问答题Practice 2　　Transgenic plants and animals result from genetic engineering experiments in which genetic material is moved from one organism to another, so that the latter will exhibit a characteristic. Business corporations, scientists, and farmers hope

Directions:In this section, there is one passage followed by 5 questions. Read the passage carefully, then answer the questions in as few words as possible (not more than 10 words). Remember to write the answers on the Answer Sheet.　　Questions 1-5 are based on the following passage.　　Many people today are worried about bird flu. They are afraid that it will pass from birds to humans and that thousands of people will die in a pandemic. In 1918 a flu virus killed about 50 million people around the world. The virus was called Spanish influenza (or Spanish flu, for short) because Spanish newspapers first described the disease. Now, after nine years of work, scientists in an American laboratory in Atlanta, Georgia, have produced a copy of the Spanish flu virus. They are also going to publish the genetic sequence of the virus on the Internet and some experts are afraid that other laboratories could copy the virus.　　Scientists have copied the virus because they want to understand why the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic killed so many people. In a report in the journal Science, Dr. Jeffery Taubenberger and a team of scientists in the USA show that the copied virus is extremely powerful. The scientists injected the virus into mice and the mice began to lose weight very quickly. They lost 13% of their weight in two days and all of the mice died within six days.　　“I didn’t expect it to be as lethal as it was,”Dr. Terrence Tumpey, one of the scientists in the team, told the journal Nature. In another experiment, they injected more mice with a normal type of flu. The mice lost weight at first but then they got better and did not die. The experiments showed that the mice with the Spanish flu virus had 39,000 times more flu virus in their bodies than the second group of mice.　　The scientists who copied the virus say their work has already provided important information about the virus and helps to explain why it is so lethal. But other experts are worried that the virus could escape from the laboratory. “Some people will think that they have really created a biological weapon,” said Professor Ronald Atlas of the University of Louisville in Kentucky. “I am even more worried now than I was before about the possibility of a flu pandemic. The 1918 flu pandemic started with bird flu and that might happen again today with Asian bird flu.”　　Some scientists are worried about the publication of the genetic sequence on the Internet. They are afraid that biologists could copy the virus using the information on the Internet. This could be very dangerous.　　It took a long time to copy the virus. Scientists used material taken from the lungs of people who died from the flu virus in 1918. In a second report in Nature, Taubenberger and his colleagues analyzed the genetic make-up of the virus. They were surprised to find that it was completely different from all the normal human flu viruses. This probably means that Spanish flu jumped from birds to humans and did not mix with a human virus first. This is very worrying for scientists because in the past everyone believed that a pandemic was only possible if a bird flu virus mixed with a human flu virus.　　Taubenberger says it is very important to know what changes in the virus caused the 1918 Spanish flu virus. This will help scientists to work out which viruses might cause a pandemic. The H5N1 bird flu in Asia is already changing and it could infect humans, he said.　　Viruses have escaped from high-security labs before. The SARS virus escaped at least twice, once in Taiwan and once in Singapore. But some scientists believe a pandemic will not happen even if the virus escapes, because most people are naturally immune and there are now a lot of drugs which protect people from flu.　　Questions:　　1．When was the Spanish flu pandemic?　　2．How many people died in the Spanish flu pandemic?　　3．Where did the scientists produce a copy of the Spanish flu virus?　　4．How quickly did the laboratory mice die?　　5．What is H5N1?

EXHIBIT, Emp Table Exhibit A Exhibit B Examine the data from the EMP table. Evaluate this SQL statement: SELECT * FROM emp WHERE emp _ id = 3); WHERE commission = (SELECT commission FROM emp What is the result when the query is executed?（）

The ladder shall（）.

Practice 3　　Dolly was no ordinary lamb. She was cloned from a single mammary cell of an adult ewe, overturning long- held scientific dogma that had declared such a thing biologically impossible. Her birth set off a race in laboratories around the world to duplicate the breakthrough and raised the specter of human cloning.　　A decade later, scientists are starting to come to grips with just how different Dolly was. Dozens of animals have been cloned since that first little lamb and it’s becoming increasingly clear that they are all, in one way or another, defective.　　It’s tempting to think of clones as perfect carbon copies of the original—down to every hair and quirk of temperament. It turns out, though, that there are various degrees of genetic replication. Not only are clones separated from the original template by time—-in Dolly’s case, six years—but they are also the product of an unnatural molecular mechanism that turns out not to be very good at making identical copies.　　But scientists see a role for cloning in treating human diseases—and perhaps someday conquering some of man’s most intractable conditions. It may be another 10 years or more before the approach yields anything safe and reliable enough to be used in real patients, and there is no guarantee that it will ever be successful. But nobody thought Dolly was possible until she made history that warm July night 10 years ago.

Animal rights are a controversial topic right now. Actually, the debate is focused mainly on animal testing. The following are opinions from both sides. Read the excerpts carefully and write your response in about 300 words, in which you should:　　1. summarize briefly the opinions from both sides, and then　　2. give your comment.　　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.　　Animals are used for research in a variety of settings, including tests to determine the safety of drugs, cosmetics and other substances. Whether or not humans should use animals for testing purposes, however, is a controversial subject.　　Dr. Bob Miller, a medical researcher from Michigan State University, states that one of the primary advantages of animal testing is that it allows researchers to develop new medications and treatments, advancing the field of medicine and enhancing the health of society. For instance, many drugs used to treat or prevent cancer, HIV, diabetes, infections and other medical maladies have resulted from tests performed on animals.　　Moreover, animal testing enables scientists and researchers to test the safety of medications and other substances with which humans have regular contact. Drugs, for instance, may pose significant risks to humans, so testing them on animals fast gives researchers a chance to determine drugs’ safety before human trials are performed. While scientists are cognizant of the differences between humans and animals, the similarities are considered significant enough to produce relevant, useful data that they can then apply to humans. Thus, animal testing reduces harm to humans and saves lives.　　However, Prof. Abhay Shina, a leading critic of animal testing, points out that the major disadvantage to animal testing is that a significant number of animals are harmed or die as a result of experiments and testing. Unfortunately, many of the substances used on animal subjects never receive approval for human use or consumption. Humans receive no direct benefits as a result of the deaths of these animals. He also argues that animals are dissimilar enough from humans to make the results of animal tests unreliable. A related criticism is that testing induces stress in the animals, meaning that the subjects do not react to experimental substances in the same way that they might in more natural circumstances, making the results of experiments less valid.　　Using animals as research subjects is also expensive, because the animals require food, shelter, care and treatment in addition to the costs of experimental substances. Long-term or multi-phase tests can increase the costs of the practice as well. The actual price paid for the animals is also worth consideration; there are companies that breed and sell animals specifically for testing purposes.

The Truth about Genetically Modified Food　　At almost every public lecture I give, someone asks me my opinion on genetic modification—whatever be the topic of the lecture. Genetic modification (GM) has the power to save lives through its use in medicine, such as the production of insulin for diabetics or the treatment of genetic disorders. The current outcry comes when it is used to produce food.　　Some of these public concerns reflect real problems, but others are fuelled by misinformation and overdramatisation.　　There is nothing new about crop modification; plant breeders have been doing it since agriculture began. The wonderful range of apples or potatoes we now enjoy is the result of crossing different varieties. Cabbages, Brussels sprouts, cauliflower, kohlrabi, kale and broccoli all originated from one botanical species.　　Modern molecular biology has enabled us to go much further. We can now isolate the gene for a particular characteristic of an organism and transfer it to another species. It is this practice of transforming a plant with alien genes—perhaps from an animal or bacterium—that is causing all the controversy.　　There are three main concerns.　　Scientists can now take a gene for resistance to a particular herbicide and transfer it to a crop: when these plants are sprayed with weed-killer, the weeds are destroyed while the crop is unharmed. A prime concern is the harmful effect this could have on the biodiversity of farmland, where so many insects, birds and other animals depend upon “weed” species.　　Another fear is that alien genes from a GM plant could escape into a wild population of a related species. Since plants are fertilized by pollen that is carried through their, often for great distances, this is entirely possible. A wild species modified in this way with pesticide resistance could become a “super-weed”, while a species that becomes unnaturally resistant to animals that feed on it could disrupt the food chain.　　The third worry concerns a proposal to produce seeds for cereals that cannot germinate to produce next year’s seeds. This “terminator technology” would be of obvious advantage to seed companies, since farms would be forced to buy new weed annually.　　But the same technology could be devastating to some farmers in the developing world who depend upon saving some seeds for next year’s crop. Fortunately this technology is not yet in use and there has been strong pressure to abandon it.　　I would not hesitate to eat a GM vegetable—it is most unlikely that the current modifications are harmful to the consumer, despite what we read in the press. However, the introduction of animal genes into food plants presents considerable ethical difficulties to vegetarinsarians and member of religious that forbid the eating of certain animals.　　This is one of the reasons people are demanding that tall genetically modified food products be clearly labeled. The public have a fight to know what they are eating and a fight to choose.　　I believe that in my own nation GM is well regulated, but this cannot be said for some other countries. One of the problems is that at the moment this technology is commercially motivated. Because the compositions developing GM food want to introduce it as quickly as possible, in my opinion, it is being rushed into without adequate research or precautions.　　Genetic’ modification is here to stay, and there is no doubt it will save lives. But ,like so many other scientific discoveries, such as splitting the atom, it can be seriously misused. Instead of condemning the technique, we, should ensure it is used wisely. We need to evaluate each application carefully, from environmental and ethical standpoints, and we must urge governments and companies to use it for good rather than for greed.