题目内容
Economic globalization is a powerful trend, driven by a (36) of technological developments, profit-seeking businesses, and generally supportive public policy. But globalization is also less (37) and more fragile than is widely-believed by both its supporters and its opponents. The demise of the first wave of globalization in the early decades of the twentieth century (38) demonstrates that it is not an irreversible trend. National borders and policies continue to play a role in limiting and directing international (39) . Discontent with globalization is widespread enough to be (40) . The most extreme and active of globalization’s opponents depict it as the source of all that is wrong in the modern world, including poverty, (41) , inequality, violence, and war.Those of us who believe in globalization need to defend it. We need to continue to provide and to (42) not just the actual goods, services, and capital that flow across international borders, but the associated trade in ideas, skills, and institutions as well. When (43) by sensible, market-oriented public policies, globalization can be a great benefit to national wealth and social development.(44) . nor is it a plot by profit-hungry mega-corporations to exploit workers and deprive the environment. At the most fundamental level, (45) . Acts of buying, selling, producing, borrowing, and lending that used to be ruled but by geographic, technological, or legal barriers have now become practical. (46) , precisely because globalization embodies. such a vast and marvelous array of new economic opportunities. 46（）
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
What will the woman probably do on Thursday afternoon（）
[听力原文]M: I was absent from English Literature today. Did Professor Johnson give US any work for next weekW: Yes, we have to read six chapters of this book and write a two-page summary.Q: What are the two speakers discussing（）
What’s the reason for the decrease in unemployment（）
There is, writes Daniele Fanelli in a recent issue of Nature, something rotten in the state of scientific research—an epidemic of false, biased, and falsified findings where "only the most egregious cases of misconduct are discovered and punished." Fanelli is a leading thinker in an increasingly alarming field of scientific research: one that seeks to find out why it is that so many scientific researches turn out to be wrong.For a long time the focus has either been on industry funding as a source of bias, particularly in drug research, or on those who deliberately commit fraud, such as the spectacular case of Diederik Stapel, a Dutch social psychologist who was found to have fabricated at least 55 research papers over 20 years. But an increasing number of studies have shown that flawed research is a much wider phenomenon, especially in the biomedical sciences. Indeed, the investigation into Stapel also blamed a "sloppy" research culture that often ignored inconvenient data and misunderstood important statistical methods."There’s little question that the scientific literature is awash (充斥着)in false findings—findings that if you try to replicate you’ll probably never succeed or at least find them to be different from what was initially said," says Fanelli. "But people don’t appreciate that this is not because scientists are manipulating these results, consciously or unconsciously; it’s largely because we have a system that favors statistical flukes (侥幸) instead of replicable findings. "This is why, he says, we need to extend the idea of academic misconduct (currently limited to fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism) to "distorted reporting"--the failure to communicate all the information someone would need to validate your findings. Right now, he says, we’re missing all the "unconscious biases, the systemic biases, the practices, mistakes, and problems that hardly ever count as cheating", even though they have a very important—and probably the largest—effect on creating technically false results in the literature.One particularly challenging bias is that academic journals tend to publish only positive results. As Isabelle Boutron, a professor of epidemiology at Rene Descartes University in Paris, points out, studies have shown that peer reviewers are influenced by trial results; one study showed that they not only favored a paper showing a positive effect over a near-identical paper showing no effect, they also gave the positive paper higher scores for its scientific methods. And Boutron has herself found extensive evidence of scientists spinning their findings to claim benefits that their actual results didn’t quite support."We need a major cultural change," says Fanelli. "But when you think that, even 20 years ago, these issues were practically never discussed, I think we’re making considerable progress.\ Which of the following is true about Fanelli’s article in Nature（）
微信支付 
支付宝支付