1 . Drugs that could save tens of thousands of lives in Britain should be prescribed (开药) to three times as many patients as at present, medical experts recommended after a study showed these drugs have great effects on heart disease and stroke (中风).
British research has shown that statins, a class of drug that lowers cholesterol (胆固醇), can prevent a third of all cases of heart disease or stroke in patients at highest risk. If statins were given to 10 million high-risk patients, they could save at least 50,000 lives a year worldwide. In Britain, where heart disease is the leading cause of death, statins could save up to 10,000 lives a year.
Studies have found that safety issues surrounding statins were so tiny that they were significant. The risk of muscle problems was only about one in ten thousand. Fears that statins could increase deaths from other diseases, such as cancer, were assuaged by the study. At present, only people with high cholesterol are prescribed statins, but the eight-year study found that anyone at risk of heart disease or stroke could benefit. Statins are now given to fewer than one in twenty people aged over 40, mostly men with heart disease or high cholesterol. Under the recommendation, this would increase to one in eight.
A total of 20,000 volunteers aged 40 to 80 took part in the study, which looked at the effects of statins on patients for whom the benefits were uncertain. The guidelines previously said that female patients aged over 65 would not benefit from the drug, but the five years of monitoring all types of patients at high risk of heart attacks and stroke showed that everyone benefited as much from statins. The new recommendations will be easy to put into practice because statins are readily available and the patients who benefit from them most are already known to doctors.
1. What does paragraph 2 focus on?| A．Main diseases in Britain. | B．Side effects caused by statins. |
| C．Positive effects of statins. | D．The numbers of heart disease cases. |
| A．Eased. | B．Discovered. | C．Ignored. | D．Compared. |
| A．The effects of the drug are unclear. | B．The drug can be widely prescribed. |
| C．The drug hardly benefits female patients. | D．The drug should be limited in application. |
| A．To call for the monitoring of drug studies. | B．To explain different ways of testing drugs. |
| C．To seek improvement in the drug research. | D．To spread medical experts’ recommendation. |
2 . Late last month a team of researchers at the University of Maryland School of Medicine transplanted a genetically modified pig heart into a person — the second such surgery ever attempted — and it has kept him alive for the past few weeks.
The patient, 58-year-old Lawrence Faucette, underwent the highly experimental procedure under a “compassionate use” pathway, in which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration permits an unapproved therapy when a person is seriously ill or dying and has no other options available. Faucette was not eligible for a conventional human heart transplant because he had peripheral vascular disease and other complications, which narrowed the outlook for success.
By mid-October, Faucette was continuing to recover. “He’s had a rough time,” however, Bartley Griffith, a surgeon who performed Faucette’s procedure as well as the previous one, said at that time. According to Griffith, Faucette was living at home when the FDA first approved the surgery, but he was subsequently hospitalized with fluid in his lungs. Then he suffered a cardiac arrest the night before the surgery. Still, he had so far responded well to the transplant.
More than 100,000 people are waiting for an organ transplant, so researchers have long been exploring xenotransplantation (异种器官移植): transplanting other species’ organs into humans. To prevent the human immune system from attacking these alien organs, scientists have begun to breed genetically modified donor pigs that lack certain genes or have other genes added.
In the past couple of years, pig xenotransplants have been tested in both nonhuman primates and deceased humans — but the ultimate goal is to conduct human clinical trials on a bigger scale. The results of the recent compassionate use transplant will likely influence the FDA’s consideration of whether and when to allow such trials to take place. Many researchers hope this could happen in the next year or two.
“We took a pretty good swing at the ball the first time, and we got very close to a prolonged success, we think,” Griffith says. Although there were some unforeseen circumstances in that first xenotransplant, his team and others have developed better methods to test for these conditions.
1. Why did Faucette undergo the pig-to-human heart transplant?| A．Because he was seriously ill and there was no better options. |
| B．Because the pig heart fits well in human body. |
| C．Because FDA has long approved such transplant. |
| D．Because the surgery has been applied in medical treatment already. |
| A．Faucette highly praises the surgery. |
| B．Faucette responds well to the alien organ. |
| C．Faucette has suffered a lot after the transplant. |
| D．Faucette experienced cardic arrest after the surgery. |
| A．The FDA is taking great care on human clinical trials. |
| B．The patients will receive the best of care after the transplant. |
| C．The human immune system is greatly changed before the transplant. |
| D．Scientists modified the donor pig’s genes or added other genes before breeding it. |
| A．Skeptical. | B．Neutral. | C．Supportive. | D．Indifferent. |
3 . In the second half of the 18th century, a British doctor named Edward Jenner gave his gardener’s son cowpox (牛痘) and then deliberately infected him with smallpox (天花) to test his assumption that people who were frequently exposed to cowpox, a similar but less severe virus, would avoid catching smallpox. It worked and cowpox as the vaccine (疫苗) was highly effective. “Vaccination”, from the Latin word for cow, soon became commonplace.
Challenge trials are forms of research where, rather than relying on data from natural infections, we intentionally expose someone to a disease in order to test the effectiveness of a vaccine or treatment. Things have changed a lot since Jenner’s time, of course, when it was not uncommon for doctors to conduct this kind of research. Even so, there’s a continuous sense that there’s something immoral about making someone ill on purpose.
But this shouldn’t blind us to the extraordinary power of challenge trials. They could become increasingly important weapons in the medical research, in a situation where vaccine technology is advancing and the threat of diseases jumping from animals into human beings is increasing.
Much has been done to reduce the risks of challenge trials. Like respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), researchers have involved adults who are at a low risk of severe illness. These acts have already cut down a massive range of vaccine candidates. But not all diseases are like these ones. We don’t always know the dangers volunteers might face; we don’t always have treatments ready. What then?
We could, of course, just avoid these questions entirely, and rely on other types of research. But that doesn’t always work: sometimes, animal testing is tricky and uninformative, because the disease doesn’t develop in the same way as it would in humans. In contrast, challenge trials can be deeply informative within weeks, with far fewer volunteers. And the benefits can be surprisingly high.
In order to make sure we are as protected as possible from current and future threats, we should try to get rid of the misbelief in challenge trials, making them a more familiar part of our tool kits. Perhaps the greatest reward of all would be to make sure participants’ efforts are worthwhile: by designing trials to be fair and effective and applying them when and where they might make a real difference. In short, by helping them to save thousands, if not millions of lives.
1. The author tells the story of Edward Jenner with the intention of ________.| A．defining what are challenge trials. |
| B．showing the origin of the word “vaccination”. |
| C．emphasizing the importance of his vaccine. |
| D．introducing the topic of challenge trials. |
| A．The issues behind challenge trials are easy to solve. |
| B．Despite the risks, challenge trials can benefit numerous lives. |
| C．The dangers of challenge trials outweigh the benefits they bring. |
| D．Challenge trials can prevent the development of vaccine technologies. |
| A．A cautious attitude should be taken towards challenge trials. |
| B．Challenge trials guarantee participants protection against threats. |
| C．People should be more open to challenge trials. |
| D．The accuracy of challenge trials can be improved with more volunteers involved. |
| A．Can challenge trials block medical progress? |
| B．Should we use challenge trials to find cures? |
| C．Can challenge trials put an end to infectious diseases? |
| D．Should we replace animal testing with challenge trials? |
4 . In the late 1930s, people could donate blood, but very few hospitals could store it for later use. Whole blood breaks down quickly, and there were no methods at the time for safely preserving it. As a result, hospitals often did not have the appropriate blood type when patients needed it. Charles Drew, a Black surgeon and researcher, helped solve this monumental problem for medicine, earning him the title “Father of the Blood Bank.”
In 1938, while obtaining his doctorate in medicine, Drew became a fellow at Columbia University’s Presbyterian Hospital in New York. He studied the storage and distribution of blood, including the separation of its components, and applied his findings to an experimental blood bank at the hospital.
As Drew was finishing his degree at Columbia, World War II was erupting in Europe. Great Britain was asking the United States for desperately needed plasma (血浆) to help victims. Given his expertise, Drew was selected to be the medical director for the Blood for Britain campaign. Using Presbyterian Hospital’s blood bank as a model, Drew established uniform procedures and standards for collecting blood and processing blood plasma from nine New York hospitals. The five-month campaign collected donations from 15,000 Americans and was considered a success. His discoveries and his leadership saved countless lives.
With the increasing likelihood that the nation would be drawn into war, the United States wanted to capitalize on what Drew had learned from the campaign. He was appointed as the assistant director of a three-month pilot program to mass-produce dried plasma in New York, which became the model for the first Red Cross blood bank. His innovations for this program included mobile blood donation stations, later called bloodmobiles.
1. What problem did hospitals face in the late 1930s regarding blood donations?| A．The shortage of blood donors. | B．The inability to preserve blood. |
| C．The challenge of blood infection. | D．The failure to identify blood types. |
| A．He gathered different standards for the blood collection. |
| B．He worked on the bloodmobiles for easy access to donors. |
| C．He helped send life-saving drugs overseas to aid in the war. |
| D．He organized the collection and processing of blood plasma. |
| A．Groundbreaking. | B．Unpredictable. | C．Economical. | D．Controversial. |
| A．The life of Dr. Charles Drew. | B．The inventor of the Blood Bank. |
| C．A Savior of Lives during Wartime. | D．A Pioneer in Blood Transportation. |
5 . Growing up in a small village in Ghana, Osei Boateng watched many of his family members and neighbors struggle to access basic health care. In many regions of the country, it can take hours to get to the nearest hospital. “My grandmother was a very big part of my life,” said Boateng. “It was very hard when we lost her, and it was due to something that could have been easily prevented. That is the painful part of it.”
Feeling an urgent call to help, Boateng decided he would make it his life’s mission to bring health care to remote communities in Ghana. He started his nonprofit, OKB Hope Foundation, and in 2021, he converted a van into a mobile doctor’s office called the Hope Health Van and started bringing health care directly to those in need. A few times a week, the mobile clinic and medical team travel long distances to remote communities in Ghana and provide routine medical care for free. On each trip, Boateng’s team consists of a nurse, a physician’s assistant, a doctor, and an operation assistant. In the van, they can run basic labs like bloodwork and urinalysis as well as prescribe and provide medications.
Since its launch, Boateng says the Hope Health Van has served more than 4,000Ghanaians across more than 45 rural communities who otherwise don’t have easily accessible medical care.
Boateng has big plans for the future. He hopes to expand to provide more consistent and high-quality medical care not only to those living in remote areas of Ghana but in other countries as well. He has gone all in on his OKB Hope Foundation, recently quitting his job to dedicate his time to bringing health care to his home country. But for him, the sacrifices are well worth the reward.
1. Why is Boateng’s grandmother mentioned?| A．To show his deep love. | B．To highlight the poor health care. |
| C．To call for equality. | D．To blame the government. |
| A．Routine medical checks. | B．Prescribed medicine. |
| C．Minor operations. | D．Mental therapy. |
| A．Conservative and cautious. | B．Selfless and risky. |
| C．Caring and tolerant. | D．Devoted and ambitious. |
| A．Hopeless health care in Ghana | B．Nonprofit organizations booming in Ghana |
| C．Doctor’s office on wheels | D．Empowering medical schools |
6 . Vitamin C for a cold? A good dose of Vitamin D on a sunny day? We all know that vitamins are critical for our health, but how did they get their names and when were they discovered in the first place?
American nutrition scientist Elmer McCullum conducted a variety of feed experiments with different animal populations and discovered that an “accessory” substance contained in some fats was essential to growth. That fat-soluble (脂溶的) substance became known as Vitamin “A” for “accessory.”
McCollum and others also conducted further experiments with rice-bran-derived nutrient, naming it Vitamin “B” after beriberi, which can cause heart failure and a loss of sensation in the legs and feet. Eventually, it turned out that the substance known as Vitamin B was a complex of eight water-soluble vitamins, which were each given individual names and numbered in order of discovery.
The custom of naming vitamins alphabetically in order of discovery continued. Today, four fat-soluble vitamins (A, D, E, and K) and nine water-soluble vitamins (Vitamin C and the eight B vitamins) are considered essential to human growth and health. Only one vitamin bucked the oh-so-logical naming system: Vitamin K, discovered by Danish researcher Carl Peter Henrik Dam in 1929. The substance should have been in line to be called Vitamin F given its discovery date. But Dam’s research revealed that the vitamin is essential for blood coagulation (凝固) — known as Koagulation in the German journal that published his research — and his abbreviation for the vitamin somehow stuck.
It’s been decades since the last essential vitamin — Vitamin B12 — was discovered in 1948. It now appears unlikely that scientists will ever discover a new essential vitamin. But even if there’s no Vitamin F or G in our future, that doesn’t mean nutritional discovery has stopped completely. If the golden age of vitamin discovery was an appetizer (开胃菜) of sorts, scientists are devoted to the main course — a rapidly evolving understanding of the ways food shapes our lives, one microscopic substance at a time.
1. What can we learn from paragraph 2 and paragraph 3?| A．Vitamin A is a water-soluble substance. |
| B．Vitamin B was named after a kind of disease. |
| C．The eight B vitamins got names from their functions. |
| D．The subjects of McCullum’s experiments are home. |
| A．Created. | B．Destroyed. | C．Broke. | D．Followed. |
| A．Indifferent. | B．Unclear. | C．Doubtful. | D．Confident. |
| A．How Do Vitamins Influence Our Health? |
| B．Who Discovered Various Vitamins for Us? |
| C．Why Is There a Vitamin K but No Vitamin F? |
| D．How Many Vitamins Are Still Left to Be Discovered? |
7 . Researchers from ETH Zurich, the University of Zurich, and the University Hospital Zurich have made a significant breakthrough in the field of precision medicine. They have developed a machine learning approach known as CellOT that can predict how individual cells react to specific treatments. This development promises more accurate diagnoses and therapeutics, particularly in the fight against cancer.
Precision medicine, which aims to find the most effective drug combination and dosage (剂量) based on individual patient characteristics, has been a critical goal in the battle against cancer. Central to this is understanding how individual cells respond to treatment, a challenge that the research team from Zurich has tackled head-on with their innovative method.
CellOT is a groundbreaking approach that identifies the distinct reactions individual cells within a larger population can have to a drug. The average response of a cell population often does not capture the full complexity of how certain tumor cells survive or develop resistance to drugs. CellOT addresses this by predicting the effects of perturbations (扰动) on cells, paving the way for more effective and personalized cancer treatments.
Perturbations are changes caused by chemical, physical, or genetic influences, such as the effects of drugs on cancer cells. By understanding which cells respond to a drug and identifying the traits of resistant cells, researchers can develop new treatment strategies that prevent cell growth or cause pathogenic (致病的) cells to die.
For CellOT, the researchers use novel machine learning algorithms and train these with both data from unperturbed cells and data from cells that changed after a perturbation response. In the process, the algorithm learns how cellular perturbation reactions arise, how they progress, and the likely phenotypes (显性类型) of altered cell states.
The study, published in Nature Methods, shows that CellOT is not just effective for cancer cells. It can also be used on other pathogenic cells involved in autoimmune diseases like lupus erythematosus (红斑狼疮), indicating its potential in advancing treatments for various diseases.
A key innovation of CellOT is its predictive ability. By evaluating existing cell measurement data, and thus expanding the knowledge of cellular perturbation reactions, CellOT can predict how individual cells will respond to perturbations that have not been measured in the laboratory. This capability opens up new avenues for targeted and personalized treatments.
While CellOT holds immense promise, comprehensive clinical trials are still required before the approach can be used in a hospital setting. Nevertheless, the development of this method marks a significant step towards a more nuanced (细腻的) understanding of individual cell responses to drugs. It fuels the hope for more effective cancer treatments and advances in precision medicine.
1. The underlined word “this” in Paragraph 3 refers to _______.| A．various responses of a cell population to drugs |
| B．the average reaction of a cell population to drugs |
| C．the resistance from a group of cancer cells to drugs |
| D．the survival of a population of cancer cells to drugs |
| A．has proved efficient in some Zurich hospitals |
| B．can cause perturbations inside a human body |
| C．may bring about better treatments for various diseases |
| D．focuses on monitoring the development of cancer cells |
| A．The limitations of CellOT. |
| B．Suggestions for CellOT improvement. |
| C．An explanation of further research. |
| D．Future implications of CellOT. |
| A．A Groundbreaking Medicine for Cancer |
| B．Precision Medicine is Around the Corner |
| C．How Machine Learning Helps Zurich Doctors |
| D．CellOT: Advancing Precision Cancer Treatment |
8 . A human head will set you back about $640. An arm is less: that costs roughly $ 430. A leg, by contrast, is $1,600. But overall, human body parts come surprisingly cheap: getting an arm and a leg rarely costs an arm and a leg. There exists a surprisingly lively international trade in dead bodies for medical dissection(解剖). This trade is rarely discussed and relatively lightly regulated: there is no one head, or body, that directly oversees the imports of heads and bodies. This trade is also important, for it allows doctors to practise on real, dead humans before they practise on real, live ones.
It is not essential to use dead bodies to teach medical students: computer models exist. But for all the digital brilliance there are still things that flesh and blood can do that computers cannot—such as making these medics faint and offering more muted feelings. Looking at a model “isn’t quite the same as seeing the real thing in front of you”, says Dangerfield, the president of the British Association of Clinical Dissection. To hold a human skull in your hands is, Hamlet-like, to be unexcited rather than awed. A head, emptied of human, is surprisingly small; the bowl you use is more substantially sized.
Bodies help with practical considerations as well as emotional ones. Textbooks tend to offer knowledge that is just that. Similarly, computer models, like the human kind, tend to have square jaws and broad shoulders. Reality is much messier. Textbooks will tell you that there are three branches coming off the aorta(主动脉) but, says Dangerfield, it is “really common to see four or to see two branches”.
The demand for bodies, then, is there—but in many countries it is not matched by supply. There are American companies providing bodies trade services. But to use their services is, for British doctors “a last-resort sort of situation”. Until recently, however, they had little alternative. That is changing. In Nottingham City Hospital, there is a centre, created in 2011 by a shoulder surgeon, Angus Wallace.
1. According to Paragraph 1, the international trade in dead bodies is ___________| A．surprisingly expensive | B．based on medical research |
| C．loosely supervised | D．banned by regulations |
| A．To distinguish between digital and real skulls. |
| B．To describe the size of an emptied skull model. |
| C．To put medical research results in literature. |
| D．To emphasize the emotional value of dissection. |
| A．Inflexibility. | B．Overstatement. |
| C．Costliness. | D．Computerization. |
| A．The unfavourable status of bodies trade in Britain. |
| B．The solution to limited source of bodies in Britain. |
| C．The necessity of international bodies trade in Britain. |
| D．The consistent trade between America and Britain. |
9 . “Going wireless is the future for just about everything!” That is a quote from scientist Sreekanth Chalasani, and we can’t help but agree. Realizing this, a team of scientists has made a breakthrough toward wirelessly controlling human cells using sound, in a technique called “sonogenetics (声遗传学).” This concept may seem strange but let us explain.
Basically, the term “sonogenetics” means using ultrasound (超声波) to change the behavior of cells in a non-invasive manner. “We already know that ultrasound is safe, and that it can go through bone, muscle and other tissues, making it the ultimate tool for controlling cells deep in the body,” says Chalasani.
Low-frequency ultrasound waves can target a particular protein that is sensitive to the signal. This research, published in Nature Communications, focused on TRPA1. When this protein is stimulated through the ultrasound waves, it also stimulates the cells which carry it. What type of cell is being stimulated depends on the outcome. For example, a muscle cell may contract with stimulation, or a neuron (神经元) in the brain will fire. In this experiment, scientists genetically marked cells with an increased concentration of TRPA1, making them the key targets of the ultrasound waves.
Currently, treating conditions like Parkinson’s disease requires scientists to implant electrodes (电极) in the brain which stimulate certain disordered cells. Researchers hope that sonogenetics can one day replace these invasive treatments.
In the future, the team wants to adjust the placement and amount of TRPAI around the body using the gene treatment. Gene delivery techniques have already been shown to be successful in humans, such as in treating blindness. Therefore, it’s just a case of adjusting this theory to a different sound-based setting.
“Gene delivery techniques already exist for getting a new gene—such as TRPA1—into the human heart,” Chalasani says. “If we can then use an external ultrasound device to activate those cells, that could really change pacemakers.” There is still a while to go before this treatment can become a reality. The future for sonogenetics, though, looks bright.
1. What’s working principle for sonogenetics?| A．Using medicine interventional therapies. |
| B．Changing cells’ shape with new equipment. |
| C．Controlling cells in a non-invasive manner. |
| D．Using a kind of unique medical composition. |
| A．Change the concentration of the protein. |
| B．Find target cells for treatment precisely. |
| C．Analyze the protein sensitive to the sign. |
| D．Choose the type of cell to be stimulated. |
| A．It can be applied to other fields besides medicine. |
| B．It may replace some traditional medical therapies. |
| C．It will totally transform gene delivery techniques. |
| D．It has succeeded in curing diseases like blindness. |
| A．Can cells be controlled by sound? |
| B．How is sonogenetics clinically used? |
| C．Are gene delivery techniques available? |
| D．What are applications of sonogenetics? |
10 . In the 12th century, physician Ibn Zuhr conducted some animal research to assess the surgical procedures that could be applied to humans. Since then, animal testing has been considered the most efficient way to develop new drugs. New medical treatments and drugs are tested on animals first to determine their effectiveness or safety levels before they are finally tested on humans. However, it remains controversial whether it is morally right or wrong to use animals for experiments.
The use of animals for medical purposes is seen to be necessary by many scientists. Researchers usually begin their trials using rats. If the tests are successful, further tests are done on monkeys before using human beings. For testing, such tiered(分层的) rounds are important because they reduce the level of error and negative side effects. Some argue that animal testing has contributed to many life-saving cures and treatments and there is no adequate alternative to testing on a living, whole-body system. Moreover, there are regulations for animal testing that limit the misuse of animals during research. They serve as evidence that animals are well taken care of and treated well instead of being intentionally harmed.
However, some other experts and animal welfare groups have opposed such practice, considering it as inhumane(不人道的) and claiming it should be banned. According to Humane Society International, animals used in experiments are commonly subjected to force-feeding, radiation exposure, operations to deliberately cause damage and frightening situations to create depression and anxiety. They also hold the view that animals are very different from human beings and therefore are poor test subjects. Drugs that pass animal tests are not necessarily safe. Animal tests on the arthritis (关节炎) drug Vioxx showed it would have a protective effect on the hearts of mice, yet the drug went on to cause about 27,000 heart attacks before being pulled back from the market.
It’s safe to say that using animals for tests will continue to be debated in many years to come. Despite the benefits of animal testing, some of the concerns need to be addressed with adequate regulations to ensure that animals are treated humanely.
1. Why is animal testing considered necessary?| A．Rats are more similar to humans than monkeys. |
| B．Other testing alternatives may not replace animals. |
| C．Animal testing can show every side effect of drugs. |
| D．Animal testing has been in practice since the 12th century. |
| A．Eating poisonous food. | B．Being killed deliberately. |
| C．Breathing in polluted air. | D．Having unnecessary operations. |
| A．animal testing helps find the cure for arthritis |
| B．some drugs need to be withdrawn from the market |
| C．animals cannot necessarily produce accurate results |
| D．a drug should be tested many more times before its release |
| A．Scientists should reduce the number of animals used in research. |
| B．Experts should try hard to determine whether animal tests are harmful. |
| C．Relevant organizations should show more concern about the animals’ welfare. |
| D．The authorities should issue new laws to guarantee animals’ rights during research. |
