Добавил:
ivanov666
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Английский в научных и инженерных целях. Часть 2. Учебное пособие
.pdf
1. Skim the text, noting in your mind the subheadings. If there are no
subheadings, try to divide the text into sections. Consider why you
have been assigned the text. Try to determine what type of text you are
dealing with. This can help you identify important information.
2. Read the text, highlighting important information and taking notes.
3. In your own words, write down the main points of each section.
4. Write down the key support points for the main topic, but do not
include minor detail.
5. Go through the process again, making changes as appropriate.
Writing the Summary:
When writing the summary there are three main requirements:
1. The summary should cover the original as a whole.
2. The material should be presented in a neutral fashion.
3. The summary should be a condensed version of the material, presented
in your own words.
4. Also do not include anything that does not appear in the original. (Do
not include your own comments or evaluation.)
5. Be sure to identify your source.
For example:
In his paper “Global Implications of Patent Law Variation,” Koji Suzuki
(1991) states that lack of consistency in the world’s patent laws is a
serious problem. In most of the world, patent ownership is given to the
inventor that is first to file for a patent. However, the United States
maintains a first-to-invent policy. In view of this, patent ownership can
change depending on the country. Multiple patent ownership can result in
economic problems; however, most striking is the international tension it
causes. The fact that the United States does not recognize patent
ownership in other countries, in violation of the Paris Convention on
Industrial Properties, has prompted the World Intellectual Properties
Organization (WIPO) to push the United States to review its existing
patent law principles.
Source:
http://depts.washington.edu/owrc/Handouts/How%20to%20Write%20a%20Summary.
pdf
71
SESSION 5
TECHNOLOGIES FOR BETTER LIFE
increasing awareness recognition mechanism
binary distinction interstellar flight
curiosity-, use- or mission-driven virtual evolution
hybrid character in action
contexts of application to be a novel application
empirical and theoretical elements to be given the choice
digital evolution techniques to direct behavior
the evolution of altruism to exist in nature
"survival of the fittest" to pick up a tab
altruism genes phone stacking
genetic similarity to check in your cellphone
comparative biology to secure ipad
to discover generalizations to be ripped out
greenbeard genes" interactive concept
to reap the benefits renewable energy
to generate energy to treat cancer
conventional technology
produce a nanogenerator
to power things
a crude approach to something/doing
something
to be borderline science fiction
to reclaim results to create novel unique materials
pun intended to be utilized to allow video calling
to be held over long distances to stay in touch
to make the road map to be snuck up on
FOR AND AGAINST ESSAY
One type of argumentative essay is that gives the advantages and
disadvantages. it is a formal piece of writing in which a topic is considered
from two opposing points of view.
A good essay should consist of:
1
Introduction
2
Body Paragraph 1
topic stated without giving anyopinion
arguments for with justifications
Paragraph 2
arguments against with justifications
3
Conclusion
balanced consideration or personal opinion
For and against essays have a certain limitation concerning its register
and style:
72
DO USE
1 Formal style
2 Well-developed paragraphs
3 Justifications of arguments
4 Quotations
5 Generalisations
6 Reference to specific statistics (give the source of your
information)
7 Opinion in the last paragraph
8 Topic sentences at the beginning of each paragraph
9 Various linking words
AVOID
1 Informal style (colloquial
English)
2 One-sentence paragraphs
3 Personal examples
4 Idioms
5 Overgeneralisations
6 Blind use of statistics
7 Opinion in the first paragraph
8 Bare facts
9 A narrow range of linking words
Remember to use different narrative techniques:
1
Creating mystery/suspense
Some scientists believe we soon shall be
able to choose the sex of the child as
well as its eye colour when starting
planning.
2
Giving something to consider
Angry and nervous I walked up to Mrs.
Sames, who cold eyes stopped me at the
door.
3
Addressing the reader
Have you ever thought of an ideal place
to live in with those who are around
ideal too.
4
Rhetorical questions
Changing the world for the better is
everyone’s blue dream, but who can
achieve the result?
5
Quotes
As Dr. S. Johnson once said, “When a
man is tired of London, he is tired of
life”.
73
USEFUL LANGUAGE
To introduce points
One major advantage/disadvantage of, a further
advantage, one point of view in favour of/ against
To list points
In the first place, first of all, firstly, secondly, thirdly,
finally, last but not least
To add more points
to the same topic
What is more, furthermore, also, in addition to
this/that, besides, apart from this/that, not to mention
the fact that
To make
contrasting points
It can be argued that/ on the other hand, in spite of,
despite, while, nevertheless, even though, although
To introduce
examples
For example, for instance, like, especially, such as, in
particular
To conclude
To sum up, all in all, all things considered, in
conclusion, on the whole, taking everything into
consideration/ into account, as was previously stated
Adapted from
Virginia Evans, Successful Writing (Upper-Intermediate), Express
Publishing, 2000. – 116 p.
SESSION 6
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT IN UNIVERSITIES
world-class university to seek external funding for
to work at the cutting edge of
to provide expert support to
research
world-changing achievement contact point for funding agencies
to lead to major advances in early-career researcher
to identify chemicals at very low
research excellence framework (ref)
concentrations
to apply sth for crime scene
research consultancy
investigations
to name a few examples academic business fellowship
to work in concert business acceleration
to be inundated with patients start-up funding
in a nutshell implementation of the university’s
research
malnutrition in the womb enterprise strategy
74
to be prone to diabetes exploitation
of results
to support the provision of research
management information
to undertake research providing the secretariat for
research funding mechanism enterprise performance
to monitor government stakeholders’ policies on
benchmarks research mutually beneficial deals
business plans
strategic relationships and ventures
fit-for-purpose process
to schedule and deliver work
commercial negotiation
programme
75
Appendix 2
APPENDIX 2
SELF-STUDIES FOR SESSION 4 TASK 2
MISCONDUCT CASE SUMMARIES
Case Summaries contain cases in which administrative actions were
imposed due to findings of research misconduct. The list only includes those
who CURRENTLY have an imposed administrative actions against them. It
does NOT include the names of individuals whose administrative actions
periods have expired.
1. Case Summary: Adibhatla, Rao M.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Office of the Secretary
Findings of Research Misconduct
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, HHS.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Office of Research Integrity
(ORI) has taken final action in the following case:
Rao M. Adibhatla, Ph.D., University of Wisconsin: Based on the report of an
investigation conducted by the University of Wisconsin (UW) and additional
analysis conducted by ORI in its oversight review, ORI found that Dr. Rao
M. Adibhatla, Assistant Professor, Department of Neurological Surgery, UW,
engaged in research misconduct by falsifying results in two publications
supported by National Institute of Neurological Diseases and Stroke
(NINDS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), grant R01 NS042008 and in
three unfunded applications that Dr. Adibhatla submitted to NINDS, NIH, as
R01 NS042008-05, -05A1, and -05A2. The questioned papers are:
1. Adibhatla, R.M., Hatcher, J.F., Larsen E.C. et al. "CDP-choline
Significantly Restores Phoshatidylcholine Levels by Differentially Affecting
Phospholipase A2 and CTP:Phosphocholine
Cytidylyltransferase after Stroke." J. Biol. Chem. 281:6718-6725, 2006
(hereafter referred to as the "JBC paper"), as the sPLA2-IIA, CCT[alpha],
and PLD2 data in Figures 1B, 2A, and 3A, respectively
2. Adibhatla, R.M., & Hatcher, J.F. "Secretory phospholipase A2 IIA is Upregulated by TNF-[alpha] and IL-1[alpha]/[beta] after Transient Focal
Cerebral Ischemia in Rat." Brain Research 1134:199- 205, 2007 (hereafter
76
referred to as the "Brain Research paper"), as the sPLA2-IIA data in Figures
2A and 2C.
ORI found that Respondent committed research misconduct by falsifying
Western blot images as well as quantitative and statistical data obtained from
purported scans of the films. The research studied the effect of cerebral
ischemia on phospholipid homeostasis in an experimental animal model
(SHR rat) of stroke during the course of reperfusion of the ischemic cortex.
The falsified Western blot images and derivative quantitative data describe
changes in levels of sPLA2-IIAA, CCT[alpha], and of PLD2 during
reperfusion in the ischemic cortex.
Specifically, the Respondent:
Falsified the Western blot data demonstrating sPLA2 expression in a time
course after ischemia in Figure 1B of the JBC paper and Figure 2A and 2C of
the Brain Research paper by rearranging the bands such that the labels do not
accurately portray what is in the lanes. He perpetuated the falsification by
presenting the quantification of the single falsified Western blot in a bar
graph as the average of five (5) replicate Western blots. The result in the
paper cannot be substantiated by the actual experiments.
Dr. Adibhatla has entered into a Voluntary Exclusion Agreement and has
voluntarily agreed:
(1) To exclude himself voluntarily for a period of two (2) years from the
effective date of the Agreement from any contracting or subcontracting with
any agency of the United States Government and from eligibility or
involvement in nonprocurement programs of the United States pursuant to
HHS' Implementation (2 CFR part 376 et seq.) of OMB Guidelines to
Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension, 2 CFR Part 180
(collectively the "Debarment Regulations");
(2) To exclude himself voluntarily from serving in any advisory capacity to
PHS including, but not limited to, service on any PHS advisory committee,
board, and/or peer review committee, or as a consultant for a period of three
(3) years beginning on December 18, 2012; and
(3) To request retraction of the following papers:
J. Biol. Chem. 281:6718-6725, 2006
Brain Research 1134:199-205, 2007.
77
2. Case Summary: Aggarwal, Nitin
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Office of the Secretary
Findings of Research Misconduct
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, HHS.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Office of Research Integrity
(ORI) has taken final action in the following case:
Nitin Aggarwal, Ph.D., Medical College of Wisconsin and University of
Wisconsin-Madison: Based on the reports of the investigations conducted by
the Medical College of Wisconsin (MCW) and the University of WisconsinMadison (UW) and additional analysis conducted by the ORI in its oversight
review, ORI found that Dr. Nitin Aggarwal, former Graduate Student, MCW,
and former Assistant Scientist, UW, engaged in research misconduct in
research supported by National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI),
National Institutes of Health (NIH), grants R01 HL37981, R01 HL54075,
and R01 HL57414.
ORI found that that the Respondent engaged in research misconduct by
falsifying and/or fabricating PHS-supported data in six (6) figures that were
included in the following two (2) publications, one (1) grant application to
the American Heart Association (AHA), one (1) grant application to NIH,
and the Respondent’s Ph.D. thesis:
Aggarwal, N.T., Pfister, S.L., & Campbell, W.B. “Hypercholesterolemia
Enhances 15-Lipoxygenase Mediated Vasorelaxation and AcetylcholineInduced Hypotension.” Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology
28:2209-2215, 2008 (hereafter the “ATVB paper”).
Aggarwal, N.T., Pfister, S.L., Gauthier, K.M., Chawengsub, Y., Baker, J.E.,
& Campbell, W.B. “Chronic hypoxia enhances 15-lipoxygenase-mediated
vasorelaxation in rabbit arteries.” American Journal of Physiology - Heart
Circulation Physiology 296:H678-H688, 2008 (hereafter the “AJP paper”).
Aggarwal, N.T., Principal Investigator (P.I.), National Scientist Development
grant application to the American Heart Association No. 11SDG7650072,
“Sulfonylurea rReceptor-2 splice variant and mitochondrial mechanisms for
cardioprotection and arrhythmia” (hereafter the “AHA grant application”).
K99 HL113518-01, “Mitochondrial ATP-sensitive K-channels and
pharmacological approaches for cardioprotection,” Aggarwal, Nitin, Ph.D.,
P.I.
Aggarwal, N.T. “Endothelial 15-lipoxygenase regulates vasorelaxation and
blood pressure in rabbits in normal and pathological condictions.” A
Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Biomedical
78
Science of the Medical College of Wisconsin in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Milwaukee,
Wisconsin, 2008 (hereafter the “thesis”).
Specifically, ORI found that Respondent engaged in research misconduct by
falsifying Western blot loading control data by inverting, duplicating, and
cropping source blot films and/or using films from unrelated experiments to
construct five (5) false Western blot figures. In the absence of valid blot
images, Respondent falsified and/or fabricated the corresponding quantitative
data for summary bar graphs and the data statistics in related text.
Dr. Aggarwal has entered into a Voluntary Settlement Agreement and has
voluntarily agreed for a period of three (3) years, beginning on September 17,
2013:
(1) to have his research supervised; Respondent agreed that prior to the
submission of an application for U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) support
for a research project on which his participation is proposed and prior to his
participation in any capacity on PHS-supported research, Respondent shall
ensure that a plan for supervision of his duties is submitted to ORI for
approval; the supervision plan must be designed to ensure the scientific
integrity of his research contribution; he agreed that he shall not participate in
any PHS-supported research until such a supervision plan is submitted to and
approved by ORI; Respondent agreed to maintain responsibility for
compliance with the agreed upon supervision plan;
(2) that any institution employing him shall submit in conjunction with each
application for PHS funds, or report, manuscript, or abstract involving PHSsupported research in which Respondent is involved, a certification to ORI
that the data provided by Respondent are based on actual experiments or are
otherwise legitimately derived, and that the data, procedures, and
methodology are accurately reported in the application, report, manuscript, or
abstract; and
(3) to exclude himself voluntarily from serving in any advisory capacity to
PHS including, but not limited to, service on any PHS advisory committee,
board, and/or peer review committee, or as a consultant.
3. Case Summary: Aprikyan, Andrew
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Office of the Secretary
Findings of Research Misconduct
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, HHS
ACTION: Notice.
79
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Office of Research Integrity
(ORI) has taken final action in the following case:
Andrew Aprikyan, Ph.D., University of Washington: Based on the report of
an investigation conducted by the University of Washington (UW), the UW
School of Medicine Dean’s Decision, the Decision of the Hearing Panel at
UW, and additional analysis conducted by ORI, ORI found by a
preponderance of the evidence that Dr. Andrew Aprikyan, former Research
Assistant Professor, Division of Hematology, UW, engaged in research
misconduct in research supported by National Cancer Institute (NCI),
National Institutes of Health (NIH), grant CA89135 and National Institute of
Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK), NIH, grant
DK18951, and applies to the following publications and grant applications:
Blood pre-published online on January 16, 2003 (“NEM”)
Experimental Hematology 31:372-381, 2003 (“CMA”)
Blood pre-published online on January 16, 2003, has been retracted and
Experimental Hematology 31:372-381, 2003, has been corrected.
Specifically, ORI finds that by a preponderance of the evidence, Respondent
falsified and/or fabricated results relating to the above publications and
grants. Specifically, Respondent:
1. falsely reported sequencing data in the NEM manuscript to strengthen the
hypothesis that NE mutations contributed to the phenotype observed in
severe congenital neutropenia (SCN) patients. Specifically:
a. Respondent falsely reported in Figures 2A and 3 that patient 3 had the
R191Q neutrophil elastase (NE) mutation, when the majority of the
sequencing experiments showed that the mutation was not present.
b. Respondent fabricated text (p. 12) reporting that sequencing of RT-PCR
products confirmed the expression of the NE mutants in the SCN patients and
that no mutations were present in the granulocyte colony stimulating factor
receptor (G-CSFR) gene and the Wiskott-Aldrich Syndrome (WAS) gene in
SCN patients, when based on the lack of original records the experiments
were not performed. The false claim for G-CSFR sequencing was also
reported in CA89135-03.
Dr. Aprikyan has entered into a Settlement Agreement in which he denied
ORI’s findings of research misconduct based on the UW Faculty
Adjudication Hearing Panel decision. The settlement is not an admission of
liability on the part of the Respondent. Respondent entered into the
80
Соседние файлы в предмете [НЕСОРТИРОВАННОЕ]