Use unit 11 of appendix 11 for written practice exercises
1) Prepare a presentation about the things we can do to reduce global warming. You can use the website address given below to get more information.
http://environment.about.com/od/globalwarming/tp/globalwarmtips.htm
|
Visit the website address
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/start.html and check your knowledge of global warming. During the test choose the most impressive statements or facts about each question and write it down in the following table. Work in pairs and discuss the facts you have chosen with your partner.
| № | Facts |
| 1. | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. | |
| 7. | |
| 8. | |
| 9. | |
| 10. |
3) Prepare a list of sentences (up to 15) for translation from the British National Corpus with the use of the following words from the text: endorse, emission, cooling effect and use one of them for making up your own concordance. Use the site http://info.ox.ac.uk/bnc and an example of this task in the appendix 9.
Unit 12. Science and the future of the world. Scientific and engineering ethics
Warm-up
| Applied science To carry on research To predict To forsake Referencing Plagiarism Copyright Citation Violation of ethical standards Scientific misconduct | Прикладная наука Производить исследование Предполагать Оставлять, отвергать Ссылка Плагиат Авторское право Цитирование Отклонение от этических норм Научная недобросовестность |
1. Which predictions of the past made by scientists or science fiction writers came true after all?
2. Can you think of things which are very important and common today but have never been predicted?
3. What part do you think science will play in the future?
4. Do you think the world will be a better / worse place to live if research is going on?
5. Should there be things/themes forbidden for research? Are scientists responsible for future applications of their findings?
6. Do you think problem of plagiarism is really urgent in modern world?
Scientific misconduct
There are a lot of reasons for scientists to commit misconduct.
- Career pressure. Science is still a very strongly career-driven discipline. Scientists depend on a good reputation to receive ongoing support and funding; and a good reputation relies largely on the publication of high-profile scientific papers. Hence, there is a strong imperative to "publish or perish". Clearly, this may motivate desperate (or fame-hungry) scientists to fabricate results.
- Laziness. Even on the rare occasions when scientists do falsify data, they almost never do so with the active intent to introduce false information into the body of scientific knowledge. Rather, they intend to introduce a fact that they believe is true, without going to the trouble and difficulty of actually performing the experiments required. The ability to get away with it in many scientific fields does exist, as results are often difficult to reproduce accurately. That means that even if a scientist does falsify data, they can expect to get away with it - or at least claim innocence if their results conflict with others in the same field.
- Money. There is the additional incentive of money. If one has a promising proposal in an area where federal or other grant money or funding is available especially in new technologies where there is no existing standard against which to compare, the submission of preliminary data cannot be confirmed until further research is done.
Authors and coauthors of scientific publications have a variety of responsibilities. Contravention of the rules of scientific authorship may lead to a charge of scientific misconduct. All authors, including coauthors, are expected to have made reasonable attempts to check findings submitted to academic journals for publication. Simultaneous submission of scientific findings to more than one journal or duplicate publication of findings is usually regarded as misconduct. Authors are expected to keep all study data for later examination even after publication. The failure to keep data may be regarded as misconduct. Some scientific journals require that authors provide information to allow readers to determine whether the authors might have commercial or non-commercial conflicts of interest. Authors are also commonly required to provide information about ethical aspects of research, particularly where research involves human or animal participants or use of biological material. Provision of incorrect information to journals may be regarded as misconduct. The majority of recent cases of alleged misconduct involving undisclosed conflicts of interest or failure of the authors to have seen scientific data involve collaborative research between scientists and biotechnology companies. The consequences of scientific fraud vary based on the severity of the fraud, the level of notice it receives, and how long it goes undetected. For cases of fabricated evidence, the consequences can be wide ranging, with others working to confirm (or refute) the false finding, or with research agendas being distorted to address the fraudulent evidence. The potentially severe consequences for individuals who are found to have engaged in misconduct reflect back on the institutions that host or employ them and also on the participants in any peer review process that has allowed the publication of questionable research. This means that a range of actors in any case may have a motivation to suppress any evidence or suggestion of misconduct. This means that persons who expose such cases can find themselves open to retaliation by a number of different means.
There are several forms of scientific misconduct.
