How much should you know about Prince Charles’s attempts to change government policies? Since 2005, the Guardian has fought to make public letters sent by the prince to Whitehall ministers.No one disputes that these"black spider memos" are important and of public interest.Last autumn, a Freedom of Information tribunal of three judges ruled that they should be published for "transparency as to how and when Prince Charles seeks to influence government".Even as he vetoed the judges’ decision, the attorney general, Dominic Grieve, admitted that the "advocacy correspondence" showed the prince disagreeing with government policy.But to preserve the fiction that the future monarch is politically neutral, Mr.Grieve demanded the letters be kept secret.

Without even consulting parliament, a cabinet minister has overturned a court verdict—and put his hand over the public’s eyes to shield it from unpleasantness.Today three senior judges admitted that they found the block"troublesome".The veto’s very existence, said the lord chief justice, was "a constitutional aberration".The judges went on："It is not quite a pernicious ‘Henry VIII clause’, which enables a minister to override statute but, unconstrained, it would have the same damaging effect on the rule of law." Yet having painted the veto as indefensible, the judges then elected to uphold it.Years later, and despite a landmark ruling by a FoI tribunal, members of the public are still no closer to seeing how the Prince of Wales tries to influence governments they have elected.

For, make no mistake, this is meddling of the highest order.Government advisers have described in court how such royal memos went to the "top of the pile" and were "treated with great reverence".The prince’s interests are wide-ranging—the letters in question were sent to seven Whitehall departments, from the Department for Business to the Northern Ireland Office—and he has been enthusiastic in pursuing them,writing 27 letters in just seven months between 2004 and 2005.

To be clear, this correspondence was not about routine engagements or part of the prince’s preparation for kingship, which would place them outside publication under the Freedom of Information laws which have since been restricted further to exempt all Prince Charles’s correspondence.By Mr.Grieves’ own admission, these are "particularly frank" letters by which Prince Charles seeks to influence public policy.Yet Britons are not permitted to find out the nature of that influence: what has been demanded or what has been given.It is obvious what the public loses by such secrecy.It is less clear how much Clarence House really gains by having the vacuum filled with partial leaks and innuendo.The shroud should not be left in place.

The attorney general vetoed the judges’ decision in order to______.

How much should you know about Prince Charles’s attempts to change government policies? Since 2005, the Guardian has fought to make public letters sent by the prince to Whitehall ministers.No one disputes that these"black spider memos" are important and of public interest.Last autumn, a Freedom of Information tribunal of three judges ruled that they should be published for "transparency as to how and when Prince Charles seeks to influence government".Even as he vetoed the judges’ decision, the attorney general, Dominic Grieve, admitted that the "advocacy correspondence" showed the prince disagreeing with government policy.But to preserve the fiction that the future monarch is politically neutral, Mr.Grieve demanded the letters be kept secret.

Without even consulting parliament, a cabinet minister has overturned a court verdict—and put his hand over the public’s eyes to shield it from unpleasantness.Today three senior judges admitted that they found the block"troublesome".The veto’s very existence, said the lord chief justice, was "a constitutional aberration".The judges went on："It is not quite a pernicious ‘Henry VIII clause’, which enables a minister to override statute but, unconstrained, it would have the same damaging effect on the rule of law." Yet having painted the veto as indefensible, the judges then elected to uphold it.Years later, and despite a landmark ruling by a FoI tribunal, members of the public are still no closer to seeing how the Prince of Wales tries to influence governments they have elected.

For, make no mistake, this is meddling of the highest order.Government advisers have described in court how such royal memos went to the "top of the pile" and were "treated with great reverence".The prince’s interests are wide-ranging—the letters in question were sent to seven Whitehall departments, from the Department for Business to the Northern Ireland Office—and he has been enthusiastic in pursuing them,writing 27 letters in just seven months between 2004 and 2005.

To be clear, this correspondence was not about routine engagements or part of the prince’s preparation for kingship, which would place them outside publication under the Freedom of Information laws which have since been restricted further to exempt all Prince Charles’s correspondence.By Mr.Grieves’ own admission, these are "particularly frank" letters by which Prince Charles seeks to influence public policy.Yet Britons are not permitted to find out the nature of that influence: what has been demanded or what has been given.It is obvious what the public loses by such secrecy.It is less clear how much Clarence House really gains by having the vacuum filled with partial leaks and innuendo.The shroud should not be left in place.

It can be inferred from Paragraph 2 that______.

How much should you know about Prince Charles’s attempts to change government policies? Since 2005, the Guardian has fought to make public letters sent by the prince to Whitehall ministers.No one disputes that these"black spider memos" are important and of public interest.Last autumn, a Freedom of Information tribunal of three judges ruled that they should be published for "transparency as to how and when Prince Charles seeks to influence government".Even as he vetoed the judges’ decision, the attorney general, Dominic Grieve, admitted that the "advocacy correspondence" showed the prince disagreeing with government policy.But to preserve the fiction that the future monarch is politically neutral, Mr.Grieve demanded the letters be kept secret.

Without even consulting parliament, a cabinet minister has overturned a court verdict—and put his hand over the public’s eyes to shield it from unpleasantness.Today three senior judges admitted that they found the block"troublesome".The veto’s very existence, said the lord chief justice, was "a constitutional aberration".The judges went on："It is not quite a pernicious ‘Henry VIII clause’, which enables a minister to override statute but, unconstrained, it would have the same damaging effect on the rule of law." Yet having painted the veto as indefensible, the judges then elected to uphold it.Years later, and despite a landmark ruling by a FoI tribunal, members of the public are still no closer to seeing how the Prince of Wales tries to influence governments they have elected.

For, make no mistake, this is meddling of the highest order.Government advisers have described in court how such royal memos went to the "top of the pile" and were "treated with great reverence".The prince’s interests are wide-ranging—the letters in question were sent to seven Whitehall departments, from the Department for Business to the Northern Ireland Office—and he has been enthusiastic in pursuing them,writing 27 letters in just seven months between 2004 and 2005.

To be clear, this correspondence was not about routine engagements or part of the prince’s preparation for kingship, which would place them outside publication under the Freedom of Information laws which have since been restricted further to exempt all Prince Charles’s correspondence.By Mr.Grieves’ own admission, these are "particularly frank" letters by which Prince Charles seeks to influence public policy.Yet Britons are not permitted to find out the nature of that influence: what has been demanded or what has been given.It is obvious what the public loses by such secrecy.It is less clear how much Clarence House really gains by having the vacuum filled with partial leaks and innuendo.The shroud should not be left in place.

The word "meddling" (Line 1,Para.3) is closest in meaning to______.

How much should you know about Prince Charles’s attempts to change government policies? Since 2005, the Guardian has fought to make public letters sent by the prince to Whitehall ministers.No one disputes that these"black spider memos" are important and of public interest.Last autumn, a Freedom of Information tribunal of three judges ruled that they should be published for "transparency as to how and when Prince Charles seeks to influence government".Even as he vetoed the judges’ decision, the attorney general, Dominic Grieve, admitted that the "advocacy correspondence" showed the prince disagreeing with government policy.But to preserve the fiction that the future monarch is politically neutral, Mr.Grieve demanded the letters be kept secret.

Without even consulting parliament, a cabinet minister has overturned a court verdict—and put his hand over the public’s eyes to shield it from unpleasantness.Today three senior judges admitted that they found the block"troublesome".The veto’s very existence, said the lord chief justice, was "a constitutional aberration".The judges went on："It is not quite a pernicious ‘Henry VIII clause’, which enables a minister to override statute but, unconstrained, it would have the same damaging effect on the rule of law." Yet having painted the veto as indefensible, the judges then elected to uphold it.Years later, and despite a landmark ruling by a FoI tribunal, members of the public are still no closer to seeing how the Prince of Wales tries to influence governments they have elected.

For, make no mistake, this is meddling of the highest order.Government advisers have described in court how such royal memos went to the "top of the pile" and were "treated with great reverence".The prince’s interests are wide-ranging—the letters in question were sent to seven Whitehall departments, from the Department for Business to the Northern Ireland Office—and he has been enthusiastic in pursuing them,writing 27 letters in just seven months between 2004 and 2005.

To be clear, this correspondence was not about routine engagements or part of the prince’s preparation for kingship, which would place them outside publication under the Freedom of Information laws which have since been restricted further to exempt all Prince Charles’s correspondence.By Mr.Grieves’ own admission, these are "particularly frank" letters by which Prince Charles seeks to influence public policy.Yet Britons are not permitted to find out the nature of that influence: what has been demanded or what has been given.It is obvious what the public loses by such secrecy.It is less clear how much Clarence House really gains by having the vacuum filled with partial leaks and innuendo.The shroud should not be left in place.

We can learn from the last paragraph that______.

How much should you know about Prince Charles’s attempts to change government policies? Since 2005, the Guardian has fought to make public letters sent by the prince to Whitehall ministers.No one disputes that these"black spider memos" are important and of public interest.Last autumn, a Freedom of Information tribunal of three judges ruled that they should be published for "transparency as to how and when Prince Charles seeks to influence government".Even as he vetoed the judges’ decision, the attorney general, Dominic Grieve, admitted that the "advocacy correspondence" showed the prince disagreeing with government policy.But to preserve the fiction that the future monarch is politically neutral, Mr.Grieve demanded the letters be kept secret.

Without even consulting parliament, a cabinet minister has overturned a court verdict—and put his hand over the public’s eyes to shield it from unpleasantness.Today three senior judges admitted that they found the block"troublesome".The veto’s very existence, said the lord chief justice, was "a constitutional aberration".The judges went on："It is not quite a pernicious ‘Henry VIII clause’, which enables a minister to override statute but, unconstrained, it would have the same damaging effect on the rule of law." Yet having painted the veto as indefensible, the judges then elected to uphold it.Years later, and despite a landmark ruling by a FoI tribunal, members of the public are still no closer to seeing how the Prince of Wales tries to influence governments they have elected.

For, make no mistake, this is meddling of the highest order.Government advisers have described in court how such royal memos went to the "top of the pile" and were "treated with great reverence".The prince’s interests are wide-ranging—the letters in question were sent to seven Whitehall departments, from the Department for Business to the Northern Ireland Office—and he has been enthusiastic in pursuing them,writing 27 letters in just seven months between 2004 and 2005.

To be clear, this correspondence was not about routine engagements or part of the prince’s preparation for kingship, which would place them outside publication under the Freedom of Information laws which have since been restricted further to exempt all Prince Charles’s correspondence.By Mr.Grieves’ own admission, these are "particularly frank" letters by which Prince Charles seeks to influence public policy.Yet Britons are not permitted to find out the nature of that influence: what has been demanded or what has been given.It is obvious what the public loses by such secrecy.It is less clear how much Clarence House really gains by having the vacuum filled with partial leaks and innuendo.The shroud should not be left in place.

Which of the following is the text mainly about?

The royal archives are a treasury of documents of national and international importance that stretch back over 250 years, from George III to the present queen.For this reason alone, the collections belong in the public domain,something the royal archivists recognized with their decision to put Queen Victoria’s journals online.But it should not be for the royal archivists to decide on an arbitrary basis what can be seen and what cannot.Like the National Archives—perhaps even as part of it—there should be a transparent process through which royal documents relating to state affairs are generally available.

The current dispute about the publication of footage of a young Princess Elizabeth with her uncle and mother performing a Nazi salute for the camera explains why this is such a neuralgic issue for Buckingham Palace.It exactly reflects the ambiguity at the centre of the monarchy, where the queen is both a private person and a part of the constitution.A still frame that captures the princess in a gesture that strikes us now as abhorrent still resonates, even if in 1933 it was commonplace in the often anti-Jewish upper classes to make light of Hitler’s anti-Semitism. No wonder the royal archivists at Windsor guard the papers of father, uncle and grandfather with such care.

Nonetheless, it is an unacceptable anomaly that the gatekeepers of documents relating to affairs of state should apparently be mainly concerned with concealing them from the public gaze.A glance at the papers of almost any national figure in the 20th century reveals how deeply the activities of the monarchy infused public life before the Queen came to the throne in 1952. And they continue to do so, which is why the Guardian fought a 10-year legal battle for the disclosure of Prince Charles’s letters to ministers.

The acknowledgments in countless histories of the 20th century betray the frustration of academics at the ruthless exploitation by royal archivists of their control over access.The ambiguity around the monarch as a private person is used either to justify banning access entirely, or as a way of legitimizing a scrutiny by the palace that more or less amounts to a right of censorship.The perception at least is that access is usually granted only to those writers who can be relied upon to pass friendly judgments.

So it is an unusually brazen fiction for the royal archives website to declare that the royal household is committed to transparency.This is an institution to which freedom of information does not apply, because the royal household was not defined as a public body in the 2000 act.Papers in the collections are not described as public records as defined in the relevant legislation.

Access is controlled by an unaccountable group whose activity, where it is visible at all, works most often to obstruct, not to facilitate.This is a deliberate and unacceptable attempt to thwart genuine academic endeavor.The royal family receives large amounts of public money, which for most people is justified by their public work.But that does not mean that their history can be sheltered from the public gaze.

Queen Victoria’s journals are cited by the author to______.

The royal archives are a treasury of documents of national and international importance that stretch back over 250 years, from George III to the present queen.For this reason alone, the collections belong in the public domain,something the royal archivists recognized with their decision to put Queen Victoria’s journals online.But it should not be for the royal archivists to decide on an arbitrary basis what can be seen and what cannot.Like the National Archives—perhaps even as part of it—there should be a transparent process through which royal documents relating to state affairs are generally available.

The current dispute about the publication of footage of a young Princess Elizabeth with her uncle and mother performing a Nazi salute for the camera explains why this is such a neuralgic issue for Buckingham Palace.It exactly reflects the ambiguity at the centre of the monarchy, where the queen is both a private person and a part of the constitution.A still frame that captures the princess in a gesture that strikes us now as abhorrent still resonates, even if in 1933 it was commonplace in the often anti-Jewish upper classes to make light of Hitler’s anti-Semitism. No wonder the royal archivists at Windsor guard the papers of father, uncle and grandfather with such care.

Nonetheless, it is an unacceptable anomaly that the gatekeepers of documents relating to affairs of state should apparently be mainly concerned with concealing them from the public gaze.A glance at the papers of almost any national figure in the 20th century reveals how deeply the activities of the monarchy infused public life before the Queen came to the throne in 1952. And they continue to do so, which is why the Guardian fought a 10-year legal battle for the disclosure of Prince Charles’s letters to ministers.

The acknowledgments in countless histories of the 20th century betray the frustration of academics at the ruthless exploitation by royal archivists of their control over access.The ambiguity around the monarch as a private person is used either to justify banning access entirely, or as a way of legitimizing a scrutiny by the palace that more or less amounts to a right of censorship.The perception at least is that access is usually granted only to those writers who can be relied upon to pass friendly judgments.

So it is an unusually brazen fiction for the royal archives website to declare that the royal household is committed to transparency.This is an institution to which freedom of information does not apply, because the royal household was not defined as a public body in the 2000 act.Papers in the collections are not described as public records as defined in the relevant legislation.

Access is controlled by an unaccountable group whose activity, where it is visible at all, works most often to obstruct, not to facilitate.This is a deliberate and unacceptable attempt to thwart genuine academic endeavor.The royal family receives large amounts of public money, which for most people is justified by their public work.But that does not mean that their history can be sheltered from the public gaze.

What justifies the cautious handling of royal documents by the archivists?

The royal archives are a treasury of documents of national and international importance that stretch back over 250 years, from George III to the present queen.For this reason alone, the collections belong in the public domain,something the royal archivists recognized with their decision to put Queen Victoria’s journals online.But it should not be for the royal archivists to decide on an arbitrary basis what can be seen and what cannot.Like the National Archives—perhaps even as part of it—there should be a transparent process through which royal documents relating to state affairs are generally available.

The current dispute about the publication of footage of a young Princess Elizabeth with her uncle and mother performing a Nazi salute for the camera explains why this is such a neuralgic issue for Buckingham Palace.It exactly reflects the ambiguity at the centre of the monarchy, where the queen is both a private person and a part of the constitution.A still frame that captures the princess in a gesture that strikes us now as abhorrent still resonates, even if in 1933 it was commonplace in the often anti-Jewish upper classes to make light of Hitler’s anti-Semitism. No wonder the royal archivists at Windsor guard the papers of father, uncle and grandfather with such care.

Nonetheless, it is an unacceptable anomaly that the gatekeepers of documents relating to affairs of state should apparently be mainly concerned with concealing them from the public gaze.A glance at the papers of almost any national figure in the 20th century reveals how deeply the activities of the monarchy infused public life before the Queen came to the throne in 1952. And they continue to do so, which is why the Guardian fought a 10-year legal battle for the disclosure of Prince Charles’s letters to ministers.

The acknowledgments in countless histories of the 20th century betray the frustration of academics at the ruthless exploitation by royal archivists of their control over access.The ambiguity around the monarch as a private person is used either to justify banning access entirely, or as a way of legitimizing a scrutiny by the palace that more or less amounts to a right of censorship.The perception at least is that access is usually granted only to those writers who can be relied upon to pass friendly judgments.

So it is an unusually brazen fiction for the royal archives website to declare that the royal household is committed to transparency.This is an institution to which freedom of information does not apply, because the royal household was not defined as a public body in the 2000 act.Papers in the collections are not described as public records as defined in the relevant legislation.

Access is controlled by an unaccountable group whose activity, where it is visible at all, works most often to obstruct, not to facilitate.This is a deliberate and unacceptable attempt to thwart genuine academic endeavor.The royal family receives large amounts of public money, which for most people is justified by their public work.But that does not mean that their history can be sheltered from the public gaze.

Which of the following is shown to be abnormal according to the author?

The royal archives are a treasury of documents of national and international importance that stretch back over 250 years, from George III to the present queen.For this reason alone, the collections belong in the public domain,something the royal archivists recognized with their decision to put Queen Victoria’s journals online.But it should not be for the royal archivists to decide on an arbitrary basis what can be seen and what cannot.Like the National Archives—perhaps even as part of it—there should be a transparent process through which royal documents relating to state affairs are generally available.

The current dispute about the publication of footage of a young Princess Elizabeth with her uncle and mother performing a Nazi salute for the camera explains why this is such a neuralgic issue for Buckingham Palace.It exactly reflects the ambiguity at the centre of the monarchy, where the queen is both a private person and a part of the constitution.A still frame that captures the princess in a gesture that strikes us now as abhorrent still resonates, even if in 1933 it was commonplace in the often anti-Jewish upper classes to make light of Hitler’s anti-Semitism. No wonder the royal archivists at Windsor guard the papers of father, uncle and grandfather with such care.

Nonetheless, it is an unacceptable anomaly that the gatekeepers of documents relating to affairs of state should apparently be mainly concerned with concealing them from the public gaze.A glance at the papers of almost any national figure in the 20th century reveals how deeply the activities of the monarchy infused public life before the Queen came to the throne in 1952. And they continue to do so, which is why the Guardian fought a 10-year legal battle for the disclosure of Prince Charles’s letters to ministers.

The acknowledgments in countless histories of the 20th century betray the frustration of academics at the ruthless exploitation by royal archivists of their control over access.The ambiguity around the monarch as a private person is used either to justify banning access entirely, or as a way of legitimizing a scrutiny by the palace that more or less amounts to a right of censorship.The perception at least is that access is usually granted only to those writers who can be relied upon to pass friendly judgments.

So it is an unusually brazen fiction for the royal archives website to declare that the royal household is committed to transparency.This is an institution to which freedom of information does not apply, because the royal household was not defined as a public body in the 2000 act.Papers in the collections are not described as public records as defined in the relevant legislation.

Access is controlled by an unaccountable group whose activity, where it is visible at all, works most often to obstruct, not to facilitate.This is a deliberate and unacceptable attempt to thwart genuine academic endeavor.The royal family receives large amounts of public money, which for most people is justified by their public work.But that does not mean that their history can be sheltered from the public gaze.

Archives’ access might possibly be offered to______.

The royal archives are a treasury of documents of national and international importance that stretch back over 250 years, from George III to the present queen.For this reason alone, the collections belong in the public domain,something the royal archivists recognized with their decision to put Queen Victoria’s journals online.But it should not be for the royal archivists to decide on an arbitrary basis what can be seen and what cannot.Like the National Archives—perhaps even as part of it—there should be a transparent process through which royal documents relating to state affairs are generally available.

The current dispute about the publication of footage of a young Princess Elizabeth with her uncle and mother performing a Nazi salute for the camera explains why this is such a neuralgic issue for Buckingham Palace.It exactly reflects the ambiguity at the centre of the monarchy, where the queen is both a private person and a part of the constitution.A still frame that captures the princess in a gesture that strikes us now as abhorrent still resonates, even if in 1933 it was commonplace in the often anti-Jewish upper classes to make light of Hitler’s anti-Semitism. No wonder the royal archivists at Windsor guard the papers of father, uncle and grandfather with such care.

Nonetheless, it is an unacceptable anomaly that the gatekeepers of documents relating to affairs of state should apparently be mainly concerned with concealing them from the public gaze.A glance at the papers of almost any national figure in the 20th century reveals how deeply the activities of the monarchy infused public life before the Queen came to the throne in 1952. And they continue to do so, which is why the Guardian fought a 10-year legal battle for the disclosure of Prince Charles’s letters to ministers.

The acknowledgments in countless histories of the 20th century betray the frustration of academics at the ruthless exploitation by royal archivists of their control over access.The ambiguity around the monarch as a private person is used either to justify banning access entirely, or as a way of legitimizing a scrutiny by the palace that more or less amounts to a right of censorship.The perception at least is that access is usually granted only to those writers who can be relied upon to pass friendly judgments.

So it is an unusually brazen fiction for the royal archives website to declare that the royal household is committed to transparency.This is an institution to which freedom of information does not apply, because the royal household was not defined as a public body in the 2000 act.Papers in the collections are not described as public records as defined in the relevant legislation.

Access is controlled by an unaccountable group whose activity, where it is visible at all, works most often to obstruct, not to facilitate.This is a deliberate and unacceptable attempt to thwart genuine academic endeavor.The royal family receives large amounts of public money, which for most people is justified by their public work.But that does not mean that their history can be sheltered from the public gaze.

From the last paragraph we can learn that______.

Before publishing this article, the editors asked me to declare any competing interests.This is routine practice with most journals and is intended to address the serious issue of bias in research.The problem is that after competing interests are disclosed in published research, almost nothing is done with them.

Although journals have strengthened their requirements, disclosures are still far from complete.Around half of the studies that involve investigators who hold relevant competing interests fail to declare them.The reasons are rarely the result of a deliberate attempt to mislead readers.Instead, the common causes are inconsistent requirements across journals and negligence.

Some investigators and editors may think that disclosure is a bureaucratic requirement without much practical value.In the current system, it is hard to disagree.There is no reliable guidance on what readers should do when they encounter a competing interest, and no way to know for sure whether competing interests have compromised the integrity of the research findings.Ignoring research that might be biased is clearly wasteful, but allowing it to influence decision-making without knowing whether the results can be trusted might be worse.

Competing interests can cause significant harm by diverting a research consensus away from the truth—from which it can take years to recover.And the complex relationship between the pursuit of knowledge and the pursuit of profit can make such conflicts more likely.

When studies that have competing interests are compared with studies without them, we find consistent differences in how those studies are designed and reported.Biases are hidden in subtle differences in study design, selective reporting of outcomes, and conclusions that don’t match the results.It is difficult even for experts using well-developed tools to identify biases, so how can we expect readers to succeed?

We need to move beyond occasionally publishing lists of competing interests alongside articles.We need precise, structured and comprehensive reporting of such interests so that we can treat them like any other confounder.

To achieve this, the research community should establish an online database of interests declared by researchers so that we can more precisely determine the association between competing interests and the potential for bias.It should be publicly accessible, available in formats that can be used by humans and machines alike,designed to allow for updates and corrections, and provide a way to uniquely identify researchers.Because of their distinctive openness and independence,organizations such as the US National Library of Medicine and the ORCID researcher registry are well placed to act as central locations supporting compliance and standardization.In turn, publishers,funders and institutions can introduce policies that encourage or mandate the use of a registry.

The incomplete disclosure of competing interests is usually induced by______.

Before publishing this article, the editors asked me to declare any competing interests.This is routine practice with most journals and is intended to address the serious issue of bias in research.The problem is that after competing interests are disclosed in published research, almost nothing is done with them.

Although journals have strengthened their requirements, disclosures are still far from complete.Around half of the studies that involve investigators who hold relevant competing interests fail to declare them.The reasons are rarely the result of a deliberate attempt to mislead readers.Instead, the common causes are inconsistent requirements across journals and negligence.

Some investigators and editors may think that disclosure is a bureaucratic requirement without much practical value.In the current system, it is hard to disagree.There is no reliable guidance on what readers should do when they encounter a competing interest, and no way to know for sure whether competing interests have compromised the integrity of the research findings.Ignoring research that might be biased is clearly wasteful, but allowing it to influence decision-making without knowing whether the results can be trusted might be worse.

Competing interests can cause significant harm by diverting a research consensus away from the truth—from which it can take years to recover.And the complex relationship between the pursuit of knowledge and the pursuit of profit can make such conflicts more likely.

When studies that have competing interests are compared with studies without them, we find consistent differences in how those studies are designed and reported.Biases are hidden in subtle differences in study design, selective reporting of outcomes, and conclusions that don’t match the results.It is difficult even for experts using well-developed tools to identify biases, so how can we expect readers to succeed?

We need to move beyond occasionally publishing lists of competing interests alongside articles.We need precise, structured and comprehensive reporting of such interests so that we can treat them like any other confounder.

To achieve this, the research community should establish an online database of interests declared by researchers so that we can more precisely determine the association between competing interests and the potential for bias.It should be publicly accessible, available in formats that can be used by humans and machines alike,designed to allow for updates and corrections, and provide a way to uniquely identify researchers.Because of their distinctive openness and independence,organizations such as the US National Library of Medicine and the ORCID researcher registry are well placed to act as central locations supporting compliance and standardization.In turn, publishers,funders and institutions can introduce policies that encourage or mandate the use of a registry.

Some editors regard the competing interest disclosure system valueless because

Before publishing this article, the editors asked me to declare any competing interests.This is routine practice with most journals and is intended to address the serious issue of bias in research.The problem is that after competing interests are disclosed in published research, almost nothing is done with them.

Although journals have strengthened their requirements, disclosures are still far from complete.Around half of the studies that involve investigators who hold relevant competing interests fail to declare them.The reasons are rarely the result of a deliberate attempt to mislead readers.Instead, the common causes are inconsistent requirements across journals and negligence.

Some investigators and editors may think that disclosure is a bureaucratic requirement without much practical value.In the current system, it is hard to disagree.There is no reliable guidance on what readers should do when they encounter a competing interest, and no way to know for sure whether competing interests have compromised the integrity of the research findings.Ignoring research that might be biased is clearly wasteful, but allowing it to influence decision-making without knowing whether the results can be trusted might be worse.

Competing interests can cause significant harm by diverting a research consensus away from the truth—from which it can take years to recover.And the complex relationship between the pursuit of knowledge and the pursuit of profit can make such conflicts more likely.

When studies that have competing interests are compared with studies without them, we find consistent differences in how those studies are designed and reported.Biases are hidden in subtle differences in study design, selective reporting of outcomes, and conclusions that don’t match the results.It is difficult even for experts using well-developed tools to identify biases, so how can we expect readers to succeed?

We need to move beyond occasionally publishing lists of competing interests alongside articles.We need precise, structured and comprehensive reporting of such interests so that we can treat them like any other confounder.

To achieve this, the research community should establish an online database of interests declared by researchers so that we can more precisely determine the association between competing interests and the potential for bias.It should be publicly accessible, available in formats that can be used by humans and machines alike,designed to allow for updates and corrections, and provide a way to uniquely identify researchers.Because of their distinctive openness and independence,organizations such as the US National Library of Medicine and the ORCID researcher registry are well placed to act as central locations supporting compliance and standardization.In turn, publishers,funders and institutions can introduce policies that encourage or mandate the use of a registry.

What could contribute to conflict of interests happening more according to the author?

Before publishing this article, the editors asked me to declare any competing interests.This is routine practice with most journals and is intended to address the serious issue of bias in research.The problem is that after competing interests are disclosed in published research, almost nothing is done with them.

Although journals have strengthened their requirements, disclosures are still far from complete.Around half of the studies that involve investigators who hold relevant competing interests fail to declare them.The reasons are rarely the result of a deliberate attempt to mislead readers.Instead, the common causes are inconsistent requirements across journals and negligence.

Some investigators and editors may think that disclosure is a bureaucratic requirement without much practical value.In the current system, it is hard to disagree.There is no reliable guidance on what readers should do when they encounter a competing interest, and no way to know for sure whether competing interests have compromised the integrity of the research findings.Ignoring research that might be biased is clearly wasteful, but allowing it to influence decision-making without knowing whether the results can be trusted might be worse.

Competing interests can cause significant harm by diverting a research consensus away from the truth—from which it can take years to recover.And the complex relationship between the pursuit of knowledge and the pursuit of profit can make such conflicts more likely.

When studies that have competing interests are compared with studies without them, we find consistent differences in how those studies are designed and reported.Biases are hidden in subtle differences in study design, selective reporting of outcomes, and conclusions that don’t match the results.It is difficult even for experts using well-developed tools to identify biases, so how can we expect readers to succeed?

We need to move beyond occasionally publishing lists of competing interests alongside articles.We need precise, structured and comprehensive reporting of such interests so that we can treat them like any other confounder.

To achieve this, the research community should establish an online database of interests declared by researchers so that we can more precisely determine the association between competing interests and the potential for bias.It should be publicly accessible, available in formats that can be used by humans and machines alike,designed to allow for updates and corrections, and provide a way to uniquely identify researchers.Because of their distinctive openness and independence,organizations such as the US National Library of Medicine and the ORCID researcher registry are well placed to act as central locations supporting compliance and standardization.In turn, publishers,funders and institutions can introduce policies that encourage or mandate the use of a registry.

Which of the following is likely to make readers fail to identify biased research?

Before publishing this article, the editors asked me to declare any competing interests.This is routine practice with most journals and is intended to address the serious issue of bias in research.The problem is that after competing interests are disclosed in published research, almost nothing is done with them.

Although journals have strengthened their requirements, disclosures are still far from complete.Around half of the studies that involve investigators who hold relevant competing interests fail to declare them.The reasons are rarely the result of a deliberate attempt to mislead readers.Instead, the common causes are inconsistent requirements across journals and negligence.

Some investigators and editors may think that disclosure is a bureaucratic requirement without much practical value.In the current system, it is hard to disagree.There is no reliable guidance on what readers should do when they encounter a competing interest, and no way to know for sure whether competing interests have compromised the integrity of the research findings.Ignoring research that might be biased is clearly wasteful, but allowing it to influence decision-making without knowing whether the results can be trusted might be worse.

Competing interests can cause significant harm by diverting a research consensus away from the truth—from which it can take years to recover.And the complex relationship between the pursuit of knowledge and the pursuit of profit can make such conflicts more likely.

When studies that have competing interests are compared with studies without them, we find consistent differences in how those studies are designed and reported.Biases are hidden in subtle differences in study design, selective reporting of outcomes, and conclusions that don’t match the results.It is difficult even for experts using well-developed tools to identify biases, so how can we expect readers to succeed?

We need to move beyond occasionally publishing lists of competing interests alongside articles.We need precise, structured and comprehensive reporting of such interests so that we can treat them like any other confounder.

To achieve this, the research community should establish an online database of interests declared by researchers so that we can more precisely determine the association between competing interests and the potential for bias.It should be publicly accessible, available in formats that can be used by humans and machines alike,designed to allow for updates and corrections, and provide a way to uniquely identify researchers.Because of their distinctive openness and independence,organizations such as the US National Library of Medicine and the ORCID researcher registry are well placed to act as central locations supporting compliance and standardization.In turn, publishers,funders and institutions can introduce policies that encourage or mandate the use of a registry.

Organizations pressing for interest declaration compliance feature______.

Now imagine, a hacker breaks into your computer network.The hacker steals your bank and tax records, your pictures and correspondence, but all in digital form.The hacker disappears, but not before handing over all of your data to an Internet file sharing site, which in turn makes the data available all over the world.Not only does the file sharing site refuse to return your data, but soon thereafter, individuals are disseminating your private pictures, emails and tax returns via their Twitter accounts.Indeed, they claim a constitutional right to do so.

This is the predicament faced by data breach victims：Data are not, and perhaps cannot be, subject to the same set of legal protections as tangible, physical property.Our laws have failed to keep pace with the ways in which our privacy depends on the security of electronic data.

Until we develop a clear framework for addressing the problem of stolen data, efforts to improve cybersecurity will be incomplete.Data breaches are inevitable.For most organizations, it is a question of when, not if, they will be struck.That unfortunate reality means that an effective approach to cybersecurity cannot focus solely on prevention.To be prepared, organizations must treat breaches as a certainty, take steps to minimize risks wherever possible, and make plans to contain the damage that is caused when breaches take place.

Our laws are not designed to address these challenges.Data breaches are generally followed by an open season on the victim’s most sensitive information.Unfortunately, once hackers hand such data off to a third party, it may be impossible to recover or contain.There are stolen property laws in many states, but there are questions about whether such laws apply to information rather than physical property.And even where a law does apply, the First Amendment which guarantees rights of freedom of speech may still protect those who decide to publish the information.

If data breaches are indeed inevitable,the current situation is untenable.If we are serious about helping the individuals and organizations who are victims of data breaches, we can and must do better than a system that throws up its hands the moment information is stolen.

An effective regime against the data breach will require updating and rationalizing a set of overlapping and often contradictory laws relating to stolen property, consumer privacy, identity theft, copyright, trade secrets and more.That effort must find a way to balance cherished First Amendment values against the legitimate privacy interests that individuals have in the information that organizations hold about them, as well as the interests those organizations have in keeping their own information confidential.

The reforms described above will not be easy.But unless we find ways to address the frenzy that inevitably follows data breaches, our best efforts to improve cybersecurity will continue to fall short.

The word "predicament" (Line 1, Para.2) is closest in meaning to______.

Now imagine, a hacker breaks into your computer network.The hacker steals your bank and tax records, your pictures and correspondence, but all in digital form.The hacker disappears, but not before handing over all of your data to an Internet file sharing site, which in turn makes the data available all over the world.Not only does the file sharing site refuse to return your data, but soon thereafter, individuals are disseminating your private pictures, emails and tax returns via their Twitter accounts.Indeed, they claim a constitutional right to do so.

This is the predicament faced by data breach victims：Data are not, and perhaps cannot be, subject to the same set of legal protections as tangible, physical property.Our laws have failed to keep pace with the ways in which our privacy depends on the security of electronic data.

Until we develop a clear framework for addressing the problem of stolen data, efforts to improve cybersecurity will be incomplete.Data breaches are inevitable.For most organizations, it is a question of when, not if, they will be struck.That unfortunate reality means that an effective approach to cybersecurity cannot focus solely on prevention.To be prepared, organizations must treat breaches as a certainty, take steps to minimize risks wherever possible, and make plans to contain the damage that is caused when breaches take place.

Our laws are not designed to address these challenges.Data breaches are generally followed by an open season on the victim’s most sensitive information.Unfortunately, once hackers hand such data off to a third party, it may be impossible to recover or contain.There are stolen property laws in many states, but there are questions about whether such laws apply to information rather than physical property.And even where a law does apply, the First Amendment which guarantees rights of freedom of speech may still protect those who decide to publish the information.

If data breaches are indeed inevitable,the current situation is untenable.If we are serious about helping the individuals and organizations who are victims of data breaches, we can and must do better than a system that throws up its hands the moment information is stolen.

An effective regime against the data breach will require updating and rationalizing a set of overlapping and often contradictory laws relating to stolen property, consumer privacy, identity theft, copyright, trade secrets and more.That effort must find a way to balance cherished First Amendment values against the legitimate privacy interests that individuals have in the information that organizations hold about them, as well as the interests those organizations have in keeping their own information confidential.

The reforms described above will not be easy.But unless we find ways to address the frenzy that inevitably follows data breaches, our best efforts to improve cybersecurity will continue to fall short.

The author believes that, in the future______.

Now imagine, a hacker breaks into your computer network.The hacker steals your bank and tax records, your pictures and correspondence, but all in digital form.The hacker disappears, but not before handing over all of your data to an Internet file sharing site, which in turn makes the data available all over the world.Not only does the file sharing site refuse to return your data, but soon thereafter, individuals are disseminating your private pictures, emails and tax returns via their Twitter accounts.Indeed, they claim a constitutional right to do so.

This is the predicament faced by data breach victims：Data are not, and perhaps cannot be, subject to the same set of legal protections as tangible, physical property.Our laws have failed to keep pace with the ways in which our privacy depends on the security of electronic data.

Until we develop a clear framework for addressing the problem of stolen data, efforts to improve cybersecurity will be incomplete.Data breaches are inevitable.For most organizations, it is a question of when, not if, they will be struck.That unfortunate reality means that an effective approach to cybersecurity cannot focus solely on prevention.To be prepared, organizations must treat breaches as a certainty, take steps to minimize risks wherever possible, and make plans to contain the damage that is caused when breaches take place.

Our laws are not designed to address these challenges.Data breaches are generally followed by an open season on the victim’s most sensitive information.Unfortunately, once hackers hand such data off to a third party, it may be impossible to recover or contain.There are stolen property laws in many states, but there are questions about whether such laws apply to information rather than physical property.And even where a law does apply, the First Amendment which guarantees rights of freedom of speech may still protect those who decide to publish the information.

If data breaches are indeed inevitable,the current situation is untenable.If we are serious about helping the individuals and organizations who are victims of data breaches, we can and must do better than a system that throws up its hands the moment information is stolen.

An effective regime against the data breach will require updating and rationalizing a set of overlapping and often contradictory laws relating to stolen property, consumer privacy, identity theft, copyright, trade secrets and more.That effort must find a way to balance cherished First Amendment values against the legitimate privacy interests that individuals have in the information that organizations hold about them, as well as the interests those organizations have in keeping their own information confidential.

The reforms described above will not be easy.But unless we find ways to address the frenzy that inevitably follows data breaches, our best efforts to improve cybersecurity will continue to fall short.

What could make regaining information hacked be out of the question?

Now imagine, a hacker breaks into your computer network.The hacker steals your bank and tax records, your pictures and correspondence, but all in digital form.The hacker disappears, but not before handing over all of your data to an Internet file sharing site, which in turn makes the data available all over the world.Not only does the file sharing site refuse to return your data, but soon thereafter, individuals are disseminating your private pictures, emails and tax returns via their Twitter accounts.Indeed, they claim a constitutional right to do so.

This is the predicament faced by data breach victims：Data are not, and perhaps cannot be, subject to the same set of legal protections as tangible, physical property.Our laws have failed to keep pace with the ways in which our privacy depends on the security of electronic data.

Until we develop a clear framework for addressing the problem of stolen data, efforts to improve cybersecurity will be incomplete.Data breaches are inevitable.For most organizations, it is a question of when, not if, they will be struck.That unfortunate reality means that an effective approach to cybersecurity cannot focus solely on prevention.To be prepared, organizations must treat breaches as a certainty, take steps to minimize risks wherever possible, and make plans to contain the damage that is caused when breaches take place.

Our laws are not designed to address these challenges.Data breaches are generally followed by an open season on the victim’s most sensitive information.Unfortunately, once hackers hand such data off to a third party, it may be impossible to recover or contain.There are stolen property laws in many states, but there are questions about whether such laws apply to information rather than physical property.And even where a law does apply, the First Amendment which guarantees rights of freedom of speech may still protect those who decide to publish the information.

If data breaches are indeed inevitable,the current situation is untenable.If we are serious about helping the individuals and organizations who are victims of data breaches, we can and must do better than a system that throws up its hands the moment information is stolen.

An effective regime against the data breach will require updating and rationalizing a set of overlapping and often contradictory laws relating to stolen property, consumer privacy, identity theft, copyright, trade secrets and more.That effort must find a way to balance cherished First Amendment values against the legitimate privacy interests that individuals have in the information that organizations hold about them, as well as the interests those organizations have in keeping their own information confidential.

The reforms described above will not be easy.But unless we find ways to address the frenzy that inevitably follows data breaches, our best efforts to improve cybersecurity will continue to fall short.

The author holds that an effective system to counter data breach______.

Now imagine, a hacker breaks into your computer network.The hacker steals your bank and tax records, your pictures and correspondence, but all in digital form.The hacker disappears, but not before handing over all of your data to an Internet file sharing site, which in turn makes the data available all over the world.Not only does the file sharing site refuse to return your data, but soon thereafter, individuals are disseminating your private pictures, emails and tax returns via their Twitter accounts.Indeed, they claim a constitutional right to do so.

This is the predicament faced by data breach victims：Data are not, and perhaps cannot be, subject to the same set of legal protections as tangible, physical property.Our laws have failed to keep pace with the ways in which our privacy depends on the security of electronic data.

Until we develop a clear framework for addressing the problem of stolen data, efforts to improve cybersecurity will be incomplete.Data breaches are inevitable.For most organizations, it is a question of when, not if, they will be struck.That unfortunate reality means that an effective approach to cybersecurity cannot focus solely on prevention.To be prepared, organizations must treat breaches as a certainty, take steps to minimize risks wherever possible, and make plans to contain the damage that is caused when breaches take place.

Our laws are not designed to address these challenges.Data breaches are generally followed by an open season on the victim’s most sensitive information.Unfortunately, once hackers hand such data off to a third party, it may be impossible to recover or contain.There are stolen property laws in many states, but there are questions about whether such laws apply to information rather than physical property.And even where a law does apply, the First Amendment which guarantees rights of freedom of speech may still protect those who decide to publish the information.

If data breaches are indeed inevitable,the current situation is untenable.If we are serious about helping the individuals and organizations who are victims of data breaches, we can and must do better than a system that throws up its hands the moment information is stolen.

An effective regime against the data breach will require updating and rationalizing a set of overlapping and often contradictory laws relating to stolen property, consumer privacy, identity theft, copyright, trade secrets and more.That effort must find a way to balance cherished First Amendment values against the legitimate privacy interests that individuals have in the information that organizations hold about them, as well as the interests those organizations have in keeping their own information confidential.

The reforms described above will not be easy.But unless we find ways to address the frenzy that inevitably follows data breaches, our best efforts to improve cybersecurity will continue to fall short.

In this text, the author mainly discusses______.