Directions: Read the following passages carefully and choose the best answer from the four choices marked A, B, C and D. The campaign to increase the public understanding of science has not been matched by an overwhelming willingness by scientists to understand the public. "In my experience," says Alan Irwin, Professor of Sociology at Brunel University, "there is little anti-science feeling among the public - but there can be a sort of 'anti-public' feeling among some of those who claim to speak for science." The result is that two separate debates take place. The first is conducted among scientists, with the focus on accuracy. The second is dominated by the non-experts, exercised not necessarily by the technology but by the moral, social and political issues it raises. “Sometimes scientists can be very quick to laugh at the statements on science made by the public - saying that they're actually incorrect,” Irwin says. “They talk about the hype (夸大的广告宣传), the public craziness. For example, if mothers say they worry about GM (genetically modified)foods giving their kids cancer, the scientists would say that's ridiculous because GM technology uses fewer pesticides (农药), and so on. But what interests me is, what is that mother getting at? She is expressing anxiety about a technology - she probably doesn't trust what's going on, she's not confident, perhaps she thinks it's out of control.” Irwin disputes that non-experts are not entitled to participate in science debates. Despite their lack of knowledge, they and their representatives should have a say. “It's about balancing two things. The first is that the people who know best - the experts - should have an important say and secondly, the people who suffer the consequences should have an important say. Most of us want both.” Companies pushing GM products paid a high price for elbowing aside public concerns. Consumer groups complained that the only ones that benefit from GM were the companies selling them. Collective action is a powerful thing and therefore, the two sides should work together to reduce misunderstandings toward each other. As with GM foods, both scientists and the public need to abandon unnecessary prejudice to avoid deeper disputes. It can be learned from the passage that _______. A the public doesn't want to understand scientists B scientists are not willing to debate about accuracy C the public doesn't care about moral issues of science D scientists are not friendly toward the public
Directions: Read the following passages carefully and choose the best answer from the four choices marked A, B, C and D.
The campaign to increase the public understanding of science has not been matched by an overwhelming willingness by scientists to understand the public. "In my experience," says Alan Irwin, Professor of Sociology at Brunel University, "there is little anti-science feeling among the public - but there can be a sort of 'anti-public' feeling among some of those who claim to speak for science."
The result is that two separate debates take place. The first is conducted among scientists, with the focus on accuracy. The second is dominated by the non-experts, exercised not necessarily by the technology but by the moral, social and political issues it raises.
“Sometimes scientists can be very quick to laugh at the statements on science made by the public - saying that they're actually incorrect,” Irwin says. “They talk about the hype (夸大的广告宣传), the public craziness. For example, if mothers say they worry about GM (genetically modified)foods giving their kids cancer, the scientists would say that's ridiculous because GM technology uses fewer pesticides (农药), and so on.
But what interests me is, what is that mother getting at? She is expressing anxiety about a technology - she probably doesn't trust what's going on, she's not confident, perhaps she thinks it's out of control.”
Irwin disputes that non-experts are not entitled to participate in science debates. Despite their lack of knowledge, they and their representatives should have a say. “It's about balancing two things. The first is that the people who know best - the experts - should have an important say and secondly, the people who suffer the consequences should have an important say. Most of us want both.”
Companies pushing GM products paid a high price for elbowing aside public concerns. Consumer groups complained that the only ones that benefit from GM were the companies selling them. Collective action is a powerful thing and therefore, the two sides should work together to reduce misunderstandings toward each other. As with GM foods, both scientists and the public need to abandon unnecessary prejudice to avoid deeper disputes.
It can be learned from the passage that _______.
A the public doesn't want to understand scientists
B scientists are not willing to debate about accuracy
C the public doesn't care about moral issues of science
D scientists are not friendly toward the public
题目解答
答案
解析
考查要点：本题考查对文章主旨的理解，需要结合上下文分析作者观点，排除干扰选项。
解题核心：抓住文章中科学家与公众之间的矛盾关系，特别是科学家对公众态度的描述。
关键点：文章指出，科学家有时对公众的担忧缺乏理解，甚至轻蔑（如嘲笑母亲对转基因食品的担忧），而公众并非“反科学”，只是对技术的道德、社会影响有疑虑。选项需体现科学家对公众的不友好态度。
选项分析：
-
A. 公众不想理解科学家
- 文章未提及公众拒绝理解科学，反而指出公众对科学本身并无敌意（“little anti-science feeling”）。
- 错误。
-
B. 科学家不愿辩论准确性
- 科学家之间的辩论聚焦于准确性（“debates on accuracy”），说明科学家主动参与此类讨论。
- 错误。
-
C. 公众不关心科学的道德问题
- 非专家主导的辩论关注道德、社会和政治问题（“moral, social and political issues”），说明公众非常关心道德层面。
- 错误。
-
D. 科学家对公众不友好
- 文中多次提到科学家对公众的轻蔑态度：
- “anti-public feeling among some who speak for science”（部分科学家对公众有偏见）。
- 科学家嘲笑母亲对转基因食品的担忧（“laugh at the statements”）。
- 正确。
- 文中多次提到科学家对公众的轻蔑态度：
结论：文章通过具体事例（如转基因食品）说明科学家对公众的不友好态度，选项D最符合文意。