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
2017-01-16
53
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 In 2000-10, roughly 80,000 patients took part in clinical trials based on research that was later withdrawn because of mistakes or improperness.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.
Some clinical trials from 2000 to 2010 were later abandoned by reason of mistakes or improperness.
选项
答案
B
解析
本题涉及目前学术问题的危害,由clinical trials from 2000 to 2010和mistakes or improperness可以定位到B段最后一句。原文提到2000年到2010年间一些临床试验因为试验所依据的研究存在错误或者不当之处而被撤销,题中by reason of对应原文because of,本题是对B段最后一句的同义转述,故选B。
转载请注明原文地址:https://www.kaotiyun.com/show/CBi7777K
0
大学英语四级
相关试题推荐
Thetypicalpre-industrialfamilynotonlyhadagoodmanychildren,butnumerousotherdependentsaswell—grandparents,uncle
Lookingatthebasicbiologicalsystems,theworldisnotdoingverywell.Yeteconomicindicatorsshowtheworldis【B1】______.
A、Hissister.B、Hisfather.C、Hismother.D、Hisbrother.A
Photographersarealwayslookingfornewinspiration,atleastthegoodonesare.Theireyesareconstantlysearchingforthat【B
A、Destroytheirownpossessions.B、Fightwithotherstudents.C、Stayawayfromothers.D、Attackotherpeopleverbally.B
BullyingandChildrenA)Whatyoursonisdescribingisbullying,plainandsimple.Althoughitislateintheschoolyear,yous
Encouragementandpraisecancomeinmanyforms,andsomewaysarebetterforchilddevelopmentthanothers.Researchersatthe
Whatdostudentsthinkofe-textbooks?AdministratorsatNorthwestMissouriStateUniversitywantedto【B1】______.Earlierthisy
A、Inthevisaoffice.B、Inataxi.C、Inatravelagency.D、Inapark.B女士说:“我想去中环的中国签证办公室,它在香港公园旁边,这儿,标在地图上这个位置。”(中环是香港的一个繁华地方。)
PeopleworldwidecelebrateNewYearindifferentways.InLatinAmerica,peopleexpresstheirhopesthroughthecoloroftheiru
随机试题
为了防止触电事故和电气火灾事故的发生,某企业拟采用屏护与间距的方式作为电气安全措施。该企业设置的屏护与间距的情况中,不符合安全管理规定的是()。
试述计算机网络的基本特征。
犯罪嫌疑人王某,男,20岁,河南省开封市人。2010年12月10日,王某因涉嫌抢劫并致人重伤,被公安机关立案侦查。后侦查终结移送检察院审查起诉。检察院在审查起诉时认为将来法院将有可能判处王某死刑,于是检察院便指定正平律师事务所律师于律师担任王某的辩护人,并
下列有关文学常识的表述,错误的一项是()
某事业单位于2014年1月1日正式动工兴建一栋办公楼,工期预计为1年零6个月,工程采用出包方式,分别于2014年1月1日、2014年7月1日和2015年1月1日支付工程进度款。该事业单位为建造办公楼于2014年1月1日专门借款2000万元,借款期限为3年,
Asachild,Jackstudiedinavillageschool,________isnamedafterhisgrandfather.
我们以往所理解的“现代化”概念仅仅局限于物质层面,局限于表层经济现代化,这也是迟发展国家长期存在的一个普遍性问题:在物质层面上求变的欲望很强,而在制度层面和观念层面上却是文化守成主义的,这种状况对于现代化实际进程的影响自不必说,它对于学术的影响是导致知识的
某县公安局刑事警察赵某下班期间发现有人斗殴,即予以制止。正巧打架的马某与赵某有隙,便对赵某出言不逊。赵某大怒,拔枪将马某击伤。下列关于赔偿责任正确的说法是:( )。
当接收邮件时,客户端与POP3服务器之间通过(1)建立连接,所使用的端口是(2)。(1)
Thepremiseofrecallingis______.
最新回复
(
0
)