| A．The new laws. | B．A healthy lifestyle. | C．Profitable industries. |
2 . Peru is prepared to approve new laws that would make it easier to investigate and punish researchers who engage in academic cheating, including paying to have their names added to a paper.
The move comes as Peru’s national science agency seeks to crack down on authorship buying and other dishonest practices. It recently removed two scientists accused of dishonest publications from a national registry that is key to receiving government sponsor, job promotions, and salary bonuses. And officials are investigating more than 170 other researchers at a Peruvian media report claimed were involved in academic misconduct, including 72 listed n the national registry who work at 14 universities in Peru.
The new laws will empower universities and government officials to punish such behavior. Dishonest publishing practices “transcend mere moral misbehavior” because they enable researchers to obtain government and private funding without telling the truth, says Edward Málaga Trillo, a member of Congress who is the driving force behind the bills, which lawmakers are expected to finalize early this year. “These individuals are operating academic cheating.”
Peru’s academic community has been struggling with a rising tide of false authorship and related problems. One cause, some researchers say, is a 2014 law that aimed to stimulate research by rewarding researchers who boost their publishing output. For example, under a scoring system used by universities, researchers can earn five points for authorship in a high-impact journal, and two points when the journal is lower impact. A massing points can bring bonus payments and career promotion.
Signs of dishonest publishing can be obvious, notes Nahuel Monteblanco, president of Cientificos. pe, a Peruvian group that investigates misconduct. Many of the papers cited by Punto Final have numerous co-authors from different nations with few prior publications on the same subject. “If your colleague consistently publishes 20 articles a year with co-authors from other countries, that’s highly suspect,” Monteblanco says.
1. What action did Peru take recently to address academic cheating?| A．Fining 72 offenders for academic dishonesty. |
| B．Disqualifying 2 scientists from a national registry. |
| C．Punishing 170 researchers for academic misconduct. |
| D．Withdrawing government fund from 14 universities. |
| A．Change. | B．Strengthen. | C．Go beyond. | D．Approve of. |
| A．It advocated a fair scoring system. | B．It applied to high-impact journals. |
| C．It led to an increase in false authorship. | D．It aimed to punish dishonest publishing. |
| A．career promotion | B．consistent research focus |
| C．few citations by Punto Final | D．co-authors from various countries |
3 . On Thursday, June 28th, California passed the country’s toughest online laws. Starting January 1st, 2020, this law will allow consumers to ask an online organization what data is being held about them, why they require this data, and if there is any other company the organization will be sharing the data with. They can also request the removal of this information, and choose not to take part in the sale of personal data.
Many people reacted very favorably towards this new law, but big organizations like Google are against it. So why did California decide to create stricter online laws?
A man named Alastair Mactaggart, who is a real estate developer, spent more than 3 million dollars and secured more than 600,000 signatures on a ballot initiative. Ballot initiatives are petitions (请愿书) that are put to a public vote after receiving a certain number of signatures.
In an article from National Public Radio, Mactaggart recalled the moment when he became a privacy advocate. About four years ago, during a party, he asked a Google engineer whether he should be worried about his online privacy. The engineer responded by saying that “If you just knew how much we know about you, you’d be really worried.”
California’s lawmakers, to his relief, rushed to pass the bill. The law that was passed in June was close enough to the ballot initiative so Mactaggart agreed to withdraw it.
People believe that this new law will make companies more accountable for how they handle their information. However, it is not without loopholes (漏洞).
Under this new law, companies won’t be able to sell people’s personal information, but they can still “share” it. In the next few months, this new law could be modified. Companies such as Google are constantly trying to change the law in their favor, since data is a huge asset (财产) for these large enterprises.
The state’s lawmakers are expecting to create “clean-up laws” after the first 18 months the law goes into effect. We will have to wait and see how the law develops as it gets changed.
1. What is the purpose of the new law?| A．To protect online privacy. | B．To charge for online information. |
| C．To collect personal information legally. | D．To encourage the development of the Internet. |
| A．He once worked for Google. |
| B．He took part in the law-making process. |
| C．He was in favor of the lawmakers’ decision. |
| D．He was worried about the future of his business. |
| A．Sell its users’ personal information. | B．Share its users’ personal information. |
| C．Get support from the government. | D．Charge its users money. |
| A．Passed. | B．Explained. | C．Prepared. | D．Improved. |
1. What is the Children’s Code about?
| A．Kids’ ability to go online. |
| B．Children’s coding ability. |
| C．Online safety for children. |
| A．Delete them. |
| B．Label them. |
| C．Send an email. |
| A．Waiting for the changes. |
| B．Talking with their kids. |
| C．Accompanying kids online. |
5 . The first-ever fine for space junk was issued in early October in a case of off-planet environmental enforcement (执法). The television company, Dish Network, was hit with a $125,000 fine by the United States government for failing to remove a satellite in orbit that would have risked a collision (撞击) with other space equipment, a safety concern that will only grow with time as off-planet activities increase.
According to NASA, debris (碎片) orbiting in space can travel up to 15 kilometres per second, which is nearly 10 times faster than the velocity (速度) of a bullet. A huge amount of damage can be caused by something just a few centimetres in size, meaning that every effort must be taken to keep space as clear as possible. Collisions that take place in space have an effect back on Earth. Damaged satellites impact our ability to use the Internet and navigation (导航), leaving increasingly global critical infrastructure in an unstable state.
One solution for this may be to send autonomous space vehicles into orbit, which can then catch and effectively de-orbit space junk. By utilizing tools such as robotic arms, or nets, this approach will require very precise track and fine cooperation in order to be successful. Such measures are yet to catch up with the increase in space activity and pollution currently occurring. Therefore, fines and regulatory enforcement may presently be the only realistic method to hold organizations accountable.
The Dish Network satellite, fined $125,000 by the Federal Communications Commission, failed to de-orbit as a lack of fuel stopped the satellite from fully decommissioning (退役) a safe distance from Earth, falling short by around 75 miles (120 kilometres). It is hoped that significant fines like these will serve as a warning for companies, forcing them to make sure the safe decommissioning of their space operations.
1. Why was Dish Network fined?| A．It left space junk in orbit. | B．It increased off-planet activities. |
| C．It made collisions among space equipment. | D．It sent too much space equipment to space. |
| A．Space junk may turn into bullets. | B．Debris fragments are too tiny to track. |
| C．Debris may cause great damage in space. | D．A bad space environment will destroy the Earth. |
| A．The harm of space junk. | B．Ways to remove space junk. |
| C．Types of autonomous space vehicles. | D．Approaches to stopping satellites. |
| A．Unconcerned. | B．Doubtful. | C．Negative. | D．Approving. |
1. Which of the following will have the strictest ban on smoking according to the text?
| A．Canada. | B．Finland. | C．Hong Kong. |
| A．It can’t ban smoking forever. |
| B．It wants to ban smoking now. |
| C．It wants to ban smoking thoroughly. |
| A．Restaurants. | B．Cars. | C．Shopping malls. |
| A．Smoking and Cancer | B．Smoking in Hong Kong | C．Anti-smoking Laws |
1. Who does the organization of Law Society represent?
| A．Native people. | B．Lawyers in Britain. |
| C．Non-humans. | D．Children in Wales. |
| A．They focus on better ways to tackle climate change. |
| B．They forbid other creatures to use trees for food or shelter. |
| C．They recognize the legal rights of the whole natural system. |
| D．They protect things humans find interesting like trees and pets. |
| A．Defending native cultures by law. |
| B．Using laws to protect nature. |
| C．Fighting the loss of biodiversity. |
| D．Using technology to protect the environment. |
