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
20
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 In 2000-10, roughly 80,000 patients took part in clinical trials based on research that was later withdrawn because of mistakes or improperness.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] Modern science began in the 17th century.
选项
答案
A
解析
本题涉及描述学术问题之前对现代科学的概述,由题目中的began in the 17th century可定位至A段。本题是对A段第3句的Since its birth in the 17th century的改写。
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3428300.html
相关试题推荐
Weallliketofeelneeded.Butnewresearchsuggestshavingasenseofpurp
Weallliketofeelneeded.Butnewresearchsuggestshavingasenseofpurp
Newresearchshowsgirlswhoregularlyhavefamilymealsaremuchless【S1】__
Newresearchshowsgirlswhoregularlyhavefamilymealsaremuchless【S1】__
Newresearchshowsgirlswhoregularlyhavefamilymealsaremuchless【S1】__
Newresearchshowsgirlswhoregularlyhavefamilymealsaremuchless【S1】__
Newresearchshowsgirlswhoregularlyhavefamilymealsaremuchless【S1】__
Newresearchshowsgirlswhoregularlyhavefamilymealsaremuchless【S1】__
Newresearchshowsgirlswhoregularlyhavefamilymealsaremuchless【S1】__
Newresearchshowsgirlswhoregularlyhavefamilymealsaremuchless【S1】__
随机试题
5TipstoKnowBeforeYourFirstLabClass1.【T1】theexperimentinadvan
应聘信说明:假设你是李雷,得知AMD公司招聘行政助理,给人力资源部经理SteveBush写一封应聘信。内容:1.7月份即将从清华大学毕
Whatistheeasiestwaytoshowthecomplexhierarchyofanewspaper?[br][ori
关于正常分娩第一产程的临床经过,下列哪项正确A.初产妇应是子宫颈管消失后,子宫颈
A.肺气肿 B.大量胸腔积液 C.气胸 D.支气管肺炎 E.肺不张胸部叩
该公文在内容和格式上存在一些问题,下列修改恰当的是:() A.“国发(20
某企业2012年生产总值为140万元,产品销售收入为119万元,产品销售成本为8
早期的人类失去了保护性的皮毛后,就会对黑皮肤有着强大的选择性。因为肤色较暗的个体
根据信用风险的性质,可将信用风险分为几类,下列选项中属于按信用风险性质分类的风险
就业弹性是一个国家或一个地区一定时期内的劳动就业增长率与()的比值。A.通
最新回复
(
0
)