题目内容

Jan Hendrik Schon’s success seemed too good to be true, and it was. In only fuur years as a physicist at Bell Laboratories, Schon, 32, had co-authored 90 scientific papers—one every 16 days, which astonished his colleagues, and made them suspicious. When one co-worker noticed that the same table of data appeared in two separate papers—which also happened to appear in the two most prestigious scientific journals in the world, Science and Nature—the jig was up. In October 2002, a Bell Labs investigation found that Schon had falsified and fabricated data. His career as a scientist was finished. If it sounds a lot like the fall of Hwang Woo Suk—the South Korean researcher who fabricated his evidence about cloning human cells—it is. Scientific scandals, which are as old as science itself, tend to follow similar patterns of hubris and comeuppance. Afterwards, colleagues wring their hands and wonder how such malfeasance can be avoided in the future. But it never is entirely. Science is built on the honor system; the method of peer-review, in which manuscripts are evaluated by experts in the field, is not meant to catch cheats. In recent years, of course, the pressure on scientists to publish in the top journals has increased, making the journals much more crucial to career success. The questions raised anew by Hwang’s fall are whether Nature and Science have become too powerful as arbiters of what science reaches the public, and whether the journals are up to their task as gatekeepers. Each scientific specialty has its own set of journals. Physicists have Physical Review Letters; cell biologists have Cell; neuroscientists have Neuron, and so forth. Science and Nature, though, are the only two major journals that cover the gamut of scientific disciplines, from meteorology and zoology to quantum physics and chemistry. As a result, journalists look to them each week for the cream of the crop of new science papers. And scientists look to the journals in part to reach journalists. Why do they care Competition for grants has gotten so fierce that scientists have sought popular renown to gain an edge over their rivals. Publication in specialized journals will win the accolades of academics and satisfy the publish-or-perish imperative, but Science and Nature come with the added bonus of potentially getting your paper written up in The New York Times and other publications. Scientists are also trying to reach other scientists through Science and Nature, not just the public. Scientists tend to pay more attention to the Big Two than to other journals. When more scientists know about a particular paper, they’re more apt to cite it in their own papers. Being oft-cited will increase a scientist’s "Impact Factor", a measure of how often papers are cited by peers. Funding agencies use the Impact Factor as a rough measure of the influence of scientists they’re considering supporting. Whether the clamor to appear in these journals has any bearing on their ability to catch fraud is another matter. The fact is that fraud is terrifically hard to spot. Consider the process Science used to evaluate Hwang’s 2005 article. Science editors recognized the manuscript’s import almost as soon as it arrived. As part of the standard procedure, they sent it to two members of its Board of Reviewing Editors, who recommended that it go out for peer review (about 30 percent of manuscripts pass this test). This recommendation was made not on the scientific validity of the paper, but on its "novelty, originality, and trendiness," says Denis Duboule, a geneticist at the University of Geneva and a member of Science’s Board of Reviewing Editors, in the January 6 issue of Science. After this, Science sent the paper to three stem-cell experts, who had a week to look it over. Their comments were favorable. How were they to know that the data was fraudulent "You look at the data and do not assume it’s fraud," says one reviewer, anonymously, in Science. In the end, a big scandal now and then isn’t likely to do much damage to the big scientific journals. What editors and scientists worry about more are the myriad smaller infractions that occur all the time, and which are almost impossible to detect. A Nature survey of scientists published last June found that one-third of all respondents had committed some forms of misconduct. These included falsifying research data and having "questionable relationships" with students and subjects—both charges leveled against Hwang. Nobody really knows if this kind of fraud is on the rise, but it is worrying. Science editors don’t have any plans to change the basic editorial peer: review process as a result of the Hwang scandal. They do have plans to scrutinize photographs more closely in an effort to spot instances of fraud, but that policy change had already been decided when the scandal struck. And even if it had been in place, it would not have revealed that Hwang had misrepresented photographs from two stem cell colonies as coming from 11 colonies. With the financial and deadline pressures of the publishing industry, it’s unlikely that the journals are going to take markedly stronger measures to vet manuscripts. Beyond replicating the experiments themselves, which would be impractical, it’s difficult to see what they could do to make science beyond the honor system. Science and Nature are top journals in the world in that ______.

A. they are built on the honor system
B. they are the only world-recognized journals in the scientific circle
C. they cover all the research areas of science
D. they are as popular as public magazines

查看答案
更多问题

Questions 8 to 9 are based on the following news. At the end of the news item, you will be given 20 seconds to answer the questions. Now listen to the news. According to the news, we can know that______.

A. Obama is the first president to change health care system
B. the U.S. is the only country where millions of people can’t get health care
C. health insurance in America is very expensive for the civilians
D. Americans don’t need health insurance to get treatment

Students of United States history, seeking to identify the circumstances that encouraged the emergence of feminist movements, have thoroughly investigated the mid-nineteenth-century American economic and social conditions that affected the status of women. These historians, however, have analyzed less fully the development of specifically feminist ideas and activities during the same period. Furthermore, the ideological origins of feminism in the United States have been obscured because, even when historians did take into account those feminist ideas and activities occurring within the United States, they failed to recognize that feminism was then a truly international movement actually centered in Europe. American feminist activists who have been described as "solitary" and "individual theorists" were in reality connected to a movement—utopian socialism—which was already popularizing feminist ideas in Europe during the two decades that culminated in the first women’s rights conference held at Seneca Falls, New York, in 1848. Thus, a complete understanding of the origins and development of nineteenth-century feminism in the United States requires that the geographical focus be widened to include Europe and that the detailed study already made of social conditions be expanded to include the ideological development of feminism. The earliest and most popular of the utopian socialists were the Saint-Simonians. The specifically feminist part of Saint-Simonianism has, however, been less studied than the group’s contribution to early socialism. This is regrettable on two counts. By 1832 feminism was the central concern of Saint-Simonianism and entirely absorbed its adherents’ energy. Hence, by ignoring its feminism, European historians have misunderstood Saint-Simonianism. Moreover, since many feminist ideas can be traced to Saint-Simonianism, European historians’ appreciation of later feminism in France and the United States remained limited. Saint-Simon’s followers, many of whom were women, based their feminism on an interpretation of his project to reorganize the globe by replacing brute force with the rule of spiritual powers. The new world order would be ruled together by a male, to represent reflection, and a female, to represent sentiment. This complementarity reflects the fact that, while the Saint-Shnonians did not reject the belief that there were innate differences between men and women, they nevertheless foresaw an equally important social and political role for both sexes in their Utopia. Only a few Saint-Simonians opposed a definition of sexual equality based on gender distinction. This minority believed that individuals of both sexes were born similar in capacity and character, and they ascribed male-female differences to socialization and education. The envisioned result of both currents of thought, however, was that women would enter public life in the new age and that sexual equality would reward men as well as women with an improved way of life. Which is the main idea of the passage

A. The origin of American feminism.
B. The development of American feminism.
C. The feminist part of Saint-Simonianism.
D. Saint-Simonianism and utopian socialism.

案主小强今年15岁,正读初中三年级,个性倔强,学习成绩在班级中处于中下等水平。小龙的父母早在他3岁时就已离婚,小龙跟随父亲生活。几年后,父亲再婚,继母与小龙的关系一直不好,对小龙基本上是不闻不问。父亲经营着一家小饭店,整天只顾忙着饭店的生意,对小龙的生活和学习也很少关心。现在,读初三的小龙面临着升学的选择:父亲一心要让小龙读高中、上大学,以圆自己未能实现的读书梦想;小龙则觉得自己学习成绩不佳,在家庭生活中也感到比较压抑,想报考职校,早日参加工作开始独立生活。为此,小龙和父亲发生了矛盾。 问题: 1.在上述案例中,小龙目前面临的主要困境是什么 2.针对小龙目前的困境,社会工作者应采取什么样的介入策略

案主王女士,45岁,初中文化程度,有一个孩子正在读高中。五年前王女士和丈夫双双下岗,全家人靠政府发放的低保金生活,家庭生活一下子变得窘迫起来。尽管王女士在生活上精打细算,节衣缩食,但也只能勉强维持生计。在生活的巨大压力下,王女士失去了笑容,整日愁眉不展。她也曾经尝试着去人才市场寻找工作,可是年龄和学历却使她一次又一次地碰壁。居委会也曾经为王女士介绍过家政服务员、小区保洁工等工作,可是王女士认为这些工作都是外地人干的活,作为一个土生土长的上海人,总得找一些稍微体面些而且报酬比较高的工作才行,因此她婉言拒绝了居委会的热心相助。可她一下子又找不到合适的工作,只好一直呆在家中,间或做些零工。几年来,贫困和生活的压力使她越来越自卑,同时也越来越绝望,看不到未来生活的希望,不知道往后的日子该怎么过。 问题: 1.在上述案例中,王女士目前面临的主要困境有哪些 2.针对王女士目前的困境,社会工作者应采取什么样的介入策略

答案查题题库