New research has revived one of the longest standing,and biologically fundamental debates in the life sciences Is there a set limit to how long humans can live?The study 1 in the journal Science,suggests that maybe there isn't.It should be noted that this finding contradicts other 2 research by biologists and demographers,as Nature notes lateaus after a certain point for these"super-elderly"2 Researchers examined a population of nearly 4,000 Italians who were 105 years or older.That they found was that mortality risk The risk of death increases when someone 5 gets older,6 as they reach their 80s and 90s But,say Sapienza University's Elisabetta Barbi and University of Roma Tre's Francesco Lagona,after reaching the 7 old age of 105,the 8 of dying 9 the following year essentially drop down to 50%.The researchers 10 the quality of their dataset,asserting that their"estimates are 11 arti facts of aggregation that limited earlier studies and provide the best 12 to date for the existence of extreme-age mortality plateaus in humans.If a mortality plateau really does 13 at higher ages that theoretically means death doesn't have to be an inevitability Not all scientists have 14 that conclusion.For instance,a team from New York’s Albert Einstein College of Medicine analyzed the ages of the worlds oldest people and pegged the maximum length of human 15 at somewhere between 115 and 125 years.（For the curious:The oldest person ever in 16 history was a French lady named Jeanne Calment,who died at 122 years of age in 1997.By analyzing global demographic data,we show that improvements in 17 with age 18 decline after age 100,and that the age at death of the world s oldest person has not increased since th 1990s.Our results strongly suggest that the maximum 19 of humans is fixed and 20 natural constraints,wrote the Albert Einstein researchers in their 2016 report1选？A.releasedB.promotedC.publishedD.presented
New research has revived one of the longest standing,and biologically fundamental debates in the life sciences Is there a set limit to how long humans can live?The study 1 in the journal Science,suggests that maybe there isn't.It should be noted that this finding contradicts other 2 research by biologists and demographers,as Nature notes lateaus after a certain point for these"super-elderly"2 Researchers examined a population of nearly 4,000 Italians who were 105 years or older.That they found was that mortality risk The risk of death increases when someone 5 gets older,6 as they reach their 80s and 90s But,say Sapienza University's Elisabetta Barbi and University of Roma Tre's Francesco Lagona,after reaching the 7 old age of 105,the 8 of dying 9 the following year essentially drop down to 50%.The researchers 10 the quality of their dataset,asserting that their"estimates are 11 arti facts of aggregation that limited earlier studies and provide the best 12 to date for the existence of extreme-age mortality plateaus in humans.If a mortality plateau really does 13 at higher ages that theoretically means death doesn't have to be an inevitability Not all scientists have 14 that conclusion.For instance,a team from New York’s Albert Einstein College of Medicine analyzed the ages of the worlds oldest people and pegged the maximum length of human 15 at somewhere between 115 and 125 years.（For the curious:The oldest person ever in 16 history was a French lady named Jeanne Calment,who died at 122 years of age in 1997.By analyzing global demographic data,we show that improvements in 17 with age 18 decline after age 100,and that the age at death of the world s oldest person has not increased since th 1990s.Our results strongly suggest that the maximum 19 of humans is fixed and 20 natural constraints,wrote the Albert Einstein researchers in their 2016 report
1选？
1选？
A.released
B.promoted
C.published
D.presented
B.promoted
C.published
D.presented
参考解析
解析：动词辨析题。空格所在句子指出,这份研究报告在《科学》杂志上。由此可推断该报告发表在《科学》杂志上。选项[A]release“释放,发表”,一般用于立体媒介,如电视、广播、电影等,还可用于新专辑新影片、新软件新闻等的发布、发表;[B]promote“提升”;C]publish“发表”,一般为平面媒体,如报纸、杂志、书籍等发表;[D]present“提出”。故应选[C]published,其他选项均不符合题意,故排除
相关考题：
No one has yet succeeded in explaining the _____ of how life began. A、causeB、problemC、puzzleD、logic
–How long will you stay here? –____________________. (A) I arrived last night(B) It has one week(C) For one week(D) It took one week
Research on animal intelligence always makes me wonder just how smart humans are. 1 the fruit-fly experiments described in Carl Zimmer’s piece in the Science Times on Tuesday. Fruit flies who were taught to be smarter than the average fruit fly 2 to live shorter lives. This suggests that 3 bulbs burn longer, that there is an 4 in not being too terrifically bright.Intelligence, it 5 out, is a high-priced option. It takes more upkeep, burns more fuel and is slow 6 the starting line because it depends on learning — a gradual 7 — instead of instinct. Plenty of other species are able to learn, and one of the things they’ve apparently learned is when to 8 .Is there an adaptive value to 9 intelligence? That’s the question behind this new research. I like it. Instead of casting a wistful glance 10 at all the species we’ve left in the dust I.Q.-wise, it implicitly asks what the real 11 of our own intelligence might be. This is 12 the mind of every animal I’ve ever met.Research on animal intelligence also makes me wonder what experiments animals would 13 on humans if they had the chance. Every cat with an owner, 14 , is running a small-scale study in operant conditioning. we believe that 15 animals ran the labs, they would test us to 16 the limits of our patience, our faithfulness, our memory for terrain. They would try to decide what intelligence in humans is really 17 , not merely how much of it there is. 18 , they would hope to study a 19 question: Are humans actually aware of the world they live in? 20 the results are inconclusive.1.______[A] Suppose [B] Consider [C] Observe [D] Imagine
根据以下材料回答 1～20 题：Directions:Read the following text. Choose the best word(s) for each numbered blank and mark A, B, C or D on ANSWER SHEET 1. (10 points)Research on animal intelligence always makes me wonder just how smart humans are___(1)___the fruit-fly experiments described in Carl Zimmer’s piece in the Science Times on Tuesday. Fruit flies who were taught to be smarter than the average fruit fly __(2)__to live shorter lives. This suggests that __(3)___ bulbs burn longer, that there is a(n)___(4)___in not being too terrifically bright.Intelligence, it ____(5)_ , is a highpriced option. It takes more upkeep, burns more fuel and is slow___(6)___ the starting line because it depends on learning—a (an) ____(7)_ process—instead of instinct. Plenty of other species are able to learn, and one of the things they’ve apparently learned is when to __(8)____.Is there an adaptive value to __(9)___intelligence? That’s the question behind this new research. I like it. Instead of casting a wistful glance__(10)____at all the species we’ve left in the dust I.Q.wise, it implicitly asks what the real____(11)__of our own intelligence might be. This is__(12)___the mind of every animal we’ve ever met.Research on animal intelligence also makes me wonder what experiments animals would__(13)___on humans if they had the chance. Every cat with an owner, ___(14)___, is running a small-scale study in operant conditioning. We believe that__(15)____animals ran the labs, they would test us to___(16)___the limits of our patience, our faithfulness, our memory for terrain. They would try to decide what intelligence in humans is really__(17)__, not merely how much of it there is.__(18)___, they would hope to study a__(19)__question: Are humans actually aware of the world they live in?__(20)____the results are inconclusive.第 1 题 请选择(1)处最佳答案（ ）。A．SupposeB．ConsiderC．ObserveD．Imagine
Could you tell me ()? A、how long you live hereB、how long have you lived hereC、how long you have lived hereD、how long did you live here
How long is the longest cross－sea bridge?() A、It has a total length of 94.968 kmB、It has a total length of 49.968 kmC、It has a total length of 68.988 km
(41~45) Researchers have found that drugs used to treat human seizures can delay aging in worms by as much as 50 percent. The roundworms used for the study are similar to humans in their molecular makeup, raising thepossibility that the drugs could also extend the life span of humans。第41题：“By finding a class of drugs that delays aging we have found a relationship between the function of the nervous system and aging that was not well understood, ” said Kerry Komfeld, a geneticist at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri. The findings are detailed this week in the journal Science。 The discovery came out of the thesis work by one of Komfeld’s graduate students, Kimberley Evason. About four years ago, Evason began exposing groups of the roundworm Caenorhabditis elegans to commercially available drugs to see if the drugs would delay aging or promote longevity。A. But Komfeld said scientists will not know about the applicability of the drugs in humans until a similar study is done on humans. “What’s very encouraging is that these drugs were developed to treat humans, and they are well understood, because they’ve been used for a long time, ” he said。B. Later the scientists discovered that two related anticonvulsant drugs also lengthened the lives of the worms-in the case of one drug, by almost 50 percent. “This was a big surprise to use, Komfeld said. ”“We didn’t think anticonvulsant drugs had any particular relationship to aging. That connection was completely unexpected. ”C. Roundworms are a poor subject for experiments, because they are not like humans, even though their molecules are similar. For example, they have no bones, nor do they show emotions, making it difficult to know how exactly human subjects would react to these drugs in large quantities. However, using the worms allows experiments to be conducted quickly, because they do not live for long。D. “Somehow the neural activity seems to regulate the aging of all of the body the skin, musculature, and reproductive tract, ” Kornfeld said. “Somehow the nervous system coordinates the progress of all these tissues, evidently, though the life stages. But we don’t know how it does that. ”E. The discovery may also shed light on the little-understood aging process. Since the drugs act on the neuromuscular systems of both humans and worms, the findings hint at a link between neural activity and aging。F. Unlike vertebrates, the worms are ideal subjects for the study of aging because of their short life spans, which last only a couple of weeks in a laboratory. The worm is well known in genetics, and the worm’s genome has been sequenced。G. Use of this drug has been permitted by law since 1998 and wider use is now expected as a result of the studies. “We can clearly link this drug with human aging, but we still need to find proof, says Kornfeld optimistically. ”
Over eight months the scientists tested 20 drugs, all with negative results. Finally they tested the anticonvulsant drug ethosuzimide. Researchers found that the drug extended the life span of roundworms from 16. 7 days to 19. 6 days, a 17 percent increase。A. But Komfeld said scientists will not know about the applicability of the drugs in humans until a similar study is done on humans. “What’s very encouraging is that these drugs were developed to treat humans, and they are well understood, because they’ve been used for a long time, ” he said。B. Later the scientists discovered that two related anticonvulsant drugs also lengthened the lives of the worms-in the case of one drug, by almost 50 percent. “This was a big surprise to use, Komfeld said. ”“We didn’t think anticonvulsant drugs had any particular relationship to aging. That connection was completely unexpected. ”C. Roundworms are a poor subject for experiments, because they are not like humans, even though their molecules are similar. For example, they have no bones, nor do they show emotions, making it difficult to know how exactly human subjects would react to these drugs in large quantities. However, using the worms allows experiments to be conducted quickly, because they do not live for long。D. “Somehow the neural activity seems to regulate the aging of all of the body the skin, musculature, and reproductive tract, ” Kornfeld said. “Somehow the nervous system coordinates the progress of all these tissues, evidently, though the life stages. But we don’t know how it does that. ”E. The discovery may also shed light on the little-understood aging process. Since the drugs act on the neuromuscular systems of both humans and worms, the findings hint at a link between neural activity and aging。F. Unlike vertebrates, the worms are ideal subjects for the study of aging because of their short life spans, which last only a couple of weeks in a laboratory. The worm is well known in genetics, and the worm’s genome has been sequenced。G. Use of this drug has been permitted by law since 1998 and wider use is now expected as a result of the studies. “We can clearly link this drug with human aging, but we still need to find proof, says Kornfeld optimistically. ”
The discovery that the drugs extend the life span of roundworms could have important implications fox human aging as well. There are strong similarities on the molecular level between the proteins and genes thatA. But Komfeld said scientists will not know about the applicability of the drugs in humans until a similar study is done on humans. “What’s very encouraging is that these drugs were developed to treat humans, and they are well understood, because they’ve been used for a long time, ” he said。B. Later the scientists discovered that two related anticonvulsant drugs also lengthened the lives of the worms-in the case of one drug, by almost 50 percent. “This was a big surprise to use, Komfeld said. ”“We didn’t think anticonvulsant drugs had any particular relationship to aging. That connection was completely unexpected. ”C. Roundworms are a poor subject for experiments, because they are not like humans, even though their molecules are similar. For example, they have no bones, nor do they show emotions, making it difficult to know how exactly human subjects would react to these drugs in large quantities. However, using the worms allows experiments to be conducted quickly, because they do not live for long。D. “Somehow the neural activity seems to regulate the aging of all of the body the skin, musculature, and reproductive tract, ” Kornfeld said. “Somehow the nervous system coordinates the progress of all these tissues, evidently, though the life stages. But we don’t know how it does that. ”E. The discovery may also shed light on the little-understood aging process. Since the drugs act on the neuromuscular systems of both humans and worms, the findings hint at a link between neural activity and aging。F. Unlike vertebrates, the worms are ideal subjects for the study of aging because of their short life spans, which last only a couple of weeks in a laboratory. The worm is well known in genetics, and the worm’s genome has been sequenced。G. Use of this drug has been permitted by law since 1998 and wider use is now expected as a result of the studies. “We can clearly link this drug with human aging, but we still need to find proof, says Kornfeld optimistically. ”
There may also be other targets not yet explored that affect aging and neuromuscular function. Said Kornfeld: “The process of aging remains mysterious. ”A. But Komfeld said scientists will not know about the applicability of the drugs in humans until a similar study is done on humans. “What’s very encouraging is that these drugs were developed to treat humans, and they are well understood, because they’ve been used for a long time, ” he said。B. Later the scientists discovered that two related anticonvulsant drugs also lengthened the lives of the worms-in the case of one drug, by almost 50 percent. “This was a big surprise to use, Komfeld said. ”“We didn’t think anticonvulsant drugs had any particular relationship to aging. That connection was completely unexpected. ”C. Roundworms are a poor subject for experiments, because they are not like humans, even though their molecules are similar. For example, they have no bones, nor do they show emotions, making it difficult to know how exactly human subjects would react to these drugs in large quantities. However, using the worms allows experiments to be conducted quickly, because they do not live for long。D. “Somehow the neural activity seems to regulate the aging of all of the body the skin, musculature, and reproductive tract, ” Kornfeld said. “Somehow the nervous system coordinates the progress of all these tissues, evidently, though the life stages. But we don’t know how it does that. ”E. The discovery may also shed light on the little-understood aging process. Since the drugs act on the neuromuscular systems of both humans and worms, the findings hint at a link between neural activity and aging。F. Unlike vertebrates, the worms are ideal subjects for the study of aging because of their short life spans, which last only a couple of weeks in a laboratory. The worm is well known in genetics, and the worm’s genome has been sequenced。G. Use of this drug has been permitted by law since 1998 and wider use is now expected as a result of the studies. “We can clearly link this drug with human aging, but we still need to find proof, says Kornfeld optimistically. ”
请阅读Passage l。完成第21—25小题。Passage 1It's one of our common beliefs that mice are afraid of cats. Scientists have long known that even if a mouse has never seen a cat before, it is still able to detect chemical signals released from it and run away in fear. This has always been thought to be something that is hard-wired into a mouse s brain.But now Wendy Ingram, a graduate student at the University of California, Berkeley, has challenged this common sense. She has found a way to"cure" mice of their inborn fear of cats by infecting them with a parasite, reported the science journal Nature.The parasite, called Toxoplasma gondii, might sound unfamiliar to you, but the shocking fact is that up to one-third of people around the world are infected by it. This parasite can cause different diseases among humans, especially pregnant women--it is linked to blindness and the death of unborn babies.However, the parasite's effects on mice are unique. Ingram and her team measured how mice reacted to a cat's urine(尿) before and after it was infected by the parasite. They noted that normal mice stayed far away from the urine while mice that were infected with the parasite walked freely around the test area.But that's not all. The parasite was found to be more powerful than originally thought—even after researchers cured the mice of the infection. They no longer reacted with fear to a cat's smell,which could indicate that the infection has caused a permanent change in mice's brains.Why does a parasite change a mouse's brain instead of making it sick like it does to humans?The answer lies in evolution."It's exciting scary to know how a parasite can manipulate a mouse's brain this way," Ingram said. But she also finds it inspiring."Typically if you have a bacterial infection, you go to a doctor and take antibiotics and the infection is cleared and you expect all the symptoms to also go away."She said, but this study has proven that wrong."This may have huge implications for infectious disease medicine."The passage is mainly about__________.查看材料A．mice' s inborn terror of catsB．the evolution of ToxoplasmaC．a new study about the effects of a parasite on miceD．a harmful parasite called Toxoplasma gondii
The US$3-million Fundamental physics prize is indeed an interesting experiment,as Alexander Polyakov said when he accepted this year’s award in March.And it is far from the only one of its type.As a News Feature article in Nature discusses,a string of lucrative awards for researchers have joined the Nobel Prizes in recent years.Many,like the Fundamental Physics Prize,are funded from the telephone-number-sized bank accounts of Internet entrepreneurs.These benefactors have succeeded in their chosen fields,they say,and they want to use their wealth to draw attention to those who have succeeded in science.What’s not to like?Quite a lot,according to a handful of scientists quoted in the News Feature.You cannot buy class,as the old saying goes,and these upstart entrepreneurs cannot buy their prizes the prestige of the Nobels,The new awards are an exercise in self-promotion for those behind them,say scientists.They could distort the achievement-based system of peer-review-led research.They could cement the status quo of peer-reviewed research.They do not fund peer-reviewed research.They perpetuate the myth of the lone genius.The goals of the prize-givers seem as scattered as the criticism.Some want to shock,others to draw people into science,or to better reward those who have made their careers in research.As Nature has pointed out before,there are some legitimate concerns about how science prizes—both new and old—are distributed.The Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences,launched this year,takes an unrepresentative view of what the life sciences include.But the Nobel Foundation’s limit of three recipients per prize,each of whom must still be living,has long been outgrown by the collaborative nature of modern research—as will be demonstrated by the inevitable row over who is ignored when it comes to acknowledging the discovery of the Higgs boson.The Nobels were,of course,themselves set up by a very rich individual who had decided what he wanted to do with his own money.Time,rather than intention,has given them legitimacy.As much as some scientists may complain about the new awards,two things seem clear.First,most researchers would accept such a prize if they were offered one.Second,it is surely a good thing that the money and attention come to science rather than go elsewhere,It is fair to criticize and question the mechanism—that is the culture of research,after all—but it is the prize-givers’money to do with as they please.It is wise to take such gifts with gratitude and grace.The Fundamental Physics Prize is seen asA.a symbol of the entrepreneurs’wealth.B.a possible replacement of the Nobel Prizes.C.an example of bankers’investments.D.a handsome reward for researchers.
The US$3-million Fundamental physics prize is indeed an interesting experiment,as Alexander Polyakov said when he accepted this year’s award in March.And it is far from the only one of its type.As a News Feature article in Nature discusses,a string of lucrative awards for researchers have joined the Nobel Prizes in recent years.Many,like the Fundamental Physics Prize,are funded from the telephone-number-sized bank accounts of Internet entrepreneurs.These benefactors have succeeded in their chosen fields,they say,and they want to use their wealth to draw attention to those who have succeeded in science.What’s not to like?Quite a lot,according to a handful of scientists quoted in the News Feature.You cannot buy class,as the old saying goes,and these upstart entrepreneurs cannot buy their prizes the prestige of the Nobels,The new awards are an exercise in self-promotion for those behind them,say scientists.They could distort the achievement-based system of peer-review-led research.They could cement the status quo of peer-reviewed research.They do not fund peer-reviewed research.They perpetuate the myth of the lone genius.The goals of the prize-givers seem as scattered as the criticism.Some want to shock,others to draw people into science,or to better reward those who have made their careers in research.As Nature has pointed out before,there are some legitimate concerns about how science prizes—both new and old—are distributed.The Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences,launched this year,takes an unrepresentative view of what the life sciences include.But the Nobel Foundation’s limit of three recipients per prize,each of whom must still be living,has long been outgrown by the collaborative nature of modern research—as will be demonstrated by the inevitable row over who is ignored when it comes to acknowledging the discovery of the Higgs boson.The Nobels were,of course,themselves set up by a very rich individual who had decided what he wanted to do with his own money.Time,rather than intention,has given them legitimacy.As much as some scientists may complain about the new awards,two things seem clear.First,most researchers would accept such a prize if they were offered one.Second,it is surely a good thing that the money and attention come to science rather than go elsewhere,It is fair to criticize and question the mechanism—that is the culture of research,after all—but it is the prize-givers’money to do with as they please.It is wise to take such gifts with gratitude and grace.According to Paragraph 4,which of the following is true of the Nobels?A.Their endurance has done justice to them.B.Their legitimacy has long been in dispute.C.They are the most representative honor.D.History has never cast doubt on them.
New research has revived one of the longest standing,and biologically fundamental debates in the life sciences Is there a set limit to how long humans can live?The study 1 in the journal Science,suggests that maybe there isn't.It should be noted that this finding contradicts other 2 research by biologists and demographers,as Nature notes lateaus after a certain point for these"super-elderly"2 Researchers examined a population of nearly 4,000 Italians who were 105 years or older.That they found was that mortality risk The risk of death increases when someone 5 gets older,6 as they reach their 80s and 90s But,say Sapienza University's Elisabetta Barbi and University of Roma Tre's Francesco Lagona,after reaching the 7 old age of 105,the 8 of dying 9 the following year essentially drop down to 50%.The researchers 10 the quality of their dataset,asserting that their"estimates are 11 arti facts of aggregation that limited earlier studies and provide the best 12 to date for the existence of extreme-age mortality plateaus in humans.If a mortality plateau really does 13 at higher ages that theoretically means death doesn't have to be an inevitability Not all scientists have 14 that conclusion.For instance,a team from New York’s Albert Einstein College of Medicine analyzed the ages of the worlds oldest people and pegged the maximum length of human 15 at somewhere between 115 and 125 years.（For the curious:The oldest person ever in 16 history was a French lady named Jeanne Calment,who died at 122 years of age in 1997.By analyzing global demographic data,we show that improvements in 17 with age 18 decline after age 100,and that the age at death of the world s oldest person has not increased since th 1990s.Our results strongly suggest that the maximum 19 of humans is fixed and 20 natural constraints,wrote the Albert Einstein researchers in their 2016 report11选？A.free ofB.free fromC.available fromD.full of
Research on animal intelligence always makes me wonder just how smart humans are.1 the fruit-fly experiments described in Carl Zimmer's piece in the Science Times on Tuesday.Fruit flies who were taught to be smarter than the average fruit fly 2 to live shorter lives.This suggests that 3 bulbs burn longer,that there is an 4 in not being too terrifically bright.Intelligence,it 5 out,is a high-priced option.It takes more upkeep,burns more fuel and is slow 6 the starting line because it depends on learning—a gradual 7—instead of instinct.Plenty of other species are able to learn,and one of the things they've apparently learned is when to 8.Is there an adaptive value to 9 intelligence?That's the question behind this new research.I like it.Instead of casting a wistful glance 10 at all the species we've left in the dust I.Q.-wise,it implicitly asks what the real 11 of our own intelligence might be.This is 12 the mind of every animal I've ever met.Research on animal intelligence also makes me wonder what experiments animals would 13 on humans if they had the chance.Every cat with an owner,14,is running a small-scale study in operant conditioning.we believe that 15 animals ran the labs,they would test us to 16 the limits of our patience,our faithfulness,our memory for terrain.They would try to decide what intelligence in humans is really 17,not merely how much of it there is.18,they would hope to study a 19 question:Are humans actually aware of the world they live in?20 the results are inconclusive.4选？A.tendencyB.advantageC.inclinationD.priority
Text 1 On January lst the Bill&Melinda Gates Foundation did something that may help to change the practice of science.It brought into force a policy,foreshadowed two years earlier,that research it supports must,when published,be freely available to all.On March 23rd it followed this up by announcing that iiwill pay the cost of putting such research in one particular repository of freely availablc papers.To a layman,this may sound neither controversial nor ground-breaking.But the crucial word is"freely".It means papers reporting Gates-sponsored research cannot be charged for.No pay walls.No journal subscriptions.That is not a new idea,but the foundation's announcement gives it teeth.It means recipients of Gates'largesse can no longer offer their papers to journals such as Nature,the New England Joiu-na!o[Medicine or the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,since reading the contents ofthese publications costs money.One criticism,in a world where most non-commercial scientific research is sponsored by governments,is that there should be no further charge for reading the results of taxpayer-funded work.Journals,in other words,should have no cover or subscription price.A second is that the process of getting a paper published takes too long.Months-sometimes years-can pass while a hopeful researcher first finds a journal willing to publish,and then waits for peer review and the negotiation of amendments.That keeps others in the field in the dark about new results for longer than is really necessary,and thus slows down the progress of science.Third,though this is less easy to prove,many researchers suspect that anonymous peer review is sometimes exploited by rivals to delay the publication of competitors'papers.Partial solutions to some of these problems have been tried.The Gates foundation is experimenting with carrots,as well as sticks.It has offered the publishers of one top-flight journal,Science$l00,000 to make papers published this year about Gates-sponsored research free to read from the beginning.If this goes well,the experiment may be extended to other publications.Similarly,there is a movement among some publishers to make papers free to the reader by charging the authors for the costs of publication-usually in the range of$2,000-$3,000 per paper.But many now think these are half-measures,and that a real revolution in the idea of scientific publishing is needed.21.To support academic publication,Bill&Melinda Gates Foundation willA.set up a new foundation to disseminate scientific papers.B.transmit scientific papers through new means.C.burden the publication expense ofits funding papers.D.support more research works.
Text 1 On January lst the Bill&Melinda Gates Foundation did something that may help to change the practice of science.It brought into force a policy,foreshadowed two years earlier,that research it supports must,when published,be freely available to all.On March 23rd it followed this up by announcing that iiwill pay the cost of putting such research in one particular repository of freely availablc papers.To a layman,this may sound neither controversial nor ground-breaking.But the crucial word is"freely".It means papers reporting Gates-sponsored research cannot be charged for.No pay walls.No journal subscriptions.That is not a new idea,but the foundation's announcement gives it teeth.It means recipients of Gates'largesse can no longer offer their papers to journals such as Nature,the New England Joiu-na!o[Medicine or the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,since reading the contents ofthese publications costs money.One criticism,in a world where most non-commercial scientific research is sponsored by governments,is that there should be no further charge for reading the results of taxpayer-funded work.Journals,in other words,should have no cover or subscription price.A second is that the process of getting a paper published takes too long.Months-sometimes years-can pass while a hopeful researcher first finds a journal willing to publish,and then waits for peer review and the negotiation of amendments.That keeps others in the field in the dark about new results for longer than is really necessary,and thus slows down the progress of science.Third,though this is less easy to prove,many researchers suspect that anonymous peer review is sometimes exploited by rivals to delay the publication of competitors'papers.Partial solutions to some of these problems have been tried.The Gates foundation is experimenting with carrots,as well as sticks.It has offered the publishers of one top-flight journal,Science$l00,000 to make papers published this year about Gates-sponsored research free to read from the beginning.If this goes well,the experiment may be extended to other publications.Similarly,there is a movement among some publishers to make papers free to the reader by charging the authors for the costs of publication-usually in the range of$2,000-$3,000 per paper.But many now think these are half-measures,and that a real revolution in the idea of scientific publishing is needed.23.The following are mentioned as criticisms to taxpayer-funded research EXCEPTA.the unwillingness of many researchers to publish the original data.B.the peer review process having failed to do what it should.C.much long cycle for a paper to get published.D.the demand of free access to scientific papers.
The US$3-million Fundamental physics prize is indeed an interesting experiment,as Alexander Polyakov said when he accepted this year’s award in March.And it is far from the only one of its type.As a News Feature article in Nature discusses,a string of lucrative awards for researchers have joined the Nobel Prizes in recent years.Many,like the Fundamental Physics Prize,are funded from the telephone-number-sized bank accounts of Internet entrepreneurs.These benefactors have succeeded in their chosen fields,they say,and they want to use their wealth to draw attention to those who have succeeded in science.What’s not to like?Quite a lot,according to a handful of scientists quoted in the News Feature.You cannot buy class,as the old saying goes,and these upstart entrepreneurs cannot buy their prizes the prestige of the Nobels,The new awards are an exercise in self-promotion for those behind them,say scientists.They could distort the achievement-based system of peer-review-led research.They could cement the status quo of peer-reviewed research.They do not fund peer-reviewed research.They perpetuate the myth of the lone genius.The goals of the prize-givers seem as scattered as the criticism.Some want to shock,others to draw people into science,or to better reward those who have made their careers in research.As Nature has pointed out before,there are some legitimate concerns about how science prizes—both new and old—are distributed.The Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences,launched this year,takes an unrepresentative view of what the life sciences include.But the Nobel Foundation’s limit of three recipients per prize,each of whom must still be living,has long been outgrown by the collaborative nature of modern research—as will be demonstrated by the inevitable row over who is ignored when it comes to acknowledging the discovery of the Higgs boson.The Nobels were,of course,themselves set up by a very rich individual who had decided what he wanted to do with his own money.Time,rather than intention,has given them legitimacy.As much as some scientists may complain about the new awards,two things seem clear.First,most researchers would accept such a prize if they were offered one.Second,it is surely a good thing that the money and attention come to science rather than go elsewhere,It is fair to criticize and question the mechanism—that is the culture of research,after all—but it is the prize-givers’money to do with as they please.It is wise to take such gifts with gratitude and grace.The discovery of the Higgs boson is a typical case which involvesA.controversies over the recipients’status.B.the joint effort of modern researchers.C.legitimate concerns over the new prizes.D.the demonstration of research findings.
The US$3-million Fundamental physics prize is indeed an interesting experiment,as Alexander Polyakov said when he accepted this year’s award in March.And it is far from the only one of its type.As a News Feature article in Nature discusses,a string of lucrative awards for researchers have joined the Nobel Prizes in recent years.Many,like the Fundamental Physics Prize,are funded from the telephone-number-sized bank accounts of Internet entrepreneurs.These benefactors have succeeded in their chosen fields,they say,and they want to use their wealth to draw attention to those who have succeeded in science.What’s not to like?Quite a lot,according to a handful of scientists quoted in the News Feature.You cannot buy class,as the old saying goes,and these upstart entrepreneurs cannot buy their prizes the prestige of the Nobels,The new awards are an exercise in self-promotion for those behind them,say scientists.They could distort the achievement-based system of peer-review-led research.They could cement the status quo of peer-reviewed research.They do not fund peer-reviewed research.They perpetuate the myth of the lone genius.The goals of the prize-givers seem as scattered as the criticism.Some want to shock,others to draw people into science,or to better reward those who have made their careers in research.As Nature has pointed out before,there are some legitimate concerns about how science prizes—both new and old—are distributed.The Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences,launched this year,takes an unrepresentative view of what the life sciences include.But the Nobel Foundation’s limit of three recipients per prize,each of whom must still be living,has long been outgrown by the collaborative nature of modern research—as will be demonstrated by the inevitable row over who is ignored when it comes to acknowledging the discovery of the Higgs boson.The Nobels were,of course,themselves set up by a very rich individual who had decided what he wanted to do with his own money.Time,rather than intention,has given them legitimacy.As much as some scientists may complain about the new awards,two things seem clear.First,most researchers would accept such a prize if they were offered one.Second,it is surely a good thing that the money and attention come to science rather than go elsewhere,It is fair to criticize and question the mechanism—that is the culture of research,after all—but it is the prize-givers’money to do with as they please.It is wise to take such gifts with gratitude and grace.The critics think that the new awards will most benefitA.the profit-oriented scientists.B.the founders of the new awards.C.the achievement-based system.D.peer-review-led research.
Text 1 On January lst the Bill&Melinda Gates Foundation did something that may help to change the practice of science.It brought into force a policy,foreshadowed two years earlier,that research it supports must,when published,be freely available to all.On March 23rd it followed this up by announcing that iiwill pay the cost of putting such research in one particular repository of freely availablc papers.To a layman,this may sound neither controversial nor ground-breaking.But the crucial word is"freely".It means papers reporting Gates-sponsored research cannot be charged for.No pay walls.No journal subscriptions.That is not a new idea,but the foundation's announcement gives it teeth.It means recipients of Gates'largesse can no longer offer their papers to journals such as Nature,the New England Joiu-na!o[Medicine or the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,since reading the contents ofthese publications costs money.One criticism,in a world where most non-commercial scientific research is sponsored by governments,is that there should be no further charge for reading the results of taxpayer-funded work.Journals,in other words,should have no cover or subscription price.A second is that the process of getting a paper published takes too long.Months-sometimes years-can pass while a hopeful researcher first finds a journal willing to publish,and then waits for peer review and the negotiation of amendments.That keeps others in the field in the dark about new results for longer than is really necessary,and thus slows down the progress of science.Third,though this is less easy to prove,many researchers suspect that anonymous peer review is sometimes exploited by rivals to delay the publication of competitors'papers.Partial solutions to some of these problems have been tried.The Gates foundation is experimenting with carrots,as well as sticks.It has offered the publishers of one top-flight journal,Science$l00,000 to make papers published this year about Gates-sponsored research free to read from the beginning.If this goes well,the experiment may be extended to other publications.Similarly,there is a movement among some publishers to make papers free to the reader by charging the authors for the costs of publication-usually in the range of$2,000-$3,000 per paper.But many now think these are half-measures,and that a real revolution in the idea of scientific publishing is needed.24.What can be inferred from the last paragraph?A.Publishers will burden the cost of publication.B.Readers will still pay for reading scientific papers.C.More thorough approaches are still expected.D.There is no solution to this problem.
Text 1 On January lst the Bill&Melinda Gates Foundation did something that may help to change the practice of science.It brought into force a policy,foreshadowed two years earlier,that research it supports must,when published,be freely available to all.On March 23rd it followed this up by announcing that iiwill pay the cost of putting such research in one particular repository of freely availablc papers.To a layman,this may sound neither controversial nor ground-breaking.But the crucial word is"freely".It means papers reporting Gates-sponsored research cannot be charged for.No pay walls.No journal subscriptions.That is not a new idea,but the foundation's announcement gives it teeth.It means recipients of Gates'largesse can no longer offer their papers to journals such as Nature,the New England Joiu-na!o[Medicine or the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,since reading the contents ofthese publications costs money.One criticism,in a world where most non-commercial scientific research is sponsored by governments,is that there should be no further charge for reading the results of taxpayer-funded work.Journals,in other words,should have no cover or subscription price.A second is that the process of getting a paper published takes too long.Months-sometimes years-can pass while a hopeful researcher first finds a journal willing to publish,and then waits for peer review and the negotiation of amendments.That keeps others in the field in the dark about new results for longer than is really necessary,and thus slows down the progress of science.Third,though this is less easy to prove,many researchers suspect that anonymous peer review is sometimes exploited by rivals to delay the publication of competitors'papers.Partial solutions to some of these problems have been tried.The Gates foundation is experimenting with carrots,as well as sticks.It has offered the publishers of one top-flight journal,Science$l00,000 to make papers published this year about Gates-sponsored research free to read from the beginning.If this goes well,the experiment may be extended to other publications.Similarly,there is a movement among some publishers to make papers free to the reader by charging the authors for the costs of publication-usually in the range of$2,000-$3,000 per paper.But many now think these are half-measures,and that a real revolution in the idea of scientific publishing is needed.25.The author's attitude toward free academic publication isA.positive.B.ironic.C.indifferent.D.opposed.
The US$3-million Fundamental physics prize is indeed an interesting experiment,as Alexander Polyakov said when he accepted this year’s award in March.And it is far from the only one of its type.As a News Feature article in Nature discusses,a string of lucrative awards for researchers have joined the Nobel Prizes in recent years.Many,like the Fundamental Physics Prize,are funded from the telephone-number-sized bank accounts of Internet entrepreneurs.These benefactors have succeeded in their chosen fields,they say,and they want to use their wealth to draw attention to those who have succeeded in science.What’s not to like?Quite a lot,according to a handful of scientists quoted in the News Feature.You cannot buy class,as the old saying goes,and these upstart entrepreneurs cannot buy their prizes the prestige of the Nobels,The new awards are an exercise in self-promotion for those behind them,say scientists.They could distort the achievement-based system of peer-review-led research.They could cement the status quo of peer-reviewed research.They do not fund peer-reviewed research.They perpetuate the myth of the lone genius.The goals of the prize-givers seem as scattered as the criticism.Some want to shock,others to draw people into science,or to better reward those who have made their careers in research.As Nature has pointed out before,there are some legitimate concerns about how science prizes—both new and old—are distributed.The Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences,launched this year,takes an unrepresentative view of what the life sciences include.But the Nobel Foundation’s limit of three recipients per prize,each of whom must still be living,has long been outgrown by the collaborative nature of modern research—as will be demonstrated by the inevitable row over who is ignored when it comes to acknowledging the discovery of the Higgs boson.The Nobels were,of course,themselves set up by a very rich individual who had decided what he wanted to do with his own money.Time,rather than intention,has given them legitimacy.As much as some scientists may complain about the new awards,two things seem clear.First,most researchers would accept such a prize if they were offered one.Second,it is surely a good thing that the money and attention come to science rather than go elsewhere,It is fair to criticize and question the mechanism—that is the culture of research,after all—but it is the prize-givers’money to do with as they please.It is wise to take such gifts with gratitude and grace.The author believes that the now awards areA.acceptable despite the criticism.B.harmful to the culture of research.C.subject to undesirable changes.D.unworthy of public attention.
How are we to develop new technology if we can’t study current technology to figure out how to______it?A.improveB.restC.causeD.conceal
It can be concluded that science education has reached a new phase of development.A: gradeB: classC: standardD: stage
It’s one of our common beliefs that mice are afraid of cats. Scientists have long known that even if a mouse has never seen a cat before, it is still able to detect chemical signals released from it and run away in fear. This has always been thought to be something that is hard-wired into a mouse’ s brain.But now Wendy Ingram, a graduate student at the University of California, Berkeley, has challenged this common sense. She has found a way to “cure” mice of their inborn fear of cats by infecting them with a parasite, reported the science journal Nature.The parasite, called Toxoplasma gondii, might sound unfamiliar to you, but the shocking fact is that up to one-third of people around the world are infected by it. This parasite can cause different diseases among humans, especially pregnant women—it is linked to blindness and the death of unborn babies.However, the parasite’s effects on mice are unique. Ingram and her team measured how mice reacted to a cat's urine (尿) before and after it was infected by the parasite. They noted that normal mice stayed far away from the urine while mice that were infected with the parasite walked freely around the test area.But that's not all. The parasite was found to be more powerful than originally thought—even after researchers cured the mice of the infection. They no longer reacted with fear to a cat's smell, which could indicate that the infection has caused a permanent change in mice's brains.Why does a parasite change a mouse's brain instead of making it sick like it does to humans The answer lies in evolution.“It’s exciting scary to know how a parasite can manipulate a mouse's brain this way,"Ingram said. But she also finds it inspiring. "Typically if you have a bacterial infection, you go to a doctor and take antibiotics and the infection is cleared and you expect all the symptoms to also go away,” she said, but this study has proven that wrong. “This may have huge implications for infectious disease medicine."The passage is mainly about__________.查看材料A.mice's inborn terror of catsB.the evolution of ToxoplasmaC.a new study about the effects of a parasite on miceD.a harmful parasite called Toxoplasma gondii
单选题The sentence “But this has rarely been a one-way street.” in the last paragraph means that _____.Acontemporary art has been nourished by modern scienceBmodern science has been nourished by artCartists can become scientists and scientists can become artistsDthe impacts of modern art and science are actually mutual
问答题Human beings in all times and places think about their world and wonder at their place in it. Humans are thoughtful and creative, possessed of insatiable curiosity.1) Furthermore, humans have the ability to modify the environment in which they live, thus subjecting all other life forms to their own peculiar ideas and fancies.Therefore, it is important to study humans in all their richness and diversity in a calm and systematic manner, with the hope that the knowledge resulting from such studies can lead humans to a more harmonious way of living with themselves and with all other life forms on this planet Earth. “Anthropology” derives from the Greek words anthropos “human” and logos “the study of.” By its very name, anthropology encompasses the study of all humankind.Anthropology is one of the social sciences.2) Social science is that branch of intellectual enquiry which seeks to study humans and their endeavors in the same reasoned, orderly, systematic, and dispassioned manner that natural scientists use for the study of natural phenomena. Social science disciplines include geography, economics, political science, psychology, and sociology. Each of these social sciences has a subfield or specialization which lies particularly close to anthropology. All the social sciences focus upon the study of humanity. Anthropology is a field-study oriented discipline which makes extensive use of the comparative method in analysis.3)The emphasis on data gathered first-hand, combined with a cross-cultural perspective brought to the analysis of cultures past and present, makes this study a unique and distinctly important social science. Anthropological analyses rest heavily upon the concept of culture. Sir Edward Tylor’s formulation of the concept of culture was one of the great intellectual achievements of 19th century science. 4) Tylor defined culture as “… that complex whole which includes belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society.”This insight, so profound in its simplicity, opened up an entirely new way of perceiving and understanding human life. Implicit within Tylor’s definition is the concept that culture is learned, shared, and patterned behavior. 5) Thus, the anthropological concept of “culture,” like the concept of “set” in mathematics, is an abstract concept which makes possible immense amounts of concrete research and understanding.