The Gene Industry
Major companies are already in pursuit of commercial applications of the new biology. They dream of placing enzymes in the automobile to monitor exhaust and send data on pollution to a microprocessor that will then adjust the engine. They speak of what the New York Times calls " metal-hungry microbes that might be used to mine valuable trace metals from ocean water ". They have already demanded and won the right to patent new lifeforms.
Nervous critics, including many scientists, worry that there is corporate, national, international, and inter-scientific rivalry in the entire biotechnological field. They create images not of oil spills, but of " microbe spills " that could spread disease and destroy entire populations. The creation and accidental release of extremely poisonous microbes, however, is only one cause for alarm. Completely rational and respectable scientists are talking about possibilities that stagger the imagination.
Should we breed people with cow-like stomachs so they can digest grass and hay, thereby relieving the food problem by modifying us to eat lower down on the food chain? Should we biologically alter workers to fit the job requirement, for example, creating pilots with faster reaction times or assembly-line workers designed to do our monotonous work for us? Should we attempt to eliminate " inferior " people and breed a " super -race "? (Hitler tried this, but without the genetic weaponry that may soon issue from our laboratories.) Should we produce soldiers to do our fighting? Should we use genetic forecasting to pre-eliminate " unfit " babies? Should we grow reserve organs for ourselves, each of us having, as it were, a " savings bank " full of spare kidney, livers or hands?
Wild as these notions may sound, every one has its advocates (and opposers) in the scientific community as well as its striking commercial application. As two critics of genetic engineering, Jeremy Rifkin and Ted Howard, state in their book Who Should Play God? " Broad Scale genetic engineering will probably be introduced to America much the same way as assembly lines, automobiles, vaccines, computers and all the other technologies. As each new genetic advance becomes commercially practical, a new consumer need will be exploited and a market for the new technology will be created."
1. According to the passage, the exhaust from a car engine could probably be checked by
A) using metal-hungry microbes .
B) making use of enzymes.
C) adjusting the engine.
D) patenting new life forms.
2. According to the passage, which of the following would worry the critics the most?
A) The unanticipated explosion of population
B) The creation of biological solar cells.
C) The accidental spill of oil.
D) The unexpected release of destructive microbes.
3. Which of the following notions is NOT mentioned?
A) Developing a " savings bank " of one's organs.
B) Breeding soldiers for a war.
C) Producing people with cow-like stomachs.
D) Using genetic forecasting to cure diseases.
4. According to the passage, Hitler attempted to
A) changed the pilots biologically to win the war.
B) develop genetic farming for food supply.
C) kill the people he thought of as inferior.
D) encourage the development of genetic weapons for the war.
5. What dose Jeremy Rifkin and Ted Howard's statement imply?
A) The commercial applications of genetic engineering are inevitable.
B) American will depend on other countries for biological progress.
C) Americans are proud of their countries for biological progress.
D) The potential application of each new genetic advance should be controlled.
答案与解析:
1．B。该题问“根据文章来看，汽车发动机的尾气可能被什么检测到？”。我们可以先看看备选答案，这是因为这个问题较接近生活，所以可能可以直接借助常识进行推理判断。A说“用渴望吃金属的微生物”，B说“使用酶”， C说“调整发动机”， D说“给予新的生命形式专利权”。不难从常识判断C和D都不正确。再借助原文，利用答案线索词exhaust of a car engine/汽车发动机的尾气和 check/检测，不难在第1段的第2句中发现答案相关句。 该句说“他们梦想把酶放入汽车中去监控（汽车的）尾气并且向微机传送污染数据...”，依据此可判断B是正确的答案。
2．D．该题问“根据文章来看，下面哪一项会最让批评家担心？”。利用critics/批评家 和worry/担心作为答案查找线索词。于是在第2段的段首句中发现答案相关句，该句说“感到不安的批评家，包括许多科学家，担心。。。。”。但该句并没说“最担心什么”，所以接着看随后的一句，该句说“他们想象到的不是石油泄漏，而是可能传播疾病和毁坏人类的微生物的泄漏。”，所以D（未预料的具有破坏性的微生物的释放）是答案。
3．D．该题问“下面哪个术语没有被提到？”。因为第2题的答案在第2段，所以对于第3题我们从第3段开始看。对比备选答案项我们不难发现C在该段的段首句；该段的倒数第3句中有B；而该段的最后一句中含有A，所以D没有在原文中被提到。
4．C．该题问“根据文章来看，西特勒试图做什么？”。因为"Hitler/西特勒"是专有名词，容易在文章中查找，所以我们选定该词为答案线索词。于是我们在第3段的中间部分发现含有该词的句子，该句说“西特勒尝试了这个”，而“this/这个”是回指前面的内容，所以我们再看前面的一个句子，而该句说“我们能试图消除劣等人，而繁殖超强人种吗？”。再看备选答案。A说“为了赢得战争试图从生物的角度改变飞行员”；B说“发展基因农业以满足食物的供应”；C说“杀掉他认为劣等的民族”，D说“鼓励发展生物武器”，所以C是答案。
5．A．该题问“Jeremy Rifkin和 Ted Howard的话暗示了什么？”。一看“imply/暗示”这个词，我们应该首先明白答案一定不是文章中明明白白写出的句子，而换句话说文章中明明白白写出的句子一定不是答案。选定Jeremy Rifkin和 Ted Howard这两个专有名词为答案线索词。于是我们在最后一段的第2句中找到答案相关句。该句说“如。。。一样，大规模的基因工程有可能引入美国。”，而备选答案项中A说“基因工程的商业用途是不可避免的”，与原文中相关句的说法相符；而B和C都没有涉及到基因--文章的说明对象，所以不可能是答案，而D说“每个新的基因发展的潜在用途都应该受到控制”，可见D的说法太绝对，所以应该不对，所以答案是A。