… 2021-01-12



Any fair-minded assessment of the dangers of the deal between Britain’s
National Health Service (NHS) and DeepMind must start by acknowledging that both
sides mean well. DeepMind is one of the leading artificial intelligence (AI)
companies in the world. The potential of this work applied to healthcare is very
great, but it could also lead to further concentration of power in the tech
giants. It Is against that background that the information commissioner,
Elizabeth Denham, has issued her damning verdict against the Royal Free hospital
trust under the NHS, which handed over to DeepMind the records of 1.6 million
patients In 2015 on the basis of a vague agreement which took far too little
account of the patients’ rights and their expectations of privacy.

DeepMind has almost apologized. The NHS trust has mended its ways. Further
arrangements- and there may be many-between the NHS and DeepMind will be
carefully scrutinised to ensure that all necessary permissions have been asked
of patients and all unnecessary data has been cleaned. There are lessons about
informed patient consent to learn. But privacy is not the only angle in this
case and not even the most important. Ms Denham chose to concentrate the blame
on the NHS trust, since under existing law it “controlled” the data and DeepMind
merely “processed” it. But this distinction misses the point that it is
processing and aggregation, not the mere possession of bits, that gives the data

The great question is who should benefit from the analysis of all the data
that our lives now generate. Privacy law builds on the concept of damage to an
individual from identifiable knowledge about them. That misses the way the
surveillance economy works. The data of an individual there gains its value only
when it is compared with the data of countless millions more.

The use of privacy law to curb the tech giants in this instance feels
slightly maladapted. This practice does not address the real worry. It is not
enough to say that the algorithms DeepMind develops will benefit patients and
save lives. What matters is that they will belong to a private monopoly which
developed them using public resources. If software promises to save lives on the
scale that dugs now can, big data may be expected to behave as a big pharm has
done. We are still at the beginning of this revolution and small choices now may
turn out to have gigantic consequences later. A long struggle will be needed to
avoid a future of digital feudalism. Ms Denham’s report is a welcome start.

31.Wha is true of the agreement between the NHS and DeepMind ?

[A] It caused conflicts among tech giants.

[B] It failed to pay due attention to patient’s rights.

[C] It fell short of the latter’s expectations

[D] It put both sides into a dangerous situation.

32. The NHS trust responded to Denham’s verdict with

[A] empty promises.

[B] tough resistance.

[C] necessary adjustments.

[D] sincere apologies.

33.The author argues in Paragraph 2 that

[A] privacy protection must be secured at all costs.

[B] leaking patients’ data is worse than selling it.

[C] making profits from patients’ data is illegal.

[D] the value of data comes from the processing of it

34.According to the last paragraph, the real worry arising from this deal

[A] the vicious rivalry among big pharmas.

[B] the ineffective enforcement of privacy law.

[C] the uncontrolled use of new software.

[D] the monopoly of big data by tech giants.

35.The author’s attitude toward the application of AI to healthcare is

[A] ambiguous.

[B] cautious.

[C] appreciative.

[D] contemptuous.


The journal Science is adding an extra source at Peer-review process,
editor-in-chief Marcia McNott announced today. The Follows similar efforts from
other journals, after widespread concern that Mistakes in data analysis are
contributing to the Published research findings.

“Readers must have confidence in the conclusions published in our
journal,”writes McNutt in an editorial. Working with the American Statistical
Association, the Journal has appointed seven experts to a statistics board of
reviewing Manuscript will be flagged up for additional scrutiny by the Journal’s
editors, or by its existing Board of Reviewing Editors or by outside peer The
SBoRE panel will then find external statisticians to review these

Asked whether any particular papers had impelled the change, McNutt
said,”The creation of the’statistics board’was motivated by concerns broadly
with the application of statistics and data analysis in scientific research and
is part of Science’s overall drive to increase reproducibility in the research
we publish.”

Giovanni Parmigiani,a biostatistician at the Harvard School of Public
Health, a member of the SBoRE group, says he expects the board to “play
primarily on advisory role.” He agreed to join because he “found the foresight
behind the establishment of the SBoRE to be novel, unique and likely to have a
lasting impact. This impact will not only be through the publications in Science
itself, but hopefully through a larger group of publishing places that may want
to model their approach after Science.”

John Ioannidis, a physician who studies research methodology, says that the
policy is “a most welcome step forward”and “long overdue,””Most journals are
weak in statistical review,and this damages the quality of what they publish. I
think that, for the majority of scientific papers nowadays, statistical review
is more essential than expert review,”he says. But he noted that biomedical
journals such as Annals of Internal Medicine, the Journal of the American
Medical Association and The Lancet pay strong attention to statistical

Professional scientists are expected to know how to analyze data, but
statistical errors are alarmingly common in published research,according to
David Vaux,a cell biologist. Researchers should improve their standards, he
wrote in 2012,but journals should also take a tougher line,”engaging reviewers
who are statistically literate and editors who can verify the process.”Vaux says
that Science’s idea to pass some papers to statisticians “has some merit,but a
weakness is that it relies on the board of reviewing editors to identify’the
papers that need scrutiny’in the first place.”

31. It can be learned from Paragraph I that

[A] Science intends to simplify its peer-review process.

[B]journals are strengthening their statistical checks.

[C]few journals are blamed for mistakes in data analysis.

[D]lack of data analysis is common in research projects.

32. The phrase “flagged up “(Para.2)is the closest in meaning to





33. Giovanni Parmigiani believes that the establishment of the SBoRE

[A]pose a threat to all its peers

[B]meet with strong opposition

[C]increase Science’s circulation.

[D]set an example for other journals

34. David Vaux holds that what Science is doing now

A. adds to researchers’ worklosd.

B. diminishes the role of reviewers.

C. has room for further improvement.

D. is to fail in the foreseeable future.

35. Which of the following is the best title of the text?

A. Science Joins Push to Screen Statistics in Papers

B. Professional Statisticians Deserve More Respect

C. Data Analysis Finds Its Way onto Editors’ Desks

D. Statisticians Are Coming Back with Science


Now utopia has grown unfashionable, as we have gained a deeper appreciation
of the range of threats facing us, from asteroid strike to pandemic flu to
climate change. You might even be tempted to assume that humanity has little
future to look forward to.

But such gloominess is misplaced. The fossil record shows that many species
have endured for millions of years – so why shouldn’t we? Take a broader look at
our species’ place in the universe, and it becomes clear that we have an
excellent chance of surviving for tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of years
(see “100,000 AD: Living in the deep future”). Look up Homo sapiens in the
IUCN’s “Red List” of threatened species, and you will read: “Listed as Least
Concern as the species is very widely distributed, adaptable, currently
increasing, and there are no major threats resulting in an overall population

So what does our deep future hold? A growing number of researchers and
organisations are now thinking seriously about that question. For example, the
Long Now Foundation, based in San Francisco, has created a forum where thinkers
and scientists are invited to project the implications of their ideas over very
long timescales. Its flagship project is a mechanical clock, buried deep inside
a mountain in Texas, that is designed to still be marking time thousands of
years hence.

Then there are scientists who are giving serious consideration to the idea
that we should recognise a new geological era: the Anthropocene. They, too, are
pulling the camera right back and asking what humanity’s impact will be on the
planet – in the context of stratigraphic time.

Perhaps perversely, it may be easier to think about such lengthy timescales
than about the more immediate future. The potential evolution of today’s
technology, and its social consequences, is dazzlingly complicated, and it’s
perhaps best left to science-fiction writers and futurologists to explore the
many possibilities we can envisage. That’s one reason why we have launched Arc,
a new publication dedicated to the near future.

But take a longer view and there is a surprising amount that we can say
with considerable assurance. As so often, the past holds the key to the future:
we have now identified enough of the long-term patterns shaping the history of
the planet, and our species, to make evidence-based forecasts about the
situations in which our descendants will find themselves.

This long perspective makes the pessimistic view of our prospects seem more
likely to be a passing fad. To be sure, the future is not all rosy: while our
species may flourish, a great many individuals may not. But we are now
knowledgeable enough to mitigate many of the risks that threatened the existence
of earlier humans, and to improve the lot of those to come. Thinking about our
place in deep time is a good way to focus on the challenges that confront us
today, and to make a future worth living in.

31. Our vision of the future used to be inspired by

[A] our desire for ares of fulfillment

[B] our faith in science and teched

[C] our awareness of potential risks

[D] our bdief in equal opportunity

32. The IUCN“Rod List”suggest that human beings on

[A] a sustained species

[B] the word’s deminant power

[C] a threat to the environment

[D] a misplaced race

33. Which of the following is true according to Paragraph 5?

[A] Arc helps limit the scope of futurological studies.

[B] Technology offers solutions to social problem.

[C] The interest in science fiction is on the rise.

[D] Our Immediate future is hard to conceive.

34. To ensure the future of mankind, it is crucial to

[A] explore our planet’s abundant resources.

[B] adopt an optimistic view of the world.

[C] draw on our experience from the past.

[D] curb our ambition to reshape history.

35. Which of the following would be the best title for the text?

[A] Uncertainty about Our Future

[B] Evolution of the Human Species

[C] The Ever-bright Prospects of Mankind.

[D] Science, Technology and Humanity.



您的电子邮箱地址不会被公开。 必填项已用*标注