DIRECTIONS: Choose the best answer for each question. Innovations to Revolutionize the Future of Medicine I would never have met Harriett were it not for our mutual friend, Linda. I’m a physician in Northern California; Harriett’s a communications executive in New York City. Linda co-founded an online personal genomics company, to which Harriett and I each sent our genetic information for analysis. Linda introduced us after she saw that Harriett and I had something in common: a rare type of DNA, which meant we were distantly related. It turns out that we also share that genealogy with a prehistoric celebrity: Otzi the Iceman, whose 5,300-year-old frozen corpse was discovered in the Alps in 1991. For fun, I even started a Facebook group for people with the same DNA variant as Otzi and Harriett and me. I tell this story to make a point. Harriett and I met over a feat of science – mass-market, low-cost gene analysis – that once was unimaginable and now is commonplace. The convergence of digital technologies and social platforms made it possible for us to learn our genotypes and share what we found out with the online universe. Since then, we’ve seen an explosion of tech-driven innovations that have the potential to reshape many aspects of health and medicine. All around us, technologies from artificial intelligence (AI) to personal genomics and robotics are advancing rapidly, giving form to the future of medicine. Rise of the Wearables Just a decade after the first Fitbit initially launched the “wearables” revolution, health tracking devices are ubiquitous. Most are used to measure and document fitness activities. In the future, these sensing technologies will be central to disease prevention, diagnosis, and therapy. They’ll measure health objectively, detect changes that may indicate a developing condition, and relay patients’ data to their doctors. Flexible, electronic medical tattoos and stick-on sensors can measure a person’s heartbeat, breathing rate, and blood sugar levels, and then transmit the results via Bluetooth. It is a mobile form of vital sign tracking, but at a level once found only in an intensive care unit. Hearing aids or earbuds with embedded sensors will not only amplify sound but also track heart rate and movement. Such smart earpieces also could also be integrated with a digital coach to cheer on a runner, or a guide to lend assistance to dementia patients. Smart contact lenses in the future will be packed with thousands of sensors, and designed to identify early indicators of cancer and other conditions. Lenses now in development may someday measure blood sugar values in tears, to help diabetics manage diet and medications. Implantable devices may include a radio-frequency ID chip under the skin that holds a patient’s medical records, or a sensor that could continuously monitor blood chemistry. Devices that are swallowed in capsules will perform tasks within the digestive system, from delivering treatment to identifying foreign objects. And if we want to collect health data when no one’s wearing a device? Engineers at MIT have modified a WiFi-like box so it can capture vital signs and sleep patterns of several people in the same residence. AI, Machine Learning, and the “Virtualist” The widening array of digital tools paired with AI technology almost certainly will boost the accuracy and speed of a doctor’s diagnosis. This will improve disease detection at early stages and raise the odds of successful treatment or cure. Apps and sensors can enable a phone to check for irregular heartbeats; software and a microphone can equip it to “listen” to a cough and diagnose pneumonia. To improve treatment of hypertension – a leading risk factor associated with early death – sensors now in development would take continuous blood pressure readings. Machine learning can also help improve diagnoses. Google researchers fed more than a quarter-million scans of patients’ eyes into computers that could recognize patterns – and the technology “learned” to spot which patterns predict a patient has high blood pressure or is at increased risk for heart attack or stroke. In some comparisons, digital tools produced more accurate analyses than their human counterparts. In the United States, the days of doctors routinely making house calls are long gone. Soon to follow: Private Skype-like interactions between patient and doctor, taking place online. Patients’ vital signs will be obtained and shared with the doctor via a range of wearable devices. The time it usually takes for medical appointments – including travel and waiting room time – will plummet, replaced by telemedicine visits with a new type of doctor, the “virtualist.” In the future, most patients will have medical appointments in the comfort of their own homes. The conventional prescriptions in your future could be given out by an ATM-like robot, remotely controlled by a provider to ensure the right doses at the right times. Or your doctor could consult your genetics test to determine the most appropriate drugs for your specific gene profile. If you’re not meeting in person with your doctor, could a robot serve as well as a human? Soon they may be answering calls. A chatbot nurse will ask about your symptoms and use data from your wearable devices and the crowdsourced health records of others like you. Should your complaint be psychological more than physical, you can seek counseling from a virtual therapist programmed to converse as a human would, offer self-help guidance, and lend a sympathetic ear. It’s great to benefit from all this technological progress, but it’s just as important to spread it. In 2016, an estimated 3.6 million people in low- and middle-income countries died because they lacked access to healthcare. And even more people in those countries – an estimated five million – died because they got poor-quality care. We can change that, starting today, by sharing the wealth of new medical technologies and other health and wellness resources. In paragraph O, we can infer that robots will give us medicine ____.

DIRECTIONS: Choose the correct word or phrase from the box to complete each sentence. bias consensus discipline distinguish exposed to fundamental implications institution rational retain If kept in a vacuum flask, hot beverages should ____________________ their heat for at least one hour.

DIRECTIONS: Choose the correct word or phrase from the box to complete each sentence. bias consensus discipline distinguish exposed to fundamental implications institution rational retain He realized that refusing to accept the offer would have long-term ____________________ on his career.

DIRECTIONS: Choose the correct word or phrase from the box to complete each sentence. bias consensus discipline distinguish exposed to fundamental implications institution rational retain Police officers and firefighters are ____________________ life-threatening risks on a daily basis.

DIRECTIONS: Choose the best answer for each question. The Age of Disbelief We are surrounded by science and technology like never before, yet increasing numbers of people doubt the claims of scientists. Writer Joel Achenbach investigates the reasons for a rising tide of skepticism. 1 We live in an age when all manner of scientific knowledge – from the safety of vaccines 2 to the reality of climate change – faces organized and often angry opposition. Doubters have declared war on the consensus of experts. There are so many of these controversies 3 these days, you’d think an evil villain had put something in the water to make people argumentative. In a sense all this is not surprising; our lives are affected by science and technology as never before. For many of us this new world is comfortable and rich in rewards – but also more complicated and sometimes unnerving. We now face risks we can’t easily analyze. We’re asked to accept, for example, that it’s safe to eat food containing genetically modified organisms. Experts say there’s no evidence that it isn’t safe, and no reason to believe that altering genes in a lab is more dangerous than altering them through traditional breeding. But to some people the very idea of transferring genes between species brings up images of mad scientists running wild. The world seems full of real and imaginary hazards, and distinguishing the former from the latter isn’t easy. Should we be afraid that the Ebola virus, which is spread only by direct contact with bodily fluids, will mutate into an airborne super-plague? The scientific consensus says that’s extremely unlikely: No virus has ever been observed to completely change its mode of transmission in humans. But if you type “airborne Ebola” into an Internet search engine, you’ll find that some people believe that this virus has almost supernatural powers. In this often confusing world we have to decide what to believe and how to act accordingly. In principle, that is what science is for. “Science is not a body of facts,” says geophysicist Marcia McNutt, who once headed the U.S. Geological Survey and is now editor of the journal Science. “Science is a method for deciding whether what we choose to believe has a basis in the laws of nature or not.” But that method doesn’t come naturally to most of us. Making Sense of the World The trouble goes way back, of course. The scientific method has led us to truths that are less than self-evident, often mind-blowing, and sometimes hard to accept. For example, both the sun and moon appear to cross the sky above the Earth, but while the moon does indeed circle our world, the Earth circles the sun. Although the roundness of the Earth has been known for thousands of years, alternative geographies persisted even after trips around the world had become common. Nineteenth-century flat-Earthers, for example, believed that the planet was centered on the North Pole and bounded by a wall of ice, with the sun and moon traveling only a few hundred kilometers about the Earth. Even when we intellectually accept the precepts 4 of science, we cling to our intuitions – what researchers call our naive beliefs. As we become scientifically literate, we repress our naive beliefs, but never eliminate them entirely. They remain hidden in our brains as we try to make sense of the world. Most of us do that by relying on personal experience, anecdotes, or stories rather than statistics. If we hear about a cluster of cancer cases in a town with a hazardous waste dump, we assume pollution caused the cancers. Yet just because two things happened together doesn’t mean one caused the other, and just because events are clustered doesn’t mean they’re not still random. We have trouble comprehending randomness; our brains crave pattern and meaning. Science warns us, however, that we can deceive ourselves. To be confident there’s a causal connection between the dump and the cancers, you need statistical analysis showing that there are many more cancers than would be expected randomly, evidence that the victims were exposed to chemicals from the dump, and evidence that the chemicals really can cause cancer. Even for scientists, the scientific method is a hard discipline. Like the rest of us, they’re vulnerable to confirmation bias – the tendency to look for and see only evidence that confirms what they already believe. But unlike the rest of us, they submit their ideas to formal peer review 5 before publishing them. Once their results are published, other scientists will try to reproduce them – and, being skeptical and competitive, will be very happy to announce that they don’t hold up. Struggling for Truth Sometimes scientists fall short of the ideals of the scientific method. Especially in biomedical research, there’s a disturbing trend toward results that can’t be reproduced outside the lab that found them. Francis Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health, worries about the “secret sauce” – specialized procedures and customized software – that researchers don’t share with their colleagues. But he still has faith in science. “Science will find the truth,” Collins says. “It may get it wrong the first time and maybe the second time, but ultimately it will find the truth.” That aspect of science is another thing a lot of people have trouble with. To some climate change skeptics, for example, the fact that a few scientists in the 1970s were worried (quite reasonably, it seemed at the time) about the possibility of a coming ice age is enough to discredit the concern about global warming now. In 2014, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which consists of hundreds of scientists, released its fifth report in the past 25 years. This one repeated louder and clearer than ever the consensus of the world’s scientists: The planet’s surface temperature has risen by about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit in the past 130 years. Moreover, human actions – including the burning of fossil fuels – are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the warming since the mid-20th century. Many people, however, retain doubts about that consensus. Americans, for example, fall into two basic camps, says Dan Kahan of Yale University. Those who are more egalitarian 6 and community-minded are generally suspicious of industry. They tend to think it’s up to something dangerous that calls for government regulation; they’re likely to see the risks of climate change. In contrast, people with a hierarchical 7 and individualistic mindset respect leaders of industry and don’t like government interfering in their affairs. They tend to reject warnings about climate change because they know that accepting them could lead to some kind of tax or regulation to limit emissions. In the United States, an individual’s view on climate change tends to identify them as belonging to one or the other of these two opposing tribes. When we argue about it, Kahan says, we’re actually arguing about who we are, what our crowd is. We’re thinking: People like us believe this. People like that do not believe this. For a hierarchical individualist, Kahan says, it’s not irrational to reject established climate science. This is because accepting it wouldn’t change the world, but it might get them thrown out of their tribe. Science appeals to our rational brain, but our beliefs are motivated largely by emotion – and the biggest motivation is remaining tight with our peers. The Implications of Doubt Doubting science has consequences. The anti-vaccine movement, for example, has been going strong since the respected British medical journal the Lancet published a study in 1998 linking a vaccine to autism. Although the article was discredited, the notion of a vaccine-autism connection has been endorsed by celebrities and reinforced through Internet sources. This has implications for the “herd immunity” of populations. When a significant portion of a population is vaccinated, it provides a measure of protection for individuals who have not developed immunity. Increasing vaccine skepticism threatens to undermine the herd immunity of communities against diseases such as whooping cough and measles. Investigations into the “science communication problem” have given us insights into how people decide what to believe – and why they so often don’t accept the scientific consensus. It’s not that they can’t grasp it, says Kahan; it’s because of confirmation bias – the tendency of people to use scientific knowledge to reinforce beliefs that have already been shaped by their worldview. Meanwhile the Internet has made it easier than ever for climate skeptics and doubters of all kinds to find their own information and experts. Gone are the days when a small number of powerful institutions – elite universities, encyclopedias, major news organizations – served as gatekeepers of scientific information. The Internet has democratized information, which is a good thing, but along with cable TV, it has made it possible to live in a “filter bubble” that lets in only the information you agree with. How to penetrate this bubble? How can scientists convince skeptics? Throwing more facts at people may not be enough. Liz Neeley, who helps train scientists to be better communicators, says that people need to hear from believers they can trust, who share their fundamental values. She has personal experience with this: Her father is a climate change skeptic and gets most of his information on the issue from conservative media. One day she confronted him: “Do you believe them or me?” She told him she believes the scientists who research climate change, and knows many of them personally. “If you think I’m wrong,” she said, “then you’re telling me that you don’t trust me.” Her father’s position on the issue softened – but it wasn’t the facts that did it. 1 Skepticism refers to having doubts or not believing in something. 2 A vaccine is a medication taken to prevent a disease, such as the measles. 3 A controversy is an argument about an issue that is important to many people. 4 A precept is a rule for action. 5 A research paper that is peer reviewed is checked by another scientist before it is published. 6 If someone is described as egalitarian, they believe in equal opportunities and rights for all. 7 If someone is described as having a hierarchical mindset, they believe that certain people in society are more important than others. What type of figurative language is used in the following sentence from the passage? If we hear about a cluster of cancer cases in a town with a hazardous waste dump, we assume pollution caused the cancers.

DIRECTIONS: Complete the sentences using the words in the box. accountable dynamics initially initiative innovation instability intervention investment outlier productivity The large wealth gap has created a lot of resentment and political ____________________ in the country.

DIRECTIONS: Choose the best answer for each question. The Age of Disbelief We are surrounded by science and technology like never before, yet increasing numbers of people doubt the claims of scientists. Writer Joel Achenbach investigates the reasons for a rising tide of skepticism. 1 We live in an age when all manner of scientific knowledge – from the safety of vaccines 2 to the reality of climate change – faces organized and often angry opposition. Doubters have declared war on the consensus of experts. There are so many of these controversies 3 these days, you’d think an evil villain had put something in the water to make people argumentative. In a sense all this is not surprising; our lives are affected by science and technology as never before. For many of us this new world is comfortable and rich in rewards – but also more complicated and sometimes unnerving. We now face risks we can’t easily analyze. We’re asked to accept, for example, that it’s safe to eat food containing genetically modified organisms. Experts say there’s no evidence that it isn’t safe, and no reason to believe that altering genes in a lab is more dangerous than altering them through traditional breeding. But to some people the very idea of transferring genes between species brings up images of mad scientists running wild. The world seems full of real and imaginary hazards, and distinguishing the former from the latter isn’t easy. Should we be afraid that the Ebola virus, which is spread only by direct contact with bodily fluids, will mutate into an airborne super-plague? The scientific consensus says that’s extremely unlikely: No virus has ever been observed to completely change its mode of transmission in humans. But if you type “airborne Ebola” into an Internet search engine, you’ll find that some people believe that this virus has almost supernatural powers. In this often confusing world we have to decide what to believe and how to act accordingly. In principle, that is what science is for. “Science is not a body of facts,” says geophysicist Marcia McNutt, who once headed the U.S. Geological Survey and is now editor of the journal Science. “Science is a method for deciding whether what we choose to believe has a basis in the laws of nature or not.” But that method doesn’t come naturally to most of us. Making Sense of the World The trouble goes way back, of course. The scientific method has led us to truths that are less than self-evident, often mind-blowing, and sometimes hard to accept. For example, both the sun and moon appear to cross the sky above the Earth, but while the moon does indeed circle our world, the Earth circles the sun. Although the roundness of the Earth has been known for thousands of years, alternative geographies persisted even after trips around the world had become common. Nineteenth-century flat-Earthers, for example, believed that the planet was centered on the North Pole and bounded by a wall of ice, with the sun and moon traveling only a few hundred kilometers about the Earth. Even when we intellectually accept the precepts 4 of science, we cling to our intuitions – what researchers call our naive beliefs. As we become scientifically literate, we repress our naive beliefs, but never eliminate them entirely. They remain hidden in our brains as we try to make sense of the world. Most of us do that by relying on personal experience, anecdotes, or stories rather than statistics. If we hear about a cluster of cancer cases in a town with a hazardous waste dump, we assume pollution caused the cancers. Yet just because two things happened together doesn’t mean one caused the other, and just because events are clustered doesn’t mean they’re not still random. We have trouble comprehending randomness; our brains crave pattern and meaning. Science warns us, however, that we can deceive ourselves. To be confident there’s a causal connection between the dump and the cancers, you need statistical analysis showing that there are many more cancers than would be expected randomly, evidence that the victims were exposed to chemicals from the dump, and evidence that the chemicals really can cause cancer. Even for scientists, the scientific method is a hard discipline. Like the rest of us, they’re vulnerable to confirmation bias – the tendency to look for and see only evidence that confirms what they already believe. But unlike the rest of us, they submit their ideas to formal peer review 5 before publishing them. Once their results are published, other scientists will try to reproduce them – and, being skeptical and competitive, will be very happy to announce that they don’t hold up. Struggling for Truth Sometimes scientists fall short of the ideals of the scientific method. Especially in biomedical research, there’s a disturbing trend toward results that can’t be reproduced outside the lab that found them. Francis Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health, worries about the “secret sauce” – specialized procedures and customized software – that researchers don’t share with their colleagues. But he still has faith in science. “Science will find the truth,” Collins says. “It may get it wrong the first time and maybe the second time, but ultimately it will find the truth.” That aspect of science is another thing a lot of people have trouble with. To some climate change skeptics, for example, the fact that a few scientists in the 1970s were worried (quite reasonably, it seemed at the time) about the possibility of a coming ice age is enough to discredit the concern about global warming now. In 2014, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which consists of hundreds of scientists, released its fifth report in the past 25 years. This one repeated louder and clearer than ever the consensus of the world’s scientists: The planet’s surface temperature has risen by about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit in the past 130 years. Moreover, human actions – including the burning of fossil fuels – are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the warming since the mid-20th century. Many people, however, retain doubts about that consensus. Americans, for example, fall into two basic camps, says Dan Kahan of Yale University. Those who are more egalitarian 6 and community-minded are generally suspicious of industry. They tend to think it’s up to something dangerous that calls for government regulation; they’re likely to see the risks of climate change. In contrast, people with a hierarchical 7 and individualistic mindset respect leaders of industry and don’t like government interfering in their affairs. They tend to reject warnings about climate change because they know that accepting them could lead to some kind of tax or regulation to limit emissions. In the United States, an individual’s view on climate change tends to identify them as belonging to one or the other of these two opposing tribes. When we argue about it, Kahan says, we’re actually arguing about who we are, what our crowd is. We’re thinking: People like us believe this. People like that do not believe this. For a hierarchical individualist, Kahan says, it’s not irrational to reject established climate science. This is because accepting it wouldn’t change the world, but it might get them thrown out of their tribe. Science appeals to our rational brain, but our beliefs are motivated largely by emotion – and the biggest motivation is remaining tight with our peers. The Implications of Doubt Doubting science has consequences. The anti-vaccine movement, for example, has been going strong since the respected British medical journal the Lancet published a study in 1998 linking a vaccine to autism. Although the article was discredited, the notion of a vaccine-autism connection has been endorsed by celebrities and reinforced through Internet sources. This has implications for the “herd immunity” of populations. When a significant portion of a population is vaccinated, it provides a measure of protection for individuals who have not developed immunity. Increasing vaccine skepticism threatens to undermine the herd immunity of communities against diseases such as whooping cough and measles. Investigations into the “science communication problem” have given us insights into how people decide what to believe – and why they so often don’t accept the scientific consensus. It’s not that they can’t grasp it, says Kahan; it’s because of confirmation bias – the tendency of people to use scientific knowledge to reinforce beliefs that have already been shaped by their worldview. Meanwhile the Internet has made it easier than ever for climate skeptics and doubters of all kinds to find their own information and experts. Gone are the days when a small number of powerful institutions – elite universities, encyclopedias, major news organizations – served as gatekeepers of scientific information. The Internet has democratized information, which is a good thing, but along with cable TV, it has made it possible to live in a “filter bubble” that lets in only the information you agree with. How to penetrate this bubble? How can scientists convince skeptics? Throwing more facts at people may not be enough. Liz Neeley, who helps train scientists to be better communicators, says that people need to hear from believers they can trust, who share their fundamental values. She has personal experience with this: Her father is a climate change skeptic and gets most of his information on the issue from conservative media. One day she confronted him: “Do you believe them or me?” She told him she believes the scientists who research climate change, and knows many of them personally. “If you think I’m wrong,” she said, “then you’re telling me that you don’t trust me.” Her father’s position on the issue softened – but it wasn’t the facts that did it. 1 Skepticism refers to having doubts or not believing in something. 2 A vaccine is a medication taken to prevent a disease, such as the measles. 3 A controversy is an argument about an issue that is important to many people. 4 A precept is a rule for action. 5 A research paper that is peer reviewed is checked by another scientist before it is published. 6 If someone is described as egalitarian, they believe in equal opportunities and rights for all. 7 If someone is described as having a hierarchical mindset, they believe that certain people in society are more important than others. What is NOT mentioned in the passage as a claim that skeptics doubt?

DIRECTIONS: Choose the best answer for each question. Goalkeepers for the Planet In 2015 at the United Nations, world leaders adopted 17 Sustainable Development Goals aimed at reducing poverty, inequality, and other global problems by 2030. Such objectives have long been championed by philanthropists 1 Bill and Melinda Gates. In 2017, the Gates Foundation launched Goalkeepers, an initiative to spur action 2 and track progress toward the UN goals. Its 2018 status report says there have been “mind-blowing improvements in the human condition.” The report also calls for more investment and innovation to ensure this progress continues. Susan Goldberg, editor-in-chief of National Geographic Magazine, met with Bill and Melinda Gates for a joint interview on the report, which was released to the public on September 18, 2018. I’ve just read the Goalkeepers report. Why did you decide to start doing this? Melinda Gates: Because we think that the news isn’t really out there – the news that the world has made this incredible progress, this increase in lives saved, the reduction in poverty. The UN set these amazing goals for the future to help us continue to reduce poverty, and we want to make sure that we hold people accountable for that progress and really inspire the next generation of leaders who are going to take these tasks on. What are you seeing in different countries? Who’s doing a great job? Bill Gates: Even a very poor country can do a good job on health, can do a good job on agriculture, on education, and that provides a lot of hope because you can copy what’s being done there. Rwanda has been a big outlier in the quality of health services. Ethiopia, on agriculture, is growing over 5 percent a year. In education, Vietnam is one we talk about because they’re so far ahead of where you’d expect given their wealth. But it’s when you get those three things together – health, education, agriculture – that eventually these countries can become self-sufficient. MG: One of the things that’s also encouraging: Rwanda is a very small country , Ethiopia is the second largest on the continent of Africa – but they have learned the lessons of what has helped people make progress from around the world. So they’re looking at what happened in Asia in agriculture, how did Brazil decrease the stunting 3 rate so phenomenally across a very large country with lots of poverty. When you think about learning from one another, I was struck by the example from Vietnam, where you’ve got 15-year-olds who are doing as well on international tests in school as people from the United Kingdom or from the United States. What are the lessons from Vietnam that can translate across other countries? BG: It’s a really new thing to try and get into the amount of learning. The agenda for poor countries up until now has largely been to get the kids into school – and attendance rates have gone up a lot, for girls and boys. The biggest missing piece still is how much knowledge they’re gaining. A few countries, by training the teachers the right way and bringing the right material into the classroom, have really achieved learning way beyond what you might expect. MG: When you look back at the UN goals that were initially set in 2000, one of the goals was to get kids into school, and that has essentially been achieved, particularly at the primary level and quite a bit at the secondary level. So it’s neat to see a goal achieved, but now with this next set of goals, it’s about how to get the depth of learning and the education right. Thinking about Africa: How young it is, how many young people there are, is both a huge challenge and a great opportunity. Can you talk a little bit about that? BG: The African continent today is about a billion people out of the seven billion on Earth, and as this century goes forward, over half the young people in the entire world will be there. With those people moving into the job market, if the right investments are made – stability, education, health – Africa will have growth and innovation, far more than lots of other places. If, on the other hand, we don’t take care of the HIV crisis, then you’ll just have more people who will get infected. If you don’t have the right conditions, then the young people, particularly the men, can add to that instability. So Africa definitely hangs in the balance. 4 Melinda, family planning has been one of the issues that you’re most involved in. Can you talk to me a little about that? MG: Family planning is crucial anywhere, in any community around the world, because if a woman can decide if and when to have a child, she’s going to be healthier and her child is going to be healthier. That’s one of the longest-standing pieces of global health research we have … can space the births of those children, they can then feed them, they can educate them, the woman can work and contribute her income to the family. It changes everything in the family dynamic, and it changes the community, and ultimately you get these country-level effects where it’s good for everybody. You’ve gone all over the world and seen the problems up close. If you could wave a magic wand 5 and fix just one thing, what would it be? BG: The development of children. Today more than half the kids in Africa never fully develop physically or mentally because of malnutrition, their diet, and the diseases they face. With research on the human gut microbiome, 6 we’re gaining an understanding of stunting, why they don’t grow. I’m super excited that by the end of the decade we expect to have cheap interventions so those kids will fully develop. That means all the investments you make in their education, wanting to benefit from their productivity, will work far better. So if there was just one thing, it’s the intervention to stop malnutrition. 1 A philanthropist is someone who freely gives money and help to people in need. 2 If something spurs you into action, it causes you to do something. 3 The word stunting refers to the impaired growth and development that children experience from poor nutrition and poor health. 4 If something hangs in the balance, no one is sure what will happen to it in the future. 5 A magic wand is a long thin rod that magicians or fairies wave when they perform tricks, sometimes to make a wish come true. 6 The human gut microbiome refers to the beneficial microbes that live in the human digestive system. In the first sentence of paragraph H, what does it refer to?

DIRECTIONS: Complete the sentences using the words in the box. accountable dynamics initially initiative innovation instability intervention investment outlier productivity She was ____________________ reluctant to use the new computing system, but she prefers it now.

DIRECTIONS: Choose the best answer for each question. The Age of Disbelief We are surrounded by science and technology like never before, yet increasing numbers of people doubt the claims of scientists. Writer Joel Achenbach investigates the reasons for a rising tide of skepticism. 1 We live in an age when all manner of scientific knowledge – from the safety of vaccines 2 to the reality of climate change – faces organized and often angry opposition. Doubters have declared war on the consensus of experts. There are so many of these controversies 3 these days, you’d think an evil villain had put something in the water to make people argumentative. In a sense all this is not surprising; our lives are affected by science and technology as never before. For many of us this new world is comfortable and rich in rewards – but also more complicated and sometimes unnerving. We now face risks we can’t easily analyze. We’re asked to accept, for example, that it’s safe to eat food containing genetically modified organisms. Experts say there’s no evidence that it isn’t safe, and no reason to believe that altering genes in a lab is more dangerous than altering them through traditional breeding. But to some people the very idea of transferring genes between species brings up images of mad scientists running wild. The world seems full of real and imaginary hazards, and distinguishing the former from the latter isn’t easy. Should we be afraid that the Ebola virus, which is spread only by direct contact with bodily fluids, will mutate into an airborne super-plague? The scientific consensus says that’s extremely unlikely: No virus has ever been observed to completely change its mode of transmission in humans. But if you type “airborne Ebola” into an Internet search engine, you’ll find that some people believe that this virus has almost supernatural powers. In this often confusing world we have to decide what to believe and how to act accordingly. In principle, that is what science is for. “Science is not a body of facts,” says geophysicist Marcia McNutt, who once headed the U.S. Geological Survey and is now editor of the journal Science. “Science is a method for deciding whether what we choose to believe has a basis in the laws of nature or not.” But that method doesn’t come naturally to most of us. Making Sense of the World The trouble goes way back, of course. The scientific method has led us to truths that are less than self-evident, often mind-blowing, and sometimes hard to accept. For example, both the sun and moon appear to cross the sky above the Earth, but while the moon does indeed circle our world, the Earth circles the sun. Although the roundness of the Earth has been known for thousands of years, alternative geographies persisted even after trips around the world had become common. Nineteenth-century flat-Earthers, for example, believed that the planet was centered on the North Pole and bounded by a wall of ice, with the sun and moon traveling only a few hundred kilometers about the Earth. Even when we intellectually accept the precepts 4 of science, we cling to our intuitions – what researchers call our naive beliefs. As we become scientifically literate, we repress our naive beliefs, but never eliminate them entirely. They remain hidden in our brains as we try to make sense of the world. Most of us do that by relying on personal experience, anecdotes, or stories rather than statistics. If we hear about a cluster of cancer cases in a town with a hazardous waste dump, we assume pollution caused the cancers. Yet just because two things happened together doesn’t mean one caused the other, and just because events are clustered doesn’t mean they’re not still random. We have trouble comprehending randomness; our brains crave pattern and meaning. Science warns us, however, that we can deceive ourselves. To be confident there’s a causal connection between the dump and the cancers, you need statistical analysis showing that there are many more cancers than would be expected randomly, evidence that the victims were exposed to chemicals from the dump, and evidence that the chemicals really can cause cancer. Even for scientists, the scientific method is a hard discipline. Like the rest of us, they’re vulnerable to confirmation bias – the tendency to look for and see only evidence that confirms what they already believe. But unlike the rest of us, they submit their ideas to formal peer review 5 before publishing them. Once their results are published, other scientists will try to reproduce them – and, being skeptical and competitive, will be very happy to announce that they don’t hold up. Struggling for Truth Sometimes scientists fall short of the ideals of the scientific method. Especially in biomedical research, there’s a disturbing trend toward results that can’t be reproduced outside the lab that found them. Francis Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health, worries about the “secret sauce” – specialized procedures and customized software – that researchers don’t share with their colleagues. But he still has faith in science. “Science will find the truth,” Collins says. “It may get it wrong the first time and maybe the second time, but ultimately it will find the truth.” That aspect of science is another thing a lot of people have trouble with. To some climate change skeptics, for example, the fact that a few scientists in the 1970s were worried (quite reasonably, it seemed at the time) about the possibility of a coming ice age is enough to discredit the concern about global warming now. In 2014, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which consists of hundreds of scientists, released its fifth report in the past 25 years. This one repeated louder and clearer than ever the consensus of the world’s scientists: The planet’s surface temperature has risen by about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit in the past 130 years. Moreover, human actions – including the burning of fossil fuels – are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the warming since the mid-20th century. Many people, however, retain doubts about that consensus. Americans, for example, fall into two basic camps, says Dan Kahan of Yale University. Those who are more egalitarian 6 and community-minded are generally suspicious of industry. They tend to think it’s up to something dangerous that calls for government regulation; they’re likely to see the risks of climate change. In contrast, people with a hierarchical 7 and individualistic mindset respect leaders of industry and don’t like government interfering in their affairs. They tend to reject warnings about climate change because they know that accepting them could lead to some kind of tax or regulation to limit emissions. In the United States, an individual’s view on climate change tends to identify them as belonging to one or the other of these two opposing tribes. When we argue about it, Kahan says, we’re actually arguing about who we are, what our crowd is. We’re thinking: People like us believe this. People like that do not believe this. For a hierarchical individualist, Kahan says, it’s not irrational to reject established climate science. This is because accepting it wouldn’t change the world, but it might get them thrown out of their tribe. Science appeals to our rational brain, but our beliefs are motivated largely by emotion – and the biggest motivation is remaining tight with our peers. The Implications of Doubt Doubting science has consequences. The anti-vaccine movement, for example, has been going strong since the respected British medical journal the Lancet published a study in 1998 linking a vaccine to autism. Although the article was discredited, the notion of a vaccine-autism connection has been endorsed by celebrities and reinforced through Internet sources. This has implications for the “herd immunity” of populations. When a significant portion of a population is vaccinated, it provides a measure of protection for individuals who have not developed immunity. Increasing vaccine skepticism threatens to undermine the herd immunity of communities against diseases such as whooping cough and measles. Investigations into the “science communication problem” have given us insights into how people decide what to believe – and why they so often don’t accept the scientific consensus. It’s not that they can’t grasp it, says Kahan; it’s because of confirmation bias – the tendency of people to use scientific knowledge to reinforce beliefs that have already been shaped by their worldview. Meanwhile the Internet has made it easier than ever for climate skeptics and doubters of all kinds to find their own information and experts. Gone are the days when a small number of powerful institutions – elite universities, encyclopedias, major news organizations – served as gatekeepers of scientific information. The Internet has democratized information, which is a good thing, but along with cable TV, it has made it possible to live in a “filter bubble” that lets in only the information you agree with. How to penetrate this bubble? How can scientists convince skeptics? Throwing more facts at people may not be enough. Liz Neeley, who helps train scientists to be better communicators, says that people need to hear from believers they can trust, who share their fundamental values. She has personal experience with this: Her father is a climate change skeptic and gets most of his information on the issue from conservative media. One day she confronted him: “Do you believe them or me?” She told him she believes the scientists who research climate change, and knows many of them personally. “If you think I’m wrong,” she said, “then you’re telling me that you don’t trust me.” Her father’s position on the issue softened – but it wasn’t the facts that did it. 1 Skepticism refers to having doubts or not believing in something. 2 A vaccine is a medication taken to prevent a disease, such as the measles. 3 A controversy is an argument about an issue that is important to many people. 4 A precept is a rule for action. 5 A research paper that is peer reviewed is checked by another scientist before it is published. 6 If someone is described as egalitarian, they believe in equal opportunities and rights for all. 7 If someone is described as having a hierarchical mindset, they believe that certain people in society are more important than others. Which of the following opinions is Liz Neeley most likely to agree with?