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scientists和public debate并结合出题顺序可定位至最后一段第一句。该句指出，对许多科学家来说，公开辩论是一个新的领域，看似没有多少限制和规则，但是无论辩论发生在哪里，与其回避，不如让辩论变得透明而充满活力。由此可知，作者的建议是，科学家应该让公开辩论变得透明而充满活力，也就是欣然接受而非逃避，B项是对此内容的近义概括，故为正确答案。 

错项排除：A项的more discussions在文中无依据，故排除。C、D项分别利用最后一段第一句中的rules和restraints进行干扰，但原文是说公开辩论看似没有多少限制或规则，并没有说制定新规则，也没有说将其限制在合理范围内，故C、D项排除。