To paraphrase 18th century statesman Edmund Burke, all that is needed for the triumph of a misguided cause is that good people do nothing. One such cause now seeks to end biomedical research because of the theory that animals have rights ruling out their use in research. Scientists need to respond forcefully to animal rights advocates, whose arguments are confusing the public and thereby threatening advances in health knowledge and care. Leaders of the animal rights movement target biomedical research because it depends on public funding, and few people understand the process of health care research. Hearing allegations of cruelly to animals in research settings, many are perplexed that anyone would deliberately harm an animal. For example, a grandmotherly woman staffing an animal rights booth at a recent street fair was distributing a brochure that encouraged readers not to use anything that opposed immunizations, she wanted to know if vaccines come from animal research. When assured that they do, she replied, "Then I would have to say yes". Asked what will happen when epidemics return, she said, "Don"t worry, scientists will find some way of using computers". Such well-meaning people just don"s understand. Scientists must communicate their message to the public in a compassionate, understandable way in human terms, not in the language of molecular biology. We need to make clear the connection between animal research and a grandmother"s hip replacement, a father"s bypass operation a baby"s vaccinations, and even a pet"s shots. To those who are unaware that animal research was needed to produce these treatments, as well as new treatments and vaccines, animal research seems wasteful at best and cruel at worst. Much can be done. Scientists could "adopt" middle school classes and present their own research. They should be quick to respond to letters to the editor, lest animal rights misinformation go unchallenged and ac quire a deceptive appearance of truth. Research institutions could be opened to tours, to show that laboratory animals receive humane care Finally, because the ultimate stakeholders are patients, the health research community should actively recruit to its cause not only well-known personalities such as Stephen Cooper, who has made courageous statements about the value of animal research, but all who receive medical treatment. If good people do nothing there is a real possibility that an uninformed citizenry will extinguish the precious embers of medical progress.
单选题
The author begins his article with Edmund Burke"s words to______
【正确答案】
A
【答案解析】解析:题目要求考生判断作者在文章开头引用Edmund Burke原话的用意。Edmund Burke的话中谈到误导之所以得逞就是好人不采取行动,而作者在下文又提到"Scientists need to respond forcefully to animal rights advocates",因此作者强调的是要采取行动,所以作者引语的目的是号召好人(科学家)对这些动物权利倡导者给予有力的还击,故选项A是作者引言的目的。文章强调的是采取行动的必要性而并没有明确地"criticize the misguided cause of animal rights",故排除B;C项"警告生物医学研究的命运"是脱离了引文用意的想当然;D项"展示动物权利运动的胜利"也明显与作者意图不符,而且文中也没有动物权利运动已取得胜利的依据。
单选题
Misled people tend to think that using an animal in research is______
【正确答案】
B
【答案解析】解析:第一段最后一句的意思是"听到在研究中残忍对待动物的指控后,许多人会为有人故意伤害动物而感到困惑"。也就是说这些人(上文中提到的"leaders of the animal rights")开始认为对动物进行实验是选项B"不人道且不可接受的"。选项A中的natural"自然的"与选项C中inevitable"不可避免的"都与他们的观点相反;而且他们真正的观点远比D"无意义与浪费"要严重,所以选项D也不正确。
单选题
The example of the grandmotherly woman is used to show the public%
【正确答案】
B
【答案解析】解析:原文第二段举了老奶奶的例子,老奶奶说"Don"t worry,scientists will find some way of using computers".可见她认为即便瘟疫来临也不必担心,科学家自然会用计算机找到解决方法。接着作者还发表了自己的观点"Such well-meaning people just don"t understand.(这些善良的人们只是不了解情况)",可见选项B正确,即很多人"对于医学科学很无知"。
单选题
The author believes that, in face of the challenge from animal rights advocates, scientists should______
【正确答案】
A
【答案解析】解析:本题答案线索定位于原文第三段首句"Scientists must communicate their message to the public in a compassionate,understandable way in human terms,not in the language of molecular biology.",本句为该段的中心句,指出科学家应该以富有感情、易于理解的方式向人们传递信息,而不是使用机械的分子生物语言。选项A"增加与公众的沟通"符合达一含义。而其他选项B"在研究中用高科技手段"、选项C"无需对他们的事业感到耻辱"以及选项D"努力开发新的治疗方法"在文中均找不到依据。
单选题
From the text we learn that Stephen Cooper is______
【正确答案】
D
【答案解析】解析:从Stephen Cooper后面who引出的定语从句"who has made courageous statements about the value of animal research(他大胆陈述了动物的研究价值)",可以推断出Stephen Cooper是"一名动物研究的支持者"。从文中无法推断他是选项A"人文主义者";文中只提到他对动物研究价值做了陈述,但并没有他亲自做过研究的证据,故选项D"医疗从业者"排除;选项C"一个动物权利热衷者"明显与文中内容相悖。