To the public．calling something a“theory”means that it is not supported by tested，proven evidence． Whereas a scientist understands a theory to be a well—grounded explanation for a given henomenon，the general public understands it as just a theory’，no more valid than any other opinion onthe matter．①
When this confusion over“theory”bumps up against media imperatives，the result ls often a distorting effort to tell“both sides"of the story． In practice，this means that even when there ls overwhelming consensus in the scientific community(as in the case of global warming)，experts all too often find themselves pitted in the media against some rival，crank，or shill who is on hand to provide"proper balance”．②The resulting arguments actively hinder people’s ability to reach sound understandin9：Not only do they muddy the public’s already shaky grasp of scientific fundamentals，they lcave people confused and disoriented．④
When faced with the gap between science and society，scientists assume that the solution is to make the Dublic more science—literate—to do a better job at science education and so bring nonscientists around to a more scientiffc mindset．This assumption conveniently absolves science of the need to examine the way in which its own practices contribute to the gap and allows science to maintain its position of intellectual and moral superiority．④In addition，on a purely practical level a superficial smattering of scientific knowledge might cause more problems than it solves．
The Dublic and policymakers crave a level of certainty that the language and metrics of science cannot orovide． For example，when the public is alarmed by something like the anthrax scare or some future act of small—scale biological or chemical terrorism，science will assess the threat in the language of probabilities．But this metric neither reassures the public nor permits it to make realistic comparisons to other threats。such as nuclear terrorism．Science’s frame of reference does not communicate well to the public．
The timetables of science(which operates in a framework of decades or longer)are completely out of synch with the timetables of public policy(which operates in a framework of months and years)．It has taken nearly 30 years for the National Academy of Sciences to complete its study of the consequences of oil drilling in Alaska’s North Slope；in that time，a great deal of environmental damage has been done， and political pressure for further exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge has gained momentum．At this stage，the academy’s scientific report stands to become little more than a political football．Vaccine research is another example：Political demands for prompt action on high-profile diseases do not jibe well with the painstaking process of research and trial．Political pressures push resources toward popular or expedient solutions，not necessarily those with the greatest chance for long- term Success．[473 words]
1．The first paragraph is written to tell us______．
A．the gap between science and the public
B．the definition and validity of a theory
C．what theory means to the public
D．what theory means to scientists
2．It can be inferred from the text that the media is______．
A．generally on the side of the public
B．1ikely to start arguments to attract audience
C．in sympathy with the opinions of scientists
D．more interested in the opinions of non-scientists
3．The author believes that______may help narrow the divide between science and society．
A．to do a better job at science education
B．to make nonscientists become more science literate
C．to examine the way science is practiced
D．to maintain the superior position of science
4．The public thinks that______．
A．science is incapable of assessing the threat of terrorism
B．the threat assessment given by science is．of little practical value
C．there is no way to compare anthrax scare with nuclear terrorism
D．a(chǎn)nthrax scare is not so threatening as nuclear terrorism
5．The example of oil drilling in Alaska’s North Slope is used to illustrate that______．
A．further exploration of oil there has been justified
B．oil drilling is sure to cause a lot of environmental damage
C．it is not necessary for policymakers to wait for science in important issues
D．policymakers demand prompt action，while science demands long-term painful study
When this confusion over“theory”bumps up against media imperatives，the result ls often a distorting effort to tell“both sides"of the story． In practice，this means that even when there ls overwhelming consensus in the scientific community(as in the case of global warming)，experts all too often find themselves pitted in the media against some rival，crank，or shill who is on hand to provide"proper balance”．②The resulting arguments actively hinder people’s ability to reach sound understandin9：Not only do they muddy the public’s already shaky grasp of scientific fundamentals，they lcave people confused and disoriented．④
When faced with the gap between science and society，scientists assume that the solution is to make the Dublic more science—literate—to do a better job at science education and so bring nonscientists around to a more scientiffc mindset．This assumption conveniently absolves science of the need to examine the way in which its own practices contribute to the gap and allows science to maintain its position of intellectual and moral superiority．④In addition，on a purely practical level a superficial smattering of scientific knowledge might cause more problems than it solves．
The Dublic and policymakers crave a level of certainty that the language and metrics of science cannot orovide． For example，when the public is alarmed by something like the anthrax scare or some future act of small—scale biological or chemical terrorism，science will assess the threat in the language of probabilities．But this metric neither reassures the public nor permits it to make realistic comparisons to other threats。such as nuclear terrorism．Science’s frame of reference does not communicate well to the public．
The timetables of science(which operates in a framework of decades or longer)are completely out of synch with the timetables of public policy(which operates in a framework of months and years)．It has taken nearly 30 years for the National Academy of Sciences to complete its study of the consequences of oil drilling in Alaska’s North Slope；in that time，a great deal of environmental damage has been done， and political pressure for further exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge has gained momentum．At this stage，the academy’s scientific report stands to become little more than a political football．Vaccine research is another example：Political demands for prompt action on high-profile diseases do not jibe well with the painstaking process of research and trial．Political pressures push resources toward popular or expedient solutions，not necessarily those with the greatest chance for long- term Success．[473 words]
1．The first paragraph is written to tell us______．
A．the gap between science and the public
B．the definition and validity of a theory
C．what theory means to the public
D．what theory means to scientists
2．It can be inferred from the text that the media is______．
A．generally on the side of the public
B．1ikely to start arguments to attract audience
C．in sympathy with the opinions of scientists
D．more interested in the opinions of non-scientists
3．The author believes that______may help narrow the divide between science and society．
A．to do a better job at science education
B．to make nonscientists become more science literate
C．to examine the way science is practiced
D．to maintain the superior position of science
4．The public thinks that______．
A．science is incapable of assessing the threat of terrorism
B．the threat assessment given by science is．of little practical value
C．there is no way to compare anthrax scare with nuclear terrorism
D．a(chǎn)nthrax scare is not so threatening as nuclear terrorism
5．The example of oil drilling in Alaska’s North Slope is used to illustrate that______．
A．further exploration of oil there has been justified
B．oil drilling is sure to cause a lot of environmental damage
C．it is not necessary for policymakers to wait for science in important issues
D．policymakers demand prompt action，while science demands long-term painful study