单选题 .  The public must be able to understand the basics of science to make informed decisions. Perhaps the most dramatic example of the negative consequences of poor communication between scientists and the public is the issue of climate change, where a variety of factors, not the least of which is a breakdown in the transmission of fundamental climate data to the general public, has contributed to widespread mistrust and misunderstanding of scientists and their research.
    The issue of climate change also illustrates how the public acceptance and understanding of science (or the lack of it) can influence governmental decision-making with regard to regulation, science policy and research funding.
    However, the importance of effective communication with a general audience is not limited to hot issues like climate change. It is also critical for socially charged neuroscience issues such as the genetic basis for a particular behavior, the therapeutic potential of stem cell therapy for neurodegenerative diseases, or the use of animal models, areas where the public understanding of science can also influence policy and funding decisions. Furthermore, with continuing advances in individual genome (基因组) sequencing and the advent of personalized medicine, more non-scientists will need to be comfortable analyzing complex scientific information to make decisions that directly affect their quality of life.
    Science journalism is the main channel for the popularization of scientific information among the public. Much has been written about how the relationship between scientists and the media can shape the efficient transmission of scientific advances to the public. Good science journalists are specialists in making complex topics accessible to a general audience, while adhering to scientific accuracy.
    Unfortunately, pieces of science journalism can also oversimplify and generalize their subject material to the point that the basic information conveyed is obscured or at worst, obviously wrong. The impact of a basic discovery on human health can be exaggerated so that the public thinks a miraculous cure is a few months to years away when in reality the significance of the study is far more limited.
    Even though scientists play a part in transmitting information to journalists and ultimately the public, too often the blame for ineffective communication is placed on the side of the journalists. We believe that at least part of the problem lies in places other than the interaction between scientists and members of the media, and exists because for one thing we underestimate how difficult it is for scientists to communicate effectively with a diversity of audiences, and for another most scientists do not receive formal training in science communication.1.  What does the example of climate change serve to show? ______
【正确答案】 D
【答案解析】[参考译文] 公众必须能够了解基本的科学知识，才能做出明智的决定。科学家和公众之间沟通不畅会带来负面的结果，或许给人印象最深刻的例子就是气候变化的问题，其中有各种因素导致了公众对科学家及其研究的普遍不信任和误解，尤其是向公众传递基本气候数据的不畅。
   气候变化问题也说明了公众对科学的接受和了解(或对此的缺乏)会影响政府在监管、科学政策和研究资金方面的决策。
   然而，与普通公众进行有效沟通的重要性不仅限于气候变化等热点问题。它对于饱受社会争议的神经科学问题也很关键，例如特定行为的遗传基础、干细胞在治疗神经退行性疾病方面的潜力，或动物模型的使用。在这些领域，公众对科学的了解也会影响到政策和资金方面的决策。此外，随着个体基因组测序的不断进步和个性化医疗的出现，更多的非科学家人士需要得心应手地分析复杂的科学信息，以便在直接影响他们生活质量的事情上做决策。
   科学新闻是向公众普及科学信息的主要渠道。科学家和媒体的关系可以影响科学进步的信息在公众中的有效传播，这样的文章已经写了很多。优秀的科学记者可以使普通读者看懂复杂的话题，同时又确保科学的准确性。
   遗憾的是，一些科学新闻也会过分简化和粗略概括主题材料，以至于传达的基本信息令人费解，或者甚至明显是错误的。一项基本发现对人类健康的影响可能会被夸大，从而使公众认为奇迹般的治疗方法会在几个月到几年内出现，而实际上，该研究的意义却十分有限。
   尽管科学家们在向记者和公众传播信息方面起到了一定的作用，但通常无效沟通的责任会归咎于记者。我们认为，除了科学家和媒体工作者的互动之外，还有一部分问题在于，一方面，我们低估了科学家与多样化的受众群体进行有效沟通的难度；另一方面，大多数科学家在科学沟通方面没有接受正规的培训。
根据题干中的climate change定位至第1、2段。
   本题问气候变化的例子是要说明什么。第1段第2句提到“科学家和公众之间沟通不畅会带来负面影响，最突出的例子是气候变化的问题”；第2段接着指出，气候变化问题也说明了公众对科学的接受和了解会影响政府在监管、科学政策和研究资助方面的决策。D项“普通民众的科学知识可以左右政策的制定”与第2段相符，为正确答案。
   A项“人们越来越认识到气候数据的重要性”利用第1段第2句中的climate data作干扰，原文是说公众与科学家之间沟通不畅，导致人们对科学家及其研究的普遍不信任和误解，这只能说明沟通不畅问题突出，不能说明人们越来越意识到气候数据的重要性。B项“充足的政府资金对科学研究至关重要”，虽然第2段有提到资金(research funding)，但该处意为公众能影响政府在科学研究资金方面的决策，未论及资金对科学研究的重要性，故排除B项。同样，C项“政府监管有助于公众了解科学”也不对，原文只是说公众的科学知识能影响政府监管和科学政策。