首页
登录
职称英语
How science goes wrong Scientific research has chang
How science goes wrong Scientific research has chang
游客
2023-06-28
50
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 In 2000-10, roughly 80,000 patients took part in clinical trials based on research that was later withdrawn because of mistakes or improperness.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 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. [br] Knowing what is false and knowing what is true are equally important to science.
选项
答案
F
解析
本题是基于如今的科学研究不重视证伪的情况的陈述,可知答案应在What a load of rubbish标题下的内容查找。由Knowing what is false,knowing what is true和important可定位到F段第3句。本题采用的比较结构是be equally important,而原文采用的是as important as…,语义相同,且题目中的比较对象与原文相符,故本题是对F段第3句的同义转述,选F。
转载请注明原文地址:https://www.tihaiku.com/zcyy/2791194.html
相关试题推荐
[originaltext]AccordingtonewresearchbyBritishscientists,teenswhodo
Newresearchshowsthatchildrenbornafterunplannedpregnanciesdevelopmo
Newresearchshowsthatchildrenbornafterunplannedpregnanciesdevelopmo
Newresearchshowsthatchildrenbornafterunplannedpregnanciesdevelopmo
Newresearchshowsthatchildrenbornafterunplannedpregnanciesdevelopmo
Newresearchshowsthatchildrenbornafterunplannedpregnanciesdevelopmo
Newresearchshowsthatchildrenbornafterunplannedpregnanciesdevelopmo
[originaltext]M:Hi,Ashley,howisyourresearchgoingon?It’scomplicated.
[originaltext]M:Hi,Ashley,howisyourresearchgoingon?It’scomplicated.
[originaltext]ItwasabadnightforLouis.Hisresearchintheneighboring
随机试题
Itwasaholidayweekend.Thepoliceofficersweresittinginahotroom【
所示结构,梁在Ⅰ点处的弯矩为下列何值?( ) A.qa2/4 B.qa2/
一位3岁患儿因急性茵痢住进医院,经治疗本已好转,即将出院。其父母觉得小儿虚弱,要
干燥综合征(SS)的标志性抗体是()。A.抗Sm抗体 B.抗Scl-70抗体
柔红霉素最特征的不良反应是A、心脏毒性 B、肝毒性 C、肾毒性 D、过敏反
增加一单位劳动要素投入所增加的产量定义为劳动的边际产量,也叫做( )。A.边际
甲是某期货公司的债权人,期货公司对甲的债务届期不能清偿。如果甲起诉期货公司并申请
成人白细胞计数正常参考区间是A.(100~300)×10^9/L B.(200
下列情况中,税务机关在3年内可以要求纳税人、扣缴义务人补缴税款,但不得加收滞纳金
(2021年4月贵州)以下属于降低项目施工成本的组织措施是( )A.将成本责任
最新回复
(
0
)