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.
The critics think that the new awards will most benefit _____.
细节题。题目问的是批评者认为新奖项对谁最有利。定位到第二段（What’s not to like）有什么理由不喜欢它。第二段谈论的是科学家们对这些奖项的批评。本段提到经典无法复制，这些暴富的企业家自己设立的奖项无法赢得像诺贝尔奖那样的声望；这只是他们一种自我营销的手段。因此，获利的是这些奖项背后的设立者与B项“新奖项背后的力量”一致。第三段讲的是设立这些奖项的目的。 A项中的profit-oriented一词不对，文章并没有提到科学家谋取利润；C项的the achievement-based system和D项的 peer-review-led research都是受到负面影响的对象，并非受益者，故排除。
成人腰椎结核X线片常见
门静脉高压症食管胃底静脉曲张破裂大出血病人的治疗包括
急性弥漫性腹膜炎的临床表现有
急性脓胸常用的排脓方法正确的有
乳腺癌临床可表现为
下列应该优先抢救的急症包括
关于各种局麻方式的应用，正确的是
类风湿因子可能出现在
尿糖阳性，除糖尿病外尚有下列哪些可能？
关于血尿描述正确的是
