题目内容
In the US, poll after poll has shown a majority in favour of animal experimentation, even without statements about its value. Why is opinion in Britain so different I think that there are two reasons. The first is the success of antivivisection campaigners in lampooning animal research as outdated, intentionally cruel, "bad" science, which achieves nothing. All drugs and procedures developed with the help of animal tests are said to be dangerous. The occasional failure of animal testing to identify a dangerous drug is developed as an argument for abandoning safety tests involving animals altogether--with no mention of the terrible human suffering that this would cause. They say that "alternative" methods already exist for all animal experiments, but the fact is that the law specifically forbids animal use if there is any alternative. The second reason is that scientists and doctors have failed to oppose such misrepresentation. In the early 1990s, animal rights campaigning in the US was met with much more forthright defense, not only by the major scientific societies, funding agencies and medical organizations, but also by the US government. To be positive, there are many encouraging features of the New Scientist poll. Interestingly, the public seems to employ the same kind of utilitarian philosophy that underpins the law in Britain--weighing potential benefits against the species involved (thus, monkeys are more "valuable" than mice) and the likelihood of suffering. Clearly, people in Britain do not recognize the essential link between animal research and testing and the medical treatments that they receive. Only 18 percent of those who had taken (or had a close family member who had taken) a drug prescribed for a serious illness realized that the drug had been tested on animals, as all drugs are. Obviously, a large majority of those surveyed believe that they can happily benefit from medical treatment without taking advantage of animal research. No wonder so many people oppose it when asked the straight yes/no question. The views of the public must be respected. But this poll tells us that, while they are open to persuasion, their reaction is based on misunderstanding. The responsibility for providing honest evidence for the public lies not just with those who use animals in their research, but with other scientists who depend on that work. It lies with the doctors who benefit from animal research, with the pharmaceuticals and biotech industries, and the medical charities and funding agencies whose work would be crippled without it. But most of all, responsibility rests with government, which should cultivate serious and transparent debate between those of different opinion, and provide the public--especially young people--with the honest evidence they need and deserve. The passage is mainly concerned with ______.
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
Questions 8 to 10 are based on the following news from the VOA. At the end of the news item, you will be given 10 seconds to answer each question. Now listen to the news. Which statement was NOT mentioned about viewing an eclipse
Questions 6 & 7 are based on the following news from the BBC. At the end of the news item, you will be given 10 seconds to answer each question. Now listen to the news. How did the dog help rescue the baby
(二) 甲、乙两人为广州市C区人，2000年3月双方在广州市A区登记结婚。婚后甲与乙居住在B区。2000年9月，甲被派到美国留学，一直未回。2002年双方中断联系，乙寄的信函被退回，因此乙打算提起离婚诉讼。据此，回答94—97题。 如果乙于2001年去了英国但尚未定居，甲在美国也没有定居，则下列有管辖权的法院是：
Learning for Its Own Sake For me, scientific knowledge is divided into mathematical sciences, natural sciences or sciences dealing with the natural world (physical and biological sciences) , and sciences dealing with mankind (psychology, sociology, all the sciences of cultural achievements, every kind of historical knowledge). Apart from these sciences is philosophy, about which we will take shortly. In the first place, all this is pure or theoretical knowledge, sought only for the purpose of understanding, in order to fulfill the need to understand that is intrinsic and consubstantial to man. What distinguishes man from animal is that he knows and needs to know. If man did not know that the world existed, and that the world was of a certain kind, that he was in the world and that he himself was of a certain kind, he wouldn’t be a man. The technical aspects of applications of knowledge are equally necessary for man and are of the greatest importance, because they also contribute to defining him as man and permit him to pursue a life increasingly more truly human. But even while enjoying the results of technical and the results of technical progress, he must defend the primacy and autonomy of pure knowledge. Knowledge sought directly for its practical applications will have immediate and foreseeable success, but not the kind of important result whose revolutionary scope is in large part unforeseen, except by the imagination of the Utopians. Let me recall a well - known example. If the Greek mathematicians had not applied themselves to the investigation of conic sections, zealously and without the least suspicion that it might someday be useful, it would not have been possible centuries later to navigate far from shore. The first men to study the nature of electricity could not imagine that their experiments, carried on because of mere intellectual curiosity, would eventually lead to modem electrical technology, without which we can scarcely conceive of contemporary life. Pure knowledge is valuable for its own sake, because the human spirit cannot resign itself to ignorance. But, in addition, it is the foundation for practical results that would not have been reached if this knowledge had not been sought disinterestedly. The author points out that the Greeks who studied conic sections ______.
微信支付 
支付宝支付