C) something deserves a lot of effort

D) something is troublesome

3. Clippings from toenails were chosen for the research most probably because ______.

A) they are more likely to contain mercury

B) they influence a person’s heart

C) they can be easily obtained

D) they are connected with the heart

4. The views of Dr. Eliseo Guallar and Dr. Walter Willett are ______.

A) identical

B) similar

C) opposite

D) complementary

5. What can we infer from the last paragraph?

A) Fish is no threat to humans.

B) Do not be frightened by some fish.

C) Eat fish-oil supplements instead of fish.

D) Taste is more important than the safety of the food.





篇章剖析


本文采用提出问题—分析问题的模式，指出吃鱼对心脏有好处，但是其中所含的汞却对心脏有害，探讨二者该如何取舍。第一段指出人们对吃鱼对健康究竟有无影响、有何影响这一问题感到困惑；第二段以两项新课题为例，进一步说明人们的这一困惑；第三段指出鱼类自身所具有的优点及其存在的一些潜在的危险；第四段详细介绍这两类新课题的研究发现；第五段间接指出我们该如何取舍。





词汇注释


omega-3 fatty acids （不饱和）脂肪酸

contaminate /kənˈtæmɪneɪt/ v. 污染

by fits and starts间歇地，一阵一阵地

algae /ˈældʒiː/ n. 藻类，海藻

at risk 有危险

predator /ˈpredətə(r)/ n. 掠夺者，食肉动物

pelagic /pɪˈlædʒɪk/ adj. 浮游的，远洋的

swordfish /ˈsɔːdfɪʃ/ n. 旗鱼

rule out 删除，排除，取消

hail from 来自

paella /pɑːˈelə/ n. （西班牙）肉菜饭

negligible /ˈneglɪdʒɪb(ə)l/ adj. 可以忽略的，不予重视的





难句突破


It was to test the effects of mercury on the heart that the two new studies compared the mercury levels in clippings from toenails, where heavy metals tend to be deposited.

主体句式：It was... that...

结构分析：本句是强调句型。判断是否是强调句型的办法是把“It was that”去掉，看是否仍是一个完整的句子。

句子译文：脚趾甲是重金属易于沉积的地方。这两个新课题通过对比脚趾甲中汞的含量检测汞对心脏的影响。





题目分析


1. C 论证方式题。在引入论题时，作者在第一段用了on one hand... on the other hand，意思是“一方面…另一方面”，就吃鱼与否引出两种完全不同的观点，从而导致很多人就此问题感到困惑。

2. B 语义题。习语by fits and starts所在语境为“The first thing to remember is that this is how science proceeds, by fits and starts and seemingly contradictory results that get resolved only by further study.”从此句我们可看出科学的进程并不是一蹴而就的。此题我们可考虑使用排除法。

3. A 细节题。原文对应信息在第四段：“It was to test the effects of mercury on the heart that the two new studies compared the mercury levels in clippings from toenails, where heavy metals tend to be deposited. ”本题的理解请见“难句突破”。

4. C 情感态度题。Dr. Eliseo Guallar和Dr. Walter Willett做的实验相似，但是得出的结论却完全不同。

5. B 推理题。原文对应信息在末段“For most of us, eating two servings of fish a week should not pose any problems.”然后，作者又给出了两个例子来进一步说明这一观点。





参考译文


如果吃鱼对人体健康方面有所影响的报道令你感到困惑的话，那么有你这种感觉的并不单单是你一个人。一方面，美国心脏学会两周前再次建议大家每人每周至少吃两次鱼，他们是这样提醒我们的：鱼肉中所含的不饱和脂肪酸可以降低心脏病的发病率。另一方面，生长于污染水域的鱼体内存有高含量的汞，这可能对发育中的大脑造成认知方面的不良影响。这就是为什么要建议孕妇和哺乳期妇女减少鱼类摄入的原因。

这好像还不足以使你感到困惑不解。上周刊载于《新英格兰医学杂志》上的两项新课题，就汞对心脏可能造成的影响进行了调查研究，两项研究却得出了似乎相互矛盾的结论：一项研究发现汞含量和心脏病之间没有必然联系；另一项研究发现脚趾甲中汞含量高的人与汞含量低的人相比，更容易患心脏病。我们该如何理解？首先要牢记这就是科学的进程，那些时进时退并且看起来相互矛盾的结论只能通过进一步的研究才能得以解决；其次，并不是所有的鱼类天生都一样的。

与其他可食用物相比，鱼类是蛋白质的最佳来源。它们把食用海藻作为自然界生命循环的一部分，并将其转化为能促进胆固醇代谢的不饱和脂肪酸。但是我们越来越多的水源被各种污染物（其中包括汞）所污染也是事实，这些污染物在不同的生物体内以不同程度的含量积聚下来。最危险的鱼是处于海洋上层食物链中的食肉鱼，比如旗鱼和鲨鱼。

脚趾甲是重金属易于沉积的地方。这两个新课题通过对比脚趾甲中汞的含量检测汞对心脏的影响。其中一个课题的研究员由约翰霍普金斯大学的埃利塞奥·瓜利亚尔博士领导，他们发现在欧洲人和以色列人当中，体内汞含量最高的人犯心脏病的几率几乎为汞含量最低的人的2.2倍。另一项课题由哈佛公共卫生学院的沃尔特·威利特博士领导。通过对那些选出来的美国男性公民的研究，他们并未发现人体接触汞元素和心脏病发病之间有什么关系，虽然威利特说不能完全排除其中会有某种“微弱的联系”。

对于我们大多数人来说，一周吃两份鱼类食品不会产生任何问题。鲑鱼中汞的含量可以忽略不计。来自西班牙海岸的瓜利亚尔继续在他吃的肉菜饭里加鲑鱼调味。威利特大约每月只吃两回旗鱼——这是因为旗鱼太贵，而不是因为担心汞含量的问题。鱼油补充品富含不饱和脂肪酸，其中所含的汞元素可能也没有整条鱼那么多，但它们的口感实在太差。





Unit 92


“The fundamental question is whether it is still worthwhile to invest in pharmaceutical science,” says Severin Schwan, the newish boss of Roche, a once-stodgy Swiss drugs firm. A cursory glance at his rivals, who have been trying to concentrate less on coming up with new medicines and more on making simpler things such as “branded” generics and over-the-counter drugs, suggests that the answer is no. Indeed, some analysts claim that the industry’s giants face such a precipitous decline in sales from drugs coming off patent, with so few promising new prospects to replace them, that their entire business model is collapsing.

That argument has Mr Schwan leaping out of his seat with indignation. Using a deck of PowerPoint slides he sets out to disprove “the chorus of gloom”. Drug making is “so crude”, he argues, that half of all known diseases cannot be treated at all, and the drugs for the other half work properly only half the time and with huge side effects. “Imagine a car that starts only half the time, and whose brakes often don’t work,” he says. He sees this sorry state of affairs as a huge business opportunity. In particular, he is convinced that rapid advances in diagnostics, genomics and biotechnology will bring “a brand new revolution” in personalised medicine.

Accordingly, Roche is betting big on research into new drugs, even as rivals seek to diversify and “de-risk”. Earlier this year it bought Genentech, a Californian biotech pioneer. It hopes these deals will put it in the vanguard, since developing drugs tailored to individuals will involve tying manufacturing to the results of genetic tests—as, for example, with Genentech’s treatment for breast cancer, Herceptin.

By taking over Genentech, Roche has added promising drugs for cancer and other potentially lucrative treatments to its otherwise anaemic research pipeline. Tim Anderson of Bernstein Research calculates that Roche is now among the big drugs firms best positioned to cope with the coming generic assault. He projects that its revenues will grow by a quarter over the next five years and its earnings per share will increase by half.

Several potential snags could hold Roche back, however. One fear is that the bureaucracy of a big pharmaceutical firm will crush Genentech’s more innovative culture（it has been called the Google of biotech）. “There is no interference in the way we do things,” insists Richard Scheller, head of research and early development at Genentech. That very few senior executives have left since the takeover supports his claim. Even so, scale is usually not an advantage when it comes to pharmaceutical research and a creative atmosphere can easily dissipate.

Another worry is that Roche’s long-term vision may come at the expense of the shorter-term returns expected by some shareholders. Michael Leuchten of Barclays Capital, an investment bank, reckons that personalised medicine will not start generating profits for some time. That may be fine with Roche’s patient founding family, which controls the firm thanks to its dual-share structure, but it could dismay other investors. Moreover, there is a risk of catastrophic failure. Mr Schwan notes that new drugs earn outsized rewards—but that is because they are much harder to make. It is anybody’s guess whether Roche’s newly filled pipeline of early-stage drugs will become commercial hits in ten or 20 years’ time.

注（1）：本文选自Economist；

注（2）：本文习题命题模仿对象：第1、2题分别模仿1999年真题Text 4第1题和Text 2第2题；第3题模仿1998年真题Text 3第2题；第4、5题分别模仿2004年真题Text 2第3题和Text 3第5题。



1. We can learn from the first paragraph that ______.

A) Severin Schwan believes that the entire business model is to destroy the industry

B) drugs with patent expired tend to make less profit in the market

C) Roche may switch its strategy to focus on generics and over-the-counter drugs

D) Roche’s competitors will not answer the question raised by Severin Schwan

2. Speaking of personalised medicine, the author implies that ______.

A) it is a new business model for the pharmaceutical industry

B) it will bring a brand new revolution to Roche

C) it may not be approved by Roche’s shareholders

D) it may not be feasible in the new future

3. Paragraphs 5 and 6 are written to ______.

A) argue against Severin Schwan’s point of view

B) predict the future of Roche

C) introduce Roche’s fears

D) point out potential problems of Roche’s approach

4. By saying “Roche is now among the big drugs firms best positioned to cope with the coming generic assault” （Lines 3~4, Paragraph 4）, Tim Anderson of Bernstein Research means that ______.

A) Roche will beat all the other rivals in terms of producing generic drugs

B) Roche is now capable of competing against generic drugs

C) Roche will acquire a much better capacity in anaemic research

D) Roche is giving the public its promises to produce more new drugs

5. To which of the following is the author likely to agree?

A) Roche’s acquisition of other firms is to reduce its innovativeness.

B) Roche may emerge as the new Google of the biotechnology industry.

C) Roche’s new drugs in research may not be commercialized in a decade.

D) Roche’s shareholders support the company’s R&D efforts in new drugs.





篇章剖析


本文前三段首先介绍了世界主要制药公司在新药研发上减少投入的趋势，并主要说明了瑞士的罗氏制药公司在新药研发投资决策中的立场，随后讨论了使用基因生物技术的前景。文章的后三段讨论了罗氏制药公司在未来发展过程中可能面临的一些问题，以及罗氏商业模式的利弊。





词汇注释


stodgy /ˈstɒdʒi/ adj. 平庸的；乏味的；非常守旧的

cursory /ˈkɜːsəri/ adj. 仓促的，草率的；粗略的

generic /dʒɪˈnerɪk/ n. 非专利药，仿制药

precipitous /prɪˈsɪpɪtəs/ adj. 急促的；急剧的

indignation /ˌɪndɪgˈneɪʃən/ n. 愤怒，愤慨，义愤

genomics /dʒəˈnəʊmɪks/ n. 基因组学；基因体学

vanguard /ˈvængɑːd/ n. 前卫，先锋；领导者

tailor /ˈteɪlə/ v. 修改；使合适

anaemic /əˈniːmɪk/ adj. 贫血的；无活力的

assault /əˈsɔːlt/ n. 攻击，袭击；谴责，抨击

snag /snæg/ n. 意料不到的障碍

dissipate /ˈdɪsɪpeɪt/ v. 驱散（雾等），使消散；消除，使消失

catastrophic /ˌkætəˈstrɒfɪk/ adj. 悲惨的；惨败的

outsized /ˈaʊtsaɪzd/ adj. 特大号的





难句突破


A cursory glance at his rivals, who have been trying to concentrate less on coming up with new medicines and more on making simpler things such as “branded” generics and over-the-counter drugs, suggests that the answer is no.

主体句式：A cursory glance at his rivals...suggests that the answer is no.

结构分析：本句的主体句式其实非常简单，但是因为中间有一个很长的定语从句干扰，考生比较容易混淆句子的结构，理解本句的关键是要抓住句子主干。由who引导的定语从句修饰rivals，其中包含了两个并列结构，即concentrate less on... and more on...，也就是做了一个对比，说明其他制药公司关注的重点。此外，定语从句中还用such as引导了两个例子。

句子译文：粗略地看一下罗氏的竞争对手们，他们都在设法减少对新药研发的投入，将更多的精力投入到生产“品牌”仿制药和非处方药这些更容易的事情上，这说明他们对这个问题的回答是“不值得”。





题目分析


1. B 推理题。本题的对应信息在文章第一段。该段最后一句指出，业界巨头们认为整个医药行业的商业模式正在垮塌，但这并不是塞韦林·施万的观点，因此A不正确。该段提到了generics and over-the-counter drugs，但这是罗氏的竞争对手的做法，并非罗氏的做法，因此C也不正确。第一段的the answer is no不是说对手们不会回答这个问题，而是说如果他们回答这个问题的话，答案应该是“不”，因此D也不正确。第一段还提到“专利药到期后销售量会大幅下降”，可以推出专利过期后就不会创造那么多利润，因此B是正确选项。

2. C 推理题。文章第二段和最后一段都提到了personalised medicine。首先看第二段：塞韦林·施万将这种令人遗憾的现象看作是巨大的商机，他相信诊断学、基因组学和生物技术领域的飞速发展将给个性化药品带来“全新的革命”。这里并没有明确说明个性化药品是一个全新的商业模式，故A不正确；同样这里所谓的革命是指个性化药品的研制，而不是指罗氏公司发生变化，所以B也不正确。再来看最后一段：罗氏的长期愿景可能将以牺牲部分股东的短期回报为代价。巴克莱投资银行的迈克尔·勒奇顿认为，个性化药品在短时间内不会赢利。但这并不表示个性化药品就不可行，因此D不正确。正是因为个性化药品不会很快盈利，“可能会使其他投资者感到沮丧”，所以很可能股东会反对这一决策，因此C是正确答案。

3. D 细节题。文章第五段指出“Several potential snags could hold Roche back, however”，也就是说最后两段开始谈罗氏这一战略面临的问题。即使不知道snag这个词的意思，也可以从however这个转折词和上下文的意思来综合判断，很显然只有D是正确答案。

4. B 语义题。引文来自文章第四段第二句：伯恩斯坦研究公司的蒂姆·安德森认为，罗氏现在已经成为世界上定位最佳的大型制药公司之一，能够应对即将到来的仿制药袭击。只有B选项与这个意思最为贴切。

5. C 细节题。文章倒数第二段指出“就药品研发而言，规模通常不是优势，相反容易对创新的氛围造成伤害”，但前文也说明罗氏尽量保持被收购公司原有的行事方式，因此作者在这一点上也只是提出猜测，并不是一个明确的观点，因此A不正确。文章第五段中提到，被称为生物技术领域的谷歌的是已经被罗氏并购的基因泰克公司，并非罗氏，文章也没有提及罗氏可能成为生物技术领域的谷歌，故B是错误的。D与文章最后一段意思相反，作者指出有些股东可能反对开发新药，所以该选项也不正确。C是正确答案，因为作者在最后一句话中指出“至于罗氏刚刚投入研发的新品能否在10年或20年后获得商业利润，目前谁都说不准”。





参考译文


“问题的根本在于，新药研发是否还值得我们进行投资。”一度行动保守的瑞士罗氏制药公司刚刚走马上任的总裁塞韦林·施万说道。粗略地看一下罗氏的竞争对手们，他们都在设法减少对新药研发的投入，将更多的精力投入到生产“品牌”仿制药和非处方药这些更容易的事情上，这说明他们对这个问题的回答是“不值得”。的确，一些分析人士称，制药业巨头们都面临专利药到期后销售量大幅下降的问题，况且目前也没有前景看好的新药来替代前者的位置，整个医药行业的商业模式正在崩溃瓦解中。

这一争论使得施万先生感到气愤不已，他再也沉不住气了。他用一组PPT幻灯片对那一片“忧郁之声”进行反驳。他说，制药业是“非常残酷的”，在我们所知道的疾病中，半数都是不能治愈的，而对于另一半，药品也只有一半的时间会起作用，并且伴有严重副作用。他说：“这就像一辆汽车仅有一半时间可以正常行驶，而刹车又经常不灵。”塞韦林·施万将这种令人沮丧的现象看作是巨大的商机。他尤其相信诊断学、基因组学和生物技术领域的飞速发展将给个性化药品带来“全新的革命”。

因此，罗氏在新药研究上下了很大的赌注，即便其竞争对手都在寻求多样化的产品组合和“化解风险”的办法。今年早些时候，罗氏收购了位于美国加州的生物技术先锋基因泰克公司。罗氏希望这些交易能使其成为业界先锋，因为根据个性化需求开发药品意味着要把制药与遗传学的试验结果结合在一起，例如，与基因泰克公司用于治疗乳腺癌的药品赫赛汀相结合。

通过收购基因泰克，罗氏弥补了原先研究领域的不足，将其研究领域扩展到了有前景的抗癌药和其他潜在的有利可图的疗法。伯恩斯坦研究公司的蒂姆·安德森认为，罗氏现在已经成为世界上定位最佳的大型制药公司之一，能够应对即将到来的仿制药袭击。他预测罗氏今后五年内营业收入将增长四分之一，股票每股收益将增长过半。

但是，罗氏在其发展道路上可能会遇到几个障碍。人们的一个担忧是大型制药公司的官僚作风会摧垮基因泰克的更具创新性的文化（该公司曾被称为生物技术领域的谷歌）。曾经供职于基因泰克开发部，现任罗氏研发负责人的理查德·谢勒强调：“没人会干涉我们行事的方式。”罗氏接管该公司后几乎没有高管离职这一事实充分支持了他的说法。即便如此，就药品研发而言，规模通常不是优势，相反容易对创新的氛围造成伤害。

另一个担忧是，罗氏的长期愿景可能将以牺牲部分股东的短期回报为代价。巴克莱投资银行的迈克尔·勒奇顿认为，个性化药品在短时间内不会赢利。这对罗氏也许是有利的，其创始家族通过双重股权结构牢牢地控制着公司，但也可能会使其他投资者感到沮丧。更严重的是，这种商业模式还存在溃败的风险。施万先生强调说，新药之所以能获得巨大的回报，是因为这些药的生产具有相当难度。至于罗氏刚刚投入研发的新品能否在10年或20年后获得商业利润，目前谁都说不准。





Unit 93


Depending on whom you ask, the experiment announced at a Texas medical conference last week was a potential breakthrough for infertile women, a tragic failure or a dangerous step closer to the nightmare scenario of human cloning.

There’s truth to all these points of view. Infertility was clearly the motivation when Chinese doctors used a new technique to help one of their countrywomen get pregnant. Unlike some infertile women, the 30-year-old patient produced eggs just fine, and those eggs could be fertilized by sperm. But they never developed properly, largely because of defects in parts of the egg outside the fertilized nucleus. So using a technique developed by Dr. James Grifo at New York University, Dr. Zhuang Guanglun of Sun Yat-sen University in Guangzhou took the patient’s fertilized egg, scooped out the chromosome-bearing nuclear material and put it in a donated egg whose nucleus had been removed. In this more benign environment, development proceeded normally, and the woman became pregnant with triplets who carried a mix of her DNA and her husband’s—pretty much like any normal baby.