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：B。根据题干中的a recent debate和“The New York Times”可定位至原文第二段。该段最后一句提到，一些专家担心，这种公开思辨可能会使人们认为，细节上的分歧意味着对现代医学的安全性和有效性缺乏足够的科学共识。B项与此内容相符，其中的breed对应句中的lead people to，distrust in modern medicine是对句中a lack of adequate scientific consensus over the safety and efficiency of modern-day medicine的近义概括，故B项为正确答案。

错项排除：A项的hinder the progress和C项的research funds在原文中无依据，故均可排除。D项利用原文中的scientists和consensus进行拼凑，但原文是说大众可能认为细节上的分歧意味着对现代医学的安全性和有效性缺乏足够的科学共识，并不是辩论会妨碍医学家达成共识，故D项排除。