Part C
Directions:
Read the following text carefully and then translate the underlined segmentsinto Chinese. Your translation should be written neatly on the ANSWER SHEET.(10 points)
　　It was only after I started to write a weekly column about themedical journals, and began to read scientific papers from beginning to end,that I realised just how bad much of the medical literature frequently was. Icame to recognise various signs of a bad paper: the kind of paper that purportsto show that people who eat more than one kilo of broccoli a week were 17times more likely than those who eat less to suffer late in life frompernicious anaemia. (46) There is a great deal of this kind of nonsense inthe medical journals which, when taken up by broadcasters and the lay press,generates both health scares and short-lived dietary enthusiasms.
　　Why is so much bad science published? A recent paper,titled “The Natural Selection of Bad Science”, published on the Royal Society'sopen science website, attempts to answer this intriguing and important question.It says that the problem is not merely that people do bad science, but that ourcurrent system of career advancement positively encourages it. What isimportant is not truth, but publication, which has become almost an end initself. There has been a kind of inflationary process at work: (47) nowadaysanyone applying for a research post has to have published twice the number ofpapers that would have been required for the same post only 10 years ago.Never mind the quality, then, count the number.
　　(48) Attempts have been made to curb thistendency, for example, by trying to incorporate some measure of quality as wellas quantity into the assessment of an applicant's papers. This is the famedcitation index, that is to say the number of times a paper has been quotedelsewhere in the scientific literature, the assumption being that an importantpaper will be cited more often than one of small account. (49) This would bereasonable if it were not for the fact that scientists can easily arrange tocite themselves in their future publications, or get associates to do so forthem in return for similar favours.
　　Boiling down an individual's output to simplemetrics, such as number of publications or journal impacts, entailsconsiderable savings in time, energy and ambiguity. Unfortunately, thelong-term costs of using simple quantitative metrics to assess researcher meritare likely to be quite great. (50) If we are serious about ensuring that ourscience is both meaningful and reproducible, we must ensure that ourinstitutions encourage that kind of science.