单选题{{B}}Text 4{{/B}} Rarely has there been as neat a fit between a book’s subject and its author’s biography as in "Bound Together: How Traders, Preachers, Adventurers, and Warriors Shaped Globalization" by Nayan Chanda. It's easy to see why the subject fascinates Chanda; he's a self-proclaimed Francophile(崇拜法国的人) of South Asian origin, who studied French in Calcutta, then took courses on China in Paris, ran a magazine in Hong Kong and ended up launching an online journal devoted to globalization at a venerable Ivy League institution. And in this engaging analysis, he answers such intriguing questions as" How did the coffee bean, first grown only in Ethiopia, end up in our coffee cups after a journey through Java and Colombia?" In examining these specific questions -- and larger ones about how the world is interconnected m Chanda does not emphasize his own experiences. But when appropriate, he effectively uses small, personal details to cut very big social, economic, cultural and sometimes biological processes down to size. He shows how close scrutiny of the iPod he gave his son as a birthday present can reveal much about the multinational origins of such objects. It was officially touted as" designed" by an American company and "assembled in China"; he found that it actually contained component parts and software with ties to India, Japan, South Korea and Scotland. And he marvels at the speed with which it traveled from Shanghai to New haven via Alaska and Indiana, as well as at his ability to track its progress thanks to bar codes. The debate over globalization has grown so polarized that many readers are probably itching to know whether Chanda belongs in the" pro" or" anti" camp. One theme of "Bound Together" is that thinking in these terms doesn't make sense. Those who gather at what are somewhat misleadingly called" anti- globalization" rallies, after all, don't oppose all the ways the world is shrinking. And their campaigns make use of many technologies (notably the Internet) that are crucial to 21st-century-style globalization. Indeed, Chanda's stand on the subject might be called that of a cautiously optimistic fatalist. He asserts that the only reasonable response to globalization is twofold: accept that the world is not going to stop shrinking and figure out ways to maximize the positive and minimize the negative effects. He acknowledges the downsides of globalization (social inequities, the spread of new diseases and so on), yet argues that in many ways being "bound together" ever more tightly can ultimately be a good thing, benefiting more and more individuals and groups. This is a book filled with fascinating information. Even readers who disagree with his claims will come away with a host of new facts to draw upon. They will also learn a lot about the history and deployment of the term globalization, to which Chanda devotes an excellent chapter. In addition, many will never look at an iPod in quite the same way again.

单选题 "What's the difference between God and Larry Ellison?" asks an old software industry joke. Answer: God doesn't think he's Larry Ellison. The boss of Oracle is hardly alone among corporate chiefs in having a reputation for being rather keen on himself. Indeed, until the bubble burst and the public turned nasty at the start of the decade, the worship of the celebrity chief executive seemed to demand bossly narcissism, as evidence that a firm was being led by an all-conquering hero. Narcissus met a nasty end, of course. And in recent years, boss-worship has come to be seen as bad for business. In his management bestseller, "Good to Great", Jim Collins argued that the truly successful bosses were not the serf-proclaimed stars who adorn the covers of Forbes and Fortune, but instead self-effacing, thoughtful sorts who lead by inspiring example. A statistical answer may be at hand. For the first time, a new study, "It's All About Me", to be presented next week at the annual gathering of the American Academy of Management, offers a systematic, empirical analysis of what effect narcissistic bosses have on the firms they run. The authors, Arijit Chatterjee and Donald Hambrick, of Pennsylvania State University, examined narcissism in the upper rank of 105 firms in the computer and software industries. To do this, they had to solve a practical problem: studies of narcissism have relied on surveying individuals personally, something for which few chief executives are likely to have time or inclination. So the authors devised an index of narcissism using six publicly available indicators obtainable without the co-operation of the boss. These are: the prominence of the boss's photo in the annual report; his prominence in company press releases; the length of his "Who's who" entry; the frequency of his use of the first person singular in interviews; and the ratios of his cash and non-cash compensation to those of the firm's second-highest paid executive. Narcissism naturally drives people to seek positions of power and influence, and because great selfesteem helps your professional advance, say the authors, chief executives will tend on average to be more narcissistic than the general population. Messrs Chatterjee and Hambrick found that highly narcissistic bosses tended to make bigger changes in the use of important resources, such as research and development, or in spending; they carried out more and bigger mergers and acquisitions; and their results were both more extreme (more big wins or big losses) and more unstable than those of firms run by their humbler peers.

单选题When mentioning Janice Yawee, the author is talking about

单选题Humans have never lacked for ways to get wasted. The natural world is full of soothing but addictive leaves and fruits and fungi , and for centuries, science has added them to the pharmacopoeia to relieve the pain of patients. In the past two decades, that"s been especially true. As the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations developed new policies to treat pain more actively, approaching it not just as an unfortunate side effect of illness but as a fifth vital sign, along with temperature, heart rate, respirtory rate and blood pressure, a bounty of new opoids(鸦片类物)has rolled off Big Pharma"s production line. There was fentanyl , synthetic opioid around since the 1960s that went into wide use as a treatment for cancer pain in the 1990s. That was followed by Oxycodone , a short-acting drug for more routine pain, and after thatcame Oxycontin , a 12-hour formulation of the same powerful pill. Finally came hydrocodone . The government considers hydrocodone a Schedule Ⅲ drug—one with a " moderate or low" risk of dependency , as opposed to Schedule Ⅱ"s, which carry a "severe" risk. Physicians must submit a written prescription for Schedule Ⅱ drugs ; for Schedule Ⅲ"s, they just phone the pharmacy. ( Schedule I substances are drugs like heroin that are never prescribed. ) For patients, that wealth of choices spelled danger. The result has hardly been surprising. Since 1990, there has been a tenfold increase in prescriptions for opioids in the U. S. , according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDCP). In 1990 there were barely 6, 000 deaths from accidental drug poisoning in the U. S. By 2007 that number had nearly quintupled , to 27, 658. Health officials do not tease out which drug is responsible for every death, and it"s not always possible. "There may be lots of drugs on board, " says Cathy Barber, director of the Injury Control Research Center at the Harvard School of Public Health. "Is it the opioid that caused the death? Or is it the combination of opioid, benzodiazepine and a cocktail the person had?" Still, most experts agree that nothing but the exploding availability of opioids could be behind the exploding rate of death. Despite such heavy death toil, the suivellance over these popular pills faces regulatory maze . In early 2009, the FDA announced that it was initiating a " risk-evaluation and mitigation strategy". The regulations the FDA is empowered to issue include requiring manufacturers to provide better information to patients and doctors, requiring doctors to meet certain educational criteria before writing opioid prescriptions and limiting the number of docs and pharmacies allowed to prescribe or dispense the drugs. "And with all that, "warns Dr. John Jenkins, director of the FDA"s Office of New Drugs, " we do still have to make sure patients have access to drugs they need. "Any regulations the FDA does impose won"t be announced until 2011 at the earliest and could take a year or more to roll out. That leaves millions of people continuing to fill prescriptions, tens of thousands per year dying and patients in genuine pain wondering when a needed medication will relieve their suffering—and when it could lead to something worse.

单选题{{B}}Directions:{{/B}} Read the following text. Choose the best word(s) for each numbered blank and mark A, B, C or D on Answer Sheet 1. With the Met Office predicting a summer heatwave, Macmillan Cancer Relief this week{{U}} (1) {{/U}}its customary warning about the sun's ultravioiet rays:{{U}} (2) {{/U}}, it says, for the huge rise in skin cancers affecting 70,000 people a year.{{U}} (3) {{/U}}a hat and long-sleeved shirt, it advises, keep in the{{U}} (4) {{/U}}in the middle of the day, and slap{{U}} (5) {{/U}}suncream with a protection factor of 15 or above. We all know it{{U}} (6) {{/U}}; it's the message that's been drummed into us for the past 20 years. Too much sun{{U}} (7) {{/U}}. But now there's a fly in the suntan lotion, complicating the message's clarity. It comes{{U}} (8) {{/U}}a thin, quietly-spoken and officially retired Nasa scientist, Professor William Grant, who says that sun doesn't kill; in {act, it does us the world of{{U}} (9) {{/U}}. What's killing us, he says, is our{{U}} (10) {{/U}}with protecting ourselves from skin cancer. Grant is trying to turn the scientific world{{U}} (11) {{/U}}down. Talking to me on a trip to Britain this week, he{{U}} (12) {{/U}}his startling--and at first appearance off-the-wall new calculation that{{U}} (13) {{/U}}excessive exposure to the sun is costing 1,600 deaths a year in the UK from melanoma skin cancers,{{U}} (14) {{/U}}exposure to the sun is the cause of 25,000 deaths a year from cancer generally. In other words, one sixth of all cancer deaths could be prevented{{U}} (15) {{/U}}we sunned ourselves a little more; in comparison, the melanoma{{U}} (16) {{/U}}is insignificant. The reason is vitamin D. Grant, the director of the Sunlight, Nutrition and Health Research Centre (SUNARC) he{{U}} (17) {{/U}}in California a year ago, says that he and other scientists have{{U}} (18) {{/U}}vitamin D deficiency as a key cause{{U}} (19) {{/U}}17 different types of cancer including melanoma, osteoporosis, diabetes, multiple sclerosis and other neurological{{U}} (20) {{/U}}.

单选题Excessive sugar has a strong real-effect on the functioning of active organs such as the heart, kidneys and the brain. Shipwrecked sailors who ate and drank nothing but sugar for nine days surely went through some of this trauma. This incident occurred when a vessel carrying a cargo of sugar was shipwrecked in 1793. The five surviving sailors were finally rescued nine days after the accident. They were in a wasted condition due to starvation, having consumed nothing but sugar. French physiologist F. Magendie was inspired by that incident to conduct a series of experiments with animals. In the experiments, he fed dogs a diet of sugar and water. All the dogs wasted and died. The shipwrecked sailors and the French physiologist's experimental dogs proved the same point. As a steady diet, sugar is worse than nothing. Plain water can keep you alive for quite some time. Sugar and water can kill you. Humans and animals are "unable to subsist on a diet of sugar". The dead dogs in Professor Magendie's laboratory alerted the sugar industry to the hazards of free scientific inquiry. From that day to this, the sugar industry has invested millions of dollars in behind-the-scenes, subsidized science. The best scientific names that money could buy have been hired, in the hope that they could one day come up with something at least pseudoscientific in the way of glad tiding about suger. It has been proved, however, that sugar is a major factor in dental decay; sugar in a person's diet does cause overweight; removal of sugar from diets has cured symptoms of crippling, worldwide diseases such as diabetes, cancer and heart illnesses. Sir Frederick Banting noticed in 1929 that, among sugar plantation owners who ate large amounts of their refined stuff, diabetes was common. Among native cane-cutters, who only got to chew the raw cane, he saw no diabetes. However, the story of the public relations' attempts on the part of the sugar manufacturers began in Britain in 1808 when the Committee of West India reported to the House of Commons that a prize of twenty-five guineas had been offered to anyone who could come up with the most "satisfactory" experiments to prove that unrefined sugar was good for feeding and fattening oxen, cows, hogs and sheep. Food for animals is often seasonal, always expensive. Sugar, by then, was dirt cheap. People weren't eating it fast enough. Naturally, the attempt to feed livestock with sugar in England in 1808 was a disaster.

单选题New Guinea is mentioned in the text so as to betray the fact that

单选题One positive consequence of our current national crisis may be at least a temporary dent in Hollywood"s culture of violence. Fearful of offending audiences in the wake of the terrorist attack, some movie-makers have postponed the release of films with terrorist themes. Television writers are shelving or delaying scripts with warlike and terrorist scenarios. It is probably good thinking. My local video store tells me nobody is checking out "disaster" movies. Says the manager, "Currently, people want comedy. They want an escape from stories about violence and terrorism." Similarly, in the music business, there"s a run on patriotic and inspirational tapes and CDs. According to the New York Times , the self-scrutiny among these czars of mass-entertainment taste is unprecedented in scale, sweeping aside hundreds of millions of dollars in projects that no longer seem appropriate. A reasonable concern is that this might be a short-term phenomenon. Once life returns to something more normal, will Hollywood return to its bad old ways? The Times offers a glimmer of hope. The industry"s titans, it suggests, are grappling with much more difficult, long-range questions of what the public will want once the initial shock from the terrorist attacks wears off. Many in the industry admit they do not know where the boundaries of taste and consumer tolerance now lie. This is an opportunity for some of us to suggest to Hollywood where that boundary of consumer tolerance is. Especially those of us who have not yet convinced Hollywood to cease its descent into ever-lower of desensitization of our young. The nonprofit, nonpartisan Parents Television Council, which monitors the quality of TV programming, says in its latest report that today"s TV shows are more laced than ever with vulgarities, sexual immorality, crudities, violence, and foul language. The traditional family hour between 8 p.m. and 9 p.m., when the networks used to offer programs for the entire family, has disappeared. The problem looks like it will get worse. That certainly looked to be the case before the Sep. 11 assault. One pre-attack the New York Times story reported that TV producers were crusading for scripts that include every crude word imaginable. The struggles between network censors and producers, according to the report, were "growing more intense". Producers like Aaron Sorkin of The West Wing planned to keep pushing hard. He was quoted as saying, "There"s absolutely no reason why we can"t use the language of adulthood in programs that are about adults." My guess is that a lot of adults don"t use the language Mr. Sorkin wants to use, and don"t enjoy having their children hear it. At this moment of crisis in our nation"s history, thought has become more contemplative, prayerful, and spiritual. It may be the time to tell the entertainment industry that we want not a temporary pause in the flow of tastelessness, but a long-term cleanup.

单选题Nobody ever went into academia to make a fast buck. Professors, especially those in medical-and technology-related fields, typically earn a fraction of what their colleagues in industry do. But suddenly, big money is starting to flow into the ivory tower, as university administrators wake up to the commercial potential of academic research. And the institutions are wrestling with a whole new set of issues. The profits are impressive: the Association of University Technology Managers surveyed 132 universities and found that they earned a combined $ 576 million from patent royalties in 1998, a number that promises to keep rising dramatically. Schools like Columbia University in New York have aggressively marketed their inventions to corporations, particularly pharmaceutical and high-tech companies. Now Columbia is going retail on the Web. It plans to go beyond the typical "dot. edu" model, free sites listing courses and professors" research interests. Instead, it will offer the expertise of its faculty on a new for-profit site which will be spun off as an independent company. The site will provide free access to educational and research content, say administrators, as well as advanced features that are already available to Columbia students, such as a simulation of the construction and architecture of a French cathedral and interactive 3-D models of organic chemicals. Free pages will feel into profit-generating areas, such as online courses and seminars, and related books and tapes. Columbia executive vice provost Michael Crow imagines "millions of visitors" to the new site, including retirees and students willing to pay to tap into this educational resource. "We can offer the best of what"s thought and written and researched," says Ann Kirschner, who heads the project. Columbia also is anxious not be aced out by some of the other for-profit "knowledge sites," such as About. com and Hungry Minds. " If they capture this space," says Crow, "they"ll begin to cherry-pick our best faculty. " Profits from the sale of patents typically have been divided between the researcher, the department and the university, and Web profits would work the same way, so many faculty members are delighted. But others find the trend worrisome: is a professor who stands to profit from his or her research as credible as one who doesn"t? Will universities provide more support to researchers working in profitable fields than to scholars toiling in more musty areas? "If there"s the perception that we might be making money from our efforts, the authority of the university could be diminished," worries Herve Varenne, a cultural anthropology professor at Columbia"s education school. Says Kirschner: "We would never compromise the integrity of the university. "Whether the new site can add to the growing profits from patents remains to be seen, but one thing is clear. It"s going to take the best minds on campus to find a new balance between profit and purity.