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.

What has some doctors and ethicists upset is that this so-called nuclear-transfer technique has also been used to produce clones，starting with Dolly the sheep．The only significant difference is that with cloning，the inserted nucleus comes from a single，usually adult，cell，and the resulting offspring is genetically identical to the parent．Doing that with humans is ethically repugnant to many．Besides，for reasons that aren’t yet well understood，cloned animals often abort spontaneously or are born with defects; Dolly died very young，though she had seemed healthy．And because the Chinese woman's twins were born prematurely and died（the third triplet was removed early on to improve chances for the remaining two），critics have suggested that cloning and nuclear transfer are equally risky for humans.

Not likely，says Grifo．“The obstetric outcome was a disaster,” he admits，“but the embryos were chromosomally normal．We have no evidence that it had anything to do with the procedure.” Even so，concern over potential risks is why the Food and Drug Administration created a stringent approval process for such research in 2001—a process that Grifo found so onerous that he stopped working on the technique and gave it to the researchers in China，where it was subsequently banned (but only this month，long after Zhuang's patient became pregnant).

The bottom line，say critics，is that perfecting a technique that could be used for human cloning，even if it were developed for another purpose，is just a bad idea—an assertion Zhuang rejects．“I agree that it makes sense to control these experiments,” he says．“But we’ve developed an effective technology to help people．We understand how to do it．We need it.”


注（1）：本文选自Time；

注（2）：本文习题命题模仿对象为2003年真题Text 4。



1．What is implied in the first paragraph?

A) Some people regard it as a tragic failure.

B) The new experiment means a breakthrough for some people.

C) People have different reactions to the new experiment.

D) The new experiment means a step further to the dangerous human cloning.

2．The author uses the case of Dolly and the Chinese pregnant woman to show that ______.

A) both nuclear-transfer and cloning are dangerous for humans and animals

B) both of them benefit from the new technique

C) both of them are the examples of technical failure

D) both of them are the fruits of the new technology

3．Zhuang's attitude toward the critics’ conclusion is one of ______.

A) reserved consent

B) strong disapproval

C) slight contempt

D) enthusiastic support

4．The only difference existing between nuclear-transfer and cloning technique is ______.

A) whether it is used for research or for helping the infertile

B) whether the offspring looks like the parent

C) whether it is used in animals or human beings

D) whether the inserted nucleus comes from a single and usually adult cell

5．The text intends to express the idea that ______.

A) research of cloning has potential risks

B) the research of cloning should be stopped totally

C) ethics and research of cloning are in contradiction

D) researchers should have the right to continue the study of cloning





篇章剖析


本文采用提出问题——分析问题的模式，指出细胞核移植和克隆技术上存在的伦理方面的争议以及研究人员对此事的看法。第一段指出人们对一项新成果的不同看法；第二段指出这一技术对一名不孕的中国妇女的帮助；第三段指出细胞核移植和克隆技术的区别以及两者存在的危险性；第四段和第五段指出研究人员的一些做法和看法。





词汇注释


breakthrough /ˈbreɪkθruː/ n. 突破

infertile /ɪnˈfɜːtaɪl/ adj. 贫瘠的，不结果实的

scenario /sɪˈnɑːrɪəʊ/ n. 游戏关卡，某一特定情节

clone /kləʊn/ n. 无性系，无性繁殖，克隆 v. 无性繁殖，复制

fertilize /ˈfɜːtɪlaɪz/ vt. 施肥，使丰饶；使受精；使肥沃，使多产

sperm /spɜːm/ n. 精液，精子；鲸油

nucleus /ˈnjuːklɪəs; (US)ˈnuː-/ n. 核子

scoop out接应，舀出

chromosome /ˈkrəʊməsəʊm/ n. 【生】染色体

benign /bɪˈnaɪn/ adj. （病）良性的，（气候）良好的，仁慈的，和蔼的

triplet /ˈtrɪplɪt/ n. 三个一幅，三个一组；三胞胎中的一个

ethically /ˈeθɪk(ə)li/ adv. 伦理（学）上，有关民族

repugnant /rɪˈpʌgnənt/ adj. 引起厌恶或反感的；讨厌的或可憎的；不一致的

obstetric /ɒbˈstetrɪk/ adj. 产科的

stringent /ˈstrɪndʒənt/ adj. 严厉的，迫切的，银根紧的

onerous /ˈɒnərəs,ˈəʊnərəs/ adj. 繁重的，费力的；负有法律责任的

bottom line结果，结局，最后结果或声明





难句突破


Even so，concern over potential risks is why the Food and Drug Administration created a stringent approval process for such research in 2001—a process that Grifo found so onerous that he stopped working on the technique and gave it to the researchers in China，where it was subsequently banned （but only this month，long after Zhuang's patient became pregnant）.

主体句式：Concern over potential risks is why ...

结构分析：“a process”在句子中是同位语成分；其后又跟了一个that引导的定语从句；在that引导的定语从句中又使用了“so..．that”句式和where引导的定语从句。

句子译文：尽管如此，由于担心潜在的危险，美国食品药物管理局2001年就类似研究制定了较为严格的批准程序——这套程序令葛瑞佛觉得过于烦琐而终止了这一技术的研究工作，并将其转交给了中国研究人员。这项研究工作后来在中国也被禁止（本月刚刚被禁，这是发生在庄的病人怀孕以后很久的事了）。





题目分析


1．C 推理题。本题的关键在于对“depending on whom you ask”的理解。对于不同的人来说，他们对实验的反应也不相同。

2．A 推理题。原文对应信息在倒数第二段末尾：“critics have suggested that cloning and nuclear transfer are equally risky for humans”。文中提到的多莉羊和一名中国孕妇分别是为了进一步具体说明克隆和细胞核移植技术及其存在的一些危险。

3．B 情感态度题。原文对应信息在文章末尾：“..．an assertion Zhuang rejects”。reject这个词比较正式，表达较强的感情色彩。

4．D 细节题。原文对应信息在第三段第二句：“The only significant difference is that with cloning，the inserted nucleus comes from a single，usually adult，cell，and the resulting offspring is genetically identical to the parent．”

5．C 主旨题。克隆技术的研究，从研究角度来说无可厚非，但从伦理学角度来说争议很大。





参考译文



上周在得克萨斯医学会议上宣布了一项实验。对于不同的人，实验的意义也不相同。对于不孕妇女来说这是一种潜在的突破；对某些人来说这是一种悲剧性的失败，或者是朝人类无性繁殖的噩梦般的境地又迈出了危险的一步。

这些观点都有各自的道理。中国医生采用一种新技术帮助一位农妇怀孕，其目的很明显是治疗不孕症。与一些不孕妇女不同的是，这位三十岁的病人可以排出健康的卵细胞，并且那些卵细胞可以跟精子结合成受精卵。但是这些卵细胞却不能正常发育，其原因主要是受精核外部的部分卵细胞有缺陷。因此，使用纽约大学詹姆士·葛瑞佛博士和广东中山医科大学庄广伦博士发明的技术，可以把病人的受精卵取出来，然后提取带有染色体的核物质，并把它放入已经去除核子的别人捐赠的卵细胞内。在这种更为有利的环境中，细胞可以正常发育。这位妇女怀上了三胞胎，胎儿携带着她和她丈夫两人的DNA——这跟其他正常的婴儿没什么大的差别。

令一些医生和伦理学家感到不安的是，这项所谓的细胞核移植技术被用于克隆，多莉羊就是这一技术最开始的产物。其中最大的不同之处仅在于在克隆过程中，嵌入的细胞核来自单细胞，通常又是成熟的细胞。从遗传上来说，这样产生的后代同母体是一样的。把这种实验用于人类，从伦理学的角度来说，很多人都反对。此外，我们还有些问题仍没有搞清楚其原因，如克隆动物经常会自动流产，或者具有天生缺陷。多莉尽管看起来很健康，但是她很早就死了。因为那位中国妇女早产下双胞胎，并且都未能保住性命（为了提高其他两个胎儿的存活几率，第三个胎儿早就被做掉了），所以评论家认为克隆和细胞核移植对于人类来说都是同等危险的。

葛瑞佛认为事情并不一定是这样。“产科出现这样的后果真是一场灾难，”他承认说，“但是从染色体来看，这些胚胎都是正常的。我们没有证据显示这跟移植过程有任何关系。” 尽管如此，由于担心潜在的危险，美国食品药物管理局2001年就类似研究制定了较为严格的批准程序——这套程序令葛瑞佛觉得过于烦琐而终止了这一技术的研究工作，并将其转交给了中国研究人员。这项研究工作后来在中国也被禁（本月刚刚被禁止，这是发生在庄的病人怀孕后很久以后的事了）。

评论家认为，尽管是出于其他目的而进行研究的，但是研究成果进一步完善以后可能会用做人类克隆的技术，这就是个坏主意——这项声明是庄博士极力反对的。“我赞同控制这些实验确实有一定的意义，”他说，“但是我们已经发明了这项可以帮助人的有效的技术。我们知道该如何使用，也需要它。”





Unit 94


I had two routine checkups last week，and both the eye doctor and the dentist asked me to update my health history for their records．Their requests made sense．Health-care providers should know what problems their patients have had and what medications they’re taking to be on the lookout for potential trouble or complications.

On each history，however，the section labeled FAMILY HEALTH HISTORY gave me pause．Few diseases are purely genetic，but plenty have genetic components．If my father suffered from elevated LDL，or bad cholesterol，my doctor should know that，because I’m probably at higher risk．If my mother had breast cancer，my sister （if I had one）would want her physician to be especially vigilant.

While I know something about the history of my parents’ health—my father had prostate cancer at a relatively young age and suffered from macular degeneration and Parkinson's disease，and my mother died of lung cancer—there's plenty I don’t know. What were my parents’ cholesterol numbers and blood pressures? I assume I would have known if either suffered from diabetes，but I can’t swear to that．And when it comes to my grandparents，whose genes I also have，I’m even more in the dark.

That makes me fairly typical．According to Dr．Richard Carmona，the U．S．Surgeon General，only about a third of Americans have even tried to put together a family-health history．That's why he has launched the Family History Initiative and declared Thanksgiving National Family History Day．Sitting around the turkey talking about cancer and heart disease may seem like a grim thing to do when you’re supposed to be giving thanks for everything that's going right．But since many families will be gathering for the holiday anyway，it's a perfect time to create a medical family tree.

And the Surgeon General is making it easy: if you go to hhs.gov/familyhistory，you can use the Frequently Asked Questions link to find out which diseases tend to run in families，which ones you should be most and least worried about，and what to do if，like me，your parents and grandparents have passed away．You can also download a free piece of software called My Family Health Portrait，which helps you organize the information．The program prints that out in an easy-to-read form you can give to your doctors.

The website insists the software is“fun,” but that may be going a bit far．In any case，it's available only for Windows machines，so Mac users and people without computers have to use a printed version of the tree．It's worth it，though，since it could help save your life or the life of your children someday.