Passage Six
Scientists have a duty to talk to the public. Why? Because social policies need to be decided on the basis of rational grounds and facts. These include important issue ranging from climate change, to the goals of the space program, to the protection of endangered species, to the use of embryonic stem cells or animals in biomedical research. Both the public and policy makers need to understand not only the scientific justification for our work but also, in some cases, why we deem our studies to be morally justifiable.
The time is ripe for a more open, public and honest debate about the role of scientific experimentation in animals. What follows are some of my thoughts on this topic. I hope this perspective encourages other scientists to join the discussion and prompts opponents of animal research to create an atmosphere where civil discourse can take place, free of the threats ， harassment and intimidation（恐吓） that are increasingly directed at biomedical scientists and their families.
Criticism to the use of animals in biomedical research rests on varied scientific and ethical arguments. One extreme view holds that information gathered from animal research cannot, even in principle, be used to improve human health. It is often accompanied by catchy slogan such as "If society funds mouse models of cancer, we will find more cures for cancer in mice." It is argued that the physiology of animals and humans are too different to allow results from animal research to be extrapolated（推断） to humans.
Such a blanket statement is falsified by numerous cases where experimentation on animals has demonstrably contributed to medical breakthroughs. The experiments on cardiovascular and pulmonary function in animals that began with Harvey and continued with the Oxford physiologists established the understanding of what the heart and lungs do and how they do it, on which the modern practice of internal medicine rests. Modern medical practice is inconceivable in the absence of the insights gained from these experiments. Anticoagulants were first isolated in dogs: insulin was discovered in dogs and purified in rabbits; lung surfactants were first extracted and studied in dogs; rabbits were used in the development of in vitro fertilization; mice in the development of efficient breast cancer drugs and so on.
For the sake of completeness, it must be noted that the other extreme—the notion that all medical advances are a result of animal research—is false as well. Important medical advances, such as sanitation and the discovery of aspirin, were conducted without the use of animals.
全文翻译：
科学家有义务和公众进行对话。为什么？因为社会政策的制定需要以理性基础和事实作为依据。这包括了气候变化、太空疲目目标、濒危物种保护、胚胎干细胞或动物在生物医学上的使用等在内的重要问题。公众和政策制定者不仅需要了解工作的科学合理性，也需要知道在某些情况下为什么我们要让我们的研究具有道德正当性。
现在是展开一场更加开放、公开和诚挚的关于在动物身上进行科学实验的作用讨论的成熟时机。下面是我关于这个问题的一些看法。我希望这篇文章能鼓励其他的科学家加入讨论，也希望动物研究的反对者能够在一个平和的、没有日益增长的针对生物医学专家及其家人的威胁、骚扰和恐吓的氛围中加以探讨。
对生物医学研究中使用动物的批评主要依托各种科学和伦理文章。一个极端的观点认为从动物实验中收集的信息，甚至在大的理论原则上都无法用来改善人类的健康状况。这个观点往往带着一句上口的口号，例如“如果社会把钱花在用老鼠做实验的癌症研究上，那么我们就会找到更多治疗老鼠癌症的方法。”这个观点认为动物和人类的生理机能差别巨大，所以动物实验的结果不能用于人体的推断上。
这种不着边际的论调已经被无数案例推翻，众多的动物实验已经明确地证明了自身对医学突破做出的贡献。动物心血管和肺功能的实验从哈维时期开始，然后牛津的生理学家们根据这类实验了解了心脏和肺的作用和运作方式，同时现代内科也是建立在这类实验基础上。如果没有动物实验得出的成果，难以想象现代医学会是什么样子。抗凝血剂最初是从狗的身上分离出来的；胰岛素是在狗身上发现，在兔子身上提纯的；肺泡表面活性剂最初从狗的身上提取并研究；兔子曾被用于体外受精研究；老鼠在有效的乳腺癌治疗药和其他药物的开发上居功甚伟。
在文章的最后，必须要提一下另一个相对的极端观点——认为所有医学进步都是动物实验的结果——也是错误的。重要的医学进步，例如卫生设备和阿司匹林的发现，都是在没有动物实验的情况下完成的。
细节题。回归文章：“Both the public and policy makers need to understand not only the scientific justification for our work but also, in some cases, why we deem our studies to be morally justifiable. ” 即“公众和政策制定者不仅需要了解工作的科学合理性，也需要知道在某些情况下为什么我们要让我们的研究具有道德正当性。”也就是科学家需要公众了解工作的科学性和道德性，这与C项最相符，故选C。