题目内容
Text 1Mark Twain once observed that giving up smoking is easy. He knew, because he’d done it hundreds of times himself, Giving up for ever is a trifle more difficult, apparently, and it is well known that it is much more difficult for some people than for others. Why is this soFew doctors believe any longer that it is simply a question of will power. And for those people that continue to view addicts as merely "weak", recent genetic research may force a rethink. A study conducted by Jacqueline Vink, of the Free University of Amsterdam, used a database called the Netherlands Twin Register to analyse the smoking habits of twins. Her results suggest that an individual’s degree of nicotine dependence, and even the number of cigarettes he smokes per day, are strongly genetically influenced.The Netherlands Twin Register is a voluntary database that is prized by geneticists because they allow the comparison of identical twins (who share all their genes) with fraternal twins (who share half). In this case, however, Dr. Vink did not make use of that fact. For her, the database was merely a convenient repository of information. Instead of comparing identical and fraternal twins, she concentrated on the adult fraternal twins, most of whom had completed questionnaires about their habits, including smoking, and 536 of whom had given DNA samples to the register.The human genome is huge. It consists of billions of DNA "letters", some of which can be strung together to make sense (the genes),but many of which have either no function, or an unknown function. To follow what is going on, geneticists rely on markers they have identified within the genome. These are places where the genetic letters may vary between individuals. If a particular variant is routinely associated with a particular physical feature or a behaviour pattern, it suggests that a particular version of a nearby gene is influencing that feature or behaviour.Dr. Vink hopes that finding genes responsible for nicotine dependence will make it possible to identify the causes of such dependence. That will help to classify smokers better (some are social smokers while others are physically addicted) and thus enable "quitting" programmes to be customised.Results such as Dr. Vink’s must be interpreted with care. Association studies, as such projects are known, have a disturbing habit of disappearing, as it were, in a puff of smoke when someone tries to replicate them. But if Dr. Vink really has exposed a genetic link with addiction, then Mark Twain’s problem may eventually become a thing of the past. The passage is mainly about（）
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
Many houses in the north are warm in winter because they are ______ so that the beat is not lost.
关于酶的叙述，下列说法正确的是( )
Text 3Quite apart from any awkwardness in the way he handled the hostile bid by rival Oracle for the firm he was running, Craig Conway seems to have been an unpopular CEO of PeopleSoft, a large enterprise-software company. Three managers who reported directly to him were apparently close to resigning in frustration, and the board was unhappy about "mis-statements" he made to analysts. So even though there was no "smoking gun", as the board put it, Mr. Conway was fired on October 1st and replaced by the firm’s founder, David Duffield.Mr. Duffield’s brief is now to address Mr. Conway’s perceived shortcomings and his obsession with fending off the $ 7.7 billion takeover bid from Oracle. At the same time, says Paul Hamerman of Forrester, a research firm, Mr. Conway offered no compelling technological vision for PeopleSoft, and seemed deaf to "quite a noise level of customer complaints". Mr. Conway’s firing prompted much speculation that PeopleSoft might now be more prepared to negotiate with Oracle rather than fight it. But PeopleSoft insists that both Mr. Duffield and the board focus on a long-term strategy for the company, not a quick sale.On the same day that Mr. Conway was fired, however, Oracle scored another victory when America’s Justice Department said that it would not appeal against a judge’s decision to allow the takeover on antitrust grounds. So, this week, the battle moved to another courtroom, in Delaware, where both companies are registered. In this suit, Oracle is claiming that People. Soft is not properly looking after the interests of its shareholders by using a "poison pill" and a "customer assurance programme" to keep Oracle at bay.The poison pill is a very common provision, and one that PeopleSoft has had for almost a decade. It floods the market with new shares if a predator buys more than 20% of PeopleSoft’s equity, thus making an acquisition very difficult. The customer-rebate programme, by contrast, was put in place last June. It guarantees that any PeopleSoft client can get a refund for between two and five times its software-licence fee if support for that software is ever cut off. To Oracle, this represents another dirty tactic, since it amounts to a potential liability of more than $ 2 billion. To PeopleSoft, however, it was not only fair but necessary to retain customers, since Oracle said at the time of its bid that it planned to kill PeopleSoft’s products and switch clients to its own. The two companies lawyers are likely to be at it for another few weeks, which could yet see a higher bid from Oracle. PeopleSoft claims that the oracle's takeover of PeopleSoft（）
Text 3Quite apart from any awkwardness in the way he handled the hostile bid by rival Oracle for the firm he was running, Craig Conway seems to have been an unpopular CEO of PeopleSoft, a large enterprise-software company. Three managers who reported directly to him were apparently close to resigning in frustration, and the board was unhappy about "mis-statements" he made to analysts. So even though there was no "smoking gun", as the board put it, Mr. Conway was fired on October 1st and replaced by the firm’s founder, David Duffield.Mr. Duffield’s brief is now to address Mr. Conway’s perceived shortcomings and his obsession with fending off the $ 7.7 billion takeover bid from Oracle. At the same time, says Paul Hamerman of Forrester, a research firm, Mr. Conway offered no compelling technological vision for PeopleSoft, and seemed deaf to "quite a noise level of customer complaints". Mr. Conway’s firing prompted much speculation that PeopleSoft might now be more prepared to negotiate with Oracle rather than fight it. But PeopleSoft insists that both Mr. Duffield and the board focus on a long-term strategy for the company, not a quick sale.On the same day that Mr. Conway was fired, however, Oracle scored another victory when America’s Justice Department said that it would not appeal against a judge’s decision to allow the takeover on antitrust grounds. So, this week, the battle moved to another courtroom, in Delaware, where both companies are registered. In this suit, Oracle is claiming that People. Soft is not properly looking after the interests of its shareholders by using a "poison pill" and a "customer assurance programme" to keep Oracle at bay.The poison pill is a very common provision, and one that PeopleSoft has had for almost a decade. It floods the market with new shares if a predator buys more than 20% of PeopleSoft’s equity, thus making an acquisition very difficult. The customer-rebate programme, by contrast, was put in place last June. It guarantees that any PeopleSoft client can get a refund for between two and five times its software-licence fee if support for that software is ever cut off. To Oracle, this represents another dirty tactic, since it amounts to a potential liability of more than $ 2 billion. To PeopleSoft, however, it was not only fair but necessary to retain customers, since Oracle said at the time of its bid that it planned to kill PeopleSoft’s products and switch clients to its own. The two companies lawyers are likely to be at it for another few weeks, which could yet see a higher bid from Oracle. The phrase "smoking gun" in the first paragraph probably means（）
微信支付 
支付宝支付