A poll of Nature’s readers suggests that feelings about metrics are mixed.Many researchers say that, in principle, they welcome the use of quantitative performance metrics because of the potential for clarity and objectivity.Yet they also worry that the hiring, promotion and tenure committees that control their fate will ignore crucial but hard-to-quantify aspects of scientific performance such as mentor ship and collaboration building,and instead focus exclusively on a handful of easy-to-measure numbers related mostly to their publication and citation rates.

Academic administrators contacted by Nature suggest that this fear may be exaggerated.Most institutions seem to take a gratifyingly nuanced approach to hiring and tenure decisions, relying less on numbers and more on wide-ranging,qualitative assessments of a candidate’s performance made by experts in the relevant field.

Yet such enlightenednuancing cannot be taken for granted.Numbers can be surprisingly seductive, and evaluation committees need to guard against letting a superficial precision undermine their time-consuming assessment of a scientist’s full body of work.This is particularly true in countries such as Britain, where metrics-heavy national assessments of universities can trickle down, so that individuals feel more rewarded for quantity than for quality--and change theirbehavior to match.

New measures of scientific impact are being developed all the time, in part driven by government agencies looking to quantify the results they are getting for their investment.Such innovation is to be encouraged.But researchers must be mindful of how and why the metrics they are making are being used.There needs to be much discussion between specialists such as social scientists, economists and scientometricians to ensure that metrics development goes hand-in-hand with a discussion of what the metrics are for, and how they are affecting people.Only then can good suggestions be made about how to improve the system.

Academic administrators, conversely, need to understand what the various metrics can and cannot tell them.Many measures—including the classic "impact factor" that attempts to describe a journal’s influence—were not designed to assess individual scientists.Yet people still sometimes try to apply them in that way.Given that scientometricians continue to devise metrics of ever-increasing sophistication, universities and scientific societies need to help decision-makers keep abreast.Setting a good example is the European Summer School for Scientometrics, a program that is being inaugurated in Berlin.It promises a science-based approach to tutoring on the merits and pitfalls of various metrics.

Institutions must also ensure that they give their researchers a clear and complete picture of how assessments are made.This can be awkward—but transparency is essential:no matter how earnestly evaluation committees say that they are assessing the full body of a scientist’s work, not being open about the criteria breeds the impression that a fixed number of publications is a strict requirement, that teaching is undervalued and that service to the community is worthless.Such impressions do more than breed discontent--they alter the way that scientists behave.To promote good science, those doors must be opened wide.

What will relieve researchers of their worries according to the passage?

A poll of Nature’s readers suggests that feelings about metrics are mixed.Many researchers say that, in principle, they welcome the use of quantitative performance metrics because of the potential for clarity and objectivity.Yet they also worry that the hiring, promotion and tenure committees that control their fate will ignore crucial but hard-to-quantify aspects of scientific performance such as mentor ship and collaboration building,and instead focus exclusively on a handful of easy-to-measure numbers related mostly to their publication and citation rates.

Academic administrators contacted by Nature suggest that this fear may be exaggerated.Most institutions seem to take a gratifyingly nuanced approach to hiring and tenure decisions, relying less on numbers and more on wide-ranging,qualitative assessments of a candidate’s performance made by experts in the relevant field.

Yet such enlightenednuancing cannot be taken for granted.Numbers can be surprisingly seductive, and evaluation committees need to guard against letting a superficial precision undermine their time-consuming assessment of a scientist’s full body of work.This is particularly true in countries such as Britain, where metrics-heavy national assessments of universities can trickle down, so that individuals feel more rewarded for quantity than for quality--and change theirbehavior to match.

New measures of scientific impact are being developed all the time, in part driven by government agencies looking to quantify the results they are getting for their investment.Such innovation is to be encouraged.But researchers must be mindful of how and why the metrics they are making are being used.There needs to be much discussion between specialists such as social scientists, economists and scientometricians to ensure that metrics development goes hand-in-hand with a discussion of what the metrics are for, and how they are affecting people.Only then can good suggestions be made about how to improve the system.

Academic administrators, conversely, need to understand what the various metrics can and cannot tell them.Many measures—including the classic "impact factor" that attempts to describe a journal’s influence—were not designed to assess individual scientists.Yet people still sometimes try to apply them in that way.Given that scientometricians continue to devise metrics of ever-increasing sophistication, universities and scientific societies need to help decision-makers keep abreast.Setting a good example is the European Summer School for Scientometrics, a program that is being inaugurated in Berlin.It promises a science-based approach to tutoring on the merits and pitfalls of various metrics.

Institutions must also ensure that they give their researchers a clear and complete picture of how assessments are made.This can be awkward—but transparency is essential:no matter how earnestly evaluation committees say that they are assessing the full body of a scientist’s work, not being open about the criteria breeds the impression that a fixed number of publications is a strict requirement, that teaching is undervalued and that service to the community is worthless.Such impressions do more than breed discontent--they alter the way that scientists behave.To promote good science, those doors must be opened wide.

The author refers to Britain in the third paragraph as______.

A poll of Nature’s readers suggests that feelings about metrics are mixed.Many researchers say that, in principle, they welcome the use of quantitative performance metrics because of the potential for clarity and objectivity.Yet they also worry that the hiring, promotion and tenure committees that control their fate will ignore crucial but hard-to-quantify aspects of scientific performance such as mentor ship and collaboration building,and instead focus exclusively on a handful of easy-to-measure numbers related mostly to their publication and citation rates.

Academic administrators contacted by Nature suggest that this fear may be exaggerated.Most institutions seem to take a gratifyingly nuanced approach to hiring and tenure decisions, relying less on numbers and more on wide-ranging,qualitative assessments of a candidate’s performance made by experts in the relevant field.

Yet such enlightenednuancing cannot be taken for granted.Numbers can be surprisingly seductive, and evaluation committees need to guard against letting a superficial precision undermine their time-consuming assessment of a scientist’s full body of work.This is particularly true in countries such as Britain, where metrics-heavy national assessments of universities can trickle down, so that individuals feel more rewarded for quantity than for quality--and change theirbehavior to match.

New measures of scientific impact are being developed all the time, in part driven by government agencies looking to quantify the results they are getting for their investment.Such innovation is to be encouraged.But researchers must be mindful of how and why the metrics they are making are being used.There needs to be much discussion between specialists such as social scientists, economists and scientometricians to ensure that metrics development goes hand-in-hand with a discussion of what the metrics are for, and how they are affecting people.Only then can good suggestions be made about how to improve the system.

Academic administrators, conversely, need to understand what the various metrics can and cannot tell them.Many measures—including the classic "impact factor" that attempts to describe a journal’s influence—were not designed to assess individual scientists.Yet people still sometimes try to apply them in that way.Given that scientometricians continue to devise metrics of ever-increasing sophistication, universities and scientific societies need to help decision-makers keep abreast.Setting a good example is the European Summer School for Scientometrics, a program that is being inaugurated in Berlin.It promises a science-based approach to tutoring on the merits and pitfalls of various metrics.

Institutions must also ensure that they give their researchers a clear and complete picture of how assessments are made.This can be awkward—but transparency is essential:no matter how earnestly evaluation committees say that they are assessing the full body of a scientist’s work, not being open about the criteria breeds the impression that a fixed number of publications is a strict requirement, that teaching is undervalued and that service to the community is worthless.Such impressions do more than breed discontent--they alter the way that scientists behave.To promote good science, those doors must be opened wide.

What is essential to perfect the evaluation system according to the author?

A poll of Nature’s readers suggests that feelings about metrics are mixed.Many researchers say that, in principle, they welcome the use of quantitative performance metrics because of the potential for clarity and objectivity.Yet they also worry that the hiring, promotion and tenure committees that control their fate will ignore crucial but hard-to-quantify aspects of scientific performance such as mentor ship and collaboration building,and instead focus exclusively on a handful of easy-to-measure numbers related mostly to their publication and citation rates.

Academic administrators contacted by Nature suggest that this fear may be exaggerated.Most institutions seem to take a gratifyingly nuanced approach to hiring and tenure decisions, relying less on numbers and more on wide-ranging,qualitative assessments of a candidate’s performance made by experts in the relevant field.

Yet such enlightenednuancing cannot be taken for granted.Numbers can be surprisingly seductive, and evaluation committees need to guard against letting a superficial precision undermine their time-consuming assessment of a scientist’s full body of work.This is particularly true in countries such as Britain, where metrics-heavy national assessments of universities can trickle down, so that individuals feel more rewarded for quantity than for quality--and change theirbehavior to match.

New measures of scientific impact are being developed all the time, in part driven by government agencies looking to quantify the results they are getting for their investment.Such innovation is to be encouraged.But researchers must be mindful of how and why the metrics they are making are being used.There needs to be much discussion between specialists such as social scientists, economists and scientometricians to ensure that metrics development goes hand-in-hand with a discussion of what the metrics are for, and how they are affecting people.Only then can good suggestions be made about how to improve the system.

Academic administrators, conversely, need to understand what the various metrics can and cannot tell them.Many measures—including the classic "impact factor" that attempts to describe a journal’s influence—were not designed to assess individual scientists.Yet people still sometimes try to apply them in that way.Given that scientometricians continue to devise metrics of ever-increasing sophistication, universities and scientific societies need to help decision-makers keep abreast.Setting a good example is the European Summer School for Scientometrics, a program that is being inaugurated in Berlin.It promises a science-based approach to tutoring on the merits and pitfalls of various metrics.

Institutions must also ensure that they give their researchers a clear and complete picture of how assessments are made.This can be awkward—but transparency is essential:no matter how earnestly evaluation committees say that they are assessing the full body of a scientist’s work, not being open about the criteria breeds the impression that a fixed number of publications is a strict requirement, that teaching is undervalued and that service to the community is worthless.Such impressions do more than breed discontent--they alter the way that scientists behave.To promote good science, those doors must be opened wide.

In Paragraph 5, the author shows his concern of______.

A poll of Nature’s readers suggests that feelings about metrics are mixed.Many researchers say that, in principle, they welcome the use of quantitative performance metrics because of the potential for clarity and objectivity.Yet they also worry that the hiring, promotion and tenure committees that control their fate will ignore crucial but hard-to-quantify aspects of scientific performance such as mentor ship and collaboration building,and instead focus exclusively on a handful of easy-to-measure numbers related mostly to their publication and citation rates.

Academic administrators contacted by Nature suggest that this fear may be exaggerated.Most institutions seem to take a gratifyingly nuanced approach to hiring and tenure decisions, relying less on numbers and more on wide-ranging,qualitative assessments of a candidate’s performance made by experts in the relevant field.

Yet such enlightenednuancing cannot be taken for granted.Numbers can be surprisingly seductive, and evaluation committees need to guard against letting a superficial precision undermine their time-consuming assessment of a scientist’s full body of work.This is particularly true in countries such as Britain, where metrics-heavy national assessments of universities can trickle down, so that individuals feel more rewarded for quantity than for quality--and change theirbehavior to match.

New measures of scientific impact are being developed all the time, in part driven by government agencies looking to quantify the results they are getting for their investment.Such innovation is to be encouraged.But researchers must be mindful of how and why the metrics they are making are being used.There needs to be much discussion between specialists such as social scientists, economists and scientometricians to ensure that metrics development goes hand-in-hand with a discussion of what the metrics are for, and how they are affecting people.Only then can good suggestions be made about how to improve the system.

Academic administrators, conversely, need to understand what the various metrics can and cannot tell them.Many measures—including the classic "impact factor" that attempts to describe a journal’s influence—were not designed to assess individual scientists.Yet people still sometimes try to apply them in that way.Given that scientometricians continue to devise metrics of ever-increasing sophistication, universities and scientific societies need to help decision-makers keep abreast.Setting a good example is the European Summer School for Scientometrics, a program that is being inaugurated in Berlin.It promises a science-based approach to tutoring on the merits and pitfalls of various metrics.

Institutions must also ensure that they give their researchers a clear and complete picture of how assessments are made.This can be awkward—but transparency is essential:no matter how earnestly evaluation committees say that they are assessing the full body of a scientist’s work, not being open about the criteria breeds the impression that a fixed number of publications is a strict requirement, that teaching is undervalued and that service to the community is worthless.Such impressions do more than breed discontent--they alter the way that scientists behave.To promote good science, those doors must be opened wide.

What can we infer from the last paragraph?

When Apple launches its new software update for the iPhone on Wednesday, users will be offered the chance to surf the mobile Web without annoying ads cluttering up their screen.But Apple’s support for ad-blocking technology is ringing alarm bells on Madison Avenue, where critics warn it threatens not only the lifeblood of their business—but also the economic underpinnings of the free Internet."We don’t think ad blocking is right", Scott Cunningham, senior vice president of the Interactive Advertising Bureau, told The Post.

The rise of ad blockers is one of the biggest sea changes to affect the Internet ad business in decades, Cunningham said.For years, publishers have made what they believe is a fair trade-off with readers."Advertising is the economic engine that drives the free Internet," Cunningham said."The reality is the last 20 years have seen people developing content online for distribution, and consumers have opted in for that free content."While use of ad-blocking technology on desktop computers and mobile devices has been on the rise,Apple’s commitment to it is a game changer.With iOS 9 , developers will be able to create ad-blocking software for Apple’s Safari mobile browser.

Apple’s goal appears to be making the mobile Web a faster, cleaner and more pleasant all-around experience.But it could also have the effect of pushing publishers off the mobile Web and toward subscription services and paid apps, which is an area dominated by Apple.Already some Web publishers and content providers are turning away consumers who avail themselves of ad-busting technologies. Hulu is rejecting customers who use ad blockers, while the Washington Post blocks consumers from reading its site if it detects an ad blocker—and redirects them to subscription pages.

Whatever Apple’s new ad-free vision is, executives across Madison Avenue are scrambling to figure out the ramifications."The free Internet is going to have a major problem, and that’s a concern for all of us", Steve Carbone, the head of digital at MediaCom, told The Post, "It’s a huge issue." MediaCom is part of media-buying giantGroupM, which is preparing to update clients on what it means for them.

PageFair, a company that detects ad blockers,estimates there are 198 million users of ad blockers worldwide, including 45 million in the US—and it’s growing.The technology is particularly concentrated for users of gaming and tech sites and among millennials who advertisers most want to reach.Global mobile-advertising spending is predicted to hit $100 billion in 2016, according to eMarketer.

Some Web publishers are working on technology that skirts ad blockers and serves up advertising regardless.That has some on Madison Avenue worried that consumers will blame their clients for overriding technology rather than the publishers."I can’t stop the progression of technology", MediaCom’s Carbone said, "I can only adapt to it."

Opponents of Apple’s new software claim that this technology will______.

When Apple launches its new software update for the iPhone on Wednesday, users will be offered the chance to surf the mobile Web without annoying ads cluttering up their screen.But Apple’s support for ad-blocking technology is ringing alarm bells on Madison Avenue, where critics warn it threatens not only the lifeblood of their business—but also the economic underpinnings of the free Internet."We don’t think ad blocking is right", Scott Cunningham, senior vice president of the Interactive Advertising Bureau, told The Post.

The rise of ad blockers is one of the biggest sea changes to affect the Internet ad business in decades, Cunningham said.For years, publishers have made what they believe is a fair trade-off with readers."Advertising is the economic engine that drives the free Internet," Cunningham said."The reality is the last 20 years have seen people developing content online for distribution, and consumers have opted in for that free content."While use of ad-blocking technology on desktop computers and mobile devices has been on the rise,Apple’s commitment to it is a game changer.With iOS 9 , developers will be able to create ad-blocking software for Apple’s Safari mobile browser.

Apple’s goal appears to be making the mobile Web a faster, cleaner and more pleasant all-around experience.But it could also have the effect of pushing publishers off the mobile Web and toward subscription services and paid apps, which is an area dominated by Apple.Already some Web publishers and content providers are turning away consumers who avail themselves of ad-busting technologies. Hulu is rejecting customers who use ad blockers, while the Washington Post blocks consumers from reading its site if it detects an ad blocker—and redirects them to subscription pages.

Whatever Apple’s new ad-free vision is, executives across Madison Avenue are scrambling to figure out the ramifications."The free Internet is going to have a major problem, and that’s a concern for all of us", Steve Carbone, the head of digital at MediaCom, told The Post, "It’s a huge issue." MediaCom is part of media-buying giantGroupM, which is preparing to update clients on what it means for them.

PageFair, a company that detects ad blockers,estimates there are 198 million users of ad blockers worldwide, including 45 million in the US—and it’s growing.The technology is particularly concentrated for users of gaming and tech sites and among millennials who advertisers most want to reach.Global mobile-advertising spending is predicted to hit $100 billion in 2016, according to eMarketer.

Some Web publishers are working on technology that skirts ad blockers and serves up advertising regardless.That has some on Madison Avenue worried that consumers will blame their clients for overriding technology rather than the publishers."I can’t stop the progression of technology", MediaCom’s Carbone said, "I can only adapt to it."

What does the word "trade-off" mean in the passage?______.

When Apple launches its new software update for the iPhone on Wednesday, users will be offered the chance to surf the mobile Web without annoying ads cluttering up their screen.But Apple’s support for ad-blocking technology is ringing alarm bells on Madison Avenue, where critics warn it threatens not only the lifeblood of their business—but also the economic underpinnings of the free Internet."We don’t think ad blocking is right", Scott Cunningham, senior vice president of the Interactive Advertising Bureau, told The Post.

The rise of ad blockers is one of the biggest sea changes to affect the Internet ad business in decades, Cunningham said.For years, publishers have made what they believe is a fair trade-off with readers."Advertising is the economic engine that drives the free Internet," Cunningham said."The reality is the last 20 years have seen people developing content online for distribution, and consumers have opted in for that free content."While use of ad-blocking technology on desktop computers and mobile devices has been on the rise,Apple’s commitment to it is a game changer.With iOS 9 , developers will be able to create ad-blocking software for Apple’s Safari mobile browser.

Apple’s goal appears to be making the mobile Web a faster, cleaner and more pleasant all-around experience.But it could also have the effect of pushing publishers off the mobile Web and toward subscription services and paid apps, which is an area dominated by Apple.Already some Web publishers and content providers are turning away consumers who avail themselves of ad-busting technologies. Hulu is rejecting customers who use ad blockers, while the Washington Post blocks consumers from reading its site if it detects an ad blocker—and redirects them to subscription pages.

Whatever Apple’s new ad-free vision is, executives across Madison Avenue are scrambling to figure out the ramifications."The free Internet is going to have a major problem, and that’s a concern for all of us", Steve Carbone, the head of digital at MediaCom, told The Post, "It’s a huge issue." MediaCom is part of media-buying giantGroupM, which is preparing to update clients on what it means for them.

PageFair, a company that detects ad blockers,estimates there are 198 million users of ad blockers worldwide, including 45 million in the US—and it’s growing.The technology is particularly concentrated for users of gaming and tech sites and among millennials who advertisers most want to reach.Global mobile-advertising spending is predicted to hit $100 billion in 2016, according to eMarketer.

Some Web publishers are working on technology that skirts ad blockers and serves up advertising regardless.That has some on Madison Avenue worried that consumers will blame their clients for overriding technology rather than the publishers."I can’t stop the progression of technology", MediaCom’s Carbone said, "I can only adapt to it."

According to the passage, Apple excels in______.

When Apple launches its new software update for the iPhone on Wednesday, users will be offered the chance to surf the mobile Web without annoying ads cluttering up their screen.But Apple’s support for ad-blocking technology is ringing alarm bells on Madison Avenue, where critics warn it threatens not only the lifeblood of their business—but also the economic underpinnings of the free Internet."We don’t think ad blocking is right", Scott Cunningham, senior vice president of the Interactive Advertising Bureau, told The Post.

The rise of ad blockers is one of the biggest sea changes to affect the Internet ad business in decades, Cunningham said.For years, publishers have made what they believe is a fair trade-off with readers."Advertising is the economic engine that drives the free Internet," Cunningham said."The reality is the last 20 years have seen people developing content online for distribution, and consumers have opted in for that free content."While use of ad-blocking technology on desktop computers and mobile devices has been on the rise,Apple’s commitment to it is a game changer.With iOS 9 , developers will be able to create ad-blocking software for Apple’s Safari mobile browser.

Apple’s goal appears to be making the mobile Web a faster, cleaner and more pleasant all-around experience.But it could also have the effect of pushing publishers off the mobile Web and toward subscription services and paid apps, which is an area dominated by Apple.Already some Web publishers and content providers are turning away consumers who avail themselves of ad-busting technologies. Hulu is rejecting customers who use ad blockers, while the Washington Post blocks consumers from reading its site if it detects an ad blocker—and redirects them to subscription pages.

Whatever Apple’s new ad-free vision is, executives across Madison Avenue are scrambling to figure out the ramifications."The free Internet is going to have a major problem, and that’s a concern for all of us", Steve Carbone, the head of digital at MediaCom, told The Post, "It’s a huge issue." MediaCom is part of media-buying giantGroupM, which is preparing to update clients on what it means for them.

PageFair, a company that detects ad blockers,estimates there are 198 million users of ad blockers worldwide, including 45 million in the US—and it’s growing.The technology is particularly concentrated for users of gaming and tech sites and among millennials who advertisers most want to reach.Global mobile-advertising spending is predicted to hit $100 billion in 2016, according to eMarketer.

Some Web publishers are working on technology that skirts ad blockers and serves up advertising regardless.That has some on Madison Avenue worried that consumers will blame their clients for overriding technology rather than the publishers."I can’t stop the progression of technology", MediaCom’s Carbone said, "I can only adapt to it."

Those whom marketers are most eager to approach are______.

When Apple launches its new software update for the iPhone on Wednesday, users will be offered the chance to surf the mobile Web without annoying ads cluttering up their screen.But Apple’s support for ad-blocking technology is ringing alarm bells on Madison Avenue, where critics warn it threatens not only the lifeblood of their business—but also the economic underpinnings of the free Internet."We don’t think ad blocking is right", Scott Cunningham, senior vice president of the Interactive Advertising Bureau, told The Post.

The rise of ad blockers is one of the biggest sea changes to affect the Internet ad business in decades, Cunningham said.For years, publishers have made what they believe is a fair trade-off with readers."Advertising is the economic engine that drives the free Internet," Cunningham said."The reality is the last 20 years have seen people developing content online for distribution, and consumers have opted in for that free content."While use of ad-blocking technology on desktop computers and mobile devices has been on the rise,Apple’s commitment to it is a game changer.With iOS 9 , developers will be able to create ad-blocking software for Apple’s Safari mobile browser.

Apple’s goal appears to be making the mobile Web a faster, cleaner and more pleasant all-around experience.But it could also have the effect of pushing publishers off the mobile Web and toward subscription services and paid apps, which is an area dominated by Apple.Already some Web publishers and content providers are turning away consumers who avail themselves of ad-busting technologies. Hulu is rejecting customers who use ad blockers, while the Washington Post blocks consumers from reading its site if it detects an ad blocker—and redirects them to subscription pages.

Whatever Apple’s new ad-free vision is, executives across Madison Avenue are scrambling to figure out the ramifications."The free Internet is going to have a major problem, and that’s a concern for all of us", Steve Carbone, the head of digital at MediaCom, told The Post, "It’s a huge issue." MediaCom is part of media-buying giantGroupM, which is preparing to update clients on what it means for them.

PageFair, a company that detects ad blockers,estimates there are 198 million users of ad blockers worldwide, including 45 million in the US—and it’s growing.The technology is particularly concentrated for users of gaming and tech sites and among millennials who advertisers most want to reach.Global mobile-advertising spending is predicted to hit $100 billion in 2016, according to eMarketer.

Some Web publishers are working on technology that skirts ad blockers and serves up advertising regardless.That has some on Madison Avenue worried that consumers will blame their clients for overriding technology rather than the publishers."I can’t stop the progression of technology", MediaCom’s Carbone said, "I can only adapt to it."

To deal with ad blockers, Web publishers are now______.

Physiology has been taught in British medical schools for a century and a half, but since about 1990, physiology teaching for medical students has been cut by more than fifty percent.During this time, medical student numbers have doubled.This bloating in numbers has outgrown the capacity of staff and space available to teach and accommodate them appropriately.Consequently, practical physiology training has been virtually eliminated.

Physiology studies the relationships between living states at all levels of biological organization, from molecules to organ systems.It is the key to understanding organ function and dysfunction.Some view physiology as an old-fashioned and mechanical approach to science rooted in a philosophy antagonistic to the statistical methodologies adopted by clinical science, such as epidemiology and human population genetics.But in fact this view is baseless;physiology has long since rejected its historical distrust of statistical evidence and enthusiastically embraces new methods, abstract molecular genetics, which shed light on biological processes.

Problem Based Learning (PBL), imported from North America was widely adopted in various guises throughout the UK medical schools during the 1990s. It avowedly aims to encourage self-directed learning and to erase the artificial barriers between theologies by promoting an integrated or "holistic" approach to medicine.It was also seen as a means of shifting the increased teaching load away from active researchers to non-specialist "facilitating" staff.But its adoption has meant a comprehensive loss of autonomy of the biological scientists who have participated in this venture.Clinicians now take a leading role in pre-clinical teaching, largely displacing pre-clinical scientists who are more in touch with basic physiological processes.Scientific content taught in the context of clinical problems omits much basic science, which is regarded as inessential digression from the clinical problems upon which the course is centered.PBL is much more appropriately suited to medical teaching in North America, where every medical student has studied biological sciences at college level prior to entering medical school.Undergraduate British medical students only rarely have equivalent experience, so realistically can only be expected to integrate knowledge and solve problems once they have acquired a firm understanding of basic sciences.

Another factor contributing to the decline of physiology courses has been the loss of physiology departments as a result of their merging with schools of biological, life, health, or medical sciences.Resource allocation within the preclinical schools, formerly controlled by academics working at the pre-clinical faculty or departmental level, is now centralized and controlled by senior administrators and clinicians.The financial and man power resources are redirected toward the more highly prioritized needs of the medical school rather than to science departments. Although the "old fashioned approach" of incorporating extensive laboratory courses in physiology into medical and medical science courses is costly in time,labor and space, their omission may prove to be even more costly.Eventually British graduates will lose out to their competitors trained in Continental Europe, where universities mostly still devote serious attention to teaching practical skills to medical and science undergraduates.

In the first paragraph, the author introduces his topic by______.

Physiology has been taught in British medical schools for a century and a half, but since about 1990, physiology teaching for medical students has been cut by more than fifty percent.During this time, medical student numbers have doubled.This bloating in numbers has outgrown the capacity of staff and space available to teach and accommodate them appropriately.Consequently, practical physiology training has been virtually eliminated.

Physiology studies the relationships between living states at all levels of biological organization, from molecules to organ systems.It is the key to understanding organ function and dysfunction.Some view physiology as an old-fashioned and mechanical approach to science rooted in a philosophy antagonistic to the statistical methodologies adopted by clinical science, such as epidemiology and human population genetics.But in fact this view is baseless;physiology has long since rejected its historical distrust of statistical evidence and enthusiastically embraces new methods, abstract molecular genetics, which shed light on biological processes.

Problem Based Learning (PBL), imported from North America was widely adopted in various guises throughout the UK medical schools during the 1990s. It avowedly aims to encourage self-directed learning and to erase the artificial barriers between theologies by promoting an integrated or "holistic" approach to medicine.It was also seen as a means of shifting the increased teaching load away from active researchers to non-specialist "facilitating" staff.But its adoption has meant a comprehensive loss of autonomy of the biological scientists who have participated in this venture.Clinicians now take a leading role in pre-clinical teaching, largely displacing pre-clinical scientists who are more in touch with basic physiological processes.Scientific content taught in the context of clinical problems omits much basic science, which is regarded as inessential digression from the clinical problems upon which the course is centered.PBL is much more appropriately suited to medical teaching in North America, where every medical student has studied biological sciences at college level prior to entering medical school.Undergraduate British medical students only rarely have equivalent experience, so realistically can only be expected to integrate knowledge and solve problems once they have acquired a firm understanding of basic sciences.

Another factor contributing to the decline of physiology courses has been the loss of physiology departments as a result of their merging with schools of biological, life, health, or medical sciences.Resource allocation within the preclinical schools, formerly controlled by academics working at the pre-clinical faculty or departmental level, is now centralized and controlled by senior administrators and clinicians.The financial and man power resources are redirected toward the more highly prioritized needs of the medical school rather than to science departments. Although the "old fashioned approach" of incorporating extensive laboratory courses in physiology into medical and medical science courses is costly in time,labor and space, their omission may prove to be even more costly.Eventually British graduates will lose out to their competitors trained in Continental Europe, where universities mostly still devote serious attention to teaching practical skills to medical and science undergraduates.

According to the passage, in its past records physiology was known for______.

Physiology has been taught in British medical schools for a century and a half, but since about 1990, physiology teaching for medical students has been cut by more than fifty percent.During this time, medical student numbers have doubled.This bloating in numbers has outgrown the capacity of staff and space available to teach and accommodate them appropriately.Consequently, practical physiology training has been virtually eliminated.

Physiology studies the relationships between living states at all levels of biological organization, from molecules to organ systems.It is the key to understanding organ function and dysfunction.Some view physiology as an old-fashioned and mechanical approach to science rooted in a philosophy antagonistic to the statistical methodologies adopted by clinical science, such as epidemiology and human population genetics.But in fact this view is baseless;physiology has long since rejected its historical distrust of statistical evidence and enthusiastically embraces new methods, abstract molecular genetics, which shed light on biological processes.

Problem Based Learning (PBL), imported from North America was widely adopted in various guises throughout the UK medical schools during the 1990s. It avowedly aims to encourage self-directed learning and to erase the artificial barriers between theologies by promoting an integrated or "holistic" approach to medicine.It was also seen as a means of shifting the increased teaching load away from active researchers to non-specialist "facilitating" staff.But its adoption has meant a comprehensive loss of autonomy of the biological scientists who have participated in this venture.Clinicians now take a leading role in pre-clinical teaching, largely displacing pre-clinical scientists who are more in touch with basic physiological processes.Scientific content taught in the context of clinical problems omits much basic science, which is regarded as inessential digression from the clinical problems upon which the course is centered.PBL is much more appropriately suited to medical teaching in North America, where every medical student has studied biological sciences at college level prior to entering medical school.Undergraduate British medical students only rarely have equivalent experience, so realistically can only be expected to integrate knowledge and solve problems once they have acquired a firm understanding of basic sciences.

Another factor contributing to the decline of physiology courses has been the loss of physiology departments as a result of their merging with schools of biological, life, health, or medical sciences.Resource allocation within the preclinical schools, formerly controlled by academics working at the pre-clinical faculty or departmental level, is now centralized and controlled by senior administrators and clinicians.The financial and man power resources are redirected toward the more highly prioritized needs of the medical school rather than to science departments. Although the "old fashioned approach" of incorporating extensive laboratory courses in physiology into medical and medical science courses is costly in time,labor and space, their omission may prove to be even more costly.Eventually British graduates will lose out to their competitors trained in Continental Europe, where universities mostly still devote serious attention to teaching practical skills to medical and science undergraduates.

What is the difference of medical education between UK and North America?

Physiology has been taught in British medical schools for a century and a half, but since about 1990, physiology teaching for medical students has been cut by more than fifty percent.During this time, medical student numbers have doubled.This bloating in numbers has outgrown the capacity of staff and space available to teach and accommodate them appropriately.Consequently, practical physiology training has been virtually eliminated.

Physiology studies the relationships between living states at all levels of biological organization, from molecules to organ systems.It is the key to understanding organ function and dysfunction.Some view physiology as an old-fashioned and mechanical approach to science rooted in a philosophy antagonistic to the statistical methodologies adopted by clinical science, such as epidemiology and human population genetics.But in fact this view is baseless;physiology has long since rejected its historical distrust of statistical evidence and enthusiastically embraces new methods, abstract molecular genetics, which shed light on biological processes.

Problem Based Learning (PBL), imported from North America was widely adopted in various guises throughout the UK medical schools during the 1990s. It avowedly aims to encourage self-directed learning and to erase the artificial barriers between theologies by promoting an integrated or "holistic" approach to medicine.It was also seen as a means of shifting the increased teaching load away from active researchers to non-specialist "facilitating" staff.But its adoption has meant a comprehensive loss of autonomy of the biological scientists who have participated in this venture.Clinicians now take a leading role in pre-clinical teaching, largely displacing pre-clinical scientists who are more in touch with basic physiological processes.Scientific content taught in the context of clinical problems omits much basic science, which is regarded as inessential digression from the clinical problems upon which the course is centered.PBL is much more appropriately suited to medical teaching in North America, where every medical student has studied biological sciences at college level prior to entering medical school.Undergraduate British medical students only rarely have equivalent experience, so realistically can only be expected to integrate knowledge and solve problems once they have acquired a firm understanding of basic sciences.

Another factor contributing to the decline of physiology courses has been the loss of physiology departments as a result of their merging with schools of biological, life, health, or medical sciences.Resource allocation within the preclinical schools, formerly controlled by academics working at the pre-clinical faculty or departmental level, is now centralized and controlled by senior administrators and clinicians.The financial and man power resources are redirected toward the more highly prioritized needs of the medical school rather than to science departments. Although the "old fashioned approach" of incorporating extensive laboratory courses in physiology into medical and medical science courses is costly in time,labor and space, their omission may prove to be even more costly.Eventually British graduates will lose out to their competitors trained in Continental Europe, where universities mostly still devote serious attention to teaching practical skills to medical and science undergraduates.

According to the author, British students will lose the competition due to______.

Physiology has been taught in British medical schools for a century and a half, but since about 1990, physiology teaching for medical students has been cut by more than fifty percent.During this time, medical student numbers have doubled.This bloating in numbers has outgrown the capacity of staff and space available to teach and accommodate them appropriately.Consequently, practical physiology training has been virtually eliminated.

Physiology studies the relationships between living states at all levels of biological organization, from molecules to organ systems.It is the key to understanding organ function and dysfunction.Some view physiology as an old-fashioned and mechanical approach to science rooted in a philosophy antagonistic to the statistical methodologies adopted by clinical science, such as epidemiology and human population genetics.But in fact this view is baseless;physiology has long since rejected its historical distrust of statistical evidence and enthusiastically embraces new methods, abstract molecular genetics, which shed light on biological processes.

Problem Based Learning (PBL), imported from North America was widely adopted in various guises throughout the UK medical schools during the 1990s. It avowedly aims to encourage self-directed learning and to erase the artificial barriers between theologies by promoting an integrated or "holistic" approach to medicine.It was also seen as a means of shifting the increased teaching load away from active researchers to non-specialist "facilitating" staff.But its adoption has meant a comprehensive loss of autonomy of the biological scientists who have participated in this venture.Clinicians now take a leading role in pre-clinical teaching, largely displacing pre-clinical scientists who are more in touch with basic physiological processes.Scientific content taught in the context of clinical problems omits much basic science, which is regarded as inessential digression from the clinical problems upon which the course is centered.PBL is much more appropriately suited to medical teaching in North America, where every medical student has studied biological sciences at college level prior to entering medical school.Undergraduate British medical students only rarely have equivalent experience, so realistically can only be expected to integrate knowledge and solve problems once they have acquired a firm understanding of basic sciences.

Another factor contributing to the decline of physiology courses has been the loss of physiology departments as a result of their merging with schools of biological, life, health, or medical sciences.Resource allocation within the preclinical schools, formerly controlled by academics working at the pre-clinical faculty or departmental level, is now centralized and controlled by senior administrators and clinicians.The financial and man power resources are redirected toward the more highly prioritized needs of the medical school rather than to science departments. Although the "old fashioned approach" of incorporating extensive laboratory courses in physiology into medical and medical science courses is costly in time,labor and space, their omission may prove to be even more costly.Eventually British graduates will lose out to their competitors trained in Continental Europe, where universities mostly still devote serious attention to teaching practical skills to medical and science undergraduates.

Which of the following could be the proper title of the text?

The outcry over Internet firms’ habit of surreptitiously tracking web surfers’ activities has clearly resonated inside the White House.On March 16th the Obama administration announced that it intends to work with Congress to produce "a privacy bill of rights" giving American consumers greater control over how their information is collected and used by digital marketers.

Those who have been lobbying for change agree with, but are unsympathetic to, Internet firms’ supreme worries that such a law could dent their advertising-driven business models, which rely on tracking and targeting consumers to maximize revenues."This is dimming the prospects of Google, Facebook and other digital ad companies", says Jeffrey Chester of the Centre for Digital Democracy.

Quite how dark things get for them will depend on the details of the bill.It will seek to lay down the basic principles of Internet privacy rights, broadly following recommendations published last December by the Department of Commerce.The department’s report said consumers should be told more about why data are being collected about them and how they are used; and it called for stricter limits on what companies can do with information they collect.

Whatever legislation finally emerges is likely to give a broader role to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which will almost certainly be charged with deciding how those principles are translated into practice and with policing their implementation.Among other things, the FTC is known to be keen on a formal "do not track" system, which would allow users to block certain sites from monitoring their online activities.

Keen to avoid this, the online-advertising industry has been working overtime to convince policymakers that it can police itself using systems such as icons on web pages that show surfers when they are being tracked.And it is warning anyone who will listen that consumers will suffer if tough do-not-track rules hit ad revenues,forcing web firms to charge for more content.With Mr. Obama throwing his weight behind Internet privacy, this rearguard action is less likely to be successful.Some ad firms have started talking of creating a do-not-track system of their own, that would limit the damage to their digital activities.

Although all this may dent their revenues,America’s Internet giants could also benefit from the legislation if it helps them in their dealings with the European Union.The EU’s already fairly strict rules on privacy—which it considers a fundamental human right—are being tightened further.The time-consuming and expensive legal hoops the EU makes American Internet firms jump through, to be allowed to handle Europeans’ online data, will become more demanding.If by passing its own online-privacy "bill of rights" America can convince the EU to ease this legal burden, then it will be an important win for American companies, says Joel Reidenberg, a professor at Fordham University’s law school.Google, Facebook and others will no doubt be tracking—both online and offline—the progress of EU-American talks on this matter very closely.

It can be learned from the first paragraph that Internet firms______.

The outcry over Internet firms’ habit of surreptitiously tracking web surfers’ activities has clearly resonated inside the White House.On March 16th the Obama administration announced that it intends to work with Congress to produce "a privacy bill of rights" giving American consumers greater control over how their information is collected and used by digital marketers.

Those who have been lobbying for change agree with, but are unsympathetic to, Internet firms’ supreme worries that such a law could dent their advertising-driven business models, which rely on tracking and targeting consumers to maximize revenues."This is dimming the prospects of Google, Facebook and other digital ad companies", says Jeffrey Chester of the Centre for Digital Democracy.

Quite how dark things get for them will depend on the details of the bill.It will seek to lay down the basic principles of Internet privacy rights, broadly following recommendations published last December by the Department of Commerce.The department’s report said consumers should be told more about why data are being collected about them and how they are used; and it called for stricter limits on what companies can do with information they collect.

Whatever legislation finally emerges is likely to give a broader role to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which will almost certainly be charged with deciding how those principles are translated into practice and with policing their implementation.Among other things, the FTC is known to be keen on a formal "do not track" system, which would allow users to block certain sites from monitoring their online activities.

Keen to avoid this, the online-advertising industry has been working overtime to convince policymakers that it can police itself using systems such as icons on web pages that show surfers when they are being tracked.And it is warning anyone who will listen that consumers will suffer if tough do-not-track rules hit ad revenues,forcing web firms to charge for more content.With Mr. Obama throwing his weight behind Internet privacy, this rearguard action is less likely to be successful.Some ad firms have started talking of creating a do-not-track system of their own, that would limit the damage to their digital activities.

Although all this may dent their revenues,America’s Internet giants could also benefit from the legislation if it helps them in their dealings with the European Union.The EU’s already fairly strict rules on privacy—which it considers a fundamental human right—are being tightened further.The time-consuming and expensive legal hoops the EU makes American Internet firms jump through, to be allowed to handle Europeans’ online data, will become more demanding.If by passing its own online-privacy "bill of rights" America can convince the EU to ease this legal burden, then it will be an important win for American companies, says Joel Reidenberg, a professor at Fordham University’s law school.Google, Facebook and others will no doubt be tracking—both online and offline—the progress of EU-American talks on this matter very closely.

What is the utmost concern of Internet companies about the privacy bill?

The outcry over Internet firms’ habit of surreptitiously tracking web surfers’ activities has clearly resonated inside the White House.On March 16th the Obama administration announced that it intends to work with Congress to produce "a privacy bill of rights" giving American consumers greater control over how their information is collected and used by digital marketers.

Those who have been lobbying for change agree with, but are unsympathetic to, Internet firms’ supreme worries that such a law could dent their advertising-driven business models, which rely on tracking and targeting consumers to maximize revenues."This is dimming the prospects of Google, Facebook and other digital ad companies", says Jeffrey Chester of the Centre for Digital Democracy.

Quite how dark things get for them will depend on the details of the bill.It will seek to lay down the basic principles of Internet privacy rights, broadly following recommendations published last December by the Department of Commerce.The department’s report said consumers should be told more about why data are being collected about them and how they are used; and it called for stricter limits on what companies can do with information they collect.

Whatever legislation finally emerges is likely to give a broader role to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which will almost certainly be charged with deciding how those principles are translated into practice and with policing their implementation.Among other things, the FTC is known to be keen on a formal "do not track" system, which would allow users to block certain sites from monitoring their online activities.

Keen to avoid this, the online-advertising industry has been working overtime to convince policymakers that it can police itself using systems such as icons on web pages that show surfers when they are being tracked.And it is warning anyone who will listen that consumers will suffer if tough do-not-track rules hit ad revenues,forcing web firms to charge for more content.With Mr. Obama throwing his weight behind Internet privacy, this rearguard action is less likely to be successful.Some ad firms have started talking of creating a do-not-track system of their own, that would limit the damage to their digital activities.

Although all this may dent their revenues,America’s Internet giants could also benefit from the legislation if it helps them in their dealings with the European Union.The EU’s already fairly strict rules on privacy—which it considers a fundamental human right—are being tightened further.The time-consuming and expensive legal hoops the EU makes American Internet firms jump through, to be allowed to handle Europeans’ online data, will become more demanding.If by passing its own online-privacy "bill of rights" America can convince the EU to ease this legal burden, then it will be an important win for American companies, says Joel Reidenberg, a professor at Fordham University’s law school.Google, Facebook and others will no doubt be tracking—both online and offline—the progress of EU-American talks on this matter very closely.

Which of the following is true of do-not-track system______.

The outcry over Internet firms’ habit of surreptitiously tracking web surfers’ activities has clearly resonated inside the White House.On March 16th the Obama administration announced that it intends to work with Congress to produce "a privacy bill of rights" giving American consumers greater control over how their information is collected and used by digital marketers.

Those who have been lobbying for change agree with, but are unsympathetic to, Internet firms’ supreme worries that such a law could dent their advertising-driven business models, which rely on tracking and targeting consumers to maximize revenues."This is dimming the prospects of Google, Facebook and other digital ad companies", says Jeffrey Chester of the Centre for Digital Democracy.

Quite how dark things get for them will depend on the details of the bill.It will seek to lay down the basic principles of Internet privacy rights, broadly following recommendations published last December by the Department of Commerce.The department’s report said consumers should be told more about why data are being collected about them and how they are used; and it called for stricter limits on what companies can do with information they collect.

Whatever legislation finally emerges is likely to give a broader role to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which will almost certainly be charged with deciding how those principles are translated into practice and with policing their implementation.Among other things, the FTC is known to be keen on a formal "do not track" system, which would allow users to block certain sites from monitoring their online activities.

Keen to avoid this, the online-advertising industry has been working overtime to convince policymakers that it can police itself using systems such as icons on web pages that show surfers when they are being tracked.And it is warning anyone who will listen that consumers will suffer if tough do-not-track rules hit ad revenues,forcing web firms to charge for more content.With Mr. Obama throwing his weight behind Internet privacy, this rearguard action is less likely to be successful.Some ad firms have started talking of creating a do-not-track system of their own, that would limit the damage to their digital activities.

Although all this may dent their revenues,America’s Internet giants could also benefit from the legislation if it helps them in their dealings with the European Union.The EU’s already fairly strict rules on privacy—which it considers a fundamental human right—are being tightened further.The time-consuming and expensive legal hoops the EU makes American Internet firms jump through, to be allowed to handle Europeans’ online data, will become more demanding.If by passing its own online-privacy "bill of rights" America can convince the EU to ease this legal burden, then it will be an important win for American companies, says Joel Reidenberg, a professor at Fordham University’s law school.Google, Facebook and others will no doubt be tracking—both online and offline—the progress of EU-American talks on this matter very closely.

What is the reaction of the ad companies toward the do-not-track system?

The outcry over Internet firms’ habit of surreptitiously tracking web surfers’ activities has clearly resonated inside the White House.On March 16th the Obama administration announced that it intends to work with Congress to produce "a privacy bill of rights" giving American consumers greater control over how their information is collected and used by digital marketers.

Those who have been lobbying for change agree with, but are unsympathetic to, Internet firms’ supreme worries that such a law could dent their advertising-driven business models, which rely on tracking and targeting consumers to maximize revenues."This is dimming the prospects of Google, Facebook and other digital ad companies", says Jeffrey Chester of the Centre for Digital Democracy.

Quite how dark things get for them will depend on the details of the bill.It will seek to lay down the basic principles of Internet privacy rights, broadly following recommendations published last December by the Department of Commerce.The department’s report said consumers should be told more about why data are being collected about them and how they are used; and it called for stricter limits on what companies can do with information they collect.

Whatever legislation finally emerges is likely to give a broader role to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which will almost certainly be charged with deciding how those principles are translated into practice and with policing their implementation.Among other things, the FTC is known to be keen on a formal "do not track" system, which would allow users to block certain sites from monitoring their online activities.

Keen to avoid this, the online-advertising industry has been working overtime to convince policymakers that it can police itself using systems such as icons on web pages that show surfers when they are being tracked.And it is warning anyone who will listen that consumers will suffer if tough do-not-track rules hit ad revenues,forcing web firms to charge for more content.With Mr. Obama throwing his weight behind Internet privacy, this rearguard action is less likely to be successful.Some ad firms have started talking of creating a do-not-track system of their own, that would limit the damage to their digital activities.

Although all this may dent their revenues,America’s Internet giants could also benefit from the legislation if it helps them in their dealings with the European Union.The EU’s already fairly strict rules on privacy—which it considers a fundamental human right—are being tightened further.The time-consuming and expensive legal hoops the EU makes American Internet firms jump through, to be allowed to handle Europeans’ online data, will become more demanding.If by passing its own online-privacy "bill of rights" America can convince the EU to ease this legal burden, then it will be an important win for American companies, says Joel Reidenberg, a professor at Fordham University’s law school.Google, Facebook and others will no doubt be tracking—both online and offline—the progress of EU-American talks on this matter very closely.

It can be inferred from the last two paragraphs that______.