"Just stick to science." This is a common admonition that Science receives when we publish commentaries and news stories on poli

admin2022-11-16  123

问题     "Just stick to science." This is a common admonition that Science receives when we publish commentaries and news stories on policies that readers disagree with. It turns out that "stick to science" is a tired-but-very-much-still-alive political talking point used to suppress scientific advice and expertise. According to a recent issue of The Washington Post, "stick to science" is what the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator said in criticizing and silencing its own Scientific Advisory Board, of which two-thirds of the members were appointed by the current administration. The scientific community should not let this cycle continue because facts that have stood up to, in some cases, years of scrutiny are being suppressed in the service of politics.
    The latest go-round is one of the most egregious. On New Year’s Eve, the EPA posted four reports from its Scientific Advisory Board commenting on upcoming changes in EPA rules. Three of the four consensus reports from the administration’s own panel are highly critical of upcoming EPA rule changes.
    One of the four proposed rules addresses data transparency. The EPA Scientific Advisory Board agreed with the statement that the proposal’s push for transparency would suppress the use of relevant scientific evidence in policy-making. The Board articulated, among other criticisms, that the EPA’s proposed rule was "vague, and as a result, can be interpreted in different ways."
    The scientific community needs to step out of its labs and support evidence-based decision-making in a much more public way. The good news is that over the past few years, scientists have increasingly engaged with the public and policy-makers on all levels, from participating in local science cafes, to contacting local representatives and protesting in the international March for Science in 2017 and 2018. Science and the American Association for the Advancement of Science will continue to advocate for science and its objective application to policy in the United States and around the world, but we too must do more.
    Scientists must speak up. In June 2019, Patrick Gonzalez, the principal climate change scientist, testified to Congress on the risks of climate change even after he was sent a cease-and-desist letter by the administration. That’s the kind of courage that deserves the attention of the greater scientific community. There are many more examples of folks leading federal agencies and working on science throughout the government. When their roles in promoting science to support decision-making are diminished, the scientific community needs to raise its voice in loud objection.
    The upcoming EPA public conference is an excellent opportunity for the scientific community to mobilize. All who value evidence and inductive reasoning should support the conclusions of the Scientific Advisory Board through feedback to the EPA, local representatives, scientific societies, and other science advocacy organizations. Because we need to make the science stick.
To support decision-making based on facts, scientific community should________.

选项 A、reach agreement with local authorities
B、take part in public activities on all sides
C、participate in protests against the government
D、engage the attention of local policy-makers

答案B

解析 根据题干信息To support decision-making based on facts定位至第四段首句,题干中的decision-making based on facts是首句中evidence-based decision-making的同义改写。首句明确提出“科学界需要走出实验室,以更加公开的方式支持基于科学依据的决策”。后文围绕首句展开,说明在过去的几年中,科学家们与各层级的公众和政策制定者打交道,从参加当地的科学咖啡馆活动到游行抗议。由此可知,科学家们需要做的是深入到各个圈层中,扩大科学的影响力。选项B“参与各方面的公共活动”是对原文的总结,故为正确答案。选项A意思是“与各地政府达成一致”,作者提倡的是科学界要勇于反对不合理的政策,A项与文意相反,故排除。C项意思是“参加反政府抗议”,原文只是将科学家参与游行抗议作为其公开发表观点的例证,C项过度夸大,故排除。选项D意思是“吸引地方决策者的注意”,原文未提及。故排除。
转载请注明原文地址:https://jikaoti.com/ti/wr1iFFFM
0

最新回复(0)