In the age of the internet, there’s no such thing as a private debate. But is that bad for science? Some scientists have had concerns. When debates in any sector move beyond the halls of universities and government agencies, there’s potential for information to be used incorrectly, leading to public confusion; yet, open debate can also promote communication between the scientific community and the public. Recent open debates on scientific research, health, and policy have aroused greater public attention and encouraged more diverse voices. If this trend spurs scientists to agree more quickly about the best solutions to our problems—and at the same time helps the public observe the process of scientific discourse more clearly—then this is good for everyone, including scientists.

        A recent debate published in “The New York Times” discussed the question of how quickly medicine should be developed and produced. Issues such as safety of the product and perception of the public were examined and considered. But some experts worried that such public speculation might lead people to believe that disagreement about the details meant a lack of adequate scientific consensus over the safety and efficiency of modern-day medicine.

       The anxiety seems misplaced. Gone are the days of going to a conference and debating scientific issues, and that’s good because those gatherings were not diverse enough and excluded many important voices. These days, the public can access debates about science regardless of where they take place.

        For many scientists, public debate is a new frontier and it may feel like a place with few restraints or rules, but rather than avoiding such conversations, let the debates be transparent and vigorous, wherever they are held. If the public is to understand that science is an honorably self-correcting process, the idea that science is a fixed set of facts in a textbook needs to be dismissed. With the validity of science coming under attack, there’s a need for scientific debates to be perceived as open and true to life. Let everyone see the noisy, messy deliberations that advance science and lead to decisions that benefit us all.

解析：A。根据题干中的open debate和四个选项的关键词可定位至第一段。该段主要是讲公开辩论的利弊。第四句中作者指出，如果公开辩论致使信息被误用，会给公众造成困惑，接着又说到公开辩论的好处：促进科学界和公众之间的交流。在第一段最后一句中又进一步说明，这一趋势能帮助公众更清楚地观察科学论述的过程。由此可知，公开辩论有利于公众理解科学，A项是对此内容的同义概述，故为正确答案。

错项排除：B项利用第一段中的confusion进行干扰，但原文说的是如果信息被误用，会给公众造成困惑，并不是科学界的困惑，且Clear up在原文中无依据，故B项排除。C项利用第一段第四句的universities and government agencies进行干扰，但原文是说辩论原本只发生在大学和政府机构大厅里，并不是说两者之间有纠纷，故C项排除。D项利用第一段第四句的be used incorrectly进行干扰，但原文是说公开辩论可能会导致信息被误用，而不是可以防止信息被误用，故D项排除。