2. 考研
  3. There is, writes Daniele Fanelli in a recent issue of Nature, something rotten in the state of scientific research—an epidemic o

There is, writes Daniele Fanelli in a recent issue of Nature, something rotten in the state of scientific research—an epidemic o

admin2022-07-29  53
问题     There is, writes Daniele Fanelli in a recent issue of Nature, something rotten in the state of scientific research—an epidemic of false, biased, and falsified findings where "only the most egregious cases of misconduct are discovered and punished." Fanelli is a leading thinker in an increasingly alarming field of scientific research: one that seeks to find out why it is that so many scientific researches turn out to be wrong.
    For a long time the focus has either been on industry funding as a source of bias, particularly in drug research, or on those who deliberately commit fraud, such as the spectacular case of Diederik Stapel, a Dutch social psychologist who was found to have fabricated at least 55 research papers over 20 years. But an increasing number of studies have shown that flawed research is a much wider phenomenon, especially in the biomedical sciences. Indeed, the investigation into Stapel also blamed a "sloppy" research culture that often ignored inconvenient data and misunderstood important statistical methods.
    "There’s little question that the scientific literature is awash in false findings—findings that if you try to replicate you’ll probably never succeed or at least find them to be different from what was initially said," says Fanelli. "But people don’t appreciate that this is not because scientists are manipulating these results, consciously or unconsciously; it’s largely because we have a system that favors statistical flukes instead of replicable findings."
    This is why, he says, we need to extend the idea of academic misconduct (currently limited to fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism) to "distorted reporting"—the failure to communicate all the information someone would need to validate your findings. Right now, he says, we’re missing all the "unconscious biased, the systemic biases, the practices, mistakes, and problems that hardly ever count as cheating", even though they have a very important—and probably the largest—effect on creating technically false results in the literature.
    One particularly challenging bias is that academic journals tend to publish only positive results. As Isabelle Boutron, a professor of epidemiology at Rene Descartes University in Paris, points out, studies have shown that peer reviewers are influenced by trial results; one study showed that they not only favored a paper showing a positive effect over a near-identical paper showing no effect, they also gave the positive paper higher scores for its scientific methods. And Boutron has herself found extensive evidence of scientists spinning their findings to claim benefits that their actual results didn’t quite support.
    "We need a major cultural change," says Fanelli. "But when you think that, even 20 years ago, these issues were practically never discussed, I think we’re making considerable progress."
Which of the following is true about Fanelli’s article in Nature?
选项 A、Some minor academic cheatings are allowed.
B、There are too many scientific research scandals to be reported.
C、The outcomes of scientific research are unreliable.
D、It is inevitable to seek quick success.
答案B
解析 本题关键词是Fanelli和Nature，问题是：有关法内利在《自然》杂志上的文章哪个说法正确?答案可以定位到第一段。第一段第一句话指出，法内利(Fanelli)在最新一期《自然》杂志上写道，目前科研界大量研究结果虚假、片面、刻意伪造，随后引号里是直接引用法内利的原话：“只有极其恶劣的不正当行为(the most egregious cases of misconduct)才会被人们发现并惩罚。”这说明还有很多学术不端行为是没有被揭发和处罚的，因此选项B与原文属于相同含义，为正确选项。原文说只有恶劣的学术不端行为遭到了惩罚，但并不能由此反推出轻微的学术作弊就是允许的，而且这也恰恰是法内利抨击的方面，所以选项A曲解文意。根据第一段第一句话，如今很多科研结果虚假、片面、伪造，但不能一概而论说所有科学研究的结果都不可靠，因此选项C过于绝对。第一段陈述如今科研结果存在大量错误这个客观现象，没有谈及“取得成功的捷径”，所以选项D无中生有。第一段：目前科研领域存在大量错误的研究结果。
转载请注明原文地址:https://jikaoti.com/ti/FGjRFFFM
0

考研英语二

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)