Question

Public distrust of scientists stems in part from the blurring of boundaries between science and technology, between discovery and manufacture. Most governments, perhaps all governments, justify public expenditure on scientific research in terms of the economic benefits the scientific enterprise has brought in the past and will bring in the future. Politicians remind their voters of the splendid machines “our scientists” have invented, the new drugs to relieve old disorders, and the new surgical equipment and techniques by which previously unmanageable conditions may now be treated and lives saved. At the same time, the politicians demand of scientists that they tailor their research to “economics needs”, and that they award a higher priority to research proposals that are “near the market” and can be translated into the greatest return on investment in the shortest time. Dependent, as they are, on politicians for much of their funding, scientists have little choice but to comply. Like the rest of us, they are members of a society that rates the creation of wealth as the greatest possible good. Many have reservations, but keep them to themselves in what they perceive as a climate hostile to the pursuit of understanding for its own sake and the idea of an inquiring, creative spirit.

In such circumstances no one should be too hard on people who are suspicious of conflicts of interest. When we learn that the distinguished professor assuring us of the safety of a particular product holds a consultancy with the company making it, we cannot be blamed for wondering whether his fee might conceivably cloud his professional judgment. Even if the professor holds no consultancy with any firm, some people may still distrust him because of his association with those who do, or at least wonder about the source of some of his research funding.

This attitude can have damaging effects. It questions the integrity of individuals working in a profession that prizes intellectual honesty as the supreme virtue, and plays into the hands of those who would like to discredit scientists by representing them as corruptible. This makes it easier to dismiss all scientific pronouncements, but especially those made by the scientists who present themselves as “experts”. The scientist most likely to understand the safety of a nuclear reactor, for example, is a nuclear engineer, and a nuclear engineer is most likely to be employed by the nuclear industry. If a nuclear engineer declares that a reactor is unsafe, we believe him, because clearly it is not to his advantage to lie about it. If he tells us it is safe, on the other hand, we distrust him, because he may well be protecting the employer who pays his salary.

1.What is the chief concern of most governments when it comes to scientific research?

A. The reduction of public expenditure.    B. Quick economic returns.

C. The budget for a research project.    D. Support from the voters.

2.Why won’t scientists complain about the government’s policy concerning scientific research?

A. They know it takes patience to win support from the public.

B. They realize they work in an environment hostile to the free pursuit of knowledge.

C. They think compliance with government policy is in the interests of the public.

D. They are accustomed to keeping their opinions to themselves.

3.According to the author, people are suspicious of the professional judgment of scientists because ______.

A. some of them do not give priority to intellectual honesty

B. sometimes they hide the source of their research funding

C. they could be influenced by their association with the project concerned

D. their pronouncements often turn out to be wrong

4.Why does the author say that public distrust of scientists can have damaging effects?

A. Scientists themselves may doubt the value of their research findings.

B. People will not believe scientists even when they tell the truth.

C. It makes things difficult for scientists to seek research funds.

D. It may wear out the enthusiasm of scientists for independent research.

Answer

1. B

2. B

3. C

4. B

【解析】

本文是一篇议论文。公众对科学家的不信任在一定程度上源于科学与技术、发现与制造之间界限的模糊。大多数政府，也许是所有政府，从科学企业过去和将来所带来的经济利益的角度来为科学研究的公共开支辩护。

1.推理判断题。根据句第一段中Most governments, perhaps all governments, justify public expenditure on scientific research in terms of the economic benefits the scientific enterprise has brought in the past and will bring in the future.可知，说到科学研究，大多数政府最关心的是快速的经济回报。故选B。

2.推理判断题。根据第一段中Many have reservations, but keep them to themselves in what they perceive as a climate hostile to the pursuit of understanding for its own sake and the idea of an inquiring, creative spirit.可知，科学家们不抱怨政府的科研政策是因为他们意识到他们在一个不利于自由追求知识的环境中工作。故选B。

3.细节理解题。根据第二段中Even if the professor holds no consultancy with any firm, some people may still distrust him because of his association with those who do, or at least wonder about the source of some of his research funding.可知，根据作者的观点，人们怀疑科学家的职业判断，因为他们可能会受到与相关项目的联系的影响。故选C。

4.推理判断题。根据第三段中This makes it easier to dismiss all scientific pronouncements, but especially those made by the scientists who present themselves as “experts”.可知，作者说公众对科学家的不信任会产生破坏性的影响是因为即使科学家说的是事实，人们也不会相信。故选B。