In this task, you're given an article and an answer. Your task is to generate the question for the answer based on the given article.

Article: A recent study, while showing a generally positive attitude toward science, also suggests a widespread worry that it may be "running out of control". This idea is dangerous. Science can be a force for evil as well as for good. Its applications can be channeled either way, depending on our decisions. The decisions we make, personally or collectively, will determine the outcomes of science. But here is a real danger. Science is advancing so fast is so strongly influenced by businesses that we are likely to believe whatever decisions we come to will make little difference. And, rather than fighting for the best possible policies, we may step back and do nothing. Some people go even further. They say that despite the moral and legal objections , whatever is scientifically possible will be done ----somewhere, sometime. They believe that science will get out of control in the end. This belief is dangerous too, because it a fuels sense of hopelessness and discourages them from making efforts to build a safer world. In our interconnected world, the lack of agreement in and of the world of science can lead to the failure to control the use of science. Without a common understanding, the challenges of "controlling" science in this century will be really tough. Take human cloning for example. Despite the general agreement among scientists on its possible huge impact on traditional moral values, some countries still go ahead with the research and development of its related techniques. The outcomes are hard to predict. Therefore, discussions on how science is applied should be extended far beyond scientific societies. Only through the united efforts of people with hope, can we be fully safe against the misuse of science and can science best serve mankind in the future.
Answer: People hold mixed opinions about science.
What can we conclude from the recent study?

Article: Science Daily (Apr. 27, 2008)-- Dutch ecologist Roxina Soler and her colleagues have discovered that subterranean and aboveground herbivorous insects can communicate with each other by using plants as telephones. Subterranean insects issue chemical warning signals through the leaves of the plant. This way, aboveground insects are warned that the plant is already "occupied". Aboveground, leaf-eating insects prefer plants that have not yet been occupied by subterranean root-eating insects. Subterranean insects send out chemical signals through the leaves of the plant, which warn the aboveground insects about their presence. This messaging makes it possible for spatially-separated insects to avoid each other, so that they do not compete for, the same plant. In recent years it has been discovered that different types of aboveground insects develop slowly if they feed on plants that also have subterranean insects and 'vice versa . It seems that a mechanism has developed through natural selection, which helps the subterranean and aboveground insects to communicate with each other. This avoids unnecessary competition. Through the "green telephone lines", subterranean insects can also communicate with _ , namely the natural enemy of caterpillars . Parasitic wasps lay their eggs inside aboveground insects. The wasps also benefit from the signals sent by the leaves, as these help them find more insects for their eggs. The communication between subterranean and above- ground insects has only been studied in a few systems. It is still not clear how widespread this phenomenon is, say the researchers.
Answer: By sending signals through the leaves.
How do subterranean and aboveground insects communicate with each other?

Article: After my husband died suddenly from a heart attack on the tennis court, my world crashed around me. I was overwhelmed with the responsibilities of earning a living, caring for the children and just _ . I was fortunate to find a wonderful housekeeper to care for the children during the week, but from Friday nights to Monday mornings, the children and I were alone, and frankly I was uneasy. One Friday evening I came home from work to find a big beautiful German shepherd on our doorstep. He gave every indication that he intended to enter the house and make it his home. I agreed to let him sleep in the basement until the next day. The following morning we made phone calls and checked lost-and-found ads for German's owner, but with no results. German, meanwhile, actually made himself part of the family. Saturday night he was still with us, sleeping in the basement. On Sunday I had planned to take the children on a picnic. When we stopped to get gas at a local station, we were amazed to see German racing to the gas station after us. He settled down in the back for the ride to the picnic. Monday morning I let him out for a run while the children got ready for school. He didn't come back. As evening came and German didn't appear, we were all disappointed. We were convinced that he had gone home or been found by his owner, and that we would never see him again. We were wrong. The next Friday evening, German was back on our doorstep. Again we took him in, and again he stayed until Monday morning, when our housekeeper arrived. This pattern repeated itself every weekend for almost 10 months. We grew more and more fond of German and we took comfort in his strong, warm presence, and we felt safe with him near us. Each week, between German's visits, I grew a little stronger, a little braver and more able to cope; every weekend I enjoyed his company. Then one Monday morning we patted his head and let him out for what turned out to be the last time. He never came back. We never saw or heard of German again. I think of him often. I believe German was sent because he was needed, and because no matter how abandoned and alone we feel, somehow, somewhere, someone knows and cares. We are never really alone.
Answer: The passage doesn't tell us directly.
Why did the German shepherd come to the author's house?