1、經(jīng)濟類英語沖刺閱讀材料今天有兩個任務(wù)。一是有一篇關(guān)于學(xué)術(shù)造假方面的文章，是應(yīng)有些同學(xué)的要求提供的。注意文中的粗體部分，是一些可以借鑒的詞匯與句子。二是選了經(jīng)濟學(xué)家的文章，文章本身并不難，如果不明白，可以看文章后面的摘要。今天的結(jié)束語是：唯一不變的是變化本身。學(xué)術(shù)行為不端academic misconduct偽造數(shù)據(jù) falsify and fabricate dataEmf Researcher Made Up Data, Ori SaysIn a blow to a research area hungry for credible findings, the federal Office

2、of Research Integrity (ORI) reported last month that a biochemist engaged in scientific misconduct. by intentionally falsifyingand fabricating data and claims in two studies on how electromagnetic fields (EMFs)-the kind shed by power lines and home appliances-affect living cells. The researcher, Rob

3、ert P. Liburdy, formerly of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) in California, has agreed to ask the journals toretract the results.Theres a lot of acrimony in thedebate, and thiswont calm things down, says Richard G. Stevens, a cancer epidemiologist at the Pacific Northwest 1文檔來源為 :從網(wǎng)絡(luò)

4、收集整理.word 版本可編輯.歡迎下載支持.National Laboratory in Hanford, Washington.Liburdys findings were among the first to offer a plausible mechanism for a possible link between EMF exposure and cancer or other diseases. In a pair of 1992 papers of which he is the sole author, Liburdy offered evidence that EMFs i

5、ncrease the flow of calcium into lymphocytes, a kind of immune cell produced in the thymus. The papers created a stir, as calcium ions signal cells to turn genes on and off, and play a role in cell division. Because tumor growth is tied to cell proliferation, an alteration in calcium signaling could

6、 conceivably lead to cancer. But in an analysis obtained by Science, ORI states that Liburdys claims that EMF causes cellular effects related to calcium signaling are not supported by the primary data.Responding to an unknown whistle-blowers allegations of scientific misconduct by Liburdy, LBNL in J

7、anuary 1995 appointed a panel of four lab scientists to investigate. After reviewing raw data and interviewing Liburdy and other scientists, the panel concluded in a July 1995 report that Liburdy deliberately created artificial data where no such 2文檔來源為:從網(wǎng)絡(luò)收集整理.word 版本可編輯.歡迎下載支持.data existed in a fi

8、gure in FEBSLetters. In addition, it found, he fabricated data noise for a figure in theAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences in orderto mislead the reader. These actions, the panel stated, fall within the definition of scientific misconduct. When contacted by Science, LBNL officials declined t

9、o comment, other than to confirm that Liburdy no longer works at the lab.Because Liburdy had been awarded more than $ million in federal grants for his EMF research, ORIlaunched a formal review of LBNLs report in fall 1997. ORI approved a request by Liburdy for an interview with ORI staff and two ou

10、tside experts, which took place inMarch 1998. At the meeting, Liburdy produced originaldata he had not shared with LBNL investigators, according to the ORI report. But the data failed toexculpate him: In its analysis, ORI accuses Liburdy of having lied to LBNL and ORI investigators, and it concurs w

11、ith findings of scientific misconduct. Some of the numbers, essentially, he made up, saysJohn Krueger, an ORI investigator involved in the case.In a May 1999 agreement signed by Liburdy and ORI acting director Chris Pascal, Liburdy agreed to retract the tainted figures in the two papers and not to r

12、eceive federal funds for 3 years. He neither admits nor denies ORIs findings of scientific misconduct, the document states. Liburdy did not respond to requests for an interview.The misconduct findings are unlikely to shift the playing field in EMF research. Since 1992, 20 to 30 scientific papers hav

13、e looked at EMF exposures and calcium signaling, without settling the issue, says Christopher Portier, associate director of the environmental toxicology program at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). In a report to Congress released on 15 June, NIEHSdirector Kenneth Old

14、en states the scientific evidence that EMF exposures pose any health risk is weak and that mechanistic and toxicology studies fail to demonstrate any consistent pattern. The day before the report came out, National Institutes of Health officials had asked NIEHS to determine quickly whether any of Li

15、burdys research had influenced the reports conclusions, Portier says. The truth was simple, hesays: It had no impact whatsoever.Shock treatmentOil prices have a special place in economic folklore. The two nastiest global recessions of recent decades were preceded by huge and sudden rises in the pric

16、e of oil, first in 1973 and then in 1979. These twin spikes, both engineered by the Organisation of the PetroleumExporting Countrieslimiting its oilshipments, are still the textbook example of an economic“ shock ” a sudden change in businessconditions. Abrupt increases in the oil price have prompted

17、 anxiety about stunted growth ever since.Higher oil prices hurt the economy because they act like a tax increase. Firms that use oil face higher costs which, if they cannot be passed on in higher prices, might mean that some production becomes unprofitable. Consumers paying more for their petrol and

18、 heating oil have less to spend on other things. If they look for higher wages to compensate for a drop in purchasing power, that will only lead to job losses.Oil-producing countries benefit from higher crude prices so the impact on global demanddepends how their 5文檔來源為:從網(wǎng)絡(luò)收集整理.word 版本可編輯.歡迎下載支持.ext

19、ra income is spent. But even if oil windfalls are spent largely on goods produced by oil importers, the abrupt shift in the distribution of global income will still be destabilising.Given the gloomy history, the lingering unease about higher oil prices is understandable. A demonstration of this came

20、 on November 13th when, after a rough few days, stockmarkets rose on news that the oil price had fallen below $93. After all the talk of breaking the three-figure barrier, a drop towards a mere $90 spurred a relief rally.Yet for all that, something has changed. Todays oil prices would have been unth

21、inkable until very recently. Six years ago, when a barrel of crude could be bought for as little as $20, oil prices at todays levelswould have raised fearsof deep recession.Notwithstanding the spectre of past oil shocks, crude priceshave risento ever-dizzier heights withoutderailing a five-year peri

22、od of strong global growth.But why has the oil bogeyman become less scary? Two new papers* by three well-known economists set out to explain. They come to similar conclusions: oil shocksdo not hurt as much because oil is used less intensively than before, because the economy is more flexible and bec

23、ause central banks are better at controlling inflation.What makes oil special is that it is a uniquely dense and portable form of energy. It is not easy to switch to alternatives very quickly, so disruptions to supply are damaging. Yet improvements in energy efficiency mean dependence on oil is not

24、what it once was. Rich countries use less than half as much oil as they did in 1970 for each inflation-adjusted dollar of GDP. So although prices in real terms have returned to levels last seen in the 1970s, their impact is not as powerful when set against the diminished economic importance of oil.T

25、he blow from dearer oil is less powerful than it was and compared with their rigid state in the 1970s, todays more flexible economies are better able to take a punch. Higher oil prices have some unavoidable direct consequences on companies production costs and on prices paid by consumers for oil-der

26、ived products. Wider damage to jobs and output depends on how wellthese increased costs are absorbed. If workers insiston higher cash wages to maintain their spending power, firms costs will take an additional hit, resulting in lay-offs, higher unemployment and depressed demand. To the extent that workers take it on the chin, accepting higher oil prices as a temporary tax increase that lowers their real take-home pay, the colla