The realization that colds can kill has renewed interest in finding vaccines and treatments. The trouble is that the common cold is caused not by one virus but by hundreds of different ones. This means a vaccine or drug that works against one of these viruses, or one family of viruses, is usually ineffective against all the others. What"s more, because colds are usually so mild, if treatmentscause even minor side effects they can be worse than the disease. Such treatments will never get approval for general use, which is why most companies instead focus on drugs that relieve symptoms. Nevertheless, some drugs and vaccines are being developed against the cold viruses most likely to turn nasty.A vaccine against Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV), a virus which can cause serious illness in young children and the elderly, is going through clinical trials. It consists of a weakened strain of the virus given as a nasal spray. A treatment for RSV infections, based on RNA interference, is also in development. However, treatments for specific viruses are useless unless your cold is caused by the virus in question—and doctors have no quick way to work out which virus is to blame for a cold. Systems to do this are under development, mostly based on looking for specific DNA or RNA sequences, but none are near to reaching the market. An alternative approach would be to keep taking drugs that prevent infection throughout the cold season, such as a derivative of the anti-smallpox drug cidofovir which has been shown to combat adenoviruses, viruses that can cause upper respiratory infections. But again, as adenoviruses are only responsible for a few percent of colds, the benefits hardly justify the expense and risk of side effects from remaining on a drug permanently. Short of everyone on the planet isolating themselves for two or three weeks, so existing cold viruses run out of hosts and die out, it is hard to see how we can ever defeat the common cold. Even then, new cold viruses would evolve in time from animal viruses. Some even question whether it is desirable to try to eliminate colds. "It"s blind speculation," says Joel Weinstock of Tufts University in Boston in the US, "but the common cold may protect us from more serious viruses." An occasional sniffle might be a price worth paying if it keeps our immune defenses primed.
单选题 The drugs against colds are usually ineffective because _____.
【正确答案】 D
【答案解析】解析:事实细节题。考查因果细节,根据ineffective定位到第一段。其中讲到引发普通感冒的不是一种病毒。而是几百种不同的病毒,故D项与之相符。
单选题 The phrase "turn nasty" (Para 2) most probably means that the cold viruses could be_____.
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】解析:语义理解题。根据题干定位在第二段。most likely to turn nasty是定语,修饰前面的cold viruses,上文说colds call kill(感冒可致人死亡),下文例证提到RSV病毒可使老人、儿童患重疾,由此可推知turn nasty表示感冒病毒会“越变越危险”,故选C项。
单选题 It could be inferred from the third paragraph that _____.
【正确答案】 D
【答案解析】解析:推理判断题。根据题干定位到第三段。其中讲到治疗特定病毒的药物丝毫不起作用,除非感冒是由被怀疑病毒所致,故D项正确,表示针对某些特定病毒的治疗是有效的。
单选题 Keeping taking drugs that prevent infection throughout the cold season will _____.
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】解析:推理判断题。根据题干定位到第四段。最后一句明确指出,这种方法可能带来某种风险,即药物性依赖这一副作用,故C项与之相符。
单选题 According to Joel Weinstock, it"s impossible and unnecessary to _____.
【正确答案】 A
【答案解析】解析:观点态度题。属于文中人物的观点,从最后一段可以推断出乔尔.温斯托克认为普通感冒也可能给人带来一些益处,原文的“盲目的推断”表明试图消除感冒是不可能的,也是没有必要的,A项正确。