No follow-up investigations to replicate（复制）or expand on a discovery. No one uses the findings to build new technologies.The problem is not just what happens after publication—scientists often have trouble choosing the right questions and properly designing studies to answer them. Too many studies test too few subjects to arrive at firm conclusions. Researchers publish reports on hundreds of treatments for diseases that work in animal models but not in humans. Drug companies find themselves unable to reproduce promising drug targets published by the best academic institutions. The growing recognition that something has gone wrong in the laboratory has led to calls for, as one might guess, more research on research—attempts to find rules to ensure that peer-reviewed studies are, in fact, valid.It will take a concerted effort by scientists and other stakeholders to fix this problem. We can do so by exploring ways to make scientific investigation more reliable and efficient. These may include collaborative team science, study registration, stronger study designs and statistical tools, and better peer review, along with making scientific data widely available so that others can replicate experiments, therefore building trust in the conclusions of those studies.Reproducing other scientists' analysesor replicating their results has too often in the past been looked down on with a kind of "me-too" derision（嘲笑）that would waste resources—but often they may help avoid false leads that would have been even more wasteful. Perhaps the biggest obstacle to replication is the inaccessibility of data and results necessary to rerun the analyses that went into the original experiments. Searching for such information can be extremely difficult. Investigators die, move and change jobs; computers crash; online links malfunction. Data are sometimes lost—even, as one researcher claimed when confronted about spurious（伪造的）results, eaten by termites（白蚁）.There has definitely been some recent progress. An increasing number of journals, including Nature and Science, have adopted measures such as checklists for study design and reporting while improving statistical review and encouraging access to data. Several funding agencies, meanwhile, have asked that researchers outline their plans for sharing data before they can receive a government grant.But it will take much more to achieve a lasting culture change. Investigators should be rewarded for performing good science rather than just getting statistically significant（positive）but non-replicable results. Revising the present incentive（激励）structure may require changes on the part of journals, funders, universities and other research institutions.1What is the problem reported in those papers in The Lancet?

Earlier this year a series of papers in The Lancet reported that 85 percent of the $265 billion spent each year on medical research is wasted because too often absolutely nothing happens after initial results of a study are published. No follow-up investigations to replicate（复制）or expand on a discovery. No one uses the findings to build new technologies.

The problem is not just what happens after publication—scientists often have trouble choosing the right questions and properly designing studies to answer them. Too many studies test too few subjects to arrive at firm conclusions. Researchers publish reports on hundreds of treatments for diseases that work in animal models but not in humans. Drug companies find themselves unable to reproduce promising drug targets published by the best academic institutions. The growing recognition that something has gone wrong in the laboratory has led to calls for, as one might guess, more research on research—attempts to find rules to ensure that peer-reviewed studies are, in fact, valid.

It will take a concerted effort by scientists and other stakeholders to fix this problem. We can do so by exploring ways to make scientific investigation more reliable and efficient. These may include collaborative team science, study registration, stronger study designs and statistical tools, and better peer review, along with making scientific data widely available so that others can replicate experiments, therefore building trust in the conclusions of those studies.

Reproducing other scientists' analysesor replicating their results has too often in the past been looked down on with a kind of "me-too" derision（嘲笑）that would waste resources—but often they may help avoid false leads that would have been even more wasteful. Perhaps the biggest obstacle to replication is the inaccessibility of data and results necessary to rerun the analyses that went into the original experiments. Searching for such information can be extremely difficult. Investigators die, move and change jobs; computers crash; online links malfunction. Data are sometimes lost—even, as one researcher claimed when confronted about spurious（伪造的）results, eaten by termites（白蚁）.

There has definitely been some recent progress. An increasing number of journals, including Nature and Science, have adopted measures such as checklists for study design and reporting while improving statistical review and encouraging access to data. Several funding agencies, meanwhile, have asked that researchers outline their plans for sharing data before they can receive a government grant.

But it will take much more to achieve a lasting culture change. Investigators should be rewarded for performing good science rather than just getting statistically significant（positive）but non-replicable results. Revising the present incentive（激励）structure may require changes on the part of journals, funders, universities and other research institutions.

1

What is the problem reported in those papers in The Lancet?

A.

Great achievements in medical research failed to get published.

B.

Money was wasted on follow-up investigations in medical research.

C.

Too many new research findings are not put into use after publication.

D.

Few scientists are devoted to building new technologies for mankind.

2

Which of the following situation is most similar to the problem described in paragraph2?

A.

high school decides to cut its art programs due to the lack of fund.

B.

patient gets sicker because he does not follow the doctor's advice.

C.

marketing firm tests a website with participants that are not target population.

D.

drug company fails to produce the new drug due to no access to the latest data.

3

Which of the following can be inferred from the passage?

A. Measures are taken to ensure publication of tested results only.B. Scientific experiments must be replicable to be considered valid.C. Experiment replication is unoriginal and not worthwhile.D. Rewards should be given only to those non replicable findings.4

The purpose of this article is to _{} .

A.

argue that scientific research lacks efficiency

B. explain the result of a recent scientific studyC.

introduce some recent progress in medical research

D. highlight the possible problems of research studies.