题目内容
問題Ⅰ の ところに 何を 入れますか。１２３４から いちばん いい ものを 一つ えら びなさい。 先生は 山下(やました)さんの 住所 (じゅうしょ) ごぞんじですか。
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
In recent years a new farming revolution has begun, one that involves the (61) of life at a fundamental level--the gene. The study of genetics has (62) a new industry called biotechnology. As the name suggests, It (63) biology and modern technology through such techniques as genetic engineering. Some of the new biotech companies specialize in agriculture and are working feverishly to (64) seeds that give a high yield, that (65) diseases, drought and frost, and that reduce the need for (66) chemicals. If such goals could be achieved, it would be most (67) . But some have raised concerns about genetically engineered crops. In nature, genetic diversity is created within certain (68) . A rose can be crossed with a different kind of rose, but a rose will never cross with a potato. Genetic engineering, (69) usually involves taking genes from one species and inserting them into another (70) to transfer a desired characteristic. This could mean, for example, selecting a gene which leads to the production of a chemical with anti-freeze (71) from an artic fish, and inserting it into a potato or strawberry to make it frost-resistant. (72) , then, biotechnology allows humans to (73) the genetic wails that separate species. Like the green revolution, (74) some call the gene revolution contributes to the problem of genetic uniformity--some say even more so (75) geneticists can employ techniques such as cloning and (76) culture (培养), processes that produce perfectly (77) copies. Concerns about the erosion of biodiversity, therefore, remain. Genetically altered plants, however, raise new (78) , such as the effects that they may have on us and the environment. "We are flying blindly into a new (79) of agricultural biotechnology with high hopes, few constraints, and little idea of the potential (80) " said science writer Jeremy Rifkin.
問題Ⅱ の ところに 何を 入れますか。１２３４から いちばん いい ものを 一つ えらびなさい。 赤(あか)ちゃんが あいだに、せんたくを しました。
简述社会主义初级阶段生产要素参与分配的原因。
Passage Three The average number of authors on scientific papers is sky-rocketing. That’s partly because labs are bigger, problems are more complicated, and more different subspecialties are needed. But it’s also because U.S. government agencies have started to promote "team science". As physics developed in the post-World War II era, federal funds built expensive national facilities, and these served as surfaces on which collaborations could crystallize naturally. Yet multiple authorship—however good it may be in other ways--presents problems for journals and for the institutions in which these authors work. For the journals, long lists of authors are hard to deal with in themselves. But those long lists give rise to more serious questions when something goes wrong with the paper. If there is research misconduct, how should the liability be allocated among the authors If there is an honest mistake in one part of the work but not in others, how should an evaluator aim his or her review Various practical or impractical suggestions have emerged during the long-standing debate on this issue. One is that each author should provide, and the journal should then publish, an account of that author’s particular contribution to the work. But a different view of the problem, and perhaps of the solution, comes as we get to university committee on appointments and promotions, which is where the authorship rubber really meets the road. Half a lifetime of involvement with this process has taught me how much authorship matters. I have watched committees attempting to decode sequences of names, agonize over whether a much-cited paper was really the candidate’s work or a coauthor’s, and send back recommendations asking for more specificity about the division of responsibility. Problems of this kind change the argument, supporting the case for asking authors to define their own roles. After all, if quality judgments about individuals are to be made on the basis of their personal contributions, then the judges better know what they did. But if questions arise about the validity of the work as a whole, whether as challenges to its conduct or as evaluations of its influence in the field, a team is a team, and the members should share the credit or the blame. According to the passage, authorship is important when ______
微信支付 
支付宝支付