题目内容
（请给出正确答案）
Animal experiments will continue to be necessary to resolve existing medical problems________________(尽管一些人公开反对).
答案
even though some people object to/are against it openly
如果结果不匹配，请 联系老师 获取答案
更多“Animal experiments will contin…”相关的问题
A．Y
B．N
C．NG
It is suggested in the last paragraph that ______ .
A．the seriousness of animal abuse in the classroom is unknown
B．training teachers in animal care may contribute to reducing animal abuse
C．fewer animals have been abused in experiments in recent years
D．many biology teachers are not trained in proper care of animals
A．maintain ecological balance
B．please animal welfare groups
C．get financial support from their sponsors
D．protect necessary harmless experiments on animals
According to the text, animal welfare groups have succeeded in ______ .
A．stopping all animal abuse in schools
B．establishing guidelines that ban classroom experiments harming animals
C．protecting animals from being experimented with in extracurricular projects
D．persuading two national science teachers' associations to adopt an animal protection policy
Thurman Grafton suggests that ______ .
A．animal abuse is horrible and should be terminated
B．the teachers have been compelled to do all animal experiments
C．prohibition of experiments on animals will discourage students from being curious
D．the International Science and Engineering Fair will cease to operate because of the new policies
Animal welfare groups are apparently most concerned with high school students experimenting with animals in extracurricular projects. Barbara Orlans, President of the Scientists' Center for Animal Welfare, said that students have been performing surgery at random, testing known poisonous substances, and running other pathology (病理学) experiments on animals without even knowing normal physiology (生理学).
At one science fair, a student cut off the leg and tail of a lizard (蜥蜴) to demonstrate that only the tail can regenerate, she said. In another case, a student bound sparrows, starved them and observed their behavior.
"The amount of abuse had been quite horrifying," Orlans said.
Administrators of major science fairs are short-tempered over the teachers' policy change and the impression it has created. "The teachers were sold a bill of goods by Barbara Orlans," said Thurman Grafton, who heads the rules committee for the International Science and Engineering Fair. "Backyard tabletop surgery is just nonsense. The new policies throw cold water on students inquisitiveness," he said. Grafton said he wouldn't deny that there hasn't been animal abuse among projects at the international fair, but he added that judges reject contestants who have unnecessarily injured animals. The judges have a hard time monitoring local and regional fairs that may or may not choose to comply with the international fair's rules that stress proper care of animals, Grafton said.
He said that several years ago, the Westinghouse Science Talent Search banned harmful experiments to animals when sponsors threatened to cancel their support after animal welfare groups lobbied for change.
The teachers adopted the new policies also to fend off proposed legislation — in states including Missouri and New York — that would restrict or prohibit experiments on animals.
Officials of the two teachers' organizations say that they don't know how many animals have been abused in the classroom. On the one hand, many biology teachers are not trained in the proper care of animals, said Wayne Moyer, executive director of the biology teachers' association. On the other hand, the use of animals in experiments has dropped in recent years because of school budget cuts. The association may set up seminars to teach better animal care to its members.
What is the passage mainly about？
A．Science teachers banning testing harmful to animals.
B．Teachers' policy change in experiment on animals.
C．The new policies of banning harmful experiments to animals.
D．The importance of prohibiting harmful experiments on animals.
B、In vitro testing of biomaterials is done in the living tissue of a living organism.
C、The advantage of in vitro testing is that the experiment can be controlled easily and precisely.
D、In vivo tests include animal testing such as rat, pig, machin and clinical trials in humans.
听力原文： The University of Tennessee's Walters Life Sciences Building is a model animal facility — spotlessly clean, careful in obtaining prior approval for experiments from an animal care committee.
Of the 15,000 mice housed there in a typical year, most give their lives for humanity. These are "good" mice and as such were the protection of the animal care committee. At any given time, however, some mice escape and run free. These mice are pests. They can disrupt experiments with the bacterial organisms they carry. They are "bad" mice and must be captured and destroyed. Usually, this is accomplished by means of sticky traps, a kind of flypaper, on which they become increasingly stuck. But the real point of this cautionary tale, says animal behaviorist Herzog, is that the labels we put on things can affect our moral responses to them.
Using stick traps, or the more deadly snap traps, would be deemed unacceptable for good mice. Yet the killing of bad mice requires no prior approval. Once a research animal hits the floor and becomes an escapee, says Herzog, its moral standing is instantly diminished.
In Herzog's own home, there was a more ironic example. When his young son's pet mouse Willie died recently, it was accorded a tearful ceremonial burial in the garden. Yet even as they mourned Willie, says Herzog, he and his wife were setting snap traps to kill the pest mice in their kitchen. With the bare change in labels from pet to pest, the kitchen mice attained a totally different moral status.
Questions 26 to 29 are based on the passage you have just heard.
26. What does the passage say about most of the mice used for experiments？
27. Why did the so-called bad mice have to be captured and destroyed？
28. When are mice killed without prior approval？
29. Why does the speaker say what the Herzogs did at home is ironical？
(32)
A．They are looked after by animal-care organizations.
B．They sacrifice their lives for the benefit of humans.
C．They look spotlessly clean throughout their lives.
D．They are labeled pet animals by the researchers.
summarize the main message of the excerpt, and then
comment on whether we should use animals for experimentation purpose or not
You should support yourself with information from the excerpt.
Marks will be awarded for content relevance, content sufficiency, organization and language quality. Failure to follow the above instructions may result in a loss of marks.
Historical Debate on Animal Experimentation
As the experimentation on animals increased, especially the practice of vivisection, so did criticism and controversy. In 1655, the advocate of Galenic physiology Edmund O'Meara said that "the miserable torture of vivisection places the body in an unnatural state." O'Meara and others argued that animal physiology could be affected by pain during vivisection, rendering results unreliable. There were also objections on an ethical basis, contending that the benefit to humans did not justify the harm to animals. Early objections to animal testing also came from another angle — many people believed that animals were inferior to humans and so different that results from animals could not be applied to humans.
On the other side of the debate, those in favor of animal testing held that experiments on animals were necessary to advance medical and biological knowledge. Claude Bernard — who is sometimes known as the " prince of vivisectors" and the father of physiology, and whose wife, Marie Frangoise Martin, founded the first anti-vivisection society in France in 1883 — famously wrote in 1865 that "the science of life is a superb and dazzlingly lighted hall which may be reached only by passing through a long and ghastly kitchen . Arguing that experiments on animals ...are entirely conclusive for the toxicology and hygiene of man ... the effects of these substances are the same on man as on animals, save for differences in degree, Bernard established animal experimentation as part of the standard scientific method.
Testing Times
Researchers are working on ways to reduce the need for animal experiments, but new laws may increase the number of experiments needed.
The current situation
In an ideal world, people would not perform. experiments on animals. For the people, they are expensive. For the animals, they are stressful and often painful.
That ideal world, sadly, is still some way away. People need new drugs and vaccines. They want protection from the toxicity of chemicals. The search for basic scientific answers goes on. Indeed, the European Commission is forging ahead with proposals that will increase the number of animal experiments carried out in the European Union, by requiring toxicity tests on every chemical approved for use within the union's borders in the past 25 years.
Already, the commission has identified 140,000 chemicals that have not yet been tested. It wants 30,000 of these to be examined right away, and plans to spend between ~ 4 billion — 8 billion ($5 billion—10 billion) doing so. The number of animals used for toxicity testing in Europe will thus, experts reckon, quintuple (翻五倍) from just over lm a year to about 5m, unless they are saved by some dramatic advances in non-animal testing technology. At the moment, roughly 10% of European animal tests are for general toxicity, 35% for basic research, 45% for drugs and vaccines, and the remaining 10% a variety of uses such as diagnosing diseases.
Animal experimentation will therefore be around for some time yet. But the search for substitutes continues, and last weekend the Middle European Society for Alternative Methods to Animal Testing met in Linz, Austria, to review progress.
A good place to start finding alternatives for toxicity tests is the liver--the organ responsible for breaking toxic chemicals down into safer molecules that can then be excreted. Two firms, one large and one small, told the meeting how they were using human liver cells removed incidentally during surgery to test various substances for long-term toxic effects.
One way out of the problem
PrimeCyte, the small firm, grows its cells in cultures over a few weeks and doses them regularly with the substance under investigation. The characteristics of the cells are carefully monitored, to look for changes in their microanatomy.
Pfizer, the big firm, also doses its cultures regularly, but rather than studying individual cells in detail, it counts cell numbers. If the number of cells in a culture changes after a sample is added, that suggests the chemical in question is bad for the liver.
In principle, these techniques could be applied to any chemical. In practice, drugs (and, in the case of PrimeCyte, food supplements) are top of the list. But that might change if the commission has its way: those 140,000 screenings look like a lucrative market, although nobody knows whether the new tests will be ready for use by 2009, when the commission proposes that testing should start.
Other tissues, too, can be tested independently of animals. Epithelix, a small firm in Geneva, has developed an artificial version of the lining of the lungs. According to Huang Song, one of Epithelix's researchers, the firm's cultured cells have similar microanatomy to those found in natural lung linings, and respond in the same way to various chemical messengers. Dr. Huang says that they could be used in long-term toxicity tests of airborne chemicals and could also help identify treatments for lung diseases.
The immune system can be mimicked and tested, too. ProBioGen, a company based in Berlin, is developing an artificial human lymph node (淋巴结) which, it reckons, could have prevented the neardisastrous consequences of a drag trial held in Britain three months ago, in which (despite the drag having passed animal tests) six men suffered multiple organ failure and ne
A．Y
B．N
C．NG
me of medical science. Activists deny that we are trying to help and say it is () of our evil and cruel (). A more reasonable argument, however, can be advanced in our (). Life is often () to animals and human beings. Teenagers are flung from trucks and suffer severe head (). Young children () able to walk find themselves at the bottom of swimming pools while a parent is occupied with something else. From everyday germs to gang (), no life is free of pain. Physicians hoping to relieve the eternal suffering of these tragedies have only three choices: 1) create an animal model of the problem to understand the process and test new therapies; 2) experiment on human beings (some experiments will succeed, most will fail); or 3) leave medical knowledge static, hoping that () discoveries will lead us forward.
