第十一篇
                Are Banks Obsolete?
“Fat, dumb and happy,” commercial banks are being quickly replaced as financial intermediaries

(1)  What would happen to the U.S. economy if all its commercial banks suddenly closed their doors? Throughout most of American history, the answer would have been a disaster of considerable proportions, akin to the Depression brought about by the chain-reaction bank failures in the early 1930s. But in 1993 the startling answer is that a shutdown by banks might be far from disastrous.

(2)  Consider this: though the economic recovery is now 27 months old, not a single net new dollar has been lent to business by banks in all that time. Last week the Federal Reserve reported that the amount of loans the nation’s largest banks have made to businesses fell an additional $2.4 billion in the week ending June 9, to $274.8 billion. Fearful that the scarcity of bank credit might undermine the fragile economy, the White House and federal agencies are working feverishly to encourage banks to open their lending windows. In the past two weeks, government regulators have introduced steps to make it easier for banks to lend. For instance, less pa-perwork will be needed to process loans, and formal appraisals are no longer required for every real estate loan.

(3)  Is the government’s concern fully justified? Who really needs banks these days? Hardly anyone, it turns out. While banks once dominated business lending, today nearly 80% of all such loans come from nonbank lenders like life insurers, brokerage firms and finance companies. Banks used to be the only source of money in town. Now businesses and individuals can write checks on their insurance companies, get a loan from a pension fund, and deposit paychecks in a money-market account with a brokerage firm. “It is possible for banks to die and still have a booming economy,” says Edward Furash, a Washington bank consultant.

(4)  The irony is that the accelerating slide into irrelevance comes just as the banks reaped record profits of $43 billion over the past 15 months, creating the impression that the industry is staging a comeback. But that income was not the result of smart lending decisions. Instead of earning money by financing America’s recovery, the banks mainly invested their funds — on which they were paying a bargain-basement 2% or so — in risk-free Treasury bonds that ______ 7%. That left bank officers with little to do except put their feet on their desks and watch the interest roll in.

(5)  Those profits may have come at a price. Not only did bankers lose many loyal customers by withholding credit, they also accidentally opened the door to a herd of nonbank competitors, who swarmed into the lending market. “The banking industry didn’t see this threat,” says Furash. “They are being fat, dumb and happy. They didn’t realize that banking is essential to a modern economy, but banks are not.”

(6)  The soft economy has often been used by banks as an excuse for the slowdown in extending credit. Yet evidence abounds that banks are still gun-shy` about lending to business. And no wonder. More than $125 bil-lion in failed loans to real estate buyers, developing countries, farmers and the energy industry have had to be written off in the past five years.

(7)  The invasion of other financial companies eager to make loans has caused deep damage to the banking industry. “The banks are clearly losing the franchise` of lending to business,” says David Wyss, senior financial economist for DRI/McGraw-Hill, a large economic consulting firm. “That should be scaring them because this is where their real profits are.”

(8)  Though banks lost most of their blue-chip corporate clients years ago to Wall Street’s capital markets, they still retained another profitable part of banking: the small and mid-size business borrower. But that has changed in the past few years. The spread of computer technology and sophisticated new loan strategies reduced both the risk and cost of lending to small business owners. Soon financial giants such as Merrill Lynch and John Han-cock, as well as smaller finance companies like Access Capital, went after the banks’ last domain of business borrowers.

(9)  The new competitors have succeeded in part because banks have alienated so many of their traditional customers. “My experience with banks has been horrible,” says Barry Weinstein, president of Fulton Computer Products in Rockville Centre, New York. “Even if you bank with someone for 25 years, that still doesn’t amount to a hill of beans`.” Sales at Weinstein’s company jumped from $900,000 in 1988 to $18.5 million last year. Yet when Weinstein applied for a loan with 12 banks over a period of 24 months, all turned him down, even though he was never late in repaying his previous debts. He eventually borrowed $1 million from Access Capital, a fast-growing finance company based in New York.

(10)  Joseph Ricci, who runs a private school in Maine for children with behavioral problems, spent more than two years trying to borrow $700,000 from as many as five banks. But even with $17 million in assets and an unerred credit history, Ricci walked away empty-handed. “We demonstrated to all of them how we could carry the loan. But the banks were just not lending money to business,” he says. Ricci went to a finance company and within six weeks got a loan.

(11)  That’s the way the credit crunch has brought rapid growth to many nonbank lenders. “There is plenty of demand for financing from small companies,” says Access Capital president Miles Stuchin. “It’s just that the banks are turning them down.” Stuchin set up a finance company in 1986 that Inc. Magazine last year placed in the top 20% of the 500 fastest-growing companies in the U.S.

(12)  Perhaps the greatest threat to commercial banks has come from life insurers and pension funds. The two have combined assets of $4.5 trillion, exceeding that of the entire banking industry. They are the largest source of financing for U.S. industry. While bank lending was dropping during the past two years, loans by life insurers jumped $50 billion.

(13)  One such loan went to IDB Communications Group, a telecommunications service company based in Culver City, California, whose $78 million line of credit was canceled by a group of banks. “I spent every wak-ing hour for half a year on this issue,” says IDB’s chief financial officer, Ed Cheramy. “It was the worst experi-ence of my life.”

(14)  Coming to the rescue with a $20 million loan was Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association, the na-tion’s third largest insurance company. In the past year, TIAA has lent a record $3.5 billion to business. Some $225 billion in loans to business are now held by the life-insurance industry, up 11% from two years ago.

(15)  Wall Street firms have also cherry-picked some of the banks’ best business. Merrill Lynch, for example, has been targeting smaller companies since the mid-1980s. Last year its business financial-services division had about 3,000 clients and $800 million in loan commitments.

(16)  With their loan portfolios under fire, banks are in danger of losing their depositors as well. Americans have withdrawn more than $500 billion from low-yielding bank accounts over the past three years in favor of higher-paying investments like mutual funds. Even the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s $100,000 guarantee is no longer exclusively available to banks and S&Ls. Brokerage firms like Prudential Securities now offer “insured income accounts” with checking privileges and government insurance.

(17)  A few banks are vigorously working to recapture their share of business lending. This spring Chemical Bank, the nation’s third largest, kicked off the biggest marketing blitz in its history to attract small and me-dium-size business borrowers. An army of 1,800 lending officers, including bank president Walter Shipley and chairman John McGillicuddy, went knocking door to door at 5,000 companies across five states. “Am I con-cerned about Wall Street firms and investment bankers coming into the market? Absolutely,” says Frank Lourenso, who heads Chemical’s midmarket lending division. “They are real players, and I take them very se-riously. But we’re going to be very aggressive in looking for new business.”

(18)  That drive was underscored last month when the Federal Reserve gave Chemical the green light to sell and underwrite corporate bonds. Normally banks are barred from such investment-banking activity under the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. But the Fed cited a loophole, and its decision allows certain banks to take on Wall Street directly in wooing business borrowers.

(19)  Unshackling the banking sector entirely from such Depression-era regulatory chains may be the only way to reverse the 20-year structural decline of the banks. But that is something the Congress has steadfastly refused to do. Nor do such comprehensive reforms appear on President Clinton’s agenda. Yet until such changes are made, banks, once a fixture on the U.S. financial landscape, will continue their slow fade.




【参考译文】: 银行过时了吗？
“痴肥且沾沾自喜”的商业银行，其金融媒介的身份正被迅速取代中
(1) 假如美国所有的商业银行突然一起关门，对美国经济造成什么影响？放眼美国大部分的历史，这个答案将是：超大规模的金融灾难，就有如1930年代早期，银行像骨牌效应般连锁倒闭所造成的“大萧条”。但是时至1993年，令人吃惊的答案是：银行倒闭可能无关痛痒。

(2) 想想这件事实：经济复苏已经持续27个月，但在此期间银行对企业新增贷款的净额是零。上周联邦储备委员会报道，全国大银行对企业贷款在6月9日的前一个星期之内又减少了24亿美元成为2748亿美元。在害怕银行信用不足对脆弱的经济造成破坏的情况下，白宫与联邦机构极力促成银行开启它们的贷款窗口。过去两周来，政府当局引用一些新措施，让银行更容易贷款。例如简化贷款的纸上作业，而且所有房地产贷款不再需要正式的估价程序。

(3) 政府的担心有道理吗？现在谁要靠银行？几乎没有。银行曾经独霸企业贷款，但是现在80% 的企业贷款都由非银行机构接管，例如寿险公司、经纪行及融资公司。银行曾是唯一的现款来源，但现在企业与个人可以其保险公司名义开立支票，向退休基金贷款，并把薪水支票存在经纪行的货币市场账户里。华盛顿的银行顾问Edward Furash 指出：“即使银行死光光，我们还是可能拥有蓬勃的经济。”

(4) 具有讽剌意义的是，正在银行加速落入败部的当儿，它们却在过去15个月以来累积了创记录的430亿美元利润，制造出银行业卷土重来的印象。但这些收入并非来自明智的贷款决策。银行没有因贷款给经济复苏的美国而获利，却将它们的基金投资在无风险且提供7% 高利率的政府债券。而这些基金却只提供贡献存款存户2% 的微薄利息。这种投资策略让银行职员无事可做，只须把脚跷在桌上等待利息滚滚涌入。

(5) 这些利润可能是有代价的。银行不只因为紧缩信用而失去许多忠实顾客，而且不经意地敞开大门，让一大批非银行机构蜂拥进入贷款市场。Furash 说：“银行业还没意识到威胁。它们痴肥又沾沾自喜，而且并不了解：现代经济的确需要贷款业，但并不一定需要银行。”

(6) 银行常以孱弱的经济为贷款下降的理由。但是诸多证据显示银行对企业贷款仍是小心翼翼。这并不奇怪。过去5年，银行必须想办法冲销1250亿美元的呆账，这些呆账来自对不动产购买者、发展中国家、农民与能源工业的贷款。

(7) 热衷贷款的其他金融机构大举入侵，对银行造成深切的伤害。戴维"威斯（David Wyss）是大型经济顾问社DRI/McGraw-Hill的资深金融学家。他指出：“银行明显地失去企业贷款的特权。它们应该感到恐惧，因为这才是它们真正的利润所在。”

(8)虽然银行在多年以前就将大型绩优公司拱手让给华尔街的资金市场，但是它们仍旧保留住另一块沃土：中小企业。这种情况在过去数年亦起变化。电脑科技的普及与先进的新贷款策略大幅降低对中小企业贷款的风险与成本。很快的，金融巨人如默林" 林奇（Merrill Lynch） 与约翰" 汉考克（John Hancock）与小型融资公司如Access Capital, 都来抢夺银行最后的一群企业顾客。

(9) 新的竞争者能成功，部分是因为银行疏远了它们传统的顾客。“我与银行来往的经验非常可怕，”Barry Weinstein 是位于纽约州Rockville Centre 的Fulton电脑公司的总经理，他说：“即使你跟银行来往个25年，你们的交情还不如一个屁。”Weinstein的公司营业额自1988年的90万美元跳升到去年的1850万美元，但他花了24个月向12家银行申请贷款。虽然他从来没有拖欠债款的记录，但是所有的银行都拒绝借钱。他最后向纽约的Access Capital, 一家快速成长的融资公司，借了100万美元。

(10) Joesph Ricci 在缅因州开一所教导行为偏差儿童的私立学校，他花了超过两年的时间，向五家银行申贷一笔70万元的款子。即使他有1700万美元的资产以及毫无瑕疵的信用记录，Ricci 仍然两手空空走出银行。他说：“我们跟所有银行说烂了嘴证明我们有能力背负这笔贷款，但是它们就是不贷款给企业。”Ricci 转而找寻融资公司，六周内就借到了钱。

(11) 这就是紧缩信用让非银行机构大发利市的现象。Access Capital 公司总经理Miles Stuchin说：“小企业对贷款的需求很高，只是银行却让它们失望了。”Stuchin  在1986年设立Access Capital, 在去年被《Inc.杂志》列在美国500家成长最快企业的前20% 区间之中。

(12) 商业银行的最大威胁也许是来自寿险公司与退休基金。这两种产业合起来的资产有4.5兆美元，比整个银行业都大。它们是美国产业界最大的金主。过去两年银行贷款下跌，而寿险公司的贷款却跳升了500亿美元。

(13) 其中一笔贷款是调进位在加州Culver City 的IDB 通讯集团，因为银行取消了其7800万美元信用额度。IDB 的财务总经理Ed Cheramy 说：“半年来我无时无刻不在想法子摆平这件事，此及我一生中最恐怖的经验。”

(14) 带着2000万美元来救命的是美国第三大保险公司 Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association。 去年TIAA 贷出空前的35亿美元。目前寿险业的对企业贷款达2250亿美元，比两年前增长11% 。

(15) 华尔街经纪行也挑了几样银行最赚钱的营业项目来经营。例如Merrill Lynch 公司自1980 年代中期起便将目标对准小企业。去年它的企业金融服务部门拥有约3000家顾客，并承诺借出8亿美元。

(16) 不只贷款业务遭到夹攻，银行还有存款流失的危机。过去三年，美国人自低收益的银行户头提出超过5000亿的现款，投入较高收益的投资如共同基金。连联邦存款保险公司的每人10万元存款保险也不再限于仅给与银行和信用合作社。像Prudential Securities 这样的经纪行所提供的“保障收入账户”都有核对优先权与政府保险。

(17) 几家银行已经大张旗鼓地要夺回企业贷款市场。今年春天美国第三大的Chemical 银行以该行空前的大手笔展开一项促销攻势，企图吸引中小企业上门。1800名贷款人员，包括总经理Walter Shipley 与董事长John McGillicuddy, 在五个州逐一拜访5000家企业。Chemical 的中级市场贷款部主管 Frank Lourenso说：“我担心华尔街企业和投资银行来抢市场吗？当然！它们是真正的玩家，而我很严肃地看待它们。但是我们将非常主动地争取新的企业主顾。”

(18) 这样的雄心在上个月得到政府的肯定。联邦储备委员会批准Chemical 银行销售及承销公司债券。通常，根据1933年的Glass Steagall法案，商业银行是不准从事此类投资银行业务的。但是联邦储备理事会引用该法案的漏洞，而它的决定让某些银行可以直接向华尔街挑战，来争取企业主顾。

(19) 让银行自此种大萧条时期订下的枷锁中完全解放出来，也许是让银行业20年来结构性衰退起死回生的唯一方法。但是国会一直坚决反对这样做。这样广泛的改革也未出现在克林顿总统的议事日程中。但是如果不做这些改革，一度在美国金融地图上最显眼的银行业，恐将持续地失去可见度。

第十篇

           An AIDS Mystery Solved

(1)  About 15 years ago, a well-meaning man donated blood to the Red Cross in Sydney, Australia, not knowing he has been exposed to HIV-1, the virus that causes AIDS. Much later, public-health officials learned that some of the people who got transfusions` containing his blood had become infected with the same virus; presumably they were almost sure to die. But as six years stretched to 10, then to 14, the anxiety of health officials gave way to astonishment. Although two of the recipients have died from other causes, not one of the seven people known to have received transfusions of the man’s contaminated blood has come down with AIDS. More telling still, the donor, a sexually active homosexual, is also healthy. In fact his immune system remains as robust as if he had never tangled with HIV at all. What could explain such unexpected good fortune?

(2)  A team of Australian scientists has finally solved the mystery. The virus that the donor contracted and then passed on, the team reported last week in the journal Science. contains flaws in its genetic script that appear to have rendered it innocuous`. “Not only have the recipients and the donor not progressed to disease for 15 years,” marvels molecular biologist Nicholas Deacon of Australia’s Macfarlane Burnet Centre for Medical Re-search, “but the prediction is that they never will.” Deacon speculates that this “impotent” HIV may even be a natural inoculant` that protects its carriers against more virulent strains` of the virus, much as infection with cowpox warded off smallpox in 18th-century milkmaids.

(3)  If this ______ proves right, it will mark a milestone in the battle to contain the late-20th century’s most ter-rible epidemic. For in addition to explaining why this small group of people infected with HIV has not become sick, the discovery of a viral strain that works like a vaccine would have far-reaching implications. “What these results suggest,” says Dr. Barney Graham of Tennessee’s Vanderbilt University, “is that HIV is vulnerable and that it is possible to stimulate effective immunity against it.”  

(4)  The strain of HIV that popped up` in Sydney intrigues scientists because it contains striking abnormalities in a gene that is believed to stimulate viral duplication. In fact, the virus is missing so much of this particular gene — known as nef, for negative factor — that it is hard to imagine how the gene could perform any useful function. And sure enough, while the Sydney virus retains the ability to infect T cells — white blood cells that are critical to the immune system’s ability to ward off infection — it makes so few copies of itself that the most powerful molecular tools can barely detect its presence. Some of the infected Australians, for example, were found to carry as few as one or two copies of the virus for every 100000 T cells. People with AIDS, by contrast, are burdened with viral loads thousands of times higher.

(5)  At the very least, the nef gene offers an attractive target for drug developers. If its activity can be blocked, suggests Deacon, researchers might be able to hold the progression of disease at bay, even in people who have developed full-blown AIDS. The need for better AIDS-fighting drugs was underscored last week by the actions of a U.S. Food and Drug Administration advisory panel, which recommended speedy approval of two new AIDS drugs, including the first of a new class of compounds called protease` inhibitors`. Although FDA commissioner David Kessler was quick to praise the new drugs, neither medication can prevent or cure AIDS once it has taken hold.

(6)  What scientists really want is a vaccine that can prevent infection altogether. And that’s what makes the Sydney virus so promising — and so controversial. Could HIV itself, stripped of nef and adjacent sections of genetic material, provide the basis for such a vaccine, as Deacon and his colleagues cautiously suggest? Ongo-ing work on SIV, the simian` immunodeficiency virus that causes an AIDS-like illness in monkeys, indicates that this might be less far-fetched than it sounds. Ronald Desrosiers at the New England Regional Primate Re-search Center has demonstrated that when the nef gene is removed from SIV, the virus no longer has the power to make monkeys sick. Moreover, monkeys inoculated` with the nef free SIV developed marked resistance to the more virulent strain.

(7)  But few scientists are enthusiastic about testing the proposition by injecting HIV — however weakened — into millions of people who have never been infected. After all, they note, HIV is a retrovirus`, a class of infec-tious agents known for their alarming ability to integrate their own genes into the DNA of the cells they infect. Thus once it takes effect, a retrovirus infection — unlike those of viruses that cause measles, smallpox and any number of others diseases — is permanent. While some retroviruses are benign, others can strike without warn-ing. Some remain hidden for years, only to trigger disease late in life when the immune system starts to de-crease.

(8)  This makes vaccine development extremely risky. A weakened strain of SIV that protected adult monkeys, for example, looked safe until researchers at the Dana Farber Cancer Institute in Boston showed that newborn monkeys with immature immune systems did not respond as healthy adults do. All the young primates, in fact, developed the very disease the weakened virus was supposed to prevent. For this and a host of other reasons, most AIDS researchers argue that the only prudent strategy is to concoct` a hybrid` vaccine, putting the key features of a disabled AIDS virus into something more benign than a retrovirus. Among the leading candidates: the vaccinia virus that successfully wiped out smallpox.

(9)  A handful of researchers, however, argue that the more dangerous retroviral vaccine should not be written off prematurely. Desrosiers, for one, believes the situation in parts of the developing world (where the chance of HIV infection may reach 40% among sexually active adults) has become so desperate that a retroviral vaccine may be worth the ______. A live vaccine made from HIV, he maintains, can be made safer by removing not just the nef gene but several others as well. Desrosiers has found that he can cripple HIV by chemically deleting four of its nine known genes and still get a virus that replicates, at least in chimpanzees.

(10)  At present, concerns about safety are so overwhelming that effors to develop a live retroviral vaccine are unlikely to win much support. But that could change as studies of long-term survivors — that small, charmed circle of people who have been infected with the AIDS virus but have remained disease-free — provide new in-sights into the weaknesses of the viral enemy and the untapped strengths of its human targets. “These individu-als,” observes Dr. Warner Greene, director of the Gladstone Institute of Virology and Immunology in San Fran-cisco, “are natural experiments, and they hold a great secret that we are still trying to decipher`.” Indeed, it is entirely possible that the eight Australians who have caused such a stir will be cited by medical texts as the first people on the planet to be successfully, if accidentally, vaccinated against the AIDS virus — a virus that until now has seemed all but invincible.



【参考译文】: 艾滋之谜揭晓
(1) 大约在15年前，澳大利亚悉尼有一位人士好心向红十字会捐血，不知道自己已感染HIV-1型——这是造成艾滋病的病毒。多年以后，公共卫生官员发现，有些接受他血液输血的人，也受到病毒感染。这些人应该是难逃死亡的噩运。可是6年、10年、14年过去了，卫生官员的焦虑变为惊奇。虽然其中有两个人因其他原因死亡，可是接受遭污染血液输血的这7个人当中，没有一个人罹患艾滋病。更引人注目的是，那位捐血人——一个有性行为的同性恋者——仍然活得好好的。他的免疫系统十分强壮，就像从没染上HIV一样。这种意外的好运要如何解释？

(2) 一批澳大利亚科学家终于解开了谜团。他们在上周的《科学》期刊发表报告指出：这位捐血人染上然后传出去的病毒，基因结构有缺陷，可能因此变成无害。澳大利亚麦法兰" 伯奈特医学研究中心的分子生物学家迪肯啧啧称奇：“捐血人与输血人不仅15年来没有发病，而且应该永远不会发病。”迪肯大胆假设这种无能的HIV甚至可能是天然的疫苗，可以保护带原者不受更厉害的病毒品种侵袭，就好像18世纪挤牛奶的女工感染牛痘之后就能抵抗天花一样。

(3) 如果这个预感成真，那么在围堵20世纪末最可怕的传染病的战斗上，要立下一座里程碑。因为，发现一种具有疫苗功能的病毒品种，不仅能解释这一小群受到HIV感染的人何以不发病，还具有更深远的涵义。田纳西州范德堡大学的格雷姆博士说：“这些结果暗示HIV也有弱点，也表示有可能刺激免疫系统来有效地对抗它。”

(4)在悉尼发现的这种HIV品种，引起科学家高度的头趣，因为它有一个基因严重异常。一般认为这是刺激病毒去复制自我的基因。这种病毒在这个叫做“否因”（代表否定因素）的基因中大部分残缺不全，很难想象这个基因能产生什么作用。果然，这种悉尼病毒虽然有能力感染T细胞（免疫系统对抗感染时最关键的白血球细胞），可是复制的能力极差，连最强大的分子工具也很难侦测到它的存在。就拿受到感染的这些澳大利亚人来说，其中有些人体内每10万个T细胞才有一二个病毒。相反的，艾滋病患者则要承担高几千倍的病毒量。

(5)“否因”基因最低限度对制药公司是很大的诱惑。迪肯认为，假如能够阻断这种基因的活动，研究人员就有可能阻止病情的进展，就算是已经全面发作的艾滋病病人也一样有用。对更好的艾滋药物需求十分殷切，这由美国食品药物管理局（FDA）顾问小组上周的一项行动可以看出。这个小组建议尽快批准两种艾滋新药，包括一类全新的化合物，称为蛋白酶抑制剂。FDA局长戴维" 凯斯勒迅速赞扬这些新药，可是这两种药都无法预防艾滋病，在感染艾滋病毒后也无法治愈。

(6)科学家真正想要的是能完全预防感染的疫苗，所以悉尼病毒才被寄以厚望，也才会引起争议。HIV病毒除去“否因”与邻近的一些基因物质后，是否真如迪肯和他的同僚审慎暗示的一样，可以作为艾滋病疫苗的基础？这个构想听来很牵强，但是目前对猿猴免疫不全病毒（SIV，造成猿猴罹患类似艾滋病的病毒）所做的研究显示并非毫无根据。新英格兰区灵长类研究中心的戴斯罗士已经证明，从SIV中除去“否因”基因后，病毒就无法使猿猴发病。而且，猿猴接种过已去除“否因”的SIV后，会发展出明显的抵抗力，可以抵抗毒性强的SIV品种。

(7) 但是没有几个科学家热衷于检验这个构想——在几百万个没有感染过艾滋病的人身上注射HIV（不论削弱到什么程度）。科学家指出，毕竟HIV是逆转录酶病毒。这种传染媒介原以一种可怕的能力著称：能把本身的基因合并到受感染细胞的DNA内。所以一旦感染上逆转录酶病毒，就永远摆脱不掉。这和造成麻疹，天花以及其他许多疾病的病毒都不一样。有些种类的逆转录酶病毒是良性的，也有一些发作起来毫无征兆。有些则是潜伏多年，直到人进入老年，免疫系统功能衰退时才发病。

(8)因此，开发疫苗的风险极大。举例来说，有一种削弱了的SIV病毒可以保护成年猴子，似乎也很安全。可是波士顿戴纳" 法柏癌症研究所的人员后来发现，初生的小猴，免疫系统尚不成熟，反应也和健康的成猴不同。这些小猴全部发生了当初用弱性疫苗所要预防的疾病。因为这个案例，再加上许多别的原因，艾滋病研究人员大多主张，唯一较谨慎的策略是调配出混种病毒，也就是把弱化艾滋病毒的主要特征放到比逆转录酶病毒良性的病毒中。最理想的对象包括当年成功扑灭天花的疫苗病毒。

(9)也有少数几位研究人员，主张不能断然否定掉危险性较高的逆转录酶病毒疫苗。戴斯罗士就认为，某些发展中国家的情况十分危急（有性行为的成年人感染HIV的比例可以达到40% ），值得冒险一试逆转录酶病毒疫苗。他主张可以把HIV病毒中的几种基因与“否因”一并移除，就能增加活疫苗的安全性。戴斯罗士发现，可以用化学方式删除HIV9种已知基因中的4种，破坏掉HIV的力量，制造出来的病毒仍然会复制——至少在黑猩猩身上可以。

(10)目前对于安全性的关注高过一切，要想培养活的逆转录酶病毒疫苗，不大可能得到太多人支持。可是情况也可能改变。对艾滋病长期生存者的研究（也就是那一小群感染到艾滋病毒却一直没有发病的幸运者），可以让我们更深入了解病毒的弱点与人类尚未发现的力量。旧金山格莱斯顿病毒与免疫研究所所长格林博士表示：“这几个人是大自然的实验，手中握有一大奥秘，还有待破谜。”确实，这8名引起轩然大波的澳大利亚人，很有可能被医学文献列为地球上最早成功地（尽管是意外地）接受艾滋病毒免疫注射的人——虽然到目前为止艾滋病毒好像还是所向无敌。

考研英语各题型常见规律 　　考研英语无疑是最看基本功的，没有一定的词汇量、阅读量，考试时什么技巧也用不上。不过在扎实的基本功的基础上，知道一些出题、答题的常见规律，定会如虎添翼。下面是文登学校根据多年辅导经验就考研英语题中分值较大的几项总结的一些答题体会。

　　一、完形填空
　　从宏观上来讲，对一篇完形填空来说，我们首先通读全文，理解短文原意，找出短文脉络；再琢磨选项，掌握四选项的准确词义，利用语法知识，找出推理线索，确保结构完整；回读短文，注意句子结构，理清逻辑关系；最后还要把握篇章结构，确保意义完整和结构合理。从微观上讲，对于动词、抽象名词和形容词，必须把它们的词义放到语篇的上下文中考虑。对于语法要以意义为基础分清句子关系和逻辑关系，要注意行文中的固定搭配、词的复现、词的同现、语境和句际关系。总之，语篇和语境即上下文贯穿于整个做题过程的始终。

　　二、阅读理解
　　1.对于主旨题来讲，主要是看主题句。但在大多数情况下，篇章是没有主题句的。这就要主要从段落的主题句入手。段落的主题句判断方法是看一段的第二句或第三句。如果第二句和第三句是对第一句进行说明和阐述，那么第一句是主题句。如果第三句对第二句进行阐述，那么第二句是主题句。当然，也要注意有的段落主题句在段末的情况。但是，当遇到主旨题时，不一定非要找主题句不可。不妨先做其他题，等到其他题做完后，对篇章有了进一步的了解，做主旨题就较为简单了。
　　2.对于阅读理解中的词汇，决不能用“前缀”和“后缀”的方法去做题。一定要根据上下文，这才是词汇考查的目的。
　　3.对于细节问题，要从词义和语法着手，包括词义转换、句际关系和语篇理解。
　　4.对于推理题，要注意联系自己掌握的知识进行推理，因为这种题是在理解的基础上考作者与读者之间的shared knowledge，属于应用题型。对于“观点”和“态度”题，要注意语篇中的修辞。

　　三、英译汉
　　1.把替代部分明确写出，这指的是代词代替名词的问题，这些代词(如they，it)最好译成名词以表示答题者真正读懂了句子。
　　2.用常见惯用法表达，指是固定词组有约定俗成的意义，而不是字面的意思。如not so much……as……应严格译为“与其说……不如说”或“不是……而是……”，如译为“……与……是不一样的”评卷时会被认为是严重错误。这就要求考生掌握常用词组和固定搭配，有时固定搭配构成了整个句子的骨架。
　　3.掌握一定的词汇和语法，翻译时用上。翻译中考生反映出最大问题是词汇的贫乏和语法知识的欠缺。经常会遇到考生死活想不出某个单词，只好留个空表示“我真的不会”。诚实可嘉，但不是好事。
　　4.从语篇角度去理解，准确理解原文，尤其是篇章结构和内容，而不是仅仅是某一句，这是正确翻译的基础。离开上下文就不可能把英文句子准确、完整、通顺地用汉语表达出来。

　　四、作文
　　作文，不管是哪一类，第一句必须是总论点，写完之后展开，分一、二、三层。每一层用给的主题句做中心论点。对第一层再分三点论述。每一点也只要用一两句话就够了。这样的文章即保证了字数，又扣住了主题，同时又十分清晰。这种方法可称为十二句作文法。
　　这种方法写出来的文章不一定很漂亮，但很实用，为什么呢？这就要了解作文判卷时的情况，判卷时工作量非常大，一个人每天要看几百份，老师看得非常快，每一份卷子基本都是扫几眼，因此你的条理必须很清晰。主题句要明确，展开论点是最好用Firstly，Secondly，Finally，这样的文章老师看得轻松，即使写得不好，及格分肯定是会有的。反之，即使文章写得很漂亮，但老师匆忙之中看不清你的脉络，一时觉得头昏，很可能随便给你一个极低的分数。

第九篇
          The Economics of Cloning

(1)  Any normal species would be delighted at the prospect of cloning. No more nasty surprises like sickle cell? or Down syndrome? — just batch after batch of high-grade and, genetically speaking, immortal offspring! But representatives of the human species are responding as if someone had proposed adding Satanism to the grade-school Curriculum. Suddenly, perfectly secular? folks are throwing around words like sanctity and picking up medieval-era arguments against the arrogance of science. No one has proposed burning him at the stake, but the poor fellow who induced a human embryo to double itself has virtually abandoned — proclaiming his reverence for human life in a voice, this magazine reported, “ choking with emotion.”

(2)  There is an element of hypocrisy to much of the anticloning frenzy, or if not hypocrisy, superstition. The fact is we are already well down the path leading to genetic manipulation of the depressing sort. Life-forms can be patented, which means they can be bought and sold and potentially traded on the commodities markets. Hu-man embryos are life-forms, and there is nothing to stop anyone from marketing them now, on the same shelf with the Cabbage Patch dolls.

(3)  In fact, any culture that encourages in vitro fertilization? has no right to complain about a market in em-bryos. The assumption behind the in vitro industry is that some people’s genetic material is worth more than others’ and deserves to be reproduced at any expense. Millions of low-income babies die every year from pre-ventable ills like dysentery?, while heroic efforts go into maintaining yuppie zygotes? in test tubes at the unicel-lular stage. This is the dread “nightmare” of eugenics in familiar, marketplace form — which involves breeding the best-paid instead of the best. Cloning technology is an almost inevitable by-product of in vitro fertilization. Once you decide to go to the trouble of in vitro, with its potentially hazardous megadoses of hormones? for the female partner and various indignities for the male, you might as well make a few backup copies of any viable? embryo that’s produced. And once you’ve got the backup copies, why not keep a few in the freezer, in case Junior ever needs a new kidney or cornea??

(4)  No one much likes the idea of thawing out? one of the clone kids to harvest its organs, but according to Andrew Kimbrell, author of The Human Body Shop, in the past few years an estimated 50 to 100 couples have produced babies to provide tissue for an existing child. Plus there is already a thriving market in Third World kidneys and eyes. Is growing your own really so much worse than robbing the bodies of the poor? Or maybe we’ll just clone for the fun of it. If you like a movie scene, you can rewind the tape, so when Junior gets all pimply? and nasty, why not start over with Junior II? Sooner or later, among the in vitro class, instant replay will be considered a human right.

(5)  The existential objections ring a bit hollow. How will it feel to be one ______ among hundreds? The anti-cloners ask. Probably no worse than it feels to be the 3 millionth 13-year-old dressed in identical baggy trousers, untied sneakers and baseball cap — a feeling usually described as “cool.” In a mass-consumer society, notions like “precious individuality” are best reserved for the Nike ads.

(6)  Besides, if we truly believed in the absolute uniqueness of each individual, there would be none of this unseemly eagerness to reproduce one’s own particular genome. What is it, after all, that drives people to in vitro rather than adoption? Deep down, we don’t want to believe we are each unique, one-time-only events in the universe. We hope to happen again and again. And when the technology arrives for cloning adult individuals, genetic immortality should be within reach of the average multimillionaire. Ross Perot will be followed by a flock of little re-Rosses.

(7)  As for the argument that the clones will be sub-people, existing to live up to the vanity of their parents (or their “originals,” as the case may be), since when has it been illegal to use one person as a vehicle for the ambi-tions of another? If we don’t yet breed children for their SAT scores, there is a whole class of people, heavily overlapping with the in vitro class, who coach their kids to get into the nursery schools that offer a fast track to Harvard. You don’t have to have been born in a test tube to be an extension of someone else’s ego.

(8)  For that matter, if we get serious about the priceless uniqueness of each individual, many distinguished so-cial practices will have to go. It’s hard to see why people should be able to sell their labor, for example, but not their embryos of eggs. Labor is also made out of the precious stuff of life — energy and cognition? and so forth — which is hardly honored when “unique individuals” by the millions are condemned to mind-killing, repetitive work.

(9)  The critics of cloning say we should know what we’re getting into, with all its Orwellian implications. But if we decide to outlaw cloning, we should understand the implications of that. We would be saying in effect that we prefer to leave genetic destiny to the crap shooting? of nature, despite sickle-cell anemia and Tay-Sachs and all the rest, because ultimately we don’t trust the market to regulate life itself. And this may be the hardest thing of all to acknowledge: that it isn’t so much 21st century technology we fear, as what will happen to that tech-nology in the hands of old-fashioned 20th century capitalism.



【参考译文】: 复制人的经济分析

(1) 每一个正常的品种，有机会能复制后代，应该都会雀跃不已。从此不再会有镰状细胞或唐氏症候群等恼人的意外，只有一批批高品质的后代，从基因传承来看甚至是一种永生！可是人类这个品种的一些成员对这项讯息的反应，就好像听到有人提议把撒旦崇拜列入小学课程一样。完全没有宗教信仰的人，突然间满口都是“神圣”之类的字眼，而且重拾中古时代的论调来批评科学的狂妄。那位可怜的科学家，促使人类胚胎复制成功，现在虽然还没有人说要把他绑在桩子上烧死，他已经等于在忏悔了——公开宣称他崇敬生命，讲话时的声音据本刊报道是“激动得哽咽。”

(2) 这阵反对复制胚胎的喧哗，夹杂虚伪的成分在内——如果不是虚伪，也有迷信的成分。事实上，我们已经走到非常接近令人毛骨悚然的基因操控技术了。生命形态已经可以申请专利，这代表可以买卖，将来也可能在商品市场上交易。人类胚胎也是生命形态。现在有人要拿它来行销也没有法律可以禁止——可以和菜田洋娃娃摆在同一个架子上卖。

(3) 坦白说，一种文化，假如鼓励试管婴儿业，就没有资格抱怨胚胎市场的出现。试管婴儿业背后有一个假设：有些人的基因比别人的基因有价值，值得不计成本来保存、延续。每年有几百万个生在低收入家庭的婴儿死于不难预防的疾病，如痢疾。但是雅皮阶层的受精卵，还在单细胞阶段，在试管中就受到呵护，耗费了庞大的人力物力。这种情况，是优生学可怕的“梦魇”以熟悉的市场形态出现——培育的不是最优秀的品种，而是收入最高的品种。胚胎复制技术可说是试管婴儿技术无可避免的副产品。一旦你决定不畏试管婴儿术的麻烦——女性要施以超高剂量的荷尔蒙，可能会有危险，男性在各方面也有失尊严——那么好不容易制造出来的健康胚胎自然会想要备上几份。有了备份，那么何不冷冻一些起来，以防将来小宝宝万一需要个新肾脏或眼角膜？

(4) 把复制孩童解冻来摘取器官，这个想法没有人很喜欢。可是《人体商店》的作者金柏瑞尔说，过去几年来估计有50到100对夫妇为了让现有的小孩得到人体组织而再生小孩。此外，第三世界国家的肾脏、眼睛等早就有活跃的市场。自己去养来用，比起劫掠穷人的身体，真的会恶劣得多吗？或者我们只为了好玩来复制吧。电影的精彩片段看不过瘾可以倒带回来重看。那么，到小宝宝长得满脸疙瘩，讨人嫌的时候，不妨换个小宝宝重来一次吧？早晚的事，试管婴儿族会把“瞬间重播”视为他们的人权。

(5)存在主义式反对复制的论调听来不甚实在。这派反对者质问：你要是几百个复制人之中的一个，你会觉得怎样？这个感觉大概也不会太差，就像在300万个13岁的孩子之中，穿着一样的松垮垮的长裤、没绑鞋带的球鞋和同款的棒球帽——通常叫做“酷”的感觉。在这个大众消费形态的社会中，所谓“宝贵的个人特色”之类的观念，还是留给耐克球鞋做广告吧。

(6)况且，如果我们真的都相信每个人是绝对独特的，根本不会有人那么猴急的要去繁衍自己那一套基因组。追根究底，是什么因素让人不愿领养，要借助试管婴儿技术？因为在内心深处，我们不愿相信个人是独特的，在宇宙中只能发生一次，我们想要一再的发生。有朝一日，复制成年人的技术成熟了，基因的永生只要是大富豪就能购买。裴洛走了之后，会有一大群小复制品出现。

(7) 也有人说复制人会成为半人，只为了满足父母（也可能是“原版”，看情形）的虚荣心而存在。可是，利用别人来实现自己的野心，一向都不犯法。现在诚然还没有人针对学术性向测验去繁殖新品种的小孩，可是已经有一整群人，成员和试管婴儿族多有重叠，训练他们还在学步的子女进明星托儿所，以便一路直升哈佛。不在试管里出生也可以成为别人自我的延伸。

(8)说起来，如果我们真正重视每个人宝贵的独特性，那么许多历史悠久的社会习俗也都要废弃才行。例如，不能出卖胚胎、出卖卵子，为什么可以出卖劳力？劳力也是由珍贵的生命要素构成的——精力、认知能力等等。数以百万计的“独特的个人”注定要一辈子从事反复的、磨灭心智的劳动，这算是珍重生命吗？

(9)批评复制胚胎的人说我们要了解面对的是什么，要清楚它含有的奥威尔式的暗示。可是如果我们决定禁止复制胚胎，同样也要清楚此举的暗示涵义。禁止使用这种技术，等于表示我们宁愿把基因的命运留在大自然的手中，好像掷骰子一样。虽然可能发生镰状细胞贫血症、泰萨氏症等各种各样基因病变也甘冒风险，因为我们骨子里并不放心让市场来调节生命演进。这可能是最不容易承认的一点：我们怕的主要不是21世纪的科技，而是怕把这个科技交到旧式的20世纪资本主义手中，会引发什么后果。

第八篇
            Hot Times All Around

(1)  If good intentions and good ideas were all it took to save the deteriorating atmosphere, the planet’s fragile layer of air would be as good as fixed. The two great dangers threatening the blanket of gases that nurtures and protects life on earth — global warming and the thinning ozone layer — have been identified. Better yet, scientists and policymakers have come up with effective though expensive countermeasures.

(2)  But that doesn’t mean these problems are anywhere close to being solved. The stratospheric♠ ozone layer, for example, is still getting thinner, despite the 1987 international agreement known as the Montreal Protocol♠, which calls for a phaseout of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)♠ and other ozone-depleting♠ chemicals by the year 2006.

(3)  CFCs — first fingered as dangerous in the 1970s by Sherwood Rowland and Mario Molina, two of this year’s Nobel-prizewinning chemists — have been widely used for refrigeration and other purposes. If uncon-trolled, the CFC assault on the ozone layer could increase the amount of hazardous solar ultraviolet light that reaches the earth’s surface, which would, among other things, damage crops and cause cancer in humans. Thanks to a sense of urgency triggered by the 1985 detection of what has turned out to be an annual “hole” in the especially vulnerable ozone over Antarctica, the Montreal ______ have spurred industry to replace CFCs with safer substances.

(4)  Yet the CFCs already in the air are still doing their dirty work. The Antarctic ozone hole is more severe this year than ever before, and ozone levels over temperate♠ regions are dipping as well. If the CFC phaseout proceeds on schedule, the atmosphere should start repairing itself by the year 2000, say scientists. Nonetheless, observes British Antarctic Survey meteorologist Jonathan Shanklin: “It will be the middle of the next century before things are back to where they were in the 1970s.” Even that timetable could be thrown off by interna-tional smugglers who have been bringing illegal CFCs into industrial countries to use in repairing or recharging old appliances. Last year alone 20000 tons of contraband♠ CFCs entered the U.S. — mostly from India, where the compounds are less restricted.

(5)  Developing countries were given more time to comply with the Montreal Protocol and were promised that they would receive $250 million from richer nations to pay for the CFC phaseout. At the moment, though, only 60% of those funds has been forthcoming. Says Nelson Sabogal of the U.N. Environment Program: “If devel-oped countries don’t come up with the money, the ozone layer will not recover. This is a critical time.”

(6)  It is also a critical time for warding off♠ potentially catastrophic climate change. Waste gases such as car-bon dioxide, methane♠ and the same CFCs that wreck the ozone layer all tend to trap sunlight and warm the earth. The predicted results: an eventual melting of polar ice caps, rises in sealevels and shifts in climate pat-terns.

(7)  Delegates to the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio passed a resolution urging industrial countries to reduce emis-sions of “greenhouse gases” to 1990 levels, mostly by increasing energy efficiency, but the agreement was purely voluntary — and exempted developing nations. The industrial countries were also asked to help devel-oping nations switch to less polluting technology in a program known as “joint implementation.” Unfortunately, that would take money, and industrial nations are not in a spending mood these days. A few pilot projects have gone forward. Three U.S. utilities are building a gas-fired power plant in the Czech Republic to replace a coal-burning plant, and Japan is exploring similar ventures in China. For the most part, though, getting developed countries to sponsor such programs has proved difficult. Inside the industrial world, emission-reduction efforts have been most successful in ecology-minded Germany and Japan. But in the U.S., the world’s biggest green-house polluter, legislators want to cut taxes rather than boost spending.

(8)  Until recently, slackening governments could point to scientific uncertainty about whether global warming has started, but that excuse is wearing thin. A draft report circulating on the Internet has proclaimed for the first time that warming has indeed begun. Global average temperatures have risen about 1℃ in the past century, and human activity is almost certainly part of the cause. “It’s as clear a record as we can possibly get of a warming trend,” says Tom Wigley, a senior scientist with the U. S. National Center for Atmospheric Research and a con-tributor to the U. N. -sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which produced the re-port.

(9)  The draft report says temperatures will probably continue to rise, jumping as much as 5℃ over the next century. That will be the biggest increase since the warming that ended the last Ice Age — but this one will be taking place over decades, not centuries. That means sea levels will rise, flooding coastal areas and river deltas and endangering more than 100 million people. Beyond that, rainfall patterns will undoubtedly change, disrupt-ing agriculture. And weather extremes of all kinds will get more extreme. Hurricanes and typhoons are pre-dicted to become more powerful and destructive; wet areas are likely to get wetter, triggering floods, while hot, dry parts of the world could get even more arid.

(10)  Because the changes will be rapid, natural ecosystems — wet lands, rain forests, savannas — may be unable to adapt. Animals and plants that have evolved to live under a certain set of climate conditions will sud-denly face different circumstances. Many will go extinct. And the potential for deadly disease outbreaks will rise: warming waters will be more hospitable to germs like those that cause cholera♠; disease carriers such as the Aedes aegypti mosquito may find they can survive nicely in places like northern Europe and the U.S., mak-ing illnesses such as malaria♠ more widespread.

(11)  The good news is that this gloomy scenario♠ may galvanize♠ the world’s governments into taking serious action. The first line of attack, says Florentin Krause, an IPCC contributor and director of the California-based International Project for Sustainable Energy Paths, should be “no regrets” actions — changes that will be beneficial no mater how much of a threat global warming turns out to be. Among them: promoting the use of energy efficient appliances and cars. But the IPCC report, says Krause, makes it clear that nations must do more. For example, though it’s now more costly to generate electricity from solar cells than from gas or coal, using the sun’s clean energy could save money that would otherwise have to be spent in the future combatting the effects of global warming.

(12)  The encouraging precedent is the Montreal Protocol for ozone protection, which showed how quickly na-tions can act when they finally recognize a disaster. A related lesson is that if CFCs do disappear, it will be partly because chemical manufacturens discover they can make a profit by selling safer replacements. The same process may ultimately be what relieves global warming. After long years of effort, manufacturers of solar-power cells are at last close to matching the low costs of more conventional power technologies. And a few big orders from utilities could drive the price down to competitive levels. If that happens, then all nations, from the rich to the poor, may end up working to save the atmosphere for the same reason they’ve polluted it: pure eco-nomic self-interest.

 

【参考译文】: 全面加温

(1) 如果光靠良好的用心与正确的观念就能挽救逐步恶化中的大气层，那么地球上这一层脆弱的空气就没问题了。这一层气体，哺育着、庇护着地球上的生命，本身正面临两大威胁，现在已经找出来了：全球温度上升，以及臭氧层损耗。不仅如此，科学家与决策人士还提出了尽管耗费昂贵但是十分有效的防范措施。

(2) 但是大气层的问题要获得解决还早得很。例如，在同温层高处的臭氧层还是日渐稀薄，尽管在1987年国际间曾达成协定（称为《蒙特利尔公约》），呼吁逐步淘汰氟利昂制冷剂与其他破坏臭氧的化学物质，以公元2006年为底线。

(3) 1970年代，罗兰德与莫理纳（他们在今年双双赢得诺贝尔化学奖）首度指出氟利昂制冷剂的危险。这种物质普遍使用于冷冻以及其他用途。如果不加以控制，它会破坏臭氧层，造成阳光中危险的紫外线大量射到地球表面，这会有许多害处，例如农作物受损，也会致癌。1985年发现，在南极洲上空特别脆弱的臭氧层出现破洞（后来证明是年年出现破洞），世人终于感觉到事态紧急，于是达成《蒙特利尔公约》，促使各业以较安全的物质代替氟利昂制冷剂。

(4) 但是空气中现有的氟利昂制冷剂还在继续肆虐。南极洲臭氧层破洞今年更趋严重，而且温带地区上空的臭氧含量也在下降。科学家表示， 如果淘汰氟利昂制冷剂能按照进度达成，到2000年时大气层应能开始自我修复。然而英国南极观测会的气象学家尚克林表示：“要到下世纪中叶才能恢复到1970年的状况。”这个进度恐怕也会出差错，因为国际走私客一直挟带非法的氟利昂制冷剂到工业国家，用以修补或添加在旧式用品中。去年一年就有2万吨违禁的氟利昂制冷剂进入美国——大多来自管制较松的印度。

(5)发展中国家有较长的期限来达到《蒙特利尔公约》的要求，而且获得承诺，可以得到富有国家提供的2.5 亿美元经费以逐步淘汰氟利昂制冷剂。可是目前这笔经费只有60%正在支付中。联合国环境规划署的萨布果表示：“如果先进国家的支票不能兑现，臭氧层就不能恢复。这是关键时刻。”

(6)要想阻挡气候形态转变可能带来的灾难，现在也是关键时刻。各种废气，像二氧化碳、甲烷以及破坏臭氧层的氟利昂制冷剂，都可能捕捉阳光，提高地球上的温度。预期的结果：南北极冰帽终将溶化，海平面上升、气候形态转变。

(7) 1992年里约热内卢地球高级会议的与会代表通过决议，呼吁工业发达国家将“温室气体”的排放量降低到1990年的水平，主要靠提高能源效率来达成，可是这项决议纯属自愿性质——而且发展中国家也不包括在内。同时还敦促工业国家参与“联合施行”计划，帮助发展中国家转移到低污染的技术状态。可是这样做要化钱，而工业发达国家目前并没有兴致要花钱。有几项先导计划是已经展开了。美国有3家公用事业公司正在捷克共和国兴建天然气发电厂以取代燃煤发电厂，日本也在中国研究作类似的投资。但是一般说来，要叫先进国家同资来做这种计划并不容易。在工业发达国家之林，有生态意识的德国与日本对于减低废气排放做得最有成效。可是，在美国这个世界第一的温室气体污染国，议员一心想减税，不想增加支出。

(8)不久以前，没有积极配合的国家还有一个借口：科学界还不确定全球温度上升是否已经开始了。这个借口现在快站不住脚了。国际互联网上流传的一份报告草案首度宣称温度确已上升。全球平均温度100年来上升了1℃左右，几乎可以肯定部分原因是人类活动造成的。汤姆·维格莱说：“温度上升的趋向，这是最明确的记录。”他是美国国家大气研究中心的资深科学家，也是联合国主办的气象变化跨国会议（IPCC）的成员。这份报告就是IPCC提出的。

(9)报告草案中表明气温可能会持续上升，到下一世纪末可以大幅升高5℃。自从上一次冰河时代结束以来，这算是最大规模的温度上升，而且仅历时几十年，不是几百年。如此一来，海平面会升高，沿岸地区与河口三角洲会淹没，危及1亿以上的居民。此外降雨形态势必会起变化，因而妨碍农业活动。各式各样恶劣的气候也会变本加厉。预期飓风、台风的威力会更强、破坏力更大。潮湿地带会更加潮湿，引起洪水，而干旱地带会更加干旱。

(10)因为变化来得太快，各式天然生态系统——沼泽、雨林和草原——可能会来不及适应。动植物经长期演化，可以在某种气候状态下生存，突然之间要面对不同的气候状态，所以有许多会灭绝。致命疾病大流行的机率也会增加。水温升高，有利于像霍乱菌等病菌的繁殖。像埃及斑蚊这种病媒可能在北欧、美国这种地方存活良好，所以像虐疾之类的疾病会更普遍。

⑾ 好消息是：这幅阴郁的景象也许能刺激各国政府认真采取行动。IPCC成员，也是加州的国际永续能源计划负责人克劳斯表示，首要的行动应该着重“不必后悔”的行动——亦即，不论全球温度上升的威胁实际上是大是小，做起来都有好处的一些改变，例如提倡使用能源效益高的器具与车辆。但克劳斯也说，从IPCC的报告看来，各国该做的显然不只这些。比方说，用太阳能电池发电的成本目前虽然高于燃油或煤炭，可是利用干净的太阳能，以后就不必再花钱去对抗温度上升的恶果。

⑿ 有一个令人振奋的先例就是保护臭氧层的《蒙特利尔公约》，它证明世界各国在终于认清了灾难的时候，能够快速动员起来。连带还有一个启示：如果氟利昂制冷剂真的销声匿迹了，部分原因是化学厂商发现贩售安全的替代用品也可以赚钱。这一共同作用将来可能是减缓温度上升的法子。经过多年的努力，太阳能电池厂商终于快要把成本降到和传统发电方式相同了。公用事业公司下几张大订单，就可能把价格压低到具有竞争力的水平。果真如此，那么世界各国，不论贫富，最后可能会朝向挽救大气层而努力，原因和当初污染空气的原因相同：纯粹为了本身的经济利益。

  2008 年文登春季词汇班精彩文篇推荐 ( 七 )

第七篇

Welcome, Cybernauts!

(1)  Ever since they were first staged in 19th century Europe, world’s fairs have enabled people from around the globe to visit wondrous stands where they can discover distant lands and new technologies. The 1996 world’s fair is no exception, but it also has a decidedly eve-of-the-21st-century twist: the whole event happens in cyberspace.

(2)  A nonprofit project dreamed up by Americans Carl Malamud, a computer consultant, and Vinton Cerf, and Internet pioneer and telecommunications-company vice president, the Internet 1996 World Exposition is a digi-tal work in progress, a multi-chambered forum♠ that cybernauts can help build and renovate throughout the year — and perhaps long after the fair’s official close in December.

(3)  While high-tech pavilions♠ set up by sponsoring corporations are featured prominently, as in real fairs, this virtual exposition is closer in spirit and reality to a vast, busy bazaar♠, a marketplace for the talents and offer-ings of thousands of individuals and small groups. Anyone with a computer and a moderm can not only “attend” but also participate as an exhibitor by creating an individual multimedia Website. Visitors can easily navigate from an introduction to Luddism to an exhibition on the wildlife of the Galapagos Islands and then to a virtual Bengali religious festival.

(4)  All the linked sites are supported by Central Park, a global infrastructure of six computer servers — ex-pected to triple to 18 by year’s end — located in such cities as Tokyo, Amsterdam, Adelaide and Washington. In addition, Japan boasts “public-access points” — from a group of cybercafes in Tokyo’s “in” Harajuku area to computer stations at the headquarters of telecommunications giant NTT — where people can walk off the streets and into the Internet. Amsterdam has a similar setup; more are planned for South Korea and Taiwan.

(5)  Getting the fair up and running was by no means easy. Malamud, 36, spent the past year shuttling among 30 countries, lobbying companies that initially dismissed the project as unwieldy and unworkable. While some nations immediately supported the idea, others completely missed the point of Malamud’s vision: to make the fair a public-works project that focuses on what the Internet can offer ______ or novice♠. Once grass-roots groups started backing the project, though, businesses were not far behind. By donating equipment and services, these companies will gain access to millions of potential consumers eager to see the firms’ latest technologies.

(6)  Japanese corporations were quick to seize the chance of putting their technological prowess on show. Sony, for example, focuses its pavilion on its Cyber Passage software, which can combine three-dimensional images with sound and motion. The technology behind Cyber Passage — similar to that used in the Play Station, Sony’s successful new 32-bit video-game player — may have applications for distributing and playing 3-D games over the Net.

(7)  Since the exposition’s Jan. 1 launch, as many as 40,000 visitors each day from more than 40 countries have tried the major Websites (the main home page is at http: //park. org ). Most virtual visitors log on from the U.S and Japan, but the United Arab Emirates, Sweden, Singapore and Estonia have been represented. Com-ments logged in the fair’s guest book are overwhelmingly positive. “Wow, the world is shrinking,” wrote a visi-tor from the Netherlands.

(8)  Since their initial hesitancy, the major sponsors — primarily telecommunications and software compa-nies — have become firm believers. Beyond the diversity of content and international scope, the fair is a tech-nological marvel. A total of $100 million has been contributed toward producing the exposition, $25 million for computer equipment alone. The central servers have a storage capacity of a terabyte♠ — the equivalent of a million floppy♠ disks. Says Rob Blokzijl, a nuclear physicist and a member of the exposition’s executive com-mittee: “To make all those machines work happily together, you need the Internet.” But since the existing inter-national capabilities of the Internet were inadequate, he says, “we built a sort of backstage of our own.”

(9) And that backstage — a high-speed telecommunications pipeline — is the exposition’s true showpiece. Just as the 1889 Paris Exposition gave rise to the EiffelTower, this world’s fair will leave behind a structure that embodies its vision of the future: a transoceanic “railroad” of high-speed fiber-optic links. MCI and the Japa-nese telephone company KDD donated an estimated $ 20 million to the cost of the 45-megabit-per-second data hook-up. Laid down across the Pacific to connect the U.S. with Asia and Europe, the pipeline adds speed and quality to audio and video transmission: moving from noe screen to the next, which may take minutes on a phone circuit, can be done as quickly as switching TV channels with a remote control.

(10) The fastest international link ever installed, this pipeline could be the first step toward laying a permanent network that will eventually hardwire every nation in the world into the Internet. The organizers hope that the infrastructure — and awareness — nurtured by this exposition will lauch a boom in Net use. “By the end of 1996,” says organizer Cerf, “my hope and expectation is that people will discover there is such a strong busi-ness need for it that we’ll keep [the links] in place.” Malamud puts it in simpler terms: “I want this to be a fair-ground that goes on forever.”



【参考译文】 : 网络游侠大集合！

(1) 自从 19 世纪欧洲首度举行世界博览会以来，全球各地已经有许多人借此参观神奇的摊位，发现遥远的国度与新奇的科技。 1996 年世界博览会也不例外，但是它加上了一个很有 21 世纪预感的变奏：整个博览会在网络世界进行。

(2) 卡尔 • 马拉木德是电脑顾问，文通 • 瑟夫是国际互联网拓荒者，也是电传通讯公司副总裁，这两位美国人构想出这个非营利的计划。国际互联网 1996 世界博览会是一项进行中的数位作业，有许多展示间的公共讨论会场，网络游侠有一整年的时间可以参与建造与更新，甚至可能会延续到 12 月正式结束之后很久。

(3) 赞助厂商设的高科技摊位固然像在真的博览会中一样占了显著的地位，可是这场虚拟博览会的气氛与实务更接近一个庞大、热闹的商场，展售数以千计个人与小团体的才能与商品。只要有一部电脑和调制解调器就可以 “ 参加 ” ，甚至也可以自己设计多媒体网址来参展。参观者可以看到一个摊位有关反科技潮流的介绍，然后轻易转到一场加拉帕戈斯群岛野生生物的展览，再去参观虚拟的孟加拉宗教庆典。

(4) 所有连网的网站都由 “ 中央公园 ” 支援，这是 6 部电脑伺服器构成的全球性基础设施（年底预计会增加到 18 部），分别坐落在东京、阿姆斯特丹、阿德莱德与华盛顿等各大都市。此外日本还设有 “ 大众出入口 ” ，民众可以离开街道就走进国际互联网。这些出入口包括东京时髦的原宿区网络咖啡馆，以及电传通讯巨人日本电报电话（ NTT ）公司总部的电脑站。阿姆斯特丹也有类似的设备，韩国和台湾也在规划中。

(5) 这次博览会能热热闹闹地进行，绝非易事。 36 岁的马拉木过去一年都在 30 个国家间穿梭，游说各大公司。起初这些公司都认为他的计划太庞大、不可行，也有一些国家立即支持这个构想，有些国家则完全没掌握住马拉木梦想中的重点：把博览会办成公共工程计划，焦点在于国际互联网能给专家和新手哪些服务。到了基层的团体开始支持这项计划时，企业界也很快跟进。各大公司捐赠设备与服务，为的是能接触到数百万潜在客户 —— 他们都急着想看看这些公司最新的科技。

(6) 日本的公司很快抓住机遇把他们的科技实力公开展出。例如索尼公司摊位强调其 “ 网络通道 ” 软体，它可以组合立体影像与声音、动作。 “ 网络通道 ” 用到的技术和新力畅销的新型 32 单元电视游乐器 “ 游乐站 ” 的技术类似，也许可以应用在网络上来传送、执行立体游戏。

(7) 自从 1 月 1 日推出以来，博览会的主要网站一天能吸引到 40 多国的 4 万名参观者（主网页设在 http://park.org ）。大多数的虚拟游客从美国、日本进入，可是阿拉伯联合酋长国、瑞典、新加坡与爱沙尼亚也不乏上网者。博览会留言簿上的评语绝大多数是好评。一名荷兰来的参观者留言： “ 哇！世界变小了。 ”

(8) 各大赞助公司 —— 主要是电传通讯公司与软件公司 —— 起初还有点迟疑，后来都变成坚信不渝。这场博览会不仅内容五花八门，涵盖领域无远弗届，在技术方面也是一项奇迹。为了顺利推出博览会，总计捐款达 1 亿美元，光是电脑设备就值 2500 万美元。中央伺服器的储存量高达兆兆字节 —— 相当于 100 万片软盘。核子物理学家、博览会执行委员会委员罗布 • 布洛柯锡说： “ 让那么多机器一起愉快工作，只有靠国际互联网。 ” 可是因为国际互联网现有的国际传输容量不足，他表示 “ 所以我们自己盖了一个后台。 ”

(9) 那个后台是高速的电传通讯通道，也是博览会真正的明星展示品。 1889 年的巴黎博览会留下了埃菲尔铁塔，这一次的世界博览会也会留下一个结构来代表未来的远景：越洋的高速光纤电缆 ——“ 铁路 ” 。 MCI 公司和日本电话公司（ KDD ）共捐赠约 2000 万美元来建设这条每秒可传 45 兆位资料的电缆。这条穿越太平洋，连通美国与欧、亚的通道，增强了音响与视讯的传送速度与品质。如果用电话线路来换画面，一次要好几分钟。现在可以快到像用遥控器转换电视频道一样。

(10) 这条通道是历史上最快的国际连线，也是迈出了第一步，将来可能埋下永久性的网线，逐步将世界上每一个国家都直接连入国际互联网中。博览会的规划者希望，此次大会培育出来的基础设施 —— 以及网络意识 —— 可以推动使用网络的新热潮。主事者瑟夫说： “ 到 1996 年底，我很希望，也很期待人们会发现我们建立的联网为企业界迫切需要，那么就可以把它留着。 ” 马拉木讲得更简单明了： “ 我希望它是永不结束的市集。 ” (6) 可是，权利存在，并不表示说法官就该扮演执行它的角色。司法复审的制度 —— 非民选的法官有权否决政府民选部门（行政、立法）的决定 —— 这是满奇怪的制度。其它主要民主国家的法官并没有这样的权利，在美国宪法中也没有明文授予法官这种权利。其实它是来自于美国的政府结构。大法官约翰 • 马歇尔在《马伯里对麦迪逊案》（ 1803 ）中首度做出这样的推理：面对法律与宪法条款冲突时，法官应以宪法为重，其余所有的政府官员亦然。最高法院的释宪具有最高的权威，只因为它在程序上排在最后。

(7) 宪法中列举了一些权利出来，还有一些别的权利（例如投票权）是在宪法组成的政府构造中暗示存在的。可是政府的宪法结构中并没有那一点可以赋予最高法院权利，令其仅凭不具文的自然法就足以翻推行政、立法部门的决定。司法复审在刚提出时是很大胆的主张，现在则已根深蒂固，我们甚至觉得除了法官能够执行的权利之外别无权利可言。可是执行一项权利表示执行者要诠释权利的含义。像自然法这么模糊的概念，诠释它的责任不能完全交给政府中非民选的部门 —— 司法机关。谁来保护我们宪法中未明言的权利？根据《独立宣言》所说，应该是最直接 “ 从被治理者手中取得权力者 ” ，也就是民选官员。

(8) 《独立宣言》说的是 “ 生命、自由、与追求幸福 ” 的权利。宪法则比较平实地提及 “ 生命、自由、或财产 ” 。这两者之间的差别颇具深意。而且，宪法中并不保障人们绝对拥有这些权利。它只是保护这些权利不受政府本身的剥夺，而且即使在这一方面也只能保障程序的公平与平等待遇。宪法起草人把范围缩小是聪明的。如果法官能够四处横行，打倒一切只要他们认为是妨碍某人追求幸福的事物，民主会变成什么面目？

(9) 这样说并不表示自然法的观念在释宪工作上没有意义。例如，有许多人不了解，为什么像纳粹这一类的人，他们自己并不支持言论自由，而且还想尽办法剥夺别人的言论自由，宪法竟然也要保障他们的言论自由。这个道理在于：美国宪法修正案中保障言论等自由的人权条款是建立在自然法的理论上，而不是建立于另一种理论 —— 社会合约上。你享有这些权利，只因为你是人，不是因为你以文字或象征方式同意要支持这些权利。

(10) 像 “ 正当法律程序 ” 这类庄严的词语需要在文意上加以分析。就连最坚持要狭义解释宪法的人也会同意， 18 世纪有关自然法的思想有助于推测立宪者的 “ 原意 ” 。

(11) 有一些热中人士认为宪法第九修正案就是直接把自然法纳入宪法的法源。这条修正案表示，宪法中列举出来的权利 “ 不得被诠释为除此之外人民就不拥有其它的权利，或者其它的权利就不受重视。 ” 可是，这些热中人士当中包括了左右两派的司法活跃分子 —— 这一点就足以让两边人马冷却一下。重点在于：人民确实拥有非来自于宪法的权利 —— 喜欢的话你可以叫它自然权利 —— 可是法官并没有特别的职权可以执行这些权利。

(12) 托马斯提及自然法与自然权利时，可能并没有主张法官有特别的职权。如果是这样的话，一切就都没有问题。如果他的野心尚不只于此，那么问题就严重了。至于从前自由派的法官自己也可能和托马斯一样，曾经有非分的念头，这只不过是一大讽刺罢了。