题目内容
In the past year, a lot has changed in the field of human spaceflight. (46) In January, President George Bush brushed aside the fact that America’s entire space-shuttle fleet was grounded when he announced grandiose plans to put people back on the moon, and then to launch a manned mission to Mars. (47) In June, Burt Rutan, an American aeronautical engineer, showed that human spaceflight was no longer the preserve of governments by sending a man to the edge of space in Space Ship One, a privately financed vehicle that cost about the same to build as a luxury yacht. That was followed in September by Sir Richard Branson, the British entrepreneur behind the Virgin brand, announcing that he had signed a deal with Mr Rutan to work on plans for a fleet of five suborbital vehicles developed from Space Ship One.(48) Now, in the dying days of the year, America’ s Congress has passed a bill that unravels a tangle about who would be responsible for regulating the fledgling industry, and under what terms. (49) The bill also allows passengers to fly on the understanding that this new generation of vehicles may not be as safe as taking a commercial flight between, say, New York and London.The official line from Virgin Galactica, as Sir Richard’ s latest venture is modestly named, is that this coming change in the law makes no practical difference to the firm’s plans, since they do not intend to fly unless they can make their spacecraft as safe as a private jet. But it must surely come as some sort of relief. In any case, Will Whitehorn, director of corporate affairs at Virgin’ s headquarters in London, and soon to become the president of Virgin Galactica, says that work is under way on a mock-up of the interior of a new spacecraft that will hold five passengers. (50) Virgin has already committed $ 20m towards licensing the SpaceShipOne technology from Mr Rutan and his financial backer Paul Allen, a software billionaire. Virgin has already committed $ 20m towards licensing the SpaceShipOne technology from Mr Rutan and his financial backer Paul Allen, a software billionaire.
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
Which of the following statement about Knights is Not true
TEXT E In the 1960s scientists begin to recognize that environmental contaminants could not only affect the health and survival of individual animals but also alter the prospects for their off-spring and thereby potentially change the genetic makeup of entire populations. Researchers were first altered to problems in wildlife in the 40s after the populations of eagles, falcons, and the other fish-eating birds in Britain plummeted. In nest after nest the birds’ eggshells were so thin that they cracked under the weight of the adults during incubation. In the 1960s David Peakall and other wildlife toxicologists demonstrated that the accumulation of very high levels of such pesticides as DDT in the birds’ tissues had seriously impaired their productive capabilities. Some of these declines resulted in the complete disappearance of populations from large portions of their former range. In North America, for example, the eastern population of the peregrine falcon was virtually wiped out. More recently, the Golf Coast population of the brown pelican disappeared as a result of eggshell thinning thought to be caused by the organochlorine pesticides dieldrin and endrin. Since then, researchers have provided additional evidence that environmental pollution can affect future generations. For example, exposure to high levels of PCBs has been shown to affect the learning and behavior of children. In the 1980s Snadra W. Jacobson and Joseph L. Jacobson of Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, studied a group of children whose mothers had eaten PCB—contained fish from Lake Michigan. The researchers found that the children’s prenatal exposure to these compounds resulted in neurological anomalies at birth and developmental delays in motor function during infancy. The Jacobson retested the children at age 11. In a 1996 report they noted that the children exhibited significantly poorer intellectual function, amounting to a 6.2 point deficit in the IQs of the most highly exposed subjects. Contaminants also have been linked to a critical loss of genetic variability in populations of living organisms. One of the best studies of this phenomenon was published in 1994 by M. H Murdoch and P.D.N. Hebert of the University of Guelph, Ontario. The study measured the variations in the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) of populations of brown bullhead catfish in the Great Lakes, comparing bullheads from pristine reference areas with bullheads living in heavily contaminated with such pollutants as organochlorines and petrochemicals. The two researchers used one of the most powerful tools of modern molecular population genetics-molecular analysis of DNA. By revealing differences in the specific code, i.e., in the sequence of nucleotides, contained in the DNA of a particular gene, the technique can help identify and quantify genetic variety within and among populations. For their study, Murdoch and Hebert examinated variations in genes of the cellular mitochondria, which possess their own DNA (mtDNA) that is distinct from the DNA found in the cell nucleus. Because mitochondrial genes are not "shuffled" in the production of sperm and egg cells, as are nuclear genes, and because they are transmitted to offspring only by the mother, they are ideal for charting the relatedness and evolutionary history of spaces. The researchers found that although the numbers of fish were abundant in both types of sites, the levels of genetic variability were always significantly higher in the pristine areas. The most likely explanation is that bullheads populations in polluted waters crashed after their initial contact with contaminants, but the remaining fish were able to repopulate because a few individuals possessed rare genes that allowed them to adapt and survive. Thus, even though the bullhead populations appeared to be thriving in contaminated areas, the genetic makeup of their populations had undergone a damaging simplification, a depletion of the storehouse of adaptations that animals can draw upon to surmount environmental challenges such as the introduction of a new disease of fluctuations in climate. Their genetic diversity potentially could be quickly increased by the influx of new genes from migrant fish, but most fish from other populations might survive in the polluted sites long enough to contribute to the gene pool. From the passage, we know that dieldrin is ______.
TEXT D The Roslin Institute announced last week that it had applied to patent the method by which its scientists had cloned Dolly the sheep. The patent, if granted, would apply to "nuclear transfer technology" in both human and animal cells. One point of the patent is to help fund research into cures for diseases such as Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, cancer and heart failure. Its other aim is to make some money. Last May, the Roslin Institute was taken over by Geron, an American biotech company. Geron has committed ＄32.5 million to research at the Roslin. It wants to get its money back. Two scientists from Stanford who developed the use of restriction enzymes, one of the fundamental techniques in biotechnology, made about pounds 80 million out of it in the 17 years before the patent expired. So you can see why Geron-Roslin is so keen to get its patent. There’s nothing wrong with that. Without the prospect of a return at the end of investment, no one would ever lend money to anyone involved in bio-medical research—and given the huge sums now required to develop a new drug, or a new diagnostic test for some medical condition, that would mean there wouldn’t be any research. It is wonderful when people give money to worthwhile causes with no hope of personal gain. But appealing to altruism simply won’t raise the billions required to develop and market drugs and therapies that rely on biotechnology. For that, you have to appeal to investors’ self-interest—which is why the bulk of medical research is funded not by charities or even tax-payers but by private companies and individuals. The fact that biotech research depends on patents generates profound hostility. The opposition to the patenting of genetic sequences, cells, tissues and clones—critics call it "the privatization of nature"—takes many forms, from a Luddite desire to stop scientific research to a genuine, if mistaken, conviction that common ownership is always morally preferable to private property. But all of the objections have a single root. the sense that it must be wrong to make money out of the constituents of the human body. They cannot be "owned" by any individual, because they belong to everyone. There cannot be "property in people". That is a profound mistake. The truth is rather the opposite: there is only property in things because there is property in people. People own their own bodies, and that ownership is the basis of their property rights (and most other individual rights, come to that). The problem with the law as it stands is that it doesn’t sufficiently recognize an individual’s property rights over his or her own body, and his or her entitlement to make money out of it. The outcome of a lawsuit in the US nearly 10 years ago defined the de facto rules governing the ownership of human tissues, and the financial exploitation of the discoveries that derive from them. In Moorev the Regents of UCLA the issue was whether an individual was entitled to a share of the profits that a biotech company made from developing drugs or treatments derived from cells that came from his body. Dr David Golde had discovered that John Moore, one of his patients, had a pancreas whose cells had some unusual properties that might be helpful in treating a form of cancer. In his laboratory, Golde developed what his called a "cell line" from Moore’s cells and patented it. When Moore found out, he sued Dr Golde for a share of whatever profits the cell line generated. Mr. Moore lost. The court said he had no right to any of those profits, because he did not own the cells removed from his body. Moreover, the court held that since "research on human cells plays a critical role in medical research", granting property rights to the patient from whom the cells came threatened to "hinder research by restricting access to the raw materials". In essence, that decision said that biotech companies could own and make money out of human cells and tissue—but the person from whom that tissue or cells came could not. The logic behind that decision is bizarre. No one except the most unreconstructed communist disputes that I own my own body. Indeed, it is only because I own my body that I can come to own anything else independent of it, mixing my labor with something being the most fundamental means by which I can come to own it. If cells from Mr. Moore’s body are his property, how can anyone else come to own them—unless he sells or gives those cells to them (778 words) Which of the following statements is true
案例分析题中国居民张某2009年收入情况如下：(1)1月1日以市场价格出租市区一套居民住房，租期1年，合同注明租金共计24000元，在此之前为出租房屋支付装修费2000元。并缴纳了相关税费；(2)为某上市公司提供管理咨询，上市公司实际支付不含税咨询费45000元(不考虑相关税费)；(3)每月工资8000元，年终奖金36000元；(4)2009年12月因意外伤害获得保险赔偿收入12万元。根据上述资料和税法有关规定，回答下列问题(计算结果保留两位小数)： 张某2009年出租房屋应纳营业税、城市维护建设税、教育费附加、房产税合计为（）元。
微信支付 
支付宝支付