【正文】 a. Discuss why big business might equal bad science with another student.b. Add four more reasons why business can be bad for science.1, pressure to plete research too quickly 2. 3. 4. 5. Suggest one reason why science can be bad for business. Now read to see if your ideas were the same as those in Text 3b.While you are reading, you can also time yourself. Note the time before you begin reading and note it again when you have finished. There are 1,300 words in the text.Study tip: Predicting involves using the knowledge you already have about a topic to help you understand a text you are going to read on that topic. Tick(√)a statement that most closely reflects the writer39。s ideas:1 .the late John Ziman…who categorised research as…(lines 7578)2 .Ziman described instrumental…(line 89)3. Ziman noted that although noninstrumental…(lines 9697)4. Ziman argued that…(lines 106107) It is important to recognise the different ways that Ziman39。Saunders, 2001). A major cause for concern highlighted by one delegate at the conferencehaematologist Nancy Olivieri, of Toronto Universitywas the concealment of research findings which might be detrimental to the interests particularly of large multinational panies. Olivieri39。s Institute of Molecular Medicine. He stressed the importance of eliminating the pressure on science always to achieve shortterm goals. Weatherall concluded that many scientists and universities were naive and too easily exploited, and suggested that review panels be set up to monitor all scientific research to protect both science and the public it served.The issue of scientific research only promising immediate or shortterm economic henefitS was also tackled by another delegate, environmentalist and political activist George Monbiot. He laid the blame on governments for encouraging this attitude. He also argued that mercial bias was evident in terms of which areas of research were selected for funding, referring to this as the radon factor. The chemical element radon is the only pollutant known to occur naturally and not as the result of industrial or agricultural activity, and Monbiot suggested that scientific research on radon pollution was more likely to be funded than research on any other kind of pollution simply because radon pollution does not occur as a result of human activity. Similar bias, he asserted, was demonstrated in the way that public funds were allocated for research on biotechnology in agriculture and medicine while research on the possible dangers of genetic engineering was clearly neglected. Monbiot contended that scientists were too eas訴enticed by business funding without due consideration for public needs. He urged a dramatic change of course by academicsa revolution in the laboratory”.The need to promote understanding of critical public scientific research was a further point delegates raised. Similarly, the need to ensure that science was accountable to society was highlighted in various presentations. The pilers of the conference report, Peter Saunders and MaeWan Ho, concluded: It is not just the individual freedom of scientists to tell the truth that is at stake, important.,though that