复合题

The US$3-million Fundamental physics prize is indeed an interesting experiment, as Alexander Polyakov said when he accepted this year’ s award in March. And it is far from the only one of its type. As a News Feature article in Nature discusses, a string of lucrative awards for researchers have joined the Nobel Prizes in recent years. Many, like the Fundamental Physics Prize, are funded from the telephone-number-sized bank accounts of Internet entrepreneurs. These benefactors have succeeded in their chosen fields, they say, and they want to use their wealth to draw attention to those who have succeeded in science.

What’s not to like? Quite a lot, according to a handful of scientists quoted in the News Feature. You cannot buy class, as the old saying goes, and these upstart entrepreneurs cannot buy their prizes the prestige of the Nobels. The new awards 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 fund peer-reviewed research. They perpetuate the myth of the lone genius.

The goals of the prize-givers seem as scattered as the criticism. Some want to shock, others to draw people into science, or to better reward those who have made their careers in research.

As Nature has pointed out before, there are some legitimate concerns about how science prizes—both new and old— are distributed. The Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences, launched this year, takes an unrepresentative view of what the life sciences include. But the Nobel Foundation’ s limit of three recipients per prize, each of whom must still be living, has long been outgrown by the collaborative nature of modern research—as will be demonstrated by the inevitable row over who is ignored when it comes to acknowledging the discovery of the Higgs boson. The Nobels were, of course, themselves set up by a very rich individual who had decided what he wanted to do with his own money. Time, rather than intention, has given them legitimacy.

As much as some scientists may complain about the new awards, two things seem clear. First, most researchers would accept such a prize if they were offered one. Second, it is surely a good thing that the money and attention come to science rather than go elsewhere. It is fair to criticize and question the mechanism—that is the culture of research, after all—but it is the prize-givers’ money to do with as they please. It is wise to take such gifts with gratitude and grace.

单选题 The Fundamental Physics Prize is seen as _____.
【正确答案】 A
【答案解析】根据题干关键词“Fundamental Physics Prize”定位至第一段倒数第二句“funded from the telephone-number-sized bank accounts of Internet entrepreneurs”， 由此可知， 由互联网公司资助的基础物理学奖还是赞助者财富的一个象征， 对应图中的A选项。 文章第二段也提到“these upstart entrepreneurs cannot buy their prizes the prestige of the Nobels”， 从而可推断B选项表述有误。
单选题 The critics think that the new awards will most benefit _____.
【正确答案】 B
【答案解析】根据题干关键词“critics”定位置文章第三段可知， 正如设立奖项的人动机就像外界对这一奖项的评价一样褒贬不一。 有些人希望震撼人心， 有些人则希望吸引人们加入科学研究或者给予那些在与他们的事业有利益联系的研究领域取得一定成就的人更优越的奖励。 综上所述， 资助人才是新奖项的最大受益者。
单选题 The discovery of the Higgs boson is a typical case which involves _____.
【正确答案】 D
【答案解析】根据题干关键词“discovery of the Higgs boson”定位至文章倒数第二段最后两句， 诺贝尔奖每个奖项授予者的人数上限为三人， 而且这三人都必须在世。 然而这些原则早已不再被当代合作研究所采用， 以希格斯玻色子的发现为例， 这将不可避免地招致围绕谁在这一发现中被忽视的争吵。 因为希格斯机制是苏格兰物理学家彼得·希格斯和其他理论物理学家同时发现的一种物理机制。 因此D选项为正确选项。
单选题 According to Paragraph 4, which of the following is true of the Nobels?
【正确答案】 A
【答案解析】根据文章倒数第二段结尾“The Nobels were, of course, themselves set up by a very rich individual who had decided what he wanted to do with his own money. Time, rather than intention, has given them legitimacy”可知， 虽然诺贝尔文学奖的发起人也是一位富豪， 但是这一奖项之所以被视为业界权威的原因在于多年获奖者的突出成就足以为其正名， 所以正确答案为A选项。
单选题 The author believes that the now awards are _____.
【正确答案】 A
【答案解析】尽管这些提供高额奖金的奖项饱受争议， 但作者在最后一段提到“It is wise to take such gifts with gratitude and grace”， 由此正确答案为A选项。