题目内容
The operation known as a hemispherectomy—the removal of half the brain-sounds too radical to ever consider, much less perform. In the past century, however, surgeons have done it hundreds of times for disorders that cannot be controlled any other way. Perhaps surprisingly, the surgery has no apparent effect on personality or memory. Does that mean a person needs only half a brain Yes and no. People can survive and function pretty well after the procedure, but they will have some physical disabilities. The first known hemispherectomy was performed on a dog in 1888 by German physiologist Friedrich Goltz. Neurosurgeon Walter Dandy pioneered the use of the procedure on humans at Johns Hopkins University in 1923, operating on a patient who had a brain tumor. That man lived for more than three years before ultimately dying from cancer. In 1938, after performing a hemispherectomy on a 16-year-old girl, Canadian neurosurgeon Kenneth McKenzie reported that it could stop seizures, a neurological disorder in the brain. And today brain surgeons perform hemispherectomies on patients who undergo dozens of seizures daily that resist all medication and stem from conditions that primarily afflict one hemisphere. "These disorders are often progressive and damage the rest of the brain if not treated," explains neurosurgeon Gary W. Mathern of the University of California, Los Angeles. The surgery takes two forms. Anatomical hemispherectomies involve the removal of an entire hemisphere, whereas functional hemispherectomies take out only parts of a hemisphere—as well as severing the connections between the two halves of the brain. Doctors often prefer anatomical hemispherectomies because "leaving even a little bit of brain behind can lead seizures to return," says neurologist John Freeman of Johns Hopkins, which specializes in the procedure. On the other hand, functional hemispherectomies, which U.C.LA. surgeons usually perform, lead to less blood loss. "Our patients are usually under two years of age, so they have less blood to lose," Mathern says. Neurosurgeons have performed the functional operation on children as young as three months old. In these tiny patients, memory and personality develop normally. Most Johns Hopkins hemispherectomy patients are older than five years. A recent study found that 86 percent of the 111 children who underwent the procedure at Johns Hopkins between 1975 and 2001 are either seizure-free or have non-disabling seizures that do not require medication. Another study found that children who underwent a hemispherectomy often improved academically once their seizures stopped. "One was champion bowler of her class, one was chess champion of his state, and others are in college doing very nicely," Freeman notes. Which of the following best summarizes the text
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
More than any other industry, America"s multi-billion-dollar entertainment business is caught in the crossfire of the country"s culture war. Media firms have always had towalk a fine linebetween giving adults realistic shows and shielding children from sex and bad language. But thanks to the current political influence of social conservatives, TV and radio firms are under more attack than ever for allegedly corrupting America"s youth. Congress is threatening to increase sharply fines for airing indecent material. Over 80% of American homes subscribe either to cable or satellite TV, but only broadcast television, which is technically free, is subject to indecency regulation. The media industry fears that new rules could damage its business model. The Federal Communications Commission(FCC), the media industry"s regulator, defines indecency as language or material that describes sexual actions or organs and which is considered "offensive by contemporary community standards." Solely for the sake of children(present in one-third of American homes), indecency is forbidden from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. on broadcast TV and radio. In contrast to "obscenity"—illegal all the time—indecency mostly consists of swearing, partial nudity and sexuality. America"s current battles over indecency began in 2003 when Bono, a rock star, said "this is really, really fucking brilliant" at a live awards show. The FCC decided to do nothing. Then came a glimpse of Janet Jackson"s breast in Super Bowl, outraging some viewers. Pressed by Congress, the FCC reversed its decision on Bono and said it would get tough on indecency. In 2004 it fined media firms nearly $8m, five times what it had levied in the previous ten years combined. For these firms such fines are puny. Yet fearing what future measures might be deployed against them, they have increasingly censored themselves. Last year several TV stations declined to air "Saving Private Ryan", a war movie with lots of swearing. The media industry faces a powerful bipartisan coalition of politicians who see votes in cleansing the airwaves. Republicans are leading the effort, but some Democrats are joining in—not surprisingly, as many parents do seem worried. One defensive strategy for the media industry is to play the moralizing wing of the Republican Party off against its substantial libertarian wing, which is opposed to giving the government more power to censor. News Corporation and General Electric"s NBC have together enlisted the support of the American Conservative Union, Americans for Tax Reform and the US Chamber of Commerce. Advances in technology, these groups argue, mean that the government no longer needs to police the airwaves for indecency. Many parents now have V-chips in their TV sets to block out pornographic material. Set-top boxes for cable and satellite TV also give parents control. Which of the following is true according to the text
How"s this for a coincidence Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln were born in the same year, on the same day: Feb. 12, 1809. Although people hardly think of them in tandem, yet instinctively, we want to say that they belong together. It"s not just because they were both great men, and not because they happen to be exact contemporaries. Rather, it"s because the scientist and the politician each touched off a revolution that changed the world. They were both revolutionaries in the sense that both men upended realities that prevailed when they were born. They seem—and sound—modern to us, because the world they left behind them is more or less the one we still live in. So, considering the joint greatness of their contributions—and the coincidence of their conjoined birthdays—it is hard not to wonder: who was the greater man It"s an apples-and-oranges—or Superman-vs.-Santa—comparison. But if you limit the question to influence, very quickly the balance tips in Lincoln"s favor. As great as his book on evolution is, it does no harm to remember that Darwin hurried to publish The Origin of Species because he thought he was about to be scooped by his fellow naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace. In other words, there was a certain inevitability to Darwin"s theory. Ideas about evolution surfaced throughout the first part of the 19th century, and while none of them was as convincing as Darwin"s—until Wallace came along—it was not as though he was the only man who had the idea. Lincoln, in contrast, is unique. Take him out of the picture, and there is no telling what might have happened to the country. True, his election to the presidency did provoke secession and, in turn, the war itself, but that war seems inevitable—not a question of if but when. Once in office, he becomes the indispensable man. Certainly we know what happened once he was assassinated: Reconstruction was ad-ministered punitively and then abandoned, leaving the issue of racial equality to dangle for another century. If Darwin were not so irreplaceable as Lincoln, that should not negate his accomplishment. No one could have formulated his theory any more elegantly. Their identical birthdays afford us a superb opportunity to observe these men in the shared context of their time—how each was shaped by his circumstances, how each reacted to the beliefs that steered the world into which he was bom and ultimately how each reshaped his corner of that world and left it irrevocably changed. What does the author mean by "an apples-and-oranges—or Superman-vs.-Santa—comparison"(Lines 4-5, Paragraph 2)
The operation known as a hemispherectomy—the removal of half the brain-sounds too radical to ever consider, much less perform. In the past century, however, surgeons have done it hundreds of times for disorders that cannot be controlled any other way. Perhaps surprisingly, the surgery has no apparent effect on personality or memory. Does that mean a person needs only half a brain Yes and no. People can survive and function pretty well after the procedure, but they will have some physical disabilities. The first known hemispherectomy was performed on a dog in 1888 by German physiologist Friedrich Goltz. Neurosurgeon Walter Dandy pioneered the use of the procedure on humans at Johns Hopkins University in 1923, operating on a patient who had a brain tumor. That man lived for more than three years before ultimately dying from cancer. In 1938, after performing a hemispherectomy on a 16-year-old girl, Canadian neurosurgeon Kenneth McKenzie reported that it could stop seizures, a neurological disorder in the brain. And today brain surgeons perform hemispherectomies on patients who undergo dozens of seizures daily that resist all medication and stem from conditions that primarily afflict one hemisphere. "These disorders are often progressive and damage the rest of the brain if not treated," explains neurosurgeon Gary W. Mathern of the University of California, Los Angeles. The surgery takes two forms. Anatomical hemispherectomies involve the removal of an entire hemisphere, whereas functional hemispherectomies take out only parts of a hemisphere—as well as severing the connections between the two halves of the brain. Doctors often prefer anatomical hemispherectomies because "leaving even a little bit of brain behind can lead seizures to return," says neurologist John Freeman of Johns Hopkins, which specializes in the procedure. On the other hand, functional hemispherectomies, which U.C.LA. surgeons usually perform, lead to less blood loss. "Our patients are usually under two years of age, so they have less blood to lose," Mathern says. Neurosurgeons have performed the functional operation on children as young as three months old. In these tiny patients, memory and personality develop normally. Most Johns Hopkins hemispherectomy patients are older than five years. A recent study found that 86 percent of the 111 children who underwent the procedure at Johns Hopkins between 1975 and 2001 are either seizure-free or have non-disabling seizures that do not require medication. Another study found that children who underwent a hemispherectomy often improved academically once their seizures stopped. "One was champion bowler of her class, one was chess champion of his state, and others are in college doing very nicely," Freeman notes. The operation known as a hemispherectomy
More than any other industry, America"s multi-billion-dollar entertainment business is caught in the crossfire of the country"s culture war. Media firms have always had towalk a fine linebetween giving adults realistic shows and shielding children from sex and bad language. But thanks to the current political influence of social conservatives, TV and radio firms are under more attack than ever for allegedly corrupting America"s youth. Congress is threatening to increase sharply fines for airing indecent material. Over 80% of American homes subscribe either to cable or satellite TV, but only broadcast television, which is technically free, is subject to indecency regulation. The media industry fears that new rules could damage its business model. The Federal Communications Commission(FCC), the media industry"s regulator, defines indecency as language or material that describes sexual actions or organs and which is considered "offensive by contemporary community standards." Solely for the sake of children(present in one-third of American homes), indecency is forbidden from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. on broadcast TV and radio. In contrast to "obscenity"—illegal all the time—indecency mostly consists of swearing, partial nudity and sexuality. America"s current battles over indecency began in 2003 when Bono, a rock star, said "this is really, really fucking brilliant" at a live awards show. The FCC decided to do nothing. Then came a glimpse of Janet Jackson"s breast in Super Bowl, outraging some viewers. Pressed by Congress, the FCC reversed its decision on Bono and said it would get tough on indecency. In 2004 it fined media firms nearly $8m, five times what it had levied in the previous ten years combined. For these firms such fines are puny. Yet fearing what future measures might be deployed against them, they have increasingly censored themselves. Last year several TV stations declined to air "Saving Private Ryan", a war movie with lots of swearing. The media industry faces a powerful bipartisan coalition of politicians who see votes in cleansing the airwaves. Republicans are leading the effort, but some Democrats are joining in—not surprisingly, as many parents do seem worried. One defensive strategy for the media industry is to play the moralizing wing of the Republican Party off against its substantial libertarian wing, which is opposed to giving the government more power to censor. News Corporation and General Electric"s NBC have together enlisted the support of the American Conservative Union, Americans for Tax Reform and the US Chamber of Commerce. Advances in technology, these groups argue, mean that the government no longer needs to police the airwaves for indecency. Many parents now have V-chips in their TV sets to block out pornographic material. Set-top boxes for cable and satellite TV also give parents control. The phrase "walk a fine line"(Line 3, Paragraph 1)most probably indicates
微信支付 
支付宝支付