshowsgirlswhoregularlyhavefamilymealsaremuchless【S1】__
Newresearchshowsgirlswhoregularlyhavefamilymealsaremuchless【S1】__
Newresearchshowsgirlswhoregularlyhavefamilymealsaremuchless【S1】__
随机试题
Suchcrimesmaybesocomplexthatmonthsoryearsgobybeforeanyone______them
[originaltext]W:Sowhatisastressinterview?M:(23)Itisatacticusedbys
Tofindoutwhattheweatherisgoingtobe,mostpeople【B1】______theradio,
以y表示实际观测值,回归估计值,则普通最小二乘法估计参数的准则是使( )最小。
癃的含义是指A.小腹胀满不适 B.尿线细、射程短 C.排尿时尿道疼痛 D.
关于非细胞型微生物叙述错误的是A.是结构最简单最小的微生物B.只能在活细胞内生长
患者李某,男性,49岁,急性心肌梗死2周后出现反复发作的肺炎,该患者最可能出现了
(2022上半年真题)下列选项中不符合蒙台梭利教育观念的是()。A.儿童存
平开窗扇高度大于900mm时,窗扇锁闭点不应少于( )个。A.1 B.2
诊断颅盖骨骨折通常依据 A.头颅X线摄片 B.头皮伤痕 C.局部触诊闻及骨
最新回复
(
0
)