题目内容
In the rarefied world of the corporate board, a good network matters. 1 often involves word-of-mouth recommendations: getting on a 2 is easier if you have the right connections. New research suggests men use 3 better than women.Marie Lalanne and Paul Seabright of the Toulouse School of Economics 4 the effect of a network on 5 using a database of board members in Europe and America. They find that if you were to compare two executive directors, 6 in every way except that one had 200 ex-colleagues now 7 boards and the other 400, the latter, 8 , would be paid 6% more. For non-executives the gap is 14%.The really 9 finding concerns the difference between the sexes. Among executive-board members, women earn 17% less than their male 10 . There are plenty of plausible explanations for this 11 , from interruptions to women"s careers to old-fashioned 12 . But the authors find that this pay gap can be fully 13 by the effect of executives" networks. Men can leverage a large network into more senior positions or a seat on a more 14 board; women don"t seem to be able to.Women could just have 15 connections with members of their networks. "Women seem more inclined to build and rely on only a few strong relationships," says Mr. Seabright. Men are better at developing 16 acquaintances into a network, and better at maintaining a high personal 17 through these contacts. Women may, of course, also be hurt by the existing 18 of men on boards and a male 19 for filling executive positions with other men. But a tendency to think of other men first will be 20 if talented women don"t stay on the radar.
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
A. More troubling than determining how to patent the genome is the larger question of whether anyone ought to be laying claim to human DNA at all. This is partly an economic issue. If the entire genetic schematic is pre-emptively owned by the research teams studying it now, where is the incentive for independent scientists—often sources of great innovation—to work on it later Licensing costs, warns Jeffrey Kahn, director Of the University of Minnesota"s Center for Bioethics, could hold medical progress hostage. Patenting proponents insist that an equally persuasive argument could be made that the large genome-mapping groups need patent protection to make their work worthwhile to them. B. It"s not for nothing that scientists are in such a footrace to get the human genome mapped. There"s more than just knowledge at stake, after all—there"s money. Who walks away with most of the booty won"t be decided in labs or universities, however, but in courts and patent offices. C. Not only can such filings be sloppy genetics, they can also be bad business. EST applications may lead to so-called submarine patents, claims that are made today and then vanish, only to reappear when some unsuspecting scientist finds something useful to do with genes hidden in the patent. To prevent this, Lehman requires that EST applications include no more than 10 genetic sequences. Each 10 after that requires a separate application—and a separate filing fee. "Companies will now have an incentive to file more selective applications," says Lehman. D. The biggest problem with patenting genes is that while scientists have at least a general idea of what specific strands of genetic coding do, often it"s just that—general. Investigators do sometimes succeed in isolating a single, crisp gene with a single known function. Often, however, researchers trying to map genes get no further than marking off fragmentary stretches of DNA that may be thousands of bases in length. These so-called expressed sequence tags may have real genetic information embedded in them, but determining where those nuggets are and what their structure is takes more digging. E. Stickier than the economic question is the ethical one. Most of us reflexively shrink from the idea of anyone"s owning the rights to any part of the human form. Besides, if the first anatomist to spot, say, the pancreas was not granted title to it, why should modem genome-mapping scientists be able to claim even a single gene As Kahn points out, "You could patent a system for mining gold from ore. We don"t let people patent the gold." That kind of argument is grounded not in law but in the very idea of what it means to be human—an issue that even the highest federal court is not likely to settle. F. Geneticists have lately been filing patent applications for these ESTs anyway, figuring that it"s best to protect their turf now and go spelunking around in it later. In a science that prizes precision above all else, this can be an odd way to do business. "I would guess that in many cases the scientists didn"t even examine all the material," says Bruce Lehman, commissioner of the Patent and Trademark Office. G. Though deciphering the entire human genetic blueprint is still a few years away, scientists have begun laying claim to the stretches of DNA whose codes they have succeeded in cracking. In recent years researchers have flooded the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office with applications for thousands of genes and gene fragments—and they have stirred a lot of controversy in the process. B→______→______→F→______→______→______
In the rarefied world of the corporate board, a good network matters. 1 often involves word-of-mouth recommendations: getting on a 2 is easier if you have the right connections. New research suggests men use 3 better than women.Marie Lalanne and Paul Seabright of the Toulouse School of Economics 4 the effect of a network on 5 using a database of board members in Europe and America. They find that if you were to compare two executive directors, 6 in every way except that one had 200 ex-colleagues now 7 boards and the other 400, the latter, 8 , would be paid 6% more. For non-executives the gap is 14%.The really 9 finding concerns the difference between the sexes. Among executive-board members, women earn 17% less than their male 10 . There are plenty of plausible explanations for this 11 , from interruptions to women"s careers to old-fashioned 12 . But the authors find that this pay gap can be fully 13 by the effect of executives" networks. Men can leverage a large network into more senior positions or a seat on a more 14 board; women don"t seem to be able to.Women could just have 15 connections with members of their networks. "Women seem more inclined to build and rely on only a few strong relationships," says Mr. Seabright. Men are better at developing 16 acquaintances into a network, and better at maintaining a high personal 17 through these contacts. Women may, of course, also be hurt by the existing 18 of men on boards and a male 19 for filling executive positions with other men. But a tendency to think of other men first will be 20 if talented women don"t stay on the radar.
As a related study describes, Twitter has come to play a crucial role in the way that news functions during events like the Egyptian revolution—like an overloaded newswire filled with everything from breaking news to rumor and everything in between.The evolution of what media theorist Jeff Jarvis and others have called "networked journalism" has made the business of news much more chaotic, since it now consists of thousands of voices instead of just a few prominent ones who happen to have the tools to make themselves heard. If there is a growth area in media, it is in the field of "curated news," where real-time filters verify and redistribute the news that comes in from tens of thousands of sources, and use tools like Storify to present a coherent picture of what is happening on the ground.One of the additional points the study makes is that the personal Twitter accounts belonging to journalists were far more likely to be retweeted or engaged with by others than official accounts for the media outlets they worked for. The point here is one we have tried to make repeatedly: Social media are called social for a reason. They"re about human beings connecting with other human beings around an event, and the more that media outlets try to stifle the human aspect of these tools—through repressive social-media policies, for example—the less likely they will be to benefit from using them.Another benefit of a distributed or networked version of journalism is one sociologist Zeynep Tufekci has made in the course of her research into how Twitter and other social tools affected the events in Tunisia, Egypt, and elsewhere. As she wrote in a recent blog post, one of the realities of mainstream media is what is often called "pack journalism": the kind that sees hundreds of journalists show up for official briefings by government or military sources, but few pursue their own stories outside the official sphere. Tufekci says social media and "citizen journalism" can be a powerful antidote to this kind of process, and that"s fundamentally a positive force for journalism.As we look at the way news and information flows in this new world of social networks, and what Andy Carvin has called "random acts of journalism" by those who may not even see themselves as journalists, it"s easy to get distracted by how chaotic the process seems, and how difficult it is to separate the signal from the noise. But more information is better-even if it requires new skills on the part of journalists when it comes to filtering that information—and journalism, as Jay Rosen has pointed out, tends to get better when more people do it. It can be inferred from Para. 1 that ______.
As a related study describes, Twitter has come to play a crucial role in the way that news functions during events like the Egyptian revolution—like an overloaded newswire filled with everything from breaking news to rumor and everything in between.The evolution of what media theorist Jeff Jarvis and others have called "networked journalism" has made the business of news much more chaotic, since it now consists of thousands of voices instead of just a few prominent ones who happen to have the tools to make themselves heard. If there is a growth area in media, it is in the field of "curated news," where real-time filters verify and redistribute the news that comes in from tens of thousands of sources, and use tools like Storify to present a coherent picture of what is happening on the ground.One of the additional points the study makes is that the personal Twitter accounts belonging to journalists were far more likely to be retweeted or engaged with by others than official accounts for the media outlets they worked for. The point here is one we have tried to make repeatedly: Social media are called social for a reason. They"re about human beings connecting with other human beings around an event, and the more that media outlets try to stifle the human aspect of these tools—through repressive social-media policies, for example—the less likely they will be to benefit from using them.Another benefit of a distributed or networked version of journalism is one sociologist Zeynep Tufekci has made in the course of her research into how Twitter and other social tools affected the events in Tunisia, Egypt, and elsewhere. As she wrote in a recent blog post, one of the realities of mainstream media is what is often called "pack journalism": the kind that sees hundreds of journalists show up for official briefings by government or military sources, but few pursue their own stories outside the official sphere. Tufekci says social media and "citizen journalism" can be a powerful antidote to this kind of process, and that"s fundamentally a positive force for journalism.As we look at the way news and information flows in this new world of social networks, and what Andy Carvin has called "random acts of journalism" by those who may not even see themselves as journalists, it"s easy to get distracted by how chaotic the process seems, and how difficult it is to separate the signal from the noise. But more information is better-even if it requires new skills on the part of journalists when it comes to filtering that information—and journalism, as Jay Rosen has pointed out, tends to get better when more people do it. The word "retweeted" in Para. 3 probably means ______.
微信支付 
支付宝支付