Text 3
TheUS$3-million Fundamental physics prize is indeed an interesting experiment, asAlexander Polyakov said when he accepted this year’s award in March. And it isfar from the only one of its type. As a News Feature article inNaturediscusses, a string of lucrativeawards for researchers have joined the Nobel Prizes in recent years. Many, likethe Fundamental Physics Prize, are funded from the telephone-number-sized bankaccounts of Internet entrepreneurs. These benefactors have succeeded in theirchosen fields, they say, and they want to use their wealth to draw attention tothose who have succeeded in science.
What’snot to like? Quite a lot, according to a handful of scientists quoted in theNews Feature. You cannot buy class, as the old saying goes, and these upstartentrepreneurs cannot buy their prizes the prestige of the Nobels. The newawards are an exercise in self-promotion for those behind them, say scientists.They could distort the achievement-based system of peer-review-led research.They could cement the status quo of peer-reviewed research. They do not fundpeer-reviewed research. They perpetuate the myth of the lone genius.
Thegoals of the prize-givers seem as scattered as the criticism. Some want toshock, others to draw people into science, or to better reward those who havemade their careers in research.
AsNature has pointed out before, there are some legitimate concerns about howscience prizes—both new and old—are distributed. The Breakthrough Prize in LifeSciences, launched this year, takes an unrepresentative view of what the lifesciences include. But the Nobel Foundation’s limit of three recipients perprize, each of whom must still be living, has long been outgrown by thecollaborative nature of modern research—as will be demonstrated by theinevitable row over who is ignored when it comes to acknowledging the discoveryof the Higgs boson. The Nobels were, of course, themselves set up by a veryrich individual who had decided what he wanted to do with his own money. Time,rather than intention, has given them legitimacy.
Asmuch as some scientists may complain about the new awards, two things seemclear. First, most researchers would accept such a prize if they were offeredone. Second, it is surely a good thing that the money and attention come toscience rather than go elsewhere, It is fair to criticize and question themechanism—that is the culture of research, after all—but it is theprize-givers’ money to do with as they please. It is wise to take such giftswith gratitude and grace.
31. The Fundamental Physical Prize isseen as
[A]asymbol of the entrepreneurs’ wealth.
[B]apossible replacement of the Nobel Prize.
[C]anexample of bankers’ investment.
[D]ahandsome reward for researchers.
32. The critics think that the newawards will most benefit
[A]theprofit-oriented scientists.
[B]thefounders of the new award.
[C]theachievement-based system.
[D]peer-review-ledresearch.
33. The discovery of the Higgs boson isa typical case which involves
[A]controversies over the recipients’ status.
[B]the joint effort of modern researchers.
[C]legitimate concerns over the new prizes.
[D]the demonstration of research findings.
34. According to Paragraph 4, which ofthe following is true of the Nobels?
[A]Theirendurance has done justice to them.
[B]Theirlegitimacy has long been in dispute.
[C]Theyare the most representative honor.
[D]Historyhas never cast doubt on them.
35. The author believed that the newawards are
[A]acceptabledespite the criticism.
[B]harmfulto the culture of research.
[C]subjectto undesirable changes.
[D]unworthyof public attention.
用户评论