Infertility is normally seen as a private matter. If a couple are infertile and wish they were not, that is sad. But there is understandable resistance in many countries to the idea that treatments intended to deal with this sadness—known collectively as assisted reproductive technologies, or ARTs—should be paid for out of public funds. Such funds are scarce, and infertility is not a life-threatening condition.
However, two papers presented to the “State of the ART” conference held earlier this month in Lyon argue that in Europe, at least, there may be a public interest in promoting ARTs after all. The low fertility rate in many of that continent's more developed countries means their populations are aging and shrinking. If governments want to change this, ARTs—most significantly invitro fertilisation (IVF)—could offer at least part of a way to do so.
As the conference heard, IVF does seem to be keeping up the numbers in at least one country. Tina Jensen of the University of Southern Denmark has just finished a study of more than 700,000 Danish women. She found that young women in Denmark have a significantly lower natural conception rate than in past decades. That is partly, but not entirely, because they are having their children later in life. The rest of the cause is unknown, though reduced sperm quality in men may be a factor. Whatever the cause, she also found that the effect has been almost completely compensated for by an increasing use of ARTs. Denmark's native population is more or less stable, but some 3.9% of babies born there in 2003 were the result of IVF. The comparable figure for another northern European country, Britain, was 1.5%.
Without IVF, then, the number of Danes would be shrinking fast. That it is not may have something to do with the fact that in Denmark the taxpayer will cover up to six cycles of IVF treatment. In Britain, by contrast, couples are supposed to be entitled to three cycles. In practice, many of the local trusts that dish the money out do not pay for any cycles at all. Jonathan Grant, the head of the Cambridge branch of the Rand Corporation (an American think-tank), believes this is shortsighted. His paper showed that if Britain supported IVF at the Danish level then its birth rate would probably increase by about 10,000 a year.
The cost of offering six cycles to couples (and doing so in practice, rather than just in theory) would be an extra £250m-430m a year. That is not trivial, but Dr. Grant reckons it is cheaper than other ways of boosting the birth rate. Some countries, for example, have tried to bribe women into having more children by increasing child benefits. According to his calculations, raising such benefits costs between £50,000 and £100,000 a year for each additional birth procured. Ten thousand extra births each year would thus cost between £500m and £1 billion.
There are, of course, some disadvantages to promoting IVF. In particular, women who use it tend to be older than those who conceive naturally, and that can lead to congenital problems in their children. But if the countries of Europe do wish to keep their populations up, making IVF more widely available might be a good way of doing so.
1. According to the text, the public's opinion on the infertility treatments is that _____.
[A] the treatments should be paid for out of public funds
[B] the treatments are not so compulsory as they consume the limited public funds
[C] the treatments are not necessarily only paid for out of public funds
[D] the public is not obliged to pay for such treatments of no urgent nature
2. According to the study conducted by Tina Jensen, which one of the following statements is TRUE?
[A] ARTs have reversed the tendency of population decreasing in Denmark.
[B] Danes' problem of low natural conception has been completely counterbalanced by the widely use of ARTs.
[C] The population of Denmark is not decreasing after the adoption of ARTs.
[D] IVF has played an essential role in Denmark in terms of keeping up the number of population.
3. From the paper of Dr. Grant, it can be inferred that _____.
[A] the cost of offering six cycles of IVF to couples is not high at all
[B] IVF treatment is an economical way of solving population shrinking
[C] Britain does not promote adopting IVF to boost the birth rate
[D] encouraging women to bear more babies by bonus is not so efficient to solve the problem of population shrinking
4. The word “congenital” (Line 2, Paragraph 6) most probably means _____.
[A] innate
[B] instinctive
[C] cerebral
[D] acquired
5. According to the passage, the author's attitude towards promoting invitro fertilization can be said to be _____.
[A] supportive
[B] opposing
[C] ambiguous
[D] objective
1. According to the text, the public's opinion on the infertility treatments is that _____.
[A] the treatments should be paid for out of public funds
[B] the treatments are not so compulsory as they consume the limited public funds
[C] the treatments are not necessarily only paid for out of public funds
[D] the public is not obliged to pay for such treatments of no urgent nature
1. 根據(jù)這篇文章,公眾對(duì)于治療不育的看法是 _____。
[A] 治療的費(fèi)用應(yīng)該由公眾基金來支付
[B] 治療并不是義務(wù)的,因?yàn)槠湎牧擞邢薜墓娀?br />
[C] 治療并不一定只由公眾基金來付費(fèi)
[D] 公眾沒有義務(wù)為這種不具有緊急性質(zhì)的治療支付費(fèi)用
答案:B 難度系數(shù):☆☆☆
分析:細(xì)節(jié)題。根據(jù)文章第一段:But there is understandable resistance in many countries to the idea that treatments intended to deal with this sadness—known collectively as assisted reproductive technologies, or ARTs—should be paid for out of public funds. Such funds are scarce, and infertility is not a life-threatening condition. 可見,許多國家反對(duì)用公眾基金來支付治療不育的費(fèi)用。選項(xiàng)A的表述顯然不符合題意。而選項(xiàng)C的表述不如選項(xiàng)B確切。選項(xiàng)D的表述過于絕對(duì),不能反映公眾總體意見。因此,選項(xiàng)B最為符合。
2. According to the study conducted by Tina Jensen, which one of the following statements is TRUE?
[A] ARTs have reversed the tendency of population decreasing in Denmark.
[B] Danes' problem of low natural conception has been completely counterbalanced by the widely use of ARTs.
[C] The population of Denmark is not decreasing after the adoption of ARTs.
[D] IVF has played an essential role in Denmark in terms of keeping up the number of population.
2. 根據(jù)Tina Jensen的研究,下列哪個(gè)陳述是正確的?
[A] 輔助生育技術(shù)扭轉(zhuǎn)了丹麥人口減少的趨勢。
[B] 丹麥人自然受孕率低的問題已經(jīng)完全被體外受精的廣泛使用抵消了。
[C] 丹麥人口在使用了輔助生育技術(shù)后就沒有再減少了。
[D] 體外受精為幫助丹麥維持人口數(shù)量起到了重要的作用。
答案:D 難度系數(shù):☆☆☆☆
分析:根據(jù)第四段,沒有體外受精技術(shù),丹麥人口就會(huì)減少得更快,那么可以看出,現(xiàn)在丹麥人口仍在減少,但是速度放緩。因此,選項(xiàng)A和C是錯(cuò)誤的。選項(xiàng)D,第三段提到了丹麥人口是穩(wěn)定的。因此,答案為D。選項(xiàng)B有一定的干擾性,文章第三段指出:Whatever the cause, she also found that the effect has been almost completely compensated for by an increasing use of ARTs. 與該選項(xiàng)的意思接近,但是文章中用了一個(gè)almost,與completely在意思上有出入。
3. From the paper of Dr. Grant, it can be inferred that _____.
[A] the cost of offering six cycles of IVF to couples is not high at all
[B] IVF treatment is an economical way of solving population shrinking
[C] Britain does not promote adopting IVF to boost the birth rate
[D] encouraging women to bear more babies by bonus is not so efficient to solve the problem of population shrinking
3. 從Grant博士的報(bào)告可以推斷出 _____。
[A] 向夫婦提供六個(gè)療程體外授精治療的費(fèi)用根本不高
[B] 體外授精是解決人口減少的廉價(jià)方法
[C] 英國沒有采用體外授精來提高出生率
[D] 通過用獎(jiǎng)金鼓勵(lì)婦女多生孩子不是解決人口減少的有效方法
答案:B 難度系數(shù):☆☆☆
分析:推理題。根據(jù)第五段的花費(fèi)對(duì)比可以看出,體外授精的方法要比其他方法更經(jīng)濟(jì),因此,選項(xiàng)B符合題意。
4. The word “congenital” (Line 2, Paragraph 6) most probably means _____.
[A] innate
[B] instinctive
[C] cerebral
[D] acquired
4. congenital這個(gè)詞(第六段第二行)最有可能的意思是 _____。
[A] 天生的
[B] 本能的
[C] 大腦的
[D] 后天的
答案:A 難度系數(shù):☆
分析:猜詞題。根據(jù)上下文,體外授精的方法可能會(huì)讓女性衰老得更快,也會(huì)讓孩子出現(xiàn)一些先天性的問題。因此,選項(xiàng)A最為符合題意。
5. According to the passage, the author's attitude towards promoting invitro fertilization can be said to be _____.
[A] supportive
[B] opposing
[C] ambiguous
[D] objective
5. 根據(jù)這篇文章,作者對(duì)于促進(jìn)體外授精的態(tài)度可以說是 _____。
[A] 支持的
[B] 反對(duì)的
[C] 模棱兩可的
[D] 客觀的
答案:A 難度系數(shù):☆☆
分析:態(tài)度題。從文章中作者舉的例子和分析可以看出,這個(gè)方法雖然有一定的缺點(diǎn),但是對(duì)于解決目前歐洲人口減少的問題還是有積極的作用的,因此是支持的,答案為A。
不育一般被看作是個(gè)人隱私。如果一對(duì)夫婦不能生育卻又想要孩子,這就很可悲了。但是許多國家反對(duì)使用公眾基金來治療不育(輔助生育技術(shù)),這是合情合理的。公眾基金本來就很少,而不育也不是什么會(huì)威脅到生命的問題。
但是,本月初在里昂舉行的“輔助生育技術(shù)現(xiàn)狀”會(huì)議上發(fā)布了兩個(gè)報(bào)告,認(rèn)為至少是在歐洲,公眾可能有興趣促進(jìn)輔助生育技術(shù)的發(fā)展。歐洲許多發(fā)達(dá)國家的低生育率意味著其人口正在步入老齡化和減少。如果政府想改變這種情況,輔助生育技術(shù)(最重要的是體外授精)至少可以在某種程度上提供一種方法。
正如在該會(huì)議上所提到的,體外授精起碼可以在一個(gè)國家內(nèi)提高人口數(shù)量。南丹麥大學(xué)的Tina Jensen剛剛結(jié)束了一項(xiàng)對(duì)70多萬名丹麥婦女的研究。她發(fā)現(xiàn),現(xiàn)在的丹麥年輕女性的自然受精率比過去幾十年中降低了許多,這部分是因?yàn)樗齻兩⒆拥哪挲g推遲了,但其余的原因還不清楚,盡管男性精子質(zhì)量下降可能也是一個(gè)因素。不管是什么原因,她還發(fā)現(xiàn),采用體外授精的情況增加后,這種情況幾乎可以完全得到緩解。丹麥本土的人口基本上是穩(wěn)定的,但是在2003年出生的嬰兒中,約有3.9%是通過體外授精出生的。相應(yīng)的,在另外一個(gè)位于歐洲北部的國家英國,靠體外授精出生的嬰兒的比率為1.5%。
如果沒有體外授精技術(shù),丹麥人口就會(huì)迅速減少。在丹麥,納稅人要支付六個(gè)療程的體外授精治療費(fèi)用,不過這二者之間似乎并沒有什么關(guān)系。而在英國,夫婦本人需要支付三個(gè)療程的費(fèi)用。實(shí)際上,許多當(dāng)?shù)氐男磐泄径疾粸槿魏委煶谈顿M(fèi),卻從中賺錢。Rand公司(一家美國智囊公司)劍橋分部的老板Jonathan Grant認(rèn)為,這是目光短淺的做法。他的研究報(bào)告表明,如果英國人像丹麥人那樣支持體外授精,該國每年的新生嬰兒數(shù)量可以增加約一萬。
而免費(fèi)給與夫婦六個(gè)療程的(實(shí)際進(jìn)行而非理論上的)治療,會(huì)使政府一年多支出2.5億到4.3億英鎊。這不是個(gè)小數(shù)目,但是Grant博士認(rèn)為,這要比其他提高出生率的方法更廉價(jià)。比如,一些國家通過提高兒童福利來鼓勵(lì)婦女多生育。根據(jù)他的估測,如此一來,每增加一個(gè)孩子,每年就要增加5萬到10萬英鎊的支出。如果每年多出生1萬個(gè)孩子,就需要多支出5億到10億英鎊。
當(dāng)然,促進(jìn)體外授精也有一些弊端。接受體外授精的婦女要比那些自然受孕的女性衰老得更快,也會(huì)使孩子有一些先天性的問題。但是如果歐洲國家確實(shí)希望使本國人口增加的話,普及體外授精可能是個(gè)好方法。