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