2020考研英語閱讀理解精讀100篇：Unit 93

Unit 93

Depending on whom you ask, the experiment announced at a Texas medical conference last week was a potential breakthrough for infertile women, a tragic failure or a dangerous step closer to the nightmare scenario of human cloning.

There’s truth to all these points of view. Infertility was clearly the motivation when Chinese doctors used a new technique to help one of their countrywomen get pregnant. Unlike some infertile women, the 30-year-old patient produced eggs just fine, and those eggs could be fertilized by sperm. But they never developed properly, largely because of defects in parts of the egg outside the fertilized nucleus. So using a technique developed by Dr. James Grifo at New York University, Dr. Zhuang Guanglun of Sun Yat-sen University in Guangzhou took the patient’s fertilized egg, scooped out the chromosome-bearing nuclear material and put it in a donated egg whose nucleus had been removed. In this more benign environment, development proceeded normally, and the woman became pregnant with triplets who carried a mix of her DNA and her husband’s—pretty much like any normal baby.

What has some doctors and ethicists upset is that this so-called nuclear-transfer technique has also been used to produce clones, starting with Dolly the sheep. The only significant difference is that with cloning, the inserted nucleus comes from a single, usually adult, cell, and the resulting offspring is genetically identical to the parent. Doing that with humans is ethically repugnant to many. Besides, for reasons that aren’t yet well understood, cloned animals often abort spontaneously or are born with defects; Dolly died very young, though she had seemed healthy. And because the Chinese woman’s twins were born prematurely and died（the third triplet was removed early on to improve chances for the remaining two）, critics have suggested that cloning and nuclear transfer are equally risky for humans.

Not likely, says Grifo. “The obstetric outcome was a disaster,” he admits, “but the embryos were chromosomally normal. We have no evidence that it had anything to do with the procedure.” Even so, concern over potential risks is why the Food and Drug Administration created a stringent approval process for such research in 2001—a process that Grifo found so onerous that he stopped working on the technique and gave it to the researchers in China, where it was subsequently banned (but only this month, long after Zhuang’s patient became pregnant).

The bottom line, say critics, is that perfecting a technique that could be used for human cloning, even if it were developed for another purpose, is just a bad idea—an assertion Zhuang rejects. “I agree that it makes sense to control these experiments,” he says. “But we’ve developed an effective technology to help people. We understand how to do it. We need it.”

注（1）：本文選自Time；

注（2）：本文習(xí)題命題模仿對象為2003年真題Text 4。

1. What is implied in the first paragraph?

A) Some people regard it as a tragic failure.

B) The new experiment means a breakthrough for some people.

C) People have different reactions to the new experiment.

D) The new experiment means a step further to the dangerous human cloning.

2. The author uses the case of Dolly and the Chinese pregnant woman to show that ______.

A) both nuclear-transfer and cloning are dangerous for humans and animals

B) both of them benefit from the new technique

C) both of them are the examples of technical failure

D) both of them are the fruits of the new technology

3. Zhuang’s attitude toward the critics’ conclusion is one of ______.

A) reserved consent

B) strong disapproval

C) slight contempt

D) enthusiastic support

4. The only difference existing between nuclear-transfer and cloning technique is ______.

A) whether it is used for research or for helping the infertile

B) whether the offspring looks like the parent

C) whether it is used in animals or human beings

D) whether the inserted nucleus comes from a single and usually adult cell

5. The text intends to express the idea that ______.

A) research of cloning has potential risks

B) the research of cloning should be stopped totally

C) ethics and research of cloning are in contradiction

D) researchers should have the right to continue the study of cloning

篇章剖析

本文采用提出問題——分析問題的模式，指出細胞核移植和克隆技術(shù)上存在的倫理方面的爭議以及研究人員對此事的看法。第一段指出人們對一項新成果的不同看法；第二段指出這一技術(shù)對一名不孕的中國婦女的幫助；第三段指出細胞核移植和克隆技術(shù)的區(qū)別以及兩者存在的危險性；第四段和第五段指出研究人員的一些做法和看法。

詞匯注釋

breakthrough /?bre?kθru?/ n. 突破

infertile /?n?f??ta?l/ adj. 貧瘠的，不結(jié)果實的

scenario /s??nɑ?r???/ n. 游戲關(guān)卡，某一特定情節(jié)

clone /kl??n/ n. 無性系，無性繁殖，克隆 v. 無性繁殖，復(fù)制

fertilize /?f??t?la?z/ vt. 施肥，使豐饒；使受精；使肥沃，使多產(chǎn)

sperm /sp??m/ n. 精液，精子；鯨油

nucleus /?nju?kl??s; (US)?nu?-/ n. 核子

scoop out 接應(yīng)，舀出

chromosome /?kr??m?s??m/ n. 【生】染色體

benign /b??na?n/ adj. （?。┝夹缘?，（氣候）良好的，仁慈的，和藹的

triplet /?tr?pl?t/ n. 三個一幅，三個一組；三胞胎中的一個

ethically /?eθ?k(?)li/ adv. 倫理（學(xué)）上，有關(guān)民族

repugnant /r??p?gn?nt/ adj. 引起厭惡或反感的；討厭的或可憎的；不一致的

obstetric /?b?stetr?k/ adj. 產(chǎn)科的

stringent /?str?nd??nt/ adj. 嚴厲的，迫切的，銀根緊的

onerous /??n?r?s,???n?r?s/ adj. 繁重的，費力的；負有法律責任的

bottom line 結(jié)果，結(jié)局，最后結(jié)果或聲明

難句突破

Even so, concern over potential risks is why the Food and Drug Administration created a stringent approval process for such research in 2001—a process that Grifo found so onerous that he stopped working on the technique and gave it to the researchers in China, where it was subsequently banned （but only this month, long after Zhuang’s patient became pregnant）.

主體句式：Concern over potential risks is why ...

結(jié)構(gòu)分析：“a process”在句子中是同位語成分；其后又跟了一個that引導(dǎo)的定語從句；在that引導(dǎo)的定語從句中又使用了“so... that”句式和where引導(dǎo)的定語從句。

句子譯文：盡管如此，由于擔心潛在的危險，美國食品藥物管理局2001年就類似研究制定了較為嚴格的批準程序——這套程序令葛瑞佛覺得過于煩瑣而終止了這一技術(shù)的研究工作，并將其轉(zhuǎn)交給了中國研究人員。這項研究工作后來在中國也被禁止（本月剛剛被禁，這是發(fā)生在莊的病人懷孕以后很久的事了）。

題目分析

1. C 推理題。本題的關(guān)鍵在于對“depending on whom you ask”的理解。對于不同的人來說，他們對實驗的反應(yīng)也不相同。

2. A 推理題。原文對應(yīng)信息在倒數(shù)第二段末尾：“critics have suggested that cloning and nuclear transfer are equally risky for humans”。文中提到的多莉羊和一名中國孕婦分別是為了進一步具體說明克隆和細胞核移植技術(shù)及其存在的一些危險。

3. B 情感態(tài)度題。原文對應(yīng)信息在文章末尾：“... an assertion Zhuang rejects”。reject這個詞比較正式，表達較強的感情色彩。

4. D 細節(jié)題。原文對應(yīng)信息在第三段第二句：“The only significant difference is that with cloning, the inserted nucleus comes from a single, usually adult, cell, and the resulting offspring is genetically identical to the parent. ”

5. C 主旨題?？寺〖夹g(shù)的研究，從研究角度來說無可厚非，但從倫理學(xué)角度來說爭議很大。

參考譯文

上周在得克薩斯醫(yī)學(xué)會議上宣布了一項實驗。對于不同的人，實驗的意義也不相同。對于不孕婦女來說這是一種潛在的突破；對某些人來說這是一種悲劇性的失敗，或者是朝人類無性繁殖的噩夢般的境地又邁出了危險的一步。

這些觀點都有各自的道理。中國醫(yī)生采用一種新技術(shù)幫助一位農(nóng)婦懷孕，其目的很明顯是治療不孕癥。與一些不孕婦女不同的是，這位三十歲的病人可以排出健康的卵細胞，并且那些卵細胞可以跟精子結(jié)合成受精卵。但是這些卵細胞卻不能正常發(fā)育，其原因主要是受精核外部的部分卵細胞有缺陷。因此，使用紐約大學(xué)詹姆士·葛瑞佛博士和廣東中山醫(yī)科大學(xué)莊廣倫博士發(fā)明的技術(shù)，可以把病人的受精卵取出來，然后提取帶有染色體的核物質(zhì)，并把它放入已經(jīng)去除核子的別人捐贈的卵細胞內(nèi)。在這種更為有利的環(huán)境中，細胞可以正常發(fā)育。這位婦女懷上了三胞胎，胎兒攜帶著她和她丈夫兩人的DNA——這跟其他正常的嬰兒沒什么大的差別。

令一些醫(yī)生和倫理學(xué)家感到不安的是，這項所謂的細胞核移植技術(shù)被用于克隆，多莉羊就是這一技術(shù)最開始的產(chǎn)物。其中最大的不同之處僅在于在克隆過程中，嵌入的細胞核來自單細胞，通常又是成熟的細胞。從遺傳上來說，這樣產(chǎn)生的后代同母體是一樣的。把這種實驗用于人類，從倫理學(xué)的角度來說，很多人都反對。此外，我們還有些問題仍沒有搞清楚其原因，如克隆動物經(jīng)常會自動流產(chǎn)，或者具有天生缺陷。多莉盡管看起來很健康，但是她很早就死了。因為那位中國婦女早產(chǎn)下雙胞胎，并且都未能保住性命（為了提高其他兩個胎兒的存活幾率，第三個胎兒早就被做掉了），所以評論家認為克隆和細胞核移植對于人類來說都是同等危險的。

葛瑞佛認為事情并不一定是這樣?！爱a(chǎn)科出現(xiàn)這樣的后果真是一場災(zāi)難，”他承認說，“但是從染色體來看，這些胚胎都是正常的。我們沒有證據(jù)顯示這跟移植過程有任何關(guān)系?！北M管如此，由于擔心潛在的危險，美國食品藥物管理局2001年就類似研究制定了較為嚴格的批準程序——這套程序令葛瑞佛覺得過于煩瑣而終止了這一技術(shù)的研究工作，并將其轉(zhuǎn)交給了中國研究人員。這項研究工作后來在中國也被禁（本月剛剛被禁止，這是發(fā)生在莊的病人懷孕后很久以后的事了）。

評論家認為，盡管是出于其他目的而進行研究的，但是研究成果進一步完善以后可能會用做人類克隆的技術(shù)，這就是個壞主意——這項聲明是莊博士極力反對的。“我贊同控制這些實驗確實有一定的意義，”他說，“但是我們已經(jīng)發(fā)明了這項可以幫助人的有效的技術(shù)。我們知道該如何使用，也需要它?！?