题目内容
Rarely does it get much more ironic. Marc Hauser, a professor of psychology at Harvard who made his name probing the evolutionary origins of morality, is suspected of having committed the closest thing academia has to a deadly sin: cheating. It is not the first time the scientific world has been rocked by scandal. But the present furore, involving as it does a prestigious university and one of its star professors, will echo through common rooms and quadrangles far and wide. The story broke when the Boston Globe revealed that Dr. Hauser had been under investigation since 2007 for alleged misconduct at Harvard’s Cognitive Evolution Laboratory, which he heads. This investigation has resulted in the retraction of an oft-cited study published in 2002 in Cognition, the publication last month of a correction to a paper from 2007 in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, and doubts about the validity of findings published in Science, also in 2007. Dr. Hauser was the only author common to all three papers. An article in the Chronicle of Higher Education added further spice. It offered unsettling accounts by anonymous graduate students and research assistants depicting Dr. Hauser as brusquely dismissive of their attempts to discuss possible improprieties in data collection and interpretation. This prompted Michael Smith, the hitherto taciturn dean of Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences, to react. In an open letter to the faculty, he confirmed that an internal investigation had found Dr. Hauser "solely responsible" for eight instances of scientific misconduct, involving the three published papers and five other pieces of research. On the same day, Dr. Hauser, who is on leave and refusing to be interviewed, issued a single contrite statement apologising for having made some "significant mistakes". These would not be his first. So far, none of this constitutes conclusive evidence of fraud. Slapdash lab work is not the same as fabricating data and Harvard has kept mum about the precise nature of the charges, citing concerns about privacy. Many researchers, however, fear that this silence itself makes things worse and not just for Dr. Hauser and Harvard. The uncertainty about which of his results (for he has been a prolific researcher) are up to snuff means others in the field are finding it hard to decide what to rely on in their own work. And despite Dr. Hauser’s professed sole responsibility, a sizeable number of his present and former wards may unfairly be tainted by association. At the least, then, Dr. Hauser stands accused of setting the study of animal cognition back many years. Trying to discern an animal’s thought processes on the basis of its behaviour is notoriously tricky and subjective at the best of times. Now, his critics fear, no one will take it seriously. As Greg Laden, one of Dr. Hauser’s former colleagues, laments in a blog, "the hubris and selfishness of one person can do more in the form of damage than an entire productive career can do in the way of building of our collective credibility." Others are less depressed, warning against conflating scientific misconduct with difficult science. One corner-cutting researcher does not impugn a whole field. Clive Wynne, editor of Behavioural Processes, which published an "obsessively" immaculate paper by Dr. Hauser three days before the Globe’s revelations, says he is struck by how meticulous recent research in his discipline has been. In general, scientists see themselves better placed than most to weed out cheats. The more startling a paper’s claims, the more likely it is that others will try to replicate it and, if the claims were plausible, fail. Moreover, scientists want their work to be replicated; it is the only way it will stand the test of time, observes Robert Seyfarth, a primatologist and Dr. Hauser’s former mentor. Many researchers cite Harvard’s probe as further proof of science’s self-correcting mechanisms, and praise students for doughtily standing up to an authority figure of Dr. Hauser’s distinction. Gerry Altmann, editor of Cognition, agrees, adding: "Although at the time it might appear that each transgression is major, its eventual impact on science is minor." It can be inferred from the passage that
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
Watchdogs are growling at the web giants, and sometimes biting them. European data-protection agencies wrote to Google, Microsoft and Yahoo! demanding independent proof that they were making promised changes to protect the privacy of users’ search history. They also urged Google to store sensitive search data for only six months instcad of nine. Ten privacy and data-protection commissioners from countries including Canada, Germany and Britain wrote a public letter to Eric Schmidt, Google’s boss, demanding changes in Google Buzz, the firm’s social-networking service, which had been criticised for dipping into users’ Gmail accounts to find "followers" for them without clearly explaining what it was doing. Google promptly complied. Such run-ins with regulators are likely to multiply and limit the freedom of global Internet firms. It is not just that online privacy has become a controversial issue. More importantly, privacy rules are national, but data flows lightly and instantly across borders, often thanks to companies like Google and Facebook, which manage vast databases. A recent scandal dubbed "’Wi-Figate" exemplifies the problem. Google (accidentally, it insists) gathered data from unsecured Wi-Fi networks in people’s homes as part of a project to capture images of streets around the world. A number of regulators launched investigations. Yet their reaction varied widely, even within the European Union, where member states have supposedly aligned their stance on online privacy. Some European regulators ordered Google to preserve the data it had collected in their bailiwicks; others demanded that information related to their countries be destroyed. Despite such differences within Europe, the gap is much greater between Europe and America, home to many of the world’s largest online social networks and search engines. European regulations are inspired by the conviction that data privacy is a fundamental human right and that individuals should be in control of how their data are used. America, on the other hand, takes a more relaxed view, allowing people to use consumer-protection laws to seek redress if they feel their privacy has been violated. Companies that handle users’ data are largely expected to police themselves. Some experts say this dichotomy explains why Silicon Valley firms that strike out abroad have sometimes been the targets of European Union data watchdogs. Jules Polonetsky of the Future of Privacy Forum, a think tank, says that many American firms have yet to learn that showing up in Europe and extolling the virtues of self-regulation is likely to be as ineffective as rightwing politicians denouncing antidiscrimination laws back home. Transatlantic friction between companies and regulators has grown as Europe’s data guardians have become more assertive. Francesca Bignami, a professor at George Washington University’s law school, says that the explosion of digital technologies has made it impossible for watchdogs to keep a close eye on every web company operating in their backyard. So instead they are relying more on scapegoating prominent wrongdoers in the hope that this will deter others. But regulators such as Peter Schaar, who heads Germany’s federal data-protection agency, say the gulf is exaggerated. Some European countries, he points out, now have rules that make companies who suffer big losses of customer data to report these to the authorities. The inspiration for these measures comes from America. Yet even Mr. Schaar admits that the Internet’s global scale means that there will need to be changes on both sides of the Atlantic. He hints that Europe might adopt a more flexible regulatory stance if America were to create what amounts to an independent data-protection body along European lines. In Europe, where the flagship Data Protection Directive came into effect in 1995, before firms such as Google and Facebook were even founded, the European Commission is conducting a review of its privacy policies. In America, Congress has begun debating a new privacy bill and the Federal Trade Commission is considering an overhaul of its rules. David Vladeck, the head of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, has acknowledged that "’existing privacy frameworks have limitations". Even if America and Europe do narrow their differences, Internet firms will still have to grapple with other data watchdogs. In Asia, countries that belong to APEC are trying to develop a set of regional guidelines for privacy rules under an initiative known as the Data Privacy Pathfinder. Some countries such as Australia and New Zealand have longstanding privacy laws, but many emerging nations have yet to roll out fully fledged versions of their own. Mr. Polonetsky sees Asia as "a new privacy battleground", with America and Europe both keen to tempt countries towards their own regulatory model. Shoehorning such firms into antiquated privacy frameworks will not benefit either them or their users. The best title for the passage is
In this section you will hear everything ONCE ONLY. Listen carefully and then answer the questions that follow. Mark the correct answer to each question on ANSWER SHEET TWO. Questions 1 to 5 are based on an interview. At the end of the interview you will be given 10 seconds to answer each of the following five questions. Now listen to the interview. According to Dr. Getsy, you should have a nap
Rarely does it get much more ironic. Marc Hauser, a professor of psychology at Harvard who made his name probing the evolutionary origins of morality, is suspected of having committed the closest thing academia has to a deadly sin: cheating. It is not the first time the scientific world has been rocked by scandal. But the present furore, involving as it does a prestigious university and one of its star professors, will echo through common rooms and quadrangles far and wide. The story broke when the Boston Globe revealed that Dr. Hauser had been under investigation since 2007 for alleged misconduct at Harvard’s Cognitive Evolution Laboratory, which he heads. This investigation has resulted in the retraction of an oft-cited study published in 2002 in Cognition, the publication last month of a correction to a paper from 2007 in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, and doubts about the validity of findings published in Science, also in 2007. Dr. Hauser was the only author common to all three papers. An article in the Chronicle of Higher Education added further spice. It offered unsettling accounts by anonymous graduate students and research assistants depicting Dr. Hauser as brusquely dismissive of their attempts to discuss possible improprieties in data collection and interpretation. This prompted Michael Smith, the hitherto taciturn dean of Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences, to react. In an open letter to the faculty, he confirmed that an internal investigation had found Dr. Hauser "solely responsible" for eight instances of scientific misconduct, involving the three published papers and five other pieces of research. On the same day, Dr. Hauser, who is on leave and refusing to be interviewed, issued a single contrite statement apologising for having made some "significant mistakes". These would not be his first. So far, none of this constitutes conclusive evidence of fraud. Slapdash lab work is not the same as fabricating data and Harvard has kept mum about the precise nature of the charges, citing concerns about privacy. Many researchers, however, fear that this silence itself makes things worse and not just for Dr. Hauser and Harvard. The uncertainty about which of his results (for he has been a prolific researcher) are up to snuff means others in the field are finding it hard to decide what to rely on in their own work. And despite Dr. Hauser’s professed sole responsibility, a sizeable number of his present and former wards may unfairly be tainted by association. At the least, then, Dr. Hauser stands accused of setting the study of animal cognition back many years. Trying to discern an animal’s thought processes on the basis of its behaviour is notoriously tricky and subjective at the best of times. Now, his critics fear, no one will take it seriously. As Greg Laden, one of Dr. Hauser’s former colleagues, laments in a blog, "the hubris and selfishness of one person can do more in the form of damage than an entire productive career can do in the way of building of our collective credibility." Others are less depressed, warning against conflating scientific misconduct with difficult science. One corner-cutting researcher does not impugn a whole field. Clive Wynne, editor of Behavioural Processes, which published an "obsessively" immaculate paper by Dr. Hauser three days before the Globe’s revelations, says he is struck by how meticulous recent research in his discipline has been. In general, scientists see themselves better placed than most to weed out cheats. The more startling a paper’s claims, the more likely it is that others will try to replicate it and, if the claims were plausible, fail. Moreover, scientists want their work to be replicated; it is the only way it will stand the test of time, observes Robert Seyfarth, a primatologist and Dr. Hauser’s former mentor. Many researchers cite Harvard’s probe as further proof of science’s self-correcting mechanisms, and praise students for doughtily standing up to an authority figure of Dr. Hauser’s distinction. Gerry Altmann, editor of Cognition, agrees, adding: "Although at the time it might appear that each transgression is major, its eventual impact on science is minor." Which of the following statements is INCORRECT
Watchdogs are growling at the web giants, and sometimes biting them. European data-protection agencies wrote to Google, Microsoft and Yahoo! demanding independent proof that they were making promised changes to protect the privacy of users’ search history. They also urged Google to store sensitive search data for only six months instcad of nine. Ten privacy and data-protection commissioners from countries including Canada, Germany and Britain wrote a public letter to Eric Schmidt, Google’s boss, demanding changes in Google Buzz, the firm’s social-networking service, which had been criticised for dipping into users’ Gmail accounts to find "followers" for them without clearly explaining what it was doing. Google promptly complied. Such run-ins with regulators are likely to multiply and limit the freedom of global Internet firms. It is not just that online privacy has become a controversial issue. More importantly, privacy rules are national, but data flows lightly and instantly across borders, often thanks to companies like Google and Facebook, which manage vast databases. A recent scandal dubbed "’Wi-Figate" exemplifies the problem. Google (accidentally, it insists) gathered data from unsecured Wi-Fi networks in people’s homes as part of a project to capture images of streets around the world. A number of regulators launched investigations. Yet their reaction varied widely, even within the European Union, where member states have supposedly aligned their stance on online privacy. Some European regulators ordered Google to preserve the data it had collected in their bailiwicks; others demanded that information related to their countries be destroyed. Despite such differences within Europe, the gap is much greater between Europe and America, home to many of the world’s largest online social networks and search engines. European regulations are inspired by the conviction that data privacy is a fundamental human right and that individuals should be in control of how their data are used. America, on the other hand, takes a more relaxed view, allowing people to use consumer-protection laws to seek redress if they feel their privacy has been violated. Companies that handle users’ data are largely expected to police themselves. Some experts say this dichotomy explains why Silicon Valley firms that strike out abroad have sometimes been the targets of European Union data watchdogs. Jules Polonetsky of the Future of Privacy Forum, a think tank, says that many American firms have yet to learn that showing up in Europe and extolling the virtues of self-regulation is likely to be as ineffective as rightwing politicians denouncing antidiscrimination laws back home. Transatlantic friction between companies and regulators has grown as Europe’s data guardians have become more assertive. Francesca Bignami, a professor at George Washington University’s law school, says that the explosion of digital technologies has made it impossible for watchdogs to keep a close eye on every web company operating in their backyard. So instead they are relying more on scapegoating prominent wrongdoers in the hope that this will deter others. But regulators such as Peter Schaar, who heads Germany’s federal data-protection agency, say the gulf is exaggerated. Some European countries, he points out, now have rules that make companies who suffer big losses of customer data to report these to the authorities. The inspiration for these measures comes from America. Yet even Mr. Schaar admits that the Internet’s global scale means that there will need to be changes on both sides of the Atlantic. He hints that Europe might adopt a more flexible regulatory stance if America were to create what amounts to an independent data-protection body along European lines. In Europe, where the flagship Data Protection Directive came into effect in 1995, before firms such as Google and Facebook were even founded, the European Commission is conducting a review of its privacy policies. In America, Congress has begun debating a new privacy bill and the Federal Trade Commission is considering an overhaul of its rules. David Vladeck, the head of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, has acknowledged that "’existing privacy frameworks have limitations". Even if America and Europe do narrow their differences, Internet firms will still have to grapple with other data watchdogs. In Asia, countries that belong to APEC are trying to develop a set of regional guidelines for privacy rules under an initiative known as the Data Privacy Pathfinder. Some countries such as Australia and New Zealand have longstanding privacy laws, but many emerging nations have yet to roll out fully fledged versions of their own. Mr. Polonetsky sees Asia as "a new privacy battleground", with America and Europe both keen to tempt countries towards their own regulatory model. Shoehorning such firms into antiquated privacy frameworks will not benefit either them or their users. Mr. Schaar’s attitude towards watchdogs in America and Europe is
微信支付 
支付宝支付