1 . For the past five years, Paula Smith, a historian of science, has devoted herself to re-creating long-forgotten techniques. While doing research for her new book, she came across a 16th-century French manuscript（手稿）consisting of nearly 1,000 sets of instructions, covering subjects from tool making to finding the best sand.
The author's intention remains as mysterious（神秘）as his name; he may have been simply taking notes for his own records. But Smith was struck mainly by the fact that she didn't truly grasp any of the skills the author described. "You simply can't get an understanding of that handwork by reading about it," she says.
Though Smith did get her hands on the best sand, doing things the old-fashioned way isn't just about playing around with French mud. Reconstructing the work of the craftsmen（工匠）who lived centuries ago can reveal how they viewed the world, what objects filled their homes, and what went on in the workshops that produced them. It can even help solve present-day problems: In 2015, scientists discovered that a 10th-century English medicine for eve problems could kill a drug-resistant virus.
The work has also brought insights for museums, Smith says. One must know how an object was made in order to preserve it. What's more, reconstructions might be the only way to know what treasures looked like before time wore them down. Scholars have seen this idea in practice with ancient Greek and Roman statues. These sculptures were painted a rainbow of striking colours. We can't appreciate these kinds of details without seeing works of art as they originally appeared-something Smith believes you can do only when you have a road map.
Smith has put the manuscript's ideas into practice. Her final goal is to link the worlds of art and science back together: She believes that bringing the old recipes to life can help develop a kind of learning that highlights experimentation, teamwork, and problem solving.
Back when science—then called “the new philosophy”—took shape, academics looked to craftsmen for help in understanding the natural world. Microscopes and telescopes were invented by way of artistic tinkering（修补）, as craftsmen experimented with glass to better bend light.
If we can rediscover the values of hands-on experience and craftwork, Smith says, we can marry the best of our modern insights with the handiness of our ancestors.
1. How did Smith, feel after reading the French manuscript?| A．Confused about the technical terms. |
| B．Impressed with its detailed instructions. |
| C．Discouraged by its complex structure. |
| D．Shocked for her own lack of hand skills. |
| A．restore old workshops | B．understand the craftsmen |
| C．improve visual effects | D．inspire the philosophers |
| A．To reveal the beauty of ancient objects. |
| B．To present the findings of old science. |
| C．To highlight the importance of antiques. |
| D．To emphasise the values of hand skills. |
| A．Craftsmen Set the Trends for Artists |
| B．Craftsmanship Leads to New Theories |
| C．Craftsmanship Makes Better Scientists |
| D．Craftsmen Reshape the Future of Science |
2 . Most people know that Marie Curie was the first woman to win the Nobel Prize, and the first person to win it twice. However, few people know that she was also the mother of a Nobel Prize winner.
Born in September, 1897, Irene Curie was the first of the Curies’ two daughters. Along with nine other children whose parents were also famous scholars, Irene studied in their own school, and her mother was one of the teachers. She finished her high school education at the College of Sévigné in Paris.
Irene entered the University of Paris in 1914 to prepare for a degree in mathematics and physics. When World War I began, Irene went to help her mother, who was using X-ray facilities (设备) to help save the lives of wounded soldiers. Irene continued the work by developing X-ray facilities in military hospitals in France and Belgium. Her services were recognised in the form of a Military Medal by the French government.
In 1918, Irene became her mother’s assistant at the Curie Institute. In December 1924, Frederic Joliot joined the Institute, and Irene taught him the techniques required for his work. They soon fell in love and were married in 1926. Their daughter Helene was born in 1927 and their son Pierre five years later.
Like her mother, Irene combined family and career. Like her mother, Irene was awarded a Nobel Prize, along with her husband, in 1935. Unfortunately, also like her mother, she developed leukemia because of her work with radioactivity (辐射能). Irene Joliot-Curie died from leukemia on March 17, 1956.
1. Why was Irene Curie awarded a Military Medal?| A．Because she received a degree in mathematics. |
| B．Because she contributed to saving the wounded. |
| C．Because she won the Nobel Prize with Frederic. |
| D．Because she worked as a helper to her mother. |
| A．At the Curie Institute. |
| B．At the University of Paris. |
| C．At a military hospital. |
| D．At the College of Sévigné. |
| A．In 1932. | B．In 1927. |
| C．In 1897. | D．In 1926. |
| A．Irene worked with radioactivity. |
| B．Irene combined family and career. |
| C．Irene won the Nobel Prize once. |
| D．Irene died from leukemia. |
3 . Four people in England back in 1953, stared at Photo 51,It wasn’t much—a picture showing a black X. But three of these people won the Nobel Prize for figuring out what the photo really showed –the shape of DNA The discovery brought fame and fortune to scientists James Watson, Francis Crick, and Maurice Wilkins. The fourth, the one who actually made the picture, was left out.
Her name was Rosalind Franklin.” She should have been up there,” says historian（历史学家） Mary Bowden.” If her photos hadn’t been there, the others couldn’t have come up with the structure.” One reason Franklin was missing was that she had died of cancer four years before the Nobel decision. But now scholars（学者）doubt that Franklin was not only robbed of her life by disease but robbed of credit by her competitors
At Cambridge University in the 1950s, Watson and Click tried to make models by cutting up shapes of DNA’s parts and then putting them together. In the meantime, at King’s College in London, Franklin and Wilkins shone X-rays at the molecule(分子). The rays produced patterns reflection the shape.
But Wilkins and Franklin’s relationship was a lot rockier than the celebrated teamwork of Watson and Crick, Wilkins thought Franklin was hired to be his assistant .But the college actually employed her to take over the DNA project.
What she did was produce X-ray pictures that told Watson and Crick that one of their early models was inside out. And she was not shy about saying so. That angered Watson, who attacked her in return, “Mere inspection suggested that she would not easily bend. Clearly she had to to go or be put in her place.”
As Franklin’s competitors, Wilkins, Watson and Crick had much to gain by cutting her out of the little group of researchers, says historian Pnina Abir-Am. In 1962 at the Nobel Prize awarding ceremony, Wilkins thanked 13 colleagues by name before he mentioned Franklin, Watson wrote his book laughing at her. Crick wrote in 1974 that “Franklin was only two steps away from the solution.”
No, Franklin was the solution. “She contributed more than any other player to solving the structure of DNA . She must be considered a co-discoverer,” Abir-Am says. This was backed up by Aaron Klug, who worked with Franklin and later won a Nobel Prize himself. Once described as the “Dark Lady of DNA”, Franklin is finally coming into the light.
1. What is the text mainly about?| A．The disagreements among DNA researchers. |
| B．The unfair treatment of Franklin. |
| C．The process of discovering DNA. |
| D．The race between two teams of scientists. |
| A．took the lead in the competition |
| B．kept her results from him |
| C．proved some of his findings wrong |
| D．shared her data with other scientists |
| A．She developed pictures in dark labs. |
| B．She discovered the black X-the shape of DNA. |
| C．Her name was forgotten after her death. |
| D．Her contribution was unknown to the public. |
| A．Disapproving. | B．Respectful. |
| C．Admiring. | D．Doubtful. |
