Science and science funding have enjoyed a good run over the past 20 years or so．During the unusually long economic boom after the end of the cold war，governments of all political stripes have accepted the argument that it is in their interest to support“the best science”．Something like a global consensus has emerged OD the value of curiosity driven，basic research．The predominant argument behind this consensus has been the belief that excellent science of whatever discipline is likely to spur innovation，which will in turn foster economic growth．
At the same time，direct government sponsorship of technology development has fallen out of vogue． Considerable expenditure continues，of course，and if the military sphere is included，it still dwarfs the resources devoted to basic science．But the idea of explicit state support for the development of drugs or circuit boards or civilian airliners has been pretty well driven off the table．There has been a assumption even in comparatively centrist nations such as France and Japan--that governments aren’t good at“picking winners”．
This particular era of science and technology policy may now be drawing to a close．Even before last week’s j uddering stock markets sparked talk about a possible US，or even global，recession，policy makers in industrialized countries were watching the flight of much industrial production to China and India with intensifying alarm．
As a result，the word“competitiveness”is back on the agenda，particularly in the United States． When political leaders look at research budgets in the light of competitiveness，they are always prone to be more drawn to the direct support of innovation through technology programmes，than to its indirect support，through basic science．As a result，they may start asking questions that are inherently difficult for scientists to answer，such as，what will be the economic spin-off from this work?What are we getting for our money?
These questions are currently being posed most directly in the United Kingdom，where the research councils，which support most university science，seem to be undergoing a subtle change of direction． Some scientist groups are already nervous about a paper，“Increasing the economic impact of the research councils”，that was published in January by the councils’steering group．
There is a risk that this process could result in perceived economic relevance displacing scientific merit，to a significant extent，as the determining factor in the selection of research-council grants．Before that happens，it would be reassuring if the leaders of the research councils emphatically reiterated that their primary function is to promote scientific excellence and that they will best support Britain’s national interests，economic and otherwise，by doing exactly that．[441 words]
1．Most governments believe that______．
A．the long economic prosperity is in their ultimate interests
B．the end of the cold war led to the rapid economic growth
C．the curiosity-driven，basic scientific research is invaluable
D．the research likely to spur innovation should be supported
2．The phrase“out of vogue”(Line 2，Paragraph 2)most probably means______．
A．obsolete
B．universal
C．unpopular
D．unwanted
3．The direct state support to develop technology lessens because______．
A．most resources are devoted to developing basic science
B．it is difficult to choose the technology worth supporting
C．there exist so many technologies needed to be supported
D．the resources available for developing technology are scarce
4．The major concern of policy-makers in developed countries has become______．
A．the decline of their ability to compete in the world economy
B．the flight of much industrial production to China and India
C．the possibility that a global economic recession is to come
D．the support of innovation through technology programmes
5．The author suggests that the research councils in the UK should______．
A．increase their impact on the economy
B．try their best to foster excellent science
C．displace scientific merit with economic one
D．emphasize their primary function repeatedly
At the same time，direct government sponsorship of technology development has fallen out of vogue． Considerable expenditure continues，of course，and if the military sphere is included，it still dwarfs the resources devoted to basic science．But the idea of explicit state support for the development of drugs or circuit boards or civilian airliners has been pretty well driven off the table．There has been a assumption even in comparatively centrist nations such as France and Japan--that governments aren’t good at“picking winners”．
This particular era of science and technology policy may now be drawing to a close．Even before last week’s j uddering stock markets sparked talk about a possible US，or even global，recession，policy makers in industrialized countries were watching the flight of much industrial production to China and India with intensifying alarm．
As a result，the word“competitiveness”is back on the agenda，particularly in the United States． When political leaders look at research budgets in the light of competitiveness，they are always prone to be more drawn to the direct support of innovation through technology programmes，than to its indirect support，through basic science．As a result，they may start asking questions that are inherently difficult for scientists to answer，such as，what will be the economic spin-off from this work?What are we getting for our money?
These questions are currently being posed most directly in the United Kingdom，where the research councils，which support most university science，seem to be undergoing a subtle change of direction． Some scientist groups are already nervous about a paper，“Increasing the economic impact of the research councils”，that was published in January by the councils’steering group．
There is a risk that this process could result in perceived economic relevance displacing scientific merit，to a significant extent，as the determining factor in the selection of research-council grants．Before that happens，it would be reassuring if the leaders of the research councils emphatically reiterated that their primary function is to promote scientific excellence and that they will best support Britain’s national interests，economic and otherwise，by doing exactly that．[441 words]
1．Most governments believe that______．
A．the long economic prosperity is in their ultimate interests
B．the end of the cold war led to the rapid economic growth
C．the curiosity-driven，basic scientific research is invaluable
D．the research likely to spur innovation should be supported
2．The phrase“out of vogue”(Line 2，Paragraph 2)most probably means______．
A．obsolete
B．universal
C．unpopular
D．unwanted
3．The direct state support to develop technology lessens because______．
A．most resources are devoted to developing basic science
B．it is difficult to choose the technology worth supporting
C．there exist so many technologies needed to be supported
D．the resources available for developing technology are scarce
4．The major concern of policy-makers in developed countries has become______．
A．the decline of their ability to compete in the world economy
B．the flight of much industrial production to China and India
C．the possibility that a global economic recession is to come
D．the support of innovation through technology programmes
5．The author suggests that the research councils in the UK should______．
A．increase their impact on the economy
B．try their best to foster excellent science
C．displace scientific merit with economic one
D．emphasize their primary function repeatedly