Text 2
The physicist investigating the relationship between time and space, the chemist is exploring the properties of a new substance, the biologist probing the mysteries of the continuity of life, and the anthropologist searching for human origins share a common trait curiosity. Not that nonscientists are not curious; most people possess this characteristic. The scientist, however, uses a specific method to make researches into these enigmatic problems--the scientific method.
Unfortunately, science and its method are misunderstood. The multiplication of our knowledge in medicine and technology has led to idea that science can cure all and explain all and that only enough time, money and intelligence are needed. In truth, science can’t provide all answers. In fact, many phenomena are not even subject to scientific explanations.
On the other side of the coin, science has been attacked as a cause of most contemporary problems. It is said to be responsible for the depersonalization of the individual, for stripping creativity from human behavior, and for creating massive threats to the species through the development of nuclear power, insecticide and polluting machinery. If we analyse the situation, we can see that it was not the original intent of the people who developed computers to debase humankind, nor was mass production proposed as a method to crush creativity. It is what society, policymakers especially, does with scientific and achievements that makes them social or antisocial. There is nothing inherently good or bad about science.

The last sentence of paragraph 2 could be explained as which of the following （）

A:Many phenomena can be subjects of scientific explanations B:Many phenomena can find answers in scientific explanations C:Scientific explanations can't provide answers to many phenomena D:Scientific explanations are not related to many phenomena

Text 2
The physicist investigating the relationship between time and space, the chemist is exploring the properties of a new substance, the biologist probing the mysteries of the continuity of life, and the anthropologist searching for human origins share a common trait curiosity. Not that nonscientists are not curious; most people possess this characteristic. The scientist, however, uses a specific method to make researches into these enigmatic problems--the scientific method.
Unfortunately, science and its method are misunderstood. The multiplication of our knowledge in medicine and technology has led to idea that science can cure all and explain all and that only enough time, money and intelligence are needed. In truth, science can’t provide all answers. In fact, many phenomena are not even subject to scientific explanations.
On the other side of the coin, science has been attacked as a cause of most contemporary problems. It is said to be responsible for the depersonalization of the individual, for stripping creativity from human behavior, and for creating massive threats to the species through the development of nuclear power, insecticide and polluting machinery. If we analyse the situation, we can see that it was not the original intent of the people who developed computers to debase humankind, nor was mass production proposed as a method to crush creativity. It is what society, policymakers especially, does with scientific and achievements that makes them social or antisocial. There is nothing inherently good or bad about science.

In the expression "On the other side of the coin "in parA．3 "the coin "is used to refer to （）

A:the misunderstanding of science B:the scientific explanation C:the money needed in scientific research D:the curiosity of scientists and nonscientists

Scientific tradition demands that scientific papers follow the formal progression :method first, results second, conclusion third. The rules permit no hint that, as often happens, the method was really made up as the scientist went along, or that accidental results determined the method, or that the scientist reached certain conclusions before the results were all in, or that he started out with certain conclusions, or that he started doing a different experiment. 　　Much scientific writing not only misrepresents the workings of science but also does a disservice to scientists themselves. By writing reports that make scientific investigations sound as unvarying and predictable as the sunrise, scientists tend to spread the curious notion that science is infallible. That many of them are unconscious of the effect they create does not alter the image in the popular mind. We hear time and again of the superiority of the "scientific method". In fact, the word "unscientific" has almost become a synonym for "untrue". Yet the final evaluation of any set of data is an individual, subjective judgment; and all human judgment is liable to error. Thoughtful scientists realize all this; but you wouldn’’t gather so from reading most scientific literature. A self-important, stiff and unnatural style too often seizes the pen of the experimenter the moment he starts putting words on paper. 　　Editors of scientific publications are not without their reasons for the current style of scientific writing. Their journals aren’’t rich. Paper and printing are expensive. Therefore, it is helpful to condense articles as much as possible. Under pressure of tradition, the condensation process removes the human elements first. And few scientific writers rebel against the tradition. Even courageous men do not go out of their way to publicize their deviations from accepted procedures. Then ,too, there is an apparent objectivity and humbleness attached to the third person, passive voice writing technique adopted in the preparation of most scientific papers. So, bit by bit, the true face of science becomes hidden behind what seems to the outsider to be a self-satisfied all-knowing mask. Is it any wonder that in the popular literature the scientist often appears as a hybrid superman-spoiled child 　　No small contribution to modern culture could be the simple introduction, into the earliest stage of our public-school science courses, of a natural style of writing about laboratory experiments as they really happen. This is something that could be done immediately with the opening of classes this fall. It requires no preparation except a psychological acknowledgment of the obvious fact that the present form of reporting experiments is a mental tie whose very appearance is calculated to repel the imaginative young minds science so badly needs. Most scientific papers turn out to be

A:deterioration of the workings of science. B:degeneration of service to scientists. C:rigid formats of all scientific reports. D:belief in the full correctness of science.

Text 2 The physicist investigating the relationship between time and space, the chemist is exploring the properties of a new substance, the biologist probing the mysteries of the continuity of life, and the anthropologist searching for human origins share a common trait curiosity. Not that nonscientists are not curious; most people possess this characteristic. The scientist, however, uses a specific method to make researches into these enigmatic problems--the scientific method. Unfortunately, science and its method are misunderstood. The multiplication of our knowledge in medicine and technology has led to idea that science can cure all and explain all and that only enough time, money and intelligence are needed. In truth, science can’t provide all answers. In fact, many phenomena are not even subject to scientific explanations. On the other side of the coin, science has been attacked as a cause of most contemporary problems. It is said to be responsible for the depersonalization of the individual, for stripping creativity from human behavior, and for creating massive threats to the species through the development of nuclear power, insecticide and polluting machinery. If we analyse the situation, we can see that it was not the original intent of the people who developed computers to debase humankind, nor was mass production proposed as a method to crush creativity. It is what society, policymakers especially, does with scientific and achievements that makes them social or antisocial. There is nothing inherently good or bad about science.

In the expression "On the other side of the coin "in para. 3 "the coin "is used to refer to （）

A:the misunderstanding of science B:the scientific explanation C:the money needed in scientific research D:the curiosity of scientists and nonscientists

Text 2 The physicist investigating the relationship between time and space, the chemist is exploring the properties of a new substance, the biologist probing the mysteries of the continuity of life, and the anthropologist searching for human origins share a common trait curiosity. Not that nonscientists are not curious; most people possess this characteristic. The scientist, however, uses a specific method to make researches into these enigmatic problems--the scientific method. Unfortunately, science and its method are misunderstood. The multiplication of our knowledge in medicine and technology has led to idea that science can cure all and explain all and that only enough time, money and intelligence are needed. In truth, science can’t provide all answers. In fact, many phenomena are not even subject to scientific explanations. On the other side of the coin, science has been attacked as a cause of most contemporary problems. It is said to be responsible for the depersonalization of the individual, for stripping creativity from human behavior, and for creating massive threats to the species through the development of nuclear power, insecticide and polluting machinery. If we analyse the situation, we can see that it was not the original intent of the people who developed computers to debase humankind, nor was mass production proposed as a method to crush creativity. It is what society, policymakers especially, does with scientific and achievements that makes them social or antisocial. There is nothing inherently good or bad about science.

The last sentence of paragraph 2 could be explained as which of the following（）

A:Many phenomena can be subjects of scientific explanations B:Many phenomena can find answers in scientific explanations C:Scientific explanations can't provide answers to many phenomena D:Scientific explanations are not related to many phenomena

It used to be so straightforward. A team of researchers working together in the laboratory would submit the results of their research to a journal. A journal editor would then remove the authors’ names and affiliations from the paper and send it to their peers for review. Depending on the comments received, the editor would accept the paper for publication or decline it. Copyright rested with the journal publisher, and researchers seeking knowledge of the results would have to subscribe to the journal.
No longer. The Internet—and pressure from funding agencies, who are questioning why commercial publishers are making money from government-funded research by restricting access to it—is making access to scientific results a reality. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has just issued a report describing the far-reaching consequences of this. The report, by John Houghton of Victoria University in Australia and Graham Vickery of the OECD, makes heavy reading for publishers who have, so far, made handsome profits. But it goes further than that. It signals a change in what has, until now, been a key element of scientific endeavor.
The value of knowledge and the return on the public investment in research depends, in part, upon wide distribution and ready access. It is big business. In America, the core scientific publishing market is estimated at between $ 7 billion and $ 11 billion. The International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers says that there are more than 2 000 publishers worldwide specializing in these subjects. They publish more than 1.2 million articles each year in some 16 000 journals.
This is now changing. According to the OECD report, some 75% of scholarly journals are now online. Entirely new business models are emerging; three main ones were identified by the report’s authors. There is the so-called big deal, where institutional subscribers pay for access to a collection of online journal titles through site-licensing agreements. There is open-access publishing, typically sup- ported by asking the author (or his employer) to pay for the paper to be published: Finally, there are open-access archives, where organizations such as universities or international laboratories support institutional repositories. Other models exist that are hybrids of these three, such as delayed open-access, where. journals allow only subscribers to read a paper for the first six months, before making it freely available to everyone who wishes to see it. All this could change the traditional form of the peer- review process, at least for the publication of papers.

According to the text, online publication is significant in that（）

A:it provides an easier access to scientific results B:it brings huge profits to scientific researchers C:it emphasizes the crucial role of scientific knowledge D:it facilitates public investment in scientific research

It used to be so straightforward. A team of researchers working together in the laboratory would submit the results of their research to a journal. A journal editor would then remove the authors’ names and affiliations from the paper and send it to their peers for review. Depending on the comments received, the editor would accept the paper for publication or decline it. Copyright rested with the journal publisher, and researchers seeking knowledge of the results would have to subscribe to the journal.
No longer. The Internet—and pressure from funding agencies, who are questioning why commercial publishers are making money from government-funded research by restricting access to it—is making access to scientific results a reality. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has just issued a report describing the far-reaching consequences of this. The report, by John Houghton of Victoria University in Australia and Graham Vickery of the OECD, makes heavy reading for publishers who have, so far, made handsome profits. But it goes further than that. It signals a change in what has, until now, been a key element of scientific endeavor.
The value of knowledge and the return on the public investment in research depends, in part, upon wide distribution and ready access. It is big business. In America, the core scientific publishing market is estimated at between $ 7 billion and $ 11 billion. The International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers says that there are more than 2 000 publishers worldwide specializing in these subjects. They publish more than 1.2 million articles each year in some 16 000 journals.
This is now changing. According to the OECD report, some 75% of scholarly journals are now online. Entirely new business models are emerging; three main ones were identified by the report’s authors. There is the so-called big deal, where institutional subscribers pay for access to a collection of online journal titles through site-licensing agreements. There is open-access publishing, typically sup- ported by asking the author (or his employer) to pay for the paper to be published: Finally, there are open-access archives, where organizations such as universities or international laboratories support institutional repositories. Other models exist that are hybrids of these three, such as delayed open-access, where. journals allow only subscribers to read a paper for the first six months, before making it freely available to everyone who wishes to see it. All this could change the traditional form of the peer- review process, at least for the publication of papers.

According to the text, online publication is significant in that（）

A:it provides an easier access to scientific results. B:it brings huge profits to scientific researchers. C:it emphasizes the crucial role of scientific knowledge. D:it facilitates public investment in scientific research.

It used to be so straightforward. A team of researchers working together in the laboratory would submit the results of their research to a journal. A journal editor would then remove the authors’ names and affiliations from the paper and send it to their peers for review. Depending on the comments received, the editor would accept the paper for publication or decline it. Copyright rested with the journal publisher, and researchers seeking knowledge of the results would have to subscribe to the journal. No longer. The Internet—and pressure from funding agencies, who are questioning why commercial publishers are making money from government-funded research by restricting access to it—is making access to scientific results a reality. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has just issued a report describing the far-reaching consequences of this. The report, by John Houghton of Victoria University in Australia and Graham Vickery of the OECD, makes heavy reading for publishers who have, so far, made handsome profits. But it goes further than that. It signals a change in what has, until now, been a key element of scientific endeavor. The value of knowledge and the return on the public investment in research depends, in part, upon wide distribution and ready access. It is big business. In America, the core scientific publishing market is estimated at between $7 billion and $11 billion. The International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers says that there are more than 2 000 publishers worldwide specializing in these subjects. They publish more than 1.2 million articles each year in some 16,000 journals. This is now changing. According to the OECD report, some 75% of scholarly journals are now online. Entirely new business models are emerging; three main ones were identified by the report’s authors. There is the so-called big deal, where institutional subscribers pay for access to a collection of online journal titles through site-licensing agreements. There is open-access publishing, typically supported by asking the author (or his employer) to pay for the paper to be published: Finally, there are open-access archives, where organizations such as universities or international laboratories support institutional repositories. Other models exist that are hybrids of these three, such as delayed open-access, where journals allow only subscribers to read a paper for the first six months, before making it freely available to everyone who wishes to see it. All this could change the traditional form of the peer-review process, at least for the publication of papers.According to the text, online publication is significant in that

A:it provides an easier access to scientific results. B:it brings huge profits to scientific researchers. C:it emphasizes the crucial role of scientific knowledge. D:it facilitates public investment in scientific research.