首页
外语
计算机
考研
公务员
职业资格
财经
工程
司法
医学
专升本
自考
实用职业技能
登录
外语
How science goes wrong Scientific research has changed the world. Now it needs to change itself. [A] A simple idea underlies
How science goes wrong Scientific research has changed the world. Now it needs to change itself. [A] A simple idea underlies
admin
2017-12-08
28
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 In 2000-10, roughly 80,000 patients took part in clinical trials based on research that was later withdrawn because of mistakes or improperness.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.
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flawed research,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://jikaoti.com/ti/GdUFFFFM
0
大学英语四级
相关试题推荐
Newresearchshowsthatchildrenbornafterunplannedpregnanciesdevelopmoreslowlythanchildrenwhoseparentshadplannedth
Newresearchshowsthatchildrenbornafterunplannedpregnanciesdevelopmoreslowlythanchildrenwhoseparentshadplannedth
Newresearchshowsthatchildrenbornafterunplannedpregnanciesdevelopmoreslowlythanchildrenwhoseparentshadplannedth
A、Hehasdifficultiesgoingonwithhisresearch.B、Hedoesn’tunderstandtheworkplacefriendshipC、Hehasn’treadanyliteratu
随机试题
细菌种类繁多,按病原菌侵入机体生殖系后停留的主要部位不同,可将其分为胞外菌和胞内菌两大类,机体免疫系统可通过不同机制对胞外菌和胞内菌予以免疫清除。抑制胞外菌黏附生殖系黏膜的免疫分子是
合同权利转让无须经债务人同意,但应通知________。
关于DNA复制的错误提法是
关于室间隔的描述错误的是
丙型肝炎病毒感染慢性化的原因不包括
土壤环境质量二级标准是为保障农业生产,()的土壤()。
建立世贸组织的设想是在1995年1月1日举行的布雷顿森林会议上提出的,当时设想在成立世界银行和国际货币基金组织的同时,成立一个国际性贸易组织,从而使它们成为二次大战后左右世界经济的“货币一金融一贸易”三位一体的机构。()
在VB集成环境中要结束一个正在运行的工程,可单击工具栏上的一个按钮,这个按钮是( )。
Themosteffectivemeansforshopownerstolearnhowtomaketheirsmoreattractiveisthrough_______fromtheirregularcustom
Somepeopleareaccustomedtothinkthatfactsmusteitherbebelievedortheymustbedisbelieved—asifbeliefwerelikealigh
最新回复
(
0
)