1 . For decades, scientists thought of the brain as the most closely guarded organ. Locked safely behind a biological barrier, away from the disorder of the rest of the body, it was broadly free of destruction of germs (病菌) and the battles started by the immune system.
Then, 20-odd years ago, some researchers began to ask a question: is the brain really so separate? The answer, according to a growing body of evidence, is no — and has important effects on both science and health care.
The list of brain conditions that have been associated with changes elsewhere in the body is long and growing. Changes in the make-up of the microorganisms resident in the gut (肠道), for example, have been linked to disorders like Parkinson’s disease. Some researchers think that certain infections could provoke Alzheimer’s disease and some could lead to emotional disorder in babies.
The effect is two-way. There is a lengthening list of symptoms (症状) not typically viewed as disorders of the nervous system in which the brain and the neural processes that connect it to the body play a large part. For example, the development of a fever is influenced by a population of neurons (神经元) that control body temperature and appetite. The effect of brain on body is underlined by the finding that stimulating a particular brain region in mice can ‘remind’ the body of previous inflammation (炎症) — and reproduce them.
These findings and others mark a complete shift in our view of the interconnectedness of brain and body, and could help us both understand and treat illness. If some brain conditions start outside the brain, then perhaps cures for them could also reach in from outside. Treatments that take effect through the digestive system, heart or other organs, for instance, would be much easier and less striking to give than those that must cross the blood-brain barrier, the brain’s first line of defence.
In the opposite direction, the effects of our emotions or mood on our capacity to recover from illness could also be used. There is an opening work under way testing whether stimulating certain areas of the brain that respond to reward and produce feelings of positivity could enhance recovery from conditions such as heart attacks. Perhaps even more exciting is the possibility that making changes to our behaviour — to reduce stress, say — could have similar benefits.
For neuroscientists, it’s time to look beyond the brain. And clinicians treating the body mustn’t assume the brain is above getting involved — its activity could be influencing a wide range of conditions, from mild infections to long-time fatness.
1. The author writes paragraph 1 mainly to ______.| A．evaluate an argument |
| B．present an assumption |
| C．summarize the structure |
| D．provide the background |
| A．Delay. | B．Cure. | C．Cause. | D．Disturb. |
| A．Treatments that cross brain-blood barrier are less used. |
| B．Previous diseases could cause the production of new ones. |
| C．Emotions could affect the capacity to fight against diseases. |
| D．Treatment of the brain takes priority over other treatments. |
I: Introduction P: Point Sp: Sub-point (次要点) C: Conclusion
A． | B． |
C． | D． |
Uncertainty is all around us, never more so than today. Whether it concerns your health or relationships, much of what lies ahead in life remains uncertain.
We’re all different in how much uncertainty we can tolerate in life. Some people seem to enjoy taking risks and living unpredictable lives, while others find the randomness of life deeply annoying. But all of us have a limit. If you feel controlled by uncertainty and worry, it’s important to know that you’re not alone; many of us are in the same boat.
To cope with all this uncertainty, many of us use worrying as a tool for trying to predict the future and avoid unpleasant surprises. Worrying can make it seem like you have some control over uncertain circumstances. You may also believe that it will help you find a solution to your problems or prepare you for the worst. Unfortunately, long-term worrying just robs you of enjoyment in the present and weakens your energy. But there are healthier ways to cope with uncertainty.
Identify your uncertainty trigger (诱发因素). A lot of uncertainty tends to be self-generated. However, some can be generated by external sources, such as reading media stories that focus on bad news, or simply communicating with anxious friends. By recognizing your triggers, you can take action to avoid or reduce your exposure to them.
Shift your attention. Focus on solvable worries, taking action on those aspects of a problem that you can control, or simply go back to what you were doing. When the feelings of uncertainty return, refocus your mind on the present moment and your own breathing.
1. How are people different in tolerating uncertainty in life?2. Why do many people use worrying as a tool to deal with uncertainty?
3. Please decide which part is false in the following statement, then underline it and explain why.
▶ Knowing the triggers of your uncertainty, you can learn to expose yourself to them.
4. What are you most uncertain about right now? How will you deal with it? (In about 40 words)
3 . Researchers hope brain implants will one day help people with aphasia(失语症) to get their voice back—and maybe even to sing. Now, for the first time, scientists have demonstrated that the brain’s electrical activity can be decoded and used to reconstruct music.
A new study analyzed data from 29 people monitored for epileptic seizures(癫痫发作), using electrodes(电极) on the surface of their brain. As participants listened to a selected song, electrodes captured brain activity related to musical elements, such as tone, rhythm, and lyrics. Employing machine learning, Robert Knight from UC Berkeley and his colleagues reconstructed what the participants were hearing and published their study results. The paper is the first to suggest that scientists can “listen secretly to” the brain to synthesize(合成) music.
To turn brain activity data into musical sound, researchers trained an artificial intelligence (AI)model to decode data captured from thousands of electrodes that were attached to the participants as they listened to the song while undergoing surgery. Once the brain data were fed through the model, the music returned. The model also revealed some brain parts responding to different musical features of the song.
Although the findings focused on music, the researchers expect their results to be most useful for translating brain waves into human speech. Ludovic Bellier, the study’s lead author, explains that speech, regardless of language, has small melodic differences—tempo, stress, accents, and intonation—known as prosody(韵律). These elements carry meaning that we can’t communicate with words alone. He hopes the model will improve brain-computer interfaces (BCI), assistive devices that record speech-associated brain waves and use algorithms to reconstruct intended messages. This technology, still in its infancy, could help people who have lost the ability to speak because of aphasia.
Future research should investigate whether these models can be expanded from music that participants have heard to imagined internal speech. If a brain-computer interface could recreate someone’s speech with the prosody and emotional weight found in music, it could offer a richer communication experience beyond mere words.
Several barriers remain before we can put this technology in the hands—or brains— of patients. The current model relies on surgical implants. As recording techniques improve, the hope is to gather data non-invasively, possibly using ultrasensitive electrodes. However, under current technologies, this approach might result in a lower speed of decoding into natural speech. The researchers also hope to improve the playback clarity by packing the electrodes closer together on the brain’s surface, enabling an even more detailed look at the electrical symphony the brain produces.
| A．Electrodes can analyze musical elements. |
| B．The decoding of brain data helps recreate music. |
| C．Machine learning greatly enhances brain activity. |
| D．The AI model monitors music-responsive brain regions. |
| A．The prosody of speech. | B．The collection of brain waves. |
| C．The emotional weight of music. | D．The reconstruction of information. |
| A．Unlocking the Secrets of Melodic Mind | B．Brain Symphony: Synthesized Human Speech |
| C．BCI Brings Hope to People with Aphasia | D．Remarkable Journey: Decoding Brain with AI |
4 . Have we reached the peak of the culture war? Looking at my social media feeds, it seems that polarised thinking and misinformation have never been more common. How am I supposed to feel when users I once admired now draw on questionable evidence to support their beliefs?
Perhaps it is time for us all to adopt a little “existential humility”. I came across this idea in a paper by Jeffrey Greenat Virginia from Common Wealth University and his colleagues. They build on a decade of research examining the benefits of “intellectual humility” more generally — our ability to recognise the errors in our judgement and remain aware of the limits of our knowledge.
You can get a flavour of this research by rating your agreement with the following statements, ranging from 1 (not at all like me) to 5 (very like me): I question my own opinions because they could be wrong; I recognise the value in opinions that are different from my own; in the face of conflicting evidence, I am open to changing my opinions.
People who score highly on this assessment are less likely to form knee-jerk reactions on a topic, and they find it easier to consider the strengths or weaknesses of a logical argument. They are less likely to be influenced by misinformation, since they tend to read the article in full, investigate the sources of a news story and compare its reporting to other statements, before coming to a strong conclusion about its truth.
Developing “intellectual humility” would be an excellent idea in all fields, but certain situations may make it particularly difficult to achieve. Greenat points out that some beliefs are so central to our identity that any challenge can activate an existential crisis, as if our whole world view and meaning in life are under threat. As a result, we become more insistent in our opinions and seek any way to protect them. This may reduce some of our feelings of uncertainty, but it comes at the cost of more analytical thinking.
For these reasons, Greenat defines “existential humility” as the capacity to entertain the thought of another world view without becoming so defensive and closed-minded. So how could we achieve it? This will be the subject of future research, but the emotion of awe (a feeling of great respect and admiration) may offer one possibility. One study found that watching awe-inspiring videos about space and the universe led to humbler thinking, including a greater capacity to admit weaknesses.
Perhaps we could all benefit from interrupting our despair with awe-inspiring content. At the very least, we can try to question our preconceptions before offering our views on social media and be a little less ready to criticize when others disagree.
1. Regarding the culture war on social media, the author is _______.| A．embarrassed | B．concerned | C．panicked | D．stressed |
| A．Existential humility reduces the threat to identity. |
| B．People with intellectual humility tend to jump to conclusions. |
| C．Awe could promote existential humility by encouraging modest thinking. |
| D．The higher you score on the assessment, the more you stick to your values. |
| A．Overcome an Existential Crisis | B．Show a Little Humility |
| C．The Path to Screening Information | D．The Approach to Achieving Humility |
5 . When I teach research methods, a major focus is peer review. As a process, peer review evaluates academic papers for their quality, integrity and impact on a field, largely shaping what scientists accept as “knowledge”- By instinct, any academic follows up a new idea with the question, “Was that peer reviewed?”
Although I believe in the importance of peer review and I help do peer reviews for several academic journals-I know how vulnerable the process can be.
I had my first encounter with peer review during my first year as a Ph. D student. One day, my adviser handed me an essay and told me to have my -written review back to him in a week. But at the time, I certainly was not a “peer”-I was too new in my field. Manipulated data (不实的数据) or substandard methods could easily have gone undetected. Knowledge is not self-evident. Only experts would be able to notice them, and even then, experts do not always agree on what they notice.
Let’s say in my life I only see white swans. Maybe I write an essay, concluding that all swans are white. And a “peer” says, “Wait a minute, I’ve seen black swans.” I would have to refine my knowledge.
The peer plays a key role evaluating observations with the overall goal of advancing knowledge. For example, if the above story were reversed, and peer reviewers who all believed that all swans were white came across the first study observing a black swan, the study would receive a lot of attention.
So why was a first-year graduate student getting to stand in for an expert? Why would my review count the same as an expert’s review? One answer: The process relies almost entirely on unpaid labor.
Despite the fact that peers are professionals, peer review is not a profession. As a result, the same over-worked scholars often receive masses of the peer review requests. Besides the labor inequity, a small pool of experts can lead to a narrowed process of what is publishable or what counts as knowledge, directly threatening diversity of perspectives and scholars. Without a large enough reviewer pool, the process can easily fall victim to biases, arising from a small community recognizing each other’s work and compromising conflicts of interest.
Despite these challenges, I still tell my students that peer review offers the best method for evaluating studies aird advancing knowledge. As a process, peer review theoretically works. The question is whether the issues with peer review can be addressed by professionalizing the field.
1. What can we learn about peer review in the first paragraph?| A．It generates knowledge. | B．It is commonly practiced. |
| C．It is a major research method. | D．It is questioned by some scientists. |
| A．Complexity of peer review ensures its reliability. |
| B．Contradictions between scientists may be balanced. |
| C．Individuals can be limited by personal experiences. |
| D．Experts should detect unscientific observation methods. |
| A．Workload for scholars. | B．Toughness of the process. |
| C．Diversification of publications. | D．Financial support to reviewers. |
| A．what fuels peer review | B．why peer review is imperfect |
| C．how new hands advance peer review | D．whether peer reviewers are underrated |
6 . While some allergies (过敏症) disappear over time or with treatment, others last a lifetime. For decades, scientists have been searching for the source of these lifetime allergies.
Recently, researchers found that memory B cells may be involved. These cells produce a different class of antibodies known as IgG, which ward off viral infections. But no one had identified exactly which of those cells were recalling allergens or how they switched to making the IgE antibodies responsible for allergies. To uncover the mysterious cells, two research teams took a deep dive into the immune (免疫的) cells of people with allergies and some without.
Immunologist Joshua Koenig and colleagues examined more than 90, 000 memory B cells from six people with birch allergies, four people allergic to dust mites and five people with no allergies. Using a technique called RNA sequencing, the team identified specific memory B cells, which they named MBC2s that make antibodies and proteins associated with the immune response that causes allergies.
In another experiment, Koenig and colleagues used a peanut protein to go fishing for memory B cells from people with peanut allergies. The team pulled out the same type of cells found in people with birch and dust mite allergies. In people with peanut allergies, those cells increased in number and produced IgE antibodies as the people started treatment to desensitize them to peanut allergens.
Another group led by Maria Curotto de Lafaille, an immunologist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, also found that similar cells were more plentiful in 58 children allergic to peanuts than in 13 kids without allergies. The team found that the cells are ready to switch from making protective IgG antibodies to allergy-causing IgE antibodies. Even before the switch, the cells were making RNA for IgE but didn’t produce the protein. Making that RNA enables the cells to switch the type of antibodies they make when they encounter allergens. The signal to switch partially depends on a protein called JAK, the group discovered. “Stopping JAK from sending the signal could help prevent the memory cells from switching to IgE production,” Lafaille says. She also predicts that allergists may be able to examine aspects of these memory cells to forecast whether a patient's allergy is likely to last or disappear with time or treatment.
“Knowing which population of cells store allergies in long-term memory may eventually help scientists identify other ways to kill the allergy cells,” says Cecilia Berin, an immunologist at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine. “You could potentially get rid of not only your peanut allergy but also all of your allergies.”
1. Why did scientists investigate the immune cells of individuals with and without allergies?| A．To explore the distinctions between IgG and IgE. |
| B．To uncover new antibodies known as IgG and IgE. |
| C．To identify cells responsible for defending against allergies. |
| D．To reveal cells associated with the development of allergies. |
| A．Make. . . less destructive. | B．Make. . . less responsive. |
| C．Make. . . less protective. | D．Make. . . less effective. |
| A．MBC2s make antibodies and proteins that prevent allergies. |
| B．Memory B cells generate both RNA for IgE and the corresponding protein. |
| C．JAK plays a role in controlling antibody production when exposed to allergens. |
| D．Allergists are capable of predicting whether an allergy will last or disappear. |
| A．RNA Sequencing Is Applied in Immunology Research |
| B．Specific Cells Related to Peanut Allergies Are Identified |
| C．Unmasking Cells’ Identities Helps Diagnose and Treat Allergies |
| D．Newfound Immune Cells Are Responsible for Long-lasting Allergies |
7 . Do you listen to quiet music to help you wind down before sleep? However, this practice could be counter-productive, according to a new study by Michael K. Scullin and colleagues at Baylor University. The work, published in Psychological Medicine, found that bedtime music was associated with more sleep disruptions and that instrumental music is even worse than music with lyrics.
In the first study, 199 online participants living in the US reported on their sleep quality and music listening frequency and timing, as well as their beliefs about how this affected their sleep. Almost all—87%—believed that music improves sleep, or at least does not disrupt it. However, the team found that more overall time spent listening to music was associated with poorer sleep and daytime sleepiness. Just over three quarters of the participants also reported experiencing frequent “earworms”—having a song or tune “stuck” and replaying in their minds. A quarter reported experiencing these during the night at least once per week, and these people were six times as likely to report poor sleep quality. The team’s analysis suggested that listening specifically to instrumental music near bedtime was linked to more sleep-related earworms and poorer sleep quality.
The team then ran an experimental study on 48 young adults. After arriving at the sleep lab at 8:45 p. m., participants went to a quiet bedroom, where they completed questionnaires that included measures of stress, sleep quality and daytime sleepiness. They also had electrodes applied, ready for the night-time polysomnography to record their brain wave activity, as well as heart rate and breathing, and reported on how relaxed, nervous, energetic, sleepy and stressed they felt. At 10:00 p. m., they were given some “downtime”, with quiet music playing. Half were randomized to hear three songs while the other half heard instrumental-only versions of these same songs.
Participants reported decreases in stress and nervousness and increased relaxation after listening to either set of songs, and also showed decreases in blood pressure. So-as earlier studies have also suggested- quiet music at bedtime was indeed relaxing at the time. However, a quarter of the participants woke from sleep with an earworm, and the polysomnography data showed that instrumental versions of the songs were more likely to induce these awakenings as well as other sleep disruptions, such as shifts from deeper sleep to lighter sleep. Taken together, the findings represent “causal evidence for bedtime instrumental music affecting sleep quality via triggering earworms” the team writes.
Why instrumental-only songs should have a bigger impact than music with lyrics isn’t clear. The three songs used in this study were chosen because they were likely to be familiar. Hearing them without the lyrics might have prompted the participant’s brains to try to add the words, which might have made earworms more likely. If this is the case, all instrumental music may not have the same effect. However, the data from the first study is consistent with the idea that instrumental music generally is more of a problem.
1. According to the passage, the participants in both studies______.| A．were required to listen to light music | B．felt their sleeping problems resolved |
| C．had their sleeping quality monitored | D．provided feedback on bedtime music |
| A．Lead to. | B．Impact on. | C．Break in. | D．Focus on. |
| A．Earworms are mainly caused by music with lyrics. |
| B．Bedtime music leads to high blood pressure and anxiety. |
| C．Quiet music improves sleeping quality while loud music harms sleep. |
| D．Both familiar and unfamiliar instrumental music can cause sleeping problems. |
| A．how instrumental music disturbs sleep |
| B．the possible negative effect of bedtime music |
| C．how people can improve their sleep quality |
| D．differences between music with and without lyrics |
8 . A snake-robot designer, a technologist, an extradimensional physicist and a journalist walk into a room. The journalist turns to the crowd and asks: Should we build houses on the ocean? Like a think-tank panel, members of the team dream up far-out answers to the crucial problem, such as self-driving housing units that could park on top of one another in the coastal city center.
The setting is X, the enterprise which considers more than 100 ideas each year, in areas ranging from clean energy to artificial intelligence. Although only a tiny percentage become “projects” with far-reaching creativity, these projects exist, ultimately, to change the world, like Waymo, the biggest self-driving-car company.
In the past 60 years, something strange has happened. As the academic study of creativity has thrived (蓬勃发展), the label innovation may have covered every tiny change of a soda can or a toothpaste flavor, but the rate of productivity growth has been mostly declining since the 1970s. John Fernald, an economist, points out that the notable exception to the post-1970 decline in productivity occurred when businesses throughout the economy finally figured out the breakthrough technology-information technology. John Fernald says, “It’s possible that productivity took off, because we picked all the low-hanging fruit from the IT wave.” Actually. the world economy continues to harvest the benefits of IT. But where will the next technology shock come from?
Breakthrough technology results from two distinct activities — invention and innovation. Invention is typically the work of scientists and researchers in labs, while innovation is an invention put to commercial use. Seldom do the two activities occur successfully under the same roof. They tend to thrive in opposite conditions; while competition and consumer choice encourage innovation, invention has historically progressed in labs that are protected from the pressure to generate profit.
Allowing well-funded and diverse teams to try to solve big problems is what gave us the computer and the Internet. Today, we fail to give attention to planting the seeds of this kind of ambitious research, while complaining about the harvest. “Companies are really good at combining existing breakthroughs in ways that consumers like. But the breakthroughs come from patient and curious scientists, not the rush to market,” says John Gertner, the author of The Idea Factory.
“Technology is a tall tree,” John Fernald said. “But planting the seeds of invention and harvesting the fruit of innovation are entirely distinct skills, often mastered by different organizations and separated by many years.” As for me, both of them are essential for technology, although they are relatively independent. “I don’t think X is a planter or a harvester, actually. I think of X as building taller ladders. They reach where others cannot.” he added. Several weeks later, his words were repeated to several X employees. “That’s perfect,” they said. “That’s so perfect.” Nobody knows for sure what, if anything, the employees at X are going to find up on those ladders. But they’re reaching. At least someone is.
1. What is the main purpose of the first two paragraphs?| A．To present the process of group discussion. | B．To illustrate X’s worry about big problems. |
| C．To reveal the importance of the crazy ideas. | D．To stress the varied backgrounds of the team. |
| A．Breakthroughs must stand the test of the market. |
| B．Innovation on necessities can promote productivity. |
| C．Invention develops slowly under the pressure of profit. |
| D．The harvest of innovation lies in some ambitious research. |
| A．Ironic. | B．Uninterested. | C．Conservative. | D．Supportive. |
| A．It will focus on innovation. | B．It will have its outcome soon. |
| C．It may bring an encouraging outlook. | D．It may give in to its fruitless reality. |
9 . Albert Einstein’s 1915 masterpiece The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity is the first and still the best introduction to the subject, but it probably wouldn’t be publishable in a scientific journal today. Why not? After all, it undoubtedly would pass the tests of correctness and significance. And while it’s believed that the paper was incomprehensible to its first readers, in fact many papers in theoretical physics are much more difficult. As the physicist Richard Feynman wrote, “There was a time when the newspapers said that only 1.2 men understood the theory of relativity, which is not true. After reading the paper, a lot of people understood the theory of relativity in some way or other, certainly more than 1.2.”
No, the problem is its style. It starts with a leisurely philosophical discussion of space and time and then continues with an explanation of known mathematics. Those two sections, which would be considered extraneous today, take up half the paper. Worse, there are zero citations of previous scientists’ work, nor are there any graphs. Those features might make a paper not even get past the first editors.
A similar process of professionalisation has transformed other parts of the scientific landscape. Requests for research time at major laboratories are more strictly structured. And anything involving work with human objects, or putting instruments in space, involves piles of paperwork.
We see it also in the Regeneron Science Talent Search, the Nobel Prize of high school science competitions. In the early decades of its history, the winning projects were usually the sort of clever but naive, amateurish efforts one might expect of talented beginners working on their own. Today, polished work coming out of internships at established laboratories is the norm.
These professionalising tendencies are a natural consequence of the explosive growth of modern science. Standardisation and system make it easier to manage the rapid flow of papers, applications and people. But there are serious downsides. A lot of unproductive effort goes into jumping through bureaucratic hoops(繁文缛节).
Of course, Einstein would have found his way to meeting modern standards and publishing his results. Its scientific core wouldn’t have changed, but the paper might not be the same taste to read.
1. According to Richard Feynman, which statement about Einstein’s 1915 paper is true?| A．It attracted few professionals. | B．It turned out to be comprehensible. |
| C．It needed further improvement. | D．It was a classic in theoretical physics. |
| A．Unrealistic. | B．Imprecise. | C．Unattractive. | D．Irrelevant. |
| A．The selection of young talents. | B．The evaluation of laboratories. |
| C．The principle of scientific research. | D．The application of research findings. |
| A．How to write quality papers? | B．Will science be professionalised? |
| C．Could Einstein get published today? | D．How will modern science make advances? |
10 . In some ways, it is surprising that languages change. After all, they are passed down through the generations reliably enough for parents and children to communicate with each other.
Languages change for a variety of reasons. Large-scale shifts often occur in response to social, economic, and political pressures, as there are many examples of language change fueled by invasions, colonization, and migration.
| A．Changes in sound are somewhat harder to document but just as interesting. |
| B．Yet linguists find that all living languages change over time — at different rates though. |
| C．As long as people are using a language, that language will undergo some change. |
| D．All natural languages change, and language change affects all areas of language use. |
| E．The three main areas of language that change over time are vocabulary, sentence structure, and pronunciation. |
| F．Even without these kinds of influences, a language can change dramatically if enough users adopt a new way of speaking. |
| G．The vocabulary and phrases people use depend on where they live, their age, education level, social status and other factors. |
