Questões de Inglês

TEXT
 

Why Do Many Reasonable People Doubt Science?

    The "science communication problem," as it‘s called by the scientists who study it, has yielded abundant new research into how people decide what to believe — and why they so often don‘t accept the scientific consensus. It‘s not that they can‘t grasp it, according to Dan Kahan of Yale University. In one study he asked 1,540 Americans, a representative sample, to rate the threat of climate change on a scale of zero to ten. Then he correlated that with the subjects‘ science literacy. He found that higher literacy was associated with stronger views — at both ends of the spectrum. Science literacy promoted polarization on climate, not consensus. According to Kahan, that‘s because people tend to use scientific knowledge to reinforce beliefs that have already been shaped by their worldview.

    Americans fall into two basic camps, Kahan says. Those with a more "egalitarian" and "communitarian" mind-set are generally suspicious of industry and apt to think it‘s up to something dangerous that calls for government regulation; they‘re likely to see the risks of climate change. In contrast, people with a "hierarchical" and "individualistic" mindset respect leaders of industry and don‘t like government interfering in their affairs; they‘re apt to reject warnings about climate change, because they know what accepting them could lead to — some kind of tax or regulation to limit emissions.

    In the U.S., climate change somehow has become an indicator that identifies you as belonging to one or the other of these two antagonistic tribes. When we argue about it, Kahan says, we‘re actually arguing about who we are, what our crowd is. We‘re thinking, People like us believe this. People like that do not believe this. For a hierarchical individualist, Kahan says, it‘s not irrational to reject established climate science: Accepting it wouldn‘t change the world, but it might get him thrown out of his tribe.

    "Take a barber in a rural town in South Carolina," Kahan has written. "Is it a good idea for him to implore his customers to sign a petition urging Congress to take action on climate change? No. If he does, he will find himself out of a job."

    Science appeals to our rational brain, but our beliefs are motivated largely by emotion, and the biggest motivation is remaining tight with our peers. "We‘re all in high school. We‘ve never left high school," says Marcia McNutt, editor of Science magazine. "People still have a need to fit in, and that need to fit in is so strong that local values and local opinions are always trumping science. And they will continue to trump science, especially when there is no clear downside to ignoring science."
ACHENBACH, Joel. ―The Age of Disbelief‖. In: National Geographic, v. 227, n. 3, March 2015, p. 44-45. Adapted.

Glossary
to yield: render; to grasp: compreender; literacy: conhecimento; mind-set: atitude, inclinação; crowd: grupo; to fit in: encaixar-se; to trump: vencer, superar; downside: aspecto negativo.

TEXT
 

Why Do Many Reasonable People Doubt Science?

    The "science communication problem," as it‘s called by the scientists who study it, has yielded abundant new research into how people decide what to believe — and why they so often don‘t accept the scientific consensus. It‘s not that they can‘t grasp it, according to Dan Kahan of Yale University. In one study he asked 1,540 Americans, a representative sample, to rate the threat of climate change on a scale of zero to ten. Then he correlated that with the subjects‘ science literacy. He found that higher literacy was associated with stronger views — at both ends of the spectrum. Science literacy promoted polarization on climate, not consensus. According to Kahan, that‘s because people tend to use scientific knowledge to reinforce beliefs that have already been shaped by their worldview.

    Americans fall into two basic camps, Kahan says. Those with a more "egalitarian" and "communitarian" mind-set are generally suspicious of industry and apt to think it‘s up to something dangerous that calls for government regulation; they‘re likely to see the risks of climate change. In contrast, people with a "hierarchical" and "individualistic" mindset respect leaders of industry and don‘t like government interfering in their affairs; they‘re apt to reject warnings about climate change, because they know what accepting them could lead to — some kind of tax or regulation to limit emissions.

    In the U.S., climate change somehow has become an indicator that identifies you as belonging to one or the other of these two antagonistic tribes. When we argue about it, Kahan says, we‘re actually arguing about who we are, what our crowd is. We‘re thinking, People like us believe this. People like that do not believe this. For a hierarchical individualist, Kahan says, it‘s not irrational to reject established climate science: Accepting it wouldn‘t change the world, but it might get him thrown out of his tribe.

    "Take a barber in a rural town in South Carolina," Kahan has written. "Is it a good idea for him to implore his customers to sign a petition urging Congress to take action on climate change? No. If he does, he will find himself out of a job."

    Science appeals to our rational brain, but our beliefs are motivated largely by emotion, and the biggest motivation is remaining tight with our peers. "We‘re all in high school. We‘ve never left high school," says Marcia McNutt, editor of Science magazine. "People still have a need to fit in, and that need to fit in is so strong that local values and local opinions are always trumping science. And they will continue to trump science, especially when there is no clear downside to ignoring science."
ACHENBACH, Joel. ―The Age of Disbelief‖. In: National Geographic, v. 227, n. 3, March 2015, p. 44-45. Adapted.

Glossary
to yield: render; to grasp: compreender; literacy: conhecimento; mind-set: atitude, inclinação; crowd: grupo; to fit in: encaixar-se; to trump: vencer, superar; downside: aspecto negativo.

TEXTO:

Chaos at USP

  The chemistry institute at the University of São Paulo
(USP) has become the site of a “pilgrimage”, after the
courts reversed their decision to suspend the release of
a substance rumored to treat various types of cancer.
[5] The rush of patients to the institute began on Friday (9)
after the judge José Renato Nalini, president of the Courts
of Justice, reconsidered a request for the suspension of
the release of the substance phosphorylethanolamine.
The court’s decision was based on a Supreme Court
[10] order authorizing the provision of phosphorylethanolamine
capsules to a patient.
  In the last two days, lines of people have formed at
the university in search of the drug. Some believe that it
could be the last chance to save themselves or their
[15] loved ones. However, on Tuesday (13), people were told
that the drug was not available, as USP did not have it in
stock, and because the judicial orders would first have
to be officially protocolled at the university. It is
“madness”, according to the president of the Brazilian
[20] Society of Clinical Oncology, Evanius Wiermann. “The
patients are being used as guinea pigs, without any
guarantee of safety or efficacy,” he says. The drug has
yet to be tested on humans.
  In an interview with the local press in August, the
[25] retired USP professor Gilberto Chierice, who had
coordinated studies with phosphorylethanolamine, said
the substance could cure cancer. This sparked the initial
judicial appeals. He also said that the drug had only not
arrived on the market due to “lack of will” on the part
[30] of the authorities. Chierice was unavailable for comment.
  In a statement, USP said that phosphorylethanolamine
is not a cancer cure. It said it has been studied as a
chemical product and that there is no “firm proof that it

is effective against the disease.” It has been neither
[35] registered nor authorized for use by the National Health
Surveillance Agency (Anvisa), a state regulatory body
similar to the Food and Drug Administration in the US.

TOLEDO, Marcelo. Disponível em: < www1/folha.uol.com.br/internacional/ en/scienceandhealth/2015/10/1694240-chaos-at-usp-as-courts-releaseuntested-drug-for-cancer-treatment.shtml>. Acesso em:

TEXTO:

Chaos at USP

  The chemistry institute at the University of São Paulo
(USP) has become the site of a “pilgrimage”, after the
courts reversed their decision to suspend the release of
a substance rumored to treat various types of cancer.
[5] The rush of patients to the institute began on Friday (9)
after the judge José Renato Nalini, president of the Courts
of Justice, reconsidered a request for the suspension of
the release of the substance phosphorylethanolamine.
The court’s decision was based on a Supreme Court
[10] order authorizing the provision of phosphorylethanolamine
capsules to a patient.
  In the last two days, lines of people have formed at
the university in search of the drug. Some believe that it
could be the last chance to save themselves or their
[15] loved ones. However, on Tuesday (13), people were told
that the drug was not available, as USP did not have it in
stock, and because the judicial orders would first have
to be officially protocolled at the university. It is
“madness”, according to the president of the Brazilian
[20] Society of Clinical Oncology, Evanius Wiermann. “The
patients are being used as guinea pigs, without any
guarantee of safety or efficacy,” he says. The drug has
yet to be tested on humans.
  In an interview with the local press in August, the
[25] retired USP professor Gilberto Chierice, who had
coordinated studies with phosphorylethanolamine, said
the substance could cure cancer. This sparked the initial
judicial appeals. He also said that the drug had only not
arrived on the market due to “lack of will” on the part
[30] of the authorities. Chierice was unavailable for comment.
  In a statement, USP said that phosphorylethanolamine
is not a cancer cure. It said it has been studied as a
chemical product and that there is no “firm proof that it

is effective against the disease.” It has been neither
[35] registered nor authorized for use by the National Health
Surveillance Agency (Anvisa), a state regulatory body
similar to the Food and Drug Administration in the US.

TOLEDO, Marcelo. Disponível em: < www1/folha.uol.com.br/internacional/ en/scienceandhealth/2015/10/1694240-chaos-at-usp-as-courts-releaseuntested-drug-for-cancer-treatment.shtml>. Acesso em:

TEXTO:

FDA’s Anti-Smoking Campaign

  The last time the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) tried to use graphic images to deter smokers in
2012, a judge ruled its graphic labels — which included
images of rotting lips, corpses, and diseased lungs —
[5] unconstitutional. Two years later, the FDA has
revealed its latest move, announcing its first national
anti-smoking campaign aimed at teens. At first look, the
result is similarly dramatic, though slightly less
frightening: One ad features a teen pulling out a tooth
[10] with a wrench to pay for a pack of cigarettes, while
another simply focuses on a young woman with wrinkles.
  Called “The Real Cost ,” the campaign aims to
decrease the number of teens between the ages 12 and
17 from becoming hooked on tobacco by emphasizing
[15] the bodily harm smoking can inflict — and tapping into
teens’ concerns about their appearance. “The campaign
highlights consequences that young people are really
concerned about,” said Mitchell Zeller, director of the
FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products. The campaign also
[20] underscores the addictive quality of nicotine, since many
young people presume they can quit whenever they want.
  Tobacco use had a sharp drop among teens
between 1997 and 2003, but began to slow in 2003 and
came to almost a halt between 2009 to 2011, according
[25] to data released from the CDC in 2012. Health experts
speculate that the reasons for the change range from
lower state dedication to the cause to teen’s growing
interest in other products like small cigars. Emerging
research shows that teens are also taking a liking to
[30] e-cigarettes, which don’t contain tobacco but still have
nicotine.
  The FDA’s latest initiative is part of their overall move
to tighten their control over the tobacco industry. Every
day, more than 3,200 young people under the age of 18
[35] try their first cigarette, and more than 700 of them will
become daily smokers. It is the leading cause of
preventable disease, disability, and death in the U.S.,

and responsible for 480,000 deaths every year. Under
the 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control
[40] Act — which gives the FDA the power to regulate the
manufacturing, distribution, and marketing of tobacco
products–tobacco companies are required to foot the
$115 million for the awareness campaign.

Disponível em: <www.time.com/4137/fda-anti-smoking- campaign-forteens/>. Acesso em:

TEXTO:

FDA’s Anti-Smoking Campaign

  The last time the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) tried to use graphic images to deter smokers in
2012, a judge ruled its graphic labels — which included
images of rotting lips, corpses, and diseased lungs —
[5] unconstitutional. Two years later, the FDA has
revealed its latest move, announcing its first national
anti-smoking campaign aimed at teens. At first look, the
result is similarly dramatic, though slightly less
frightening: One ad features a teen pulling out a tooth
[10] with a wrench to pay for a pack of cigarettes, while
another simply focuses on a young woman with wrinkles.
  Called “The Real Cost ,” the campaign aims to
decrease the number of teens between the ages 12 and
17 from becoming hooked on tobacco by emphasizing
[15] the bodily harm smoking can inflict — and tapping into
teens’ concerns about their appearance. “The campaign
highlights consequences that young people are really
concerned about,” said Mitchell Zeller, director of the
FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products. The campaign also
[20] underscores the addictive quality of nicotine, since many
young people presume they can quit whenever they want.
  Tobacco use had a sharp drop among teens
between 1997 and 2003, but began to slow in 2003 and
came to almost a halt between 2009 to 2011, according
[25] to data released from the CDC in 2012. Health experts
speculate that the reasons for the change range from
lower state dedication to the cause to teen’s growing
interest in other products like small cigars. Emerging
research shows that teens are also taking a liking to
[30] e-cigarettes, which don’t contain tobacco but still have
nicotine.
  The FDA’s latest initiative is part of their overall move
to tighten their control over the tobacco industry. Every
day, more than 3,200 young people under the age of 18
[35] try their first cigarette, and more than 700 of them will
become daily smokers. It is the leading cause of
preventable disease, disability, and death in the U.S.,

and responsible for 480,000 deaths every year. Under
the 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control
[40] Act — which gives the FDA the power to regulate the
manufacturing, distribution, and marketing of tobacco
products–tobacco companies are required to foot the
$115 million for the awareness campaign.

Disponível em: <www.time.com/4137/fda-anti-smoking- campaign-forteens/>. Acesso em: