1 . It seems rather obvious that facial characteristics are determined by our genes. But until recently geneticists(遗传学家) had very little understanding of which parts of our DNA were linked to our facial appearance.
An international team of researchers identified more than 130 chromosomal(染色体的) regions associated with specific aspects of facial shape. This is a critical first step toward understanding how genetics impact our faces, Live Science noted.
Researchers scanned the DNA of more than 8,000 people and analyzed dozens of shape measurements from their 3D facial images to look at the statistical relationships between about 7 million genetic markers—known locations in the genetic code where humans vary—and the facial features.
“When we find a statistical relation between a facial feature and one or more genetic markers, it points us to a very precise region of DNA on a chromosome. The genes located around that region then become our prime candidates for facial features like nose or lip shape,” Seth Weinberg, co-author of the study, wrote on Live Science.
Researchers discovered some interesting patterns after looking at the implicated(牵涉其中) genes at these DNA regions. Your nose is the part that is most influenced by your genes. Areas like the cheeks, which are highly influenced by lifestyle factors like diet, showed the fewest genetic associations.
There is also a high degree of overlap(重合) between the genes involved in facial and limb development. This provides an important clue as to why many genetic syndromes(综合症) are characterized by both hand and facial malformations(畸形). Some genes involved in facial shape may be involved in cancer, too. It explains why people treated for pediatric(小儿科的) cancer show some distinctive facial features.
So, can someone take your DNA and construct an accurate image of your face? It’s unlikely. The 130-plus genetic regions that were identified explain less than 10 percent of the variation in facial shape. But even if we understood all of the genes impacting facial appearance, prediction would still be a big challenge. That’s because facial features are affected by other factors as well, such as age, diet, climate and sun exposure.
Still, the knowledge of patients’ genetic information can be an invaluable tool in creating personalized treatment plans in fields like orthodontics(畸齿矫正学) or reconstructive surgery. For example, if someday doctors can use genetics to predict when a child’s jaw will hit its growth peak, it will help them decide the best time to intervene.
1. What’s the main purpose of the research?| A．To explain why humans vary based on statistics. |
| B．To identify the factors impacting facial appearance. |
| C．To discover the link between genes and facial features. |
| D．To study the relationship between facial features and genetic markers. |
| A．The nose is most influenced by genes. |
| B．Facial malformations affect limb development. |
| C．The cheeks are most closely associated with age. |
| D．Facial shape and cancer are impacted by exactly the same genes. |
| A．It could improve orthodontic treatments. |
| B．It could be useful for changing facial shapes. |
| C．It could help recreate one’s jaw at an early age. |
| D．It could help predict facial appearance with ease. |
2 . The environmental practices of big businesses are shaped by a fundamental fact that offends our sense of justice. A business may maximize the amount of money it makes by damaging the environment and hurting people. When government regulation is effective, and the public is environmentally aware, environmentally clean big businesses may out-compete dirty ones, but the reverse is likely to be true if government regulation is ineffective and the public doesn’t care.
It is easy to blame a business for helping itself by hurting other people. But blaming alone is unlikely to produce change. It ignores the fact that businesses are not charities but profit-making companies, and they are under obligation to maximize profits for shareholders by legal means.
Our blaming of businesses also ignores the ultimate responsibility of the public for creating the conditions that let a business profit through destructive environmental policies. In the long run, it is the public, either directly or through its politicians, that has the power to make such destructive policies unprofitable and illegal, and to make sustainable environmental policies profitable.
The public can do that by accusing businesses of harming them. The public may also make their opinion felt by choosing to buy sustainably harvested products; by preferring their governments to award valuable contracts to businesses with a good environmental track record; and by pressing their governments to pass and enforce laws and regulations requiring good environmental practices.
In turn, big businesses can exert powerful pressure on any suppliers that might ignore public or government pressure. For instance, after the US public became concerned about the spread of a disease, transmitted to humans through infected meat, the US government introduced rules demanding that the meat industry abandon practices associated with the risk of the disease spreading. But the meat packers refused to follow these, claiming that they would be too expensive to obey. However, when a fast-food company made the same demands after customer purchases of its hamburgers dropped, the meat industry followed immediately. The public’s task is therefore to identify which links in the supply chain are sensitive to public pressure.
Some readers may be disappointed or outraged that I place the ultimate responsibility for business practices harming the public on the public itself. I also believe that the public must accept the necessity for higher prices for products to cover the added costs of sound environmental practices. My views may seem to ignore the belief that businesses should act in accordance with moral principles even if this leads to a reduction in their profits. But I think we have to recognize that, throughout human history, government regulation has arisen precisely because it was found that not only did moral principles need to be made explicit, they also needed to be enforced.
My conclusion is not a moralistic one about who is right or wrong, admirable or selfish. I believe that changes in public attitudes are essential for changes in businesses’ environmental practices.
1. The main idea of Paragraph 3 is that environmental damage__________.| A．is the result of ignorance of the public |
| B．requires political action if it is to be stopped |
| C．can be prevented by the action of ordinary people |
| D．can only be stopped by educating business leaders |
| A．reduce their own individual impact on the environment |
| B．learn more about the impact of business on the environment |
| C．raise awareness of the effects of specific environmental disasters |
| D．influence the environmental policies of businesses and governments |
| A．Meat packers stopped supplying hamburgers to fast-food chains. |
| B．Meat packers persuaded the government to reduce their expenses. |
| C．A fast-food company forced their meat suppliers to follow the law. |
| D．A fast-food company encouraged the government to introduce regulations. |
| A．Will the world survive the threat caused by big businesses? |
| B．How can big businesses be encouraged to be less driven by profit? |
| C．What environmental dangers are caused by the greed of businesses? |
| D．Are big businesses to blame for the damage they cause to the environment? |
3 . Lia Thomas, a student at the University of Pennsylvania, is an excellent swimmer. She often beats her rivals by tens of seconds, breaking records. Her success is based on three things. One is natural talent. Another is persistent training. And the third is biology.
For although she identifies as a woman,Ms Thomas was born male.Since humans cannot change their sex (unlike their self-identified gender),she remains that way.On the eve of her biggest competition, Ms Thomas finds herself at the centre of the bad-tempered debate about whether trans women-males who identify as women-should compete in women’s sports.That,in turn,is part of a broader argument: should brute (纯粹的) biological facts sometimes override people’s deeply held feelings about their identities?
This newspaper believes it is almost always unfair to allow transgender women to compete in women’s sports.The advantages bestowed by male puberty (青春期) are so big that no amount of training or talent can enable female athletes to overcome them.Florence Griffith Joyner’s 100-metres world sprinting record has stood for three decades.A male matching it would not even make it to the Olympics, let alone the final.In 2016,at an American event for high-schoolers, four of the eight boys in the 100-metres final ran faster.
Much of the male advantage is granted by testosterone (睾丸素), a potent anabolic steroid whose levels rise sharply in male puberty.For many years,many sporting bodies, following the lead of the International Olympic Committee, hoped to deal with the issue by allowing trans women to compete in women’s events provided they took testosterone-suppressing drugs.But the science suggests this does not level the playing field.Suppressing testosterone in adults, it seems, does little to undo the advantages granted by a male adolescence.
Sports must therefore choose between inclusion and fairness; and they should choose fair play. That does not mean, as is sometimes claimed, that trans women would be barred from all sport.One way to make that clear would be to replace the “men’s” and “women’s” categories with “open” and “female” ones.The first would be open to all comers.The second would be restricted on the basis of biology.
Sport is public, and results can be measured objectively. That means the argument that the material facts of biology should sometimes outrank a person’s subjective sense of identity is easier to make. But bias exists, as a Republican bill in Florida to restrict “instruction” in schools about gender identity or sexual orientation makes plain.
That should be resisted. Most of the time,it costs little or nothing to respect people’s choices about how they wish to present themselves.In the rare cases where rights clash (不相容), society must weigh the balance sensitively and with open eyes.
1. The author mentions Joyner’s 100-metres world sprinting record to show that ________.| A．most female athletes can’t rival trans women athletes |
| B．male puberty is the best time for sports competition |
| C．it is unfair for Ms Thomas to compete in women’s sports |
| D．this record can’t make a male reach the threshold of the Olympics |
| A．bill | B．bias | C．instruction | D．identity |
| A．disagreeable | B．open-minded | C．sympathetic | D．conservative |
| A．Inclusion and Fairness | B．Respect People’s Choices |
| C．“Open” and “Female” in Sports | D．Biology Matters A Great Deal |
4 . I was at the Gathering for Science in Boston, on 22 April 2017, as were 70.000 other scientists. We were there to stand up for facts and truth.
Where are the crowds of scientists now? Since then, harms from science denial have only increased: global suffering has grown owing to inaction on climate change, and some epidemics have risen along with vaccine skepticism.
I've been out there talking to the science deniers, and I've asked my scientist friends to come with me. “Those people just aren't worth talking to.” they'll say. “I wouldn't make a difference anyway.” What's wrong. Those people can and do change their minds, although it requires someone to put in the time to overcome distrust.
To be sure, many experts have launched themselves against misinformation, enduring abuse on social media and even threats to their safety. But when scientists turn down my invitations, it's not because of fear. Most often, their excuses are grounded in the “backfire effect”, a questionable 2010 finding that people sometimes embrace misconceptions more strongly when fared with corrective information, implying that pushing back against falsehoods is counter-productive. Even the researchers whose results were exaggerated to popularize this idea do not embrace it anymore, and argue that the true challenge is learning how best to target corrective information.
In fact, evidence is growing that rebuttals can he effective. Science deniers all draw on the same flawed reasoning techniques: cherry-picking evidence, relying on fake experts, and engaging in illogical reasoning. A landmark 2019 study showed that critiquing the flawed techniques can contain the spread of misinformation.
So how does “technique rebuttal” work in practice?
Arnaud Gagneur and his colleagues at the University of Sherbrooke conducted more than 1.000 20-minute interviews in which they listened to new parents' concerns about vaccinations and answered their questions. Those parents' children were 9% more likely to receive all the vaccines on the schedule than were those of uninterviewed parents whose babies were delivered in the same maternity ward. One mother told him: “It's the first time that I've had a discussion like this, and I feel respected, and I trust you.” It is self-evident in science communication that you cannot convince a science denier with facts alone; most science deniers don't have a lack of information, but a lack of trust.
So what should scientists do? Even non-experts can use technique rebuttal. A geologist can engage a neighbor who is vaccine hesitant. A protein biologist can coach an aunt or uncle who wants “more evidence” that climate change is real. Instead of shilling to more comfortable conversations, engage in respectful exchange. If you spend more time asking questions than offering explanations, people will be more likely to pay attention to the explanations that you do offer.
1. What can we learn from the passage?| A．The Gathering for Science addressed online abuse. |
| B．The silence of scientists worsens harm from science denial. |
| C．Ineffective vaccines speed up the spread of some epidemics. |
| D．The author's friends find it valuable to talk with science deniers. |
| A．suggests caution before correcting others |
| B．emphasizes the effectiveness of rebuttals |
| C．results from flawed reasoning techniques |
| D．enjoys wide support in the academic field |
| A．the interviewed parents agreed to vaccination due to the sufficiency of the information |
| B．geologists and protein biologists need to make sure the conversations are comfortable |
| C．scientists are encouraged to listen carefully and ask questions during interaction |
| D．scientists should teach non-experts how to conduct respectful exchanges |
| A．express concerns for misinformation |
| B．analyze the main cause of science denial |
| C．advocate employing technique rebuttal |
| D．present the problems scientists encounter |
5 . Hundreds of scientists, writers and academics sounded a warning to humanity in an open letter published last December: Policymakers and the rest of us must engage openly with the risk of global collapse. Researchers in many areas have projected the widespread collapse as “a credible scenario(情景) this century”.
A survey of scientists found that extreme weather events, food insecurity, and freshwater shortages might create global collapse. Of course, if you are a non-human species, collapse is well underway.
The call for public engagement with the unthinkable is especially germane in this moment of still-uncontrolled pandemic and economic crises in the world's most technologically advanced nations. Not very long ago, it was also unthinkable that a virus would shut down nations and that safety nets would be proven so disastrously lacking in flexibility.
The international scholars’ warning letter doesn't say exactly what collapse will look like or when it might happen. Collapseology, the study of collapse, is more concerned with identifying trends and with them the dangers of everyday civilization. Among the signatories(签署者) of the warning was Bob Johnson, the originator of the “ecological footprint” concept, which measures the total amount of environmental input needed to maintain a given lifestyle. With the current footprint of humanity, “it seems that global collapse is certain to happen in some form, possibly within a decade, certainly within this century,” Johnson said in an email.
“Only if we discuss the consequences of our biophysical limits,” the December warning letter says, “can we have the hope to reduce their speed, severity and harm”. And yet messengers of the coming disturbance are likely to be ignored. We all want to hope things will turn out fine. As a poet wrote,
Man is a victim of dope(麻醉品)
In the incurable form of hope.
The hundreds of scholars who signed the letter are intent(执着) on quieting hope that ignores preparedness. “Let's look directly into the issue of collapse,” they say, “and deal with the terrible possibilities of what we see there to make the best of a troubling future.”
1. What does the underlined word “germane” in Paragraph 3 probably mean?| A．Scientific. | B．Credible. |
| C．Original. | D．Relevant. |
| A．worried | B．puzzled |
| C．surprised | D．scared |
| A．The signatories may change the biophysical limits. |
| B．The author agrees with the message of the poem. |
| C．The issue of collapse is being prioritized. |
| D．The global collapse is well underway. |
6 . Should schools report a student’s health to parents?
As if grades weren’t enough to worry about, some students now have weight on their minds too. The number of overweight children in the United States has more than doubled in the past 20 years, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
As a result, schools in several states, from California to Pennsylvania, have started sending home "BMI report cards". Those schools send home a report of a student’s body mass index (BMI). BMI is a calculation of weight and height that tells whether a person is overweight for his or her age.
Some lawmakers say BMI reports warn parents of their children s health problem help fight against obesity. In 2003, former Arkansas Governor. Mike Huckabee helped launch the first program to report students’ BMI.
| A．Should schools send home BMI reports? |
| B．Obesity rates in that state have since stopped increasing. |
| C．Since then children with heart disease have received the reports. |
| D．Not everyone thinks that reporting students’ BMI is a good idea. |
| E．Schools agree that more activities are required for students to control weight. |
| F．Being obese, or severely overweight, can lead to health problems later in life. |
| G．Some people argue that schools that label students overweight are acting unfairly. |
