八、科学与技术
TEXT 73
Elon Musk is having a moment.Tesla just delivered its first Model 3，the affordable model that he envisioned in his“secret”strategy some 10 years ago.And yet confusion still abounds regarding Tesla.
At the core of the confusion over a company like Tesla is that traditional business metrics are outdated and can create overconfidence or underestimation.Classic metrics like market penetration and market share，which many leaders are measured on，are the very things causing us to miss market opportunities and threats.I consider someone like Musk to be a category creator—someone who doesn't rely on incremental innovation but instead changes the rules of the road entirely by creating a new category.In that landscape，our established modes of measurement just don't work.We don't need to throw out all classic business metrics.But we should recognize their fundamental flaws and complement them with a new set of metrics.
Market share is one of the most widely used，and wildly misused，business metrics.In May Forbes tried to dampen the Tesla enthusiasm with the fact that Renault-Nissan was the global electric vehicle market leader in Q1 of 2017.However，Tesla recently said that its gross margins on the Model 3 could hit 25% in 2018，which is comparable to the Model S and X and nearly twice as high as gross margins from Ford and GM.Share of profit is far more useful than share of units in this scenario.But even share of profit has two fundamental problems：It focuses your attention backward，to“what happened，”instead of forward，to“what will happen.”And it focuses your attention on your own performance or your competition，rather than on where market is headed.It's a metric that's better but still part of the problem.
The biggest problem is the very definition of“market.”Some define Tesla's market as electric vehicles.But others say that Tesla is killing it in the large luxury car market，where the Model S is outselling Mercedes，BMW，and Porsche combined.Tesla's ludicrous mode has gotten a lot of attention，but what about Tesla's“camper mode?”This isn't an actual mode but rather a novel use case that a set of Tesla superconsumers have figured out，creating a whole subculture of camping in Teslas.When category creators blur the lines we're used to around a given market，your old measures don't work as well and it's much easier to get blindsided or surprised.The solution to this is to enhance share-of-market metrics with share of growth.
Category creators are changing the world—and our metrics need to keep up.
1.“confusion”in the second paragraph refers to____.
[A] the disorder Tesla creates in American car industry
[B] the bafflement at Tesla's miraculous secret success
[C] the underestimation of Tesla by market analysts
[D] the suspicion about the affordability of Tesla cars
2.Unlike tradition businesses，Tesla succeeds by____.
[A] throwing away all classic business metrics
[B] inventing an entirely new set of metrics
[C] abandoning invention and innovation
[D] creating totally different kinds of things
3.The projected share of profit by Model 3 shows____.
[A] Tesla is catching up with Renault-Nissan
[B] profit share is a better business measurement
[C] Forbes is right in its prediction about Tesla
[D] share of units is a better metric than share of profit
4.It can be inferred from the fourth paragraph that____.
[A] Tesla has upset the way people think about market
[B] Tesla has become the world's number carmaker
[C] superconsumers are the main innovators of Tesla
[D] electric vehicles do not seem to have a large market
5.The author suggests that classic business metrics be____.
[A] replaced by share-of-market metrics
[B] discarded in favor of a new set of metrics
[C] updated timely with the market trends
[D] set up by the category creators
考研必备词汇
其他词汇
1.outsell 比……卖得多
2.ludicrous 滑稽的，可笑的
3.superconsumer 超级消费者
4.blindsided 侧面攻击，不防备
疑难长句注解
1.Classic metrics like market penetration...threats.（第二段）
本句的主干结构是Classic metrics...are the very things causing...，意为“传统的市场计量方式……是导致我们失去市场机会和导致市场威胁的东西”。本句中，classic metrics指市场测量方法（mode of measurement），比如市场渗透率和市场份额，其中市场渗透率用来测量一个品牌或一类产品在市场上的受欢迎程度；many leaders并非指公司领导，而是指在市场上名列前茅的公司或品牌；介词on此处意为“根据，依据”，这里on which指根据市场渗透率和市场份额这样的测量指数。
2.This isn't an actual mode...camping in Teslas.（第四段）
本句中，mode指车的“款式”；use case是一个词组，意为“用例”，即使用的范例；subculture意为“亚文化”，在这里指一种特殊的露营方式，即如果露营是一种文化，那么把特斯拉车改成露营车就是创造了一种亚文化的露营方式。
译文
埃隆·马斯克正处于得意时刻。特斯拉刚发布了其第一款Model 3车型，这是他大约十年前在他的“秘密”策略中设想的能买得起的车型。但是，有关特斯拉的困惑仍然很多。
对像特斯拉这样的公司感觉困惑，其核心问题是传统的商业测量方式过时了，只能造成过分自信或低估。像市场渗透率和市场份额这类经典测量方法都是测量领军企业的手段，现在正是这些东西使我们失去了市场机会并面临威胁。我认为像马斯克这样的人是范畴创造者，这种人不依靠累加式的创新，而是通过创造新的范畴来彻底改变道路规则。面对这种场景，我们传统的测量模式不再起作用。我们不需要扔掉所有传统商业测量模式，但是应该意识到它们的根本缺陷，用一套新的测量模式来补充它们。
市场份额是应用最广之一——也是被广泛误用——的商业测量方式。在五月份，《福布斯》试图浇灭特斯拉的热情，它提到这一事实：雷诺-日产在全球电动汽车市场2017年Q1销量榜上名列榜首。然而，特斯拉最近说，其Model 3的销售毛利在2018年可能达到市场的25%，这与Model S和Model X旗鼓相当，是福特和通用公司毛利的近两倍。在这种情况下，利润份额比单位份额有用得多。但是，甚至利润份额也有两个基本问题：它把你的注意力引向过去——引向“已经发生了什么”，而不是引向未来——引向“将要发生什么”；而且，它把你的注意力引向你自己的表现或竞争者的表现，而不是市场走向何方。它是一个更好的测量方法，但导致了部分问题。
最大的问题恰恰是怎样定义“市场”。有些人把特斯拉的市场定义为电动汽车市场。但是其他人则说，特斯拉在大型豪华车市场上正在杀死市场，因为其Model S的销量比奔驰、宝马和保时捷的总数都多。特斯拉奇怪的款式获得很多关注，但是特斯拉的“露营车款”又怎样呢？这实际上不是一款车，而是一种新的用车方式，是特斯拉的一组超级消费者想出来的，在特斯拉汽车上创造了一种全新的露营亚文化。当范畴创造者把我们所熟悉的某个特定市场的界线弄模糊时，旧的测量方式也不再起作用，我们很容易感到措手不及或惊愕。解决这一问题的办法就是用成长份额改进对市场份额的测量。
范畴创造者正在改变世界——我们的测量方式需要跟上潮流。
TEXT 74
Just how common are the views on gender espoused in the memo that former Google engineer James Damore was recently fired for distributing on an internal company message board? The incident has women and men in tech—and elsewhere—wondering what their colleagues really think about diversity.Research we've conducted shows that while most people don't share Damore's views，male engineers are more likely to.
Engineers are taught that engineering work can and should be disconnected from social and political concerns because such considerations may bias otherwise “pure” engineering practice，to quote a 2013 study by Erin A.Cech.This viewpoint—let's call it engineering purity—means engineers believe they need to protect the purity of their profession from extraneous considerations that threaten engineering's rationality and rigor.Damore's memo is an exemplar of this kind of thinking.“De-emphasize empathy，”Damore advises.“Being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about the facts.”
In the nationwide study of engineers cosponsored by the Society of Women Engineers，we found robust levels of both gender and racial bias.To cite just one example，61% of women engineers reported having to prove themselves repeatedly to get the same level of respect and recognition as their colleagues，as compared with 35% of white men.
But our most interesting finding concerned engineering purity.“Merit is vastly more important than gender or race，and efforts to ‘balance’ gender and race diminish the overall quality of an organization by reducing collective merit of the personnel，”a male engineer commented in the survey.Note the undefended assumption that tapping the full talent pool of engineers rather than limiting hiring to a subgroup（white men）will decrease the quality of engineers hired.Damore's memo echoes this view，decrying“hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for ‘diversity’ candidates.”
Engineering purity is a 19th-century relic that the 21st century can no longer afford.An illustration of its perils is the computer science professor who invented a way to create video of people saying things they didn't really say so that she could have a talking hologram of her mother，who lives in Israel and whom she misses.When asked whether she had ever thought about how her invention could be used to create videos of world leaders saying things they never said，she became literally speechless and eventually stammered out that her role as a computer scientist was to invent stuff and let others cope with the consequences.This is what happens when you use an outdated，19th-century notion of purity to invent 21st-century technology.
1.What is wrong with James Damore?
[A] He complained about his company's diversity policy.
[B] He wanted to know his colleagues’ view on gender.
[C] He disagreed with his colleagues on diversity.
[D] He exposed his company's secret on message board.
2.Engineers' less commitment to public welfare____.
[A] results from the misleading 2013 study
[B] biases them less on social and political issues
[C] is attributable to the education they receive
[D] hurts their rationality as well as their work
3.The male surveyed indicated that____.
[A] diversity should be given favor over gender
[B] women were actually talented in engineering
[C] he disagreed with Damore's point of view
[D] women engineers shouldn't be unfairly favored
4.The author believes that rationality of engineering____.
[A] hurts diversity as well as engineering
[B] serves as a boost to computer science
[C] should not embarrass scientists
[D] affects the overall quality of engineers
5.It is implied that the author's attitude to Damore is____.
[A] sympathetic
[B] critical
[C] contemptuous
[D] tolerant
考研必备词汇
其他词汇
1.de-emphasize 不强调，淡化
2.decry 公开谴责
3.hologram 全息图
4.stammer 口吃，结结巴巴说
疑难长句注解
1.Just how common are the views...message board?（第一段）
本句中，espoused in the memo是过去分词短语，作定语修饰views；而that引导的从句修饰memo，在从句中memo作distributing的宾语，即former Google engineer James Damore was recently fired for distributing（the memo）on an internal company message board。公司的信息栏一般就是墙报，但现在可能是电子版的。
2.Merit is vastly more important...in the survey.（第四段）
本句的主干结构是Merit is...more important than...，and efforts...diminish the overall quality...。其中merit指成绩或成就，‘balance’ gender and race指在雇人时考虑性别和种族这两个因素，以便照顾到用人的多样化，organization一般指公司或组织。
3.Note the undefended assumption...hired.（第四段）
本句是一个祈使句，相当于说“请注意……”，that引导的定语从句修饰assumption。本句中，undefended assumption是说这种假设未经过辩论或说明就被理所当然地接受；pool指某种资源的集合体，full talent pool指整个人才储备，这里指男人和女人共同构成的人才整体；subgroup指人群中的某个亚群，这里指白人男工程师。
译文
James Damore最近因为在公司内部信息栏上发表一个备忘录而被解雇，在其中这位谷歌前工程师表示自己支持一些涉及性别的观点，但是这些观点到底是不是常见呢？这件事情让技术行业——以及其他行业——的男男女女在想，自己的同事到底怎样看待多样性。我们做的研究表明，虽然大部分人不认同Damore的观点，但是男工程师更有可能。
根据工程师们接受的教育，工程工作可以而且应该是与社会和政治上的关注没关系的，因为这种关注可能使本来“纯粹的”工程活动出现偏差——引用2013年Erin A.Cech所做的一项研究来说。这种观点我们可以称之为“工程学的纯粹”，其意思是说，工程师们认为，他们需要保护他们行业的纯粹性，以免其遭受外界关注的影响，这种影响会威胁到工程学的理想和严谨。Damore的备忘录是这种思维的典型例子。Damore建议说，“淡化同情心，减少情绪化的参与有助于我们更好地推断事实”。
在与女工程师协会联合做的一项针对工程师所做的全国性研究中，我们发现了程度很高的性别和种族歧视。仅举出一个例子，61%的女工程师回答说，她们不得不反复证明自己，才能得到跟同事们一样的尊重和承认，而只有35%的白人男工程师这样说。
但是，我们最有趣的发现涉及工程学的纯粹。在调查中一个男工程师评价说，“成就比性别或种族重要得多，试图‘平衡’性别和种族会降低全体人员的集体成就，致使公司总体质量受损”。请注意，这里一个未予说明的假设是：开发工程师的总才能储备的降低，而不是将雇人狭隘地限制在某个亚群体（男性白人），会降低受雇工程师的（总）质量。Damore的备忘录与这种观点有共鸣，他指责那种“为了照顾‘多样化’申请人而有效降低标准的雇人活动”。
工程学的纯粹是19世纪的遗留观念，21世纪不能再保留它。其危险用一位计算机科学教授作为例子就看得很清楚。她发明了一种方式，可以创作出视频，让人说他们实际上没说过的东西，这样她就能获得她母亲说话的一个全息录影，母亲住在以色列，她很想念她。当问她，她是否曾想过，她的发明可能被用来制作世界领导人的视频，让他们说自己从来没说过的事情时，她几乎变得哑口无言，最终结结巴巴地说，作为计算机科学家，她的作用是发明东西，让其他人处理其后果吧。当你使用一个过时的19世纪的纯粹概念来发明21世纪的技术时，就会发生这样的事情。
TEXT 75
Even when we intellectually accept the precepts of science, we subconsciously cling to our intuitions—what researchers call our naive beliefs. A study by Andrew Shtulman of Occidental College （PDF） in California showed that even students with an advanced science education had a hitch in their mental gait when asked to affirm or deny that humans are descended from sea animals and that the Earth goes around the Sun. Both truths are counterintuitive. The students, even those who correctly marked “true”, were slower to answer those questions than questions about whether humans are descended from tree-dwelling creatures （also true but easier to grasp） and whether the moon goes around the Earth （also true but intuitive）.
Shtulman's research indicates that as we become scientifically literate, we repress our naive beliefs but never eliminate them entirely. They nest in our brains, chirping at us as we try to make sense of the world. Most of us do that by relying on personal experience and anecdotes, on stories rather than statistics. Of course, just because two things happened together doesn't mean one caused the other, and just because events are clustered doesn't mean they're not random. Yet we have trouble digesting randomness; our brains crave pattern and meaning.
Even for scientists, the scientific method is a hard discipline. They, too, are vulnerable to confirmation bias—the tendency to look for and see only evidence that confirms what they already believe. But unlike the rest of us, they submit their ideas to formal peer review before publishing them. Once the results are published, if they're important enough, other scientists will try to reproduce them—and, being inherently sceptical and competitive, will be very happy to announce that they don't hold up. Scientific results are always provisional, susceptible to being overturned by some future experiment or observation. Scientists rarely proclaim an absolute truth or an absolute certainty. Uncertainty is inevitable at the frontiers of knowledge.
The “science communication problem”, as it's called by the scientists who study it, has yielded abundant new research into how people decide what to believe—and why they so often don't accept the expert consensus. It's not that they can't grasp it, according to Dan Kahan of Yale University. In one study he asked 1,540 Americans, a representative sample, to rate the threat of climate change on a scale of zero to 10. Then he correlated that with the subjects' science literacy. He found that higher literacy was associated with stronger views—at both ends of the spectrum. Science literacy promoted polarization on climate, not consensus.
1.Students who are highly literate in science_____.
[A] can rid themselves of naive beliefs
[B] do not know much about human evolution
[C] use intuitions to judge scientific truth
[D] believe more in their eyes than their minds
2.Which is the following is the basis of our naive beliefs?
[A] Scientific knowledge.
[B] Experiment and observation.
[C] Personal experience.
[D] Pattern and meaning.
3.Scientists with confirmation bias take delight in_____.
[A] overturning other people's ideas
[B] confirming a well-established idea
[C] copying other people's ideas
[D] discovering absolute truth
4.When he says uncertainty is “at the frontiers of knowledge”, the author means that_____.
[A] the latest knowledge is that which is uncertain
[B] there is no knowledge that is absolutely certain
[C] studying uncertainty itself is vital to discovering truth
[D] no knowledge should be accepted before it becomes true
5.Dan Kahan implies that scientifically literate people tend to_____.
[A] use their rational mental power to reach consensus
[B] communicate with people with more patience and ease
[C] overlook climate problems that are threatening the world
[D] use scientific knowledge to reinforce their worldviews
考研必备词汇
其他词汇
1.Occidental 西方的
2.hitch 障碍
3.nest 筑巢；鸟巢
4.chirp （鸟的）啁啾声
5.polarization 两极对立
疑难长句注解
1.They nest in our brains...the world. （第二段）
本句用鸟作比。根据上下文，所谓nest in our brains，是指一些直觉认识（naive beliefs）存在于我们的大脑；所谓chirp at us，是指这些直觉认识不断影响我们的判断。词组make sense of意为“理解，认识”。
2.He found that higher literacy...the spectrum. （第四段）
本句较为费解，必须在上下文中去理解。耶鲁大学的Dan Kahan首先让他的实验对象就气候变化带来的威胁从1~10分打分做出评价（rate），即认为威胁大的打10分，认为威胁小的打1分。而后，他把他们的打分结果与他们科学知识的多寡进行相关性分析（correlate）。结果发现，知识越多越容易走极端。这里，at both ends of the spectrum指“认为威胁大和认为威胁小的人”这两个极端。
译文
即使当我们从理性上接受科学的规范，我们却潜意识地坚持自己的直觉——研究者把它称作“幼稚的信念”。加州西方学院的Andrew Shtulman做了一项研究，它显示，即使受过高级科学教育的学生，当被要求去确认或否认人类是海洋动物的后代和地球绕着太阳转这样的论断时，也会遇到一些智力上的障碍。这两个事实都是反直觉的。即使那些正确标出“真”的学生，比回答人是否是树居动物的后代（这也是正确的，但是更容易理解）、月亮是否绕着地球转（这也是真的，但符合直觉）等问题，可能回答起来较慢。
Shtulman的研究表明，随着我们对科学的熟知，我们压制自己“幼稚的信念”，但是却从来也没有完全消除它们。它们在我们的大脑中筑巢，当我们试图理解世界时对着我们鸣啭。我们大部分人能这样做，靠的是个人经验和阅历，靠的是故事而不是数据。当然，仅仅是因为两件事情同时发生，并不意味着一个导致了另一个；仅仅是因为事件组合在一起，并不意味着它们不是随机发生的。可是，我们难以理解“随机”性，我们的大脑希望看到模式与意义。
即使对科学家来说，科学方法也是一个困难的学科领域。他们也容易产生确认偏差——寻找并只看到能证实自己已相信东西的证据的倾向。但是不像我们大多数人那样，科学家在出版自己的思想之前会将它们正式交由同行做出评价。结果一旦发表，如果它们足够重要，其他科学家将试图验证这些成果；而且，由于科学家天生是怀疑者和竞争者，他们将很高兴地宣布这些成果站不住脚。科学成果总是暂时的，容易被未来的试验或观察推翻。科学家很少声称自己发现了一个绝对真理或绝对确定的事情。不确定性不可避免地处在知识的前沿。
“科学交流问题”是研究这一问题的科学家给出的名称，这个问题产生出丰富的新研究成果，帮助我们弄清人们怎样决定相信什么以及他们为什么经常不接受专家们的共识。耶鲁大学的Dan Kahan说，这并非是因为他们理解不了这些共识。在一项研究中，他选择出一组有代表性的人群样本，要求1540个美国人评价气候在1~10分的范围内变暖带来的威胁。然后，他把结果与被研究者的科学知识做了对比研究。他发现，更多科学知识与更强的观点在两个极端上都相关。科学知识带来的是在气候问题极端的观点，而不是共识。
TEXT 76
We live in an age when all manner of scientific knowledge—from the safety of fluoride and vaccines to the reality of climate change—faces organised and often furious opposition. Empowered by their own sources of information and their own interpretations of research, doubters have declared war on the consensus of experts. There are so many of these controversies these days, you would think a diabolical agency had put something in the water to make people argumentative.
Science doubt has become a pop-culture meme. In the recent movie Interstellar, set in a futuristic America where NASA has been forced into hiding, school textbooks say the Apollo moon landings were faked. In a sense this is not surprising. Our lives are permeated by science and technology as never before. For many of us this new world is wondrous, comfortable and rich in rewards—but also more complicated and sometimes unnerving. We now face risks we can't easily analyse.
The world is replete with real and imaginary hazards, and distinguishing the former from the latter isn't easy. We're asked to accept, for example, that it's safe to eat food containing genetically modified organisms because, the experts point out, there's no evidence that it isn't and no reason to believe that altering genes precisely in a lab is more dangerous than altering them wholesale through traditional breeding. But to some people, the very idea of transferring genes between species conjures up mad scientists—and so, two centuries after Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein, they talk about “Frankenfood”.
Should we be afraid that the Ebola virus, which is spread only by direct contact with bodily fluids, will mutate into an airborne super-plague? The scientific consensus says that's extremely unlikely: no virus has ever been observed to completely change its mode of transmission in humans, and there's zero evidence that the latest strain of Ebola is any different. But type “airborne Ebola” into an internet search engine, and you'll enter a dystopia where this virus has almost supernatural powers, including the power to kill us all.
In this bewildering world we have to decide what to believe and how to act on that. In principle, that's what science is for. “Science is not a body of facts,” says geophysicist Marcia McNutt, who once headed the US Geological Survey and is now editor of Science, the prestigious journal. “Science is a method for deciding whether what we choose to believe has a basis in the laws of nature or not.” The scientific method leads us to truths that are less than self-evident, often mind-blowing and sometimes hard to swallow.
1.From the first paragraph we learn that_____.
[A] scientific method and facts cannot convert doubters
[B] scientific knowledge is an interpretation of research
[C] experts should be open to new facts and information
[D] arguing about science does not help to promote it
2.The movie was mentioned to illustrate_____.
[A] why people pretend that they know science
[B] how ignorant people are of science history
[C] what wonders science creates for the world
[D] how strong anti-science feeling has become
3.What is frightening to some people is the idea of_____.
[A] distinguishing what is real from what is imagined
[B] breeding and raising crops in traditional way
[C] altering the genes of a crop species partially
[D] conjuring up the image of the mad scientist
4.Ebola is unlikely to become airborne because_____.
[A] Ebola is only spread by direct bodily contact
[B] a virus never changes its mode of transmission
[C] humans can't change the mode of Ebola transmission
[D] Ebola can never become airborne in a dystopia
5.Scientific facts should be used to_____.
[A] determine the laws of nature
[B] verify or refute what we believe
[C] clarify those less-evident things
[D] make our beliefs less hard to swallow
考研必备词汇
其他词汇
1.fluoride 氟化物
2.diabolical 恶魔似的
3.meme 文化信息基因的单位
4.unnerving 令人胆怯的
5.wholesale 批发的；大规模的
6.dystopia 反乌托邦
疑难长句注解
1.There are so many of these...argumentative. （第一段）
本句中，put something in the water来自词组there is something in the water，其基本意思是，虽然水看上去是清凉透明的，但是它也是由一些神奇的东西构成的，put something in the water意指在水中投入了一种说不清、道不明的神奇东西，这里指引起不必要争论的东西。说一个人是argumentative是说他likes arguing or often starts arguing（爱争论或挑起争论），这个词通常的意思是“论述的”，如argumentative essay通常指“论述文”。
2.We're asked to accept...traditional breeding. （第三段）
本句很长，但结构清晰，由主句和that引导的宾语从句组成。宾语从句包括一个主句和由because引导的原因状语从句。在because从句中又包含两个并列句：there is no evidence...和there is no reason...，这两个并列句中又各自有自己的同位语从句和宾语从句。词组genetically modified organisms指转基因作物，it isn't是it isn't safe to...省略，altering genes precisely指准确地改变作物中某个基因（而不是改变整个基因结构），traditional breeding指传统的育种方法。
3.But to some people, the very idea...Frankenfood. （第三段）
本句the very idea中very起到强调作用，意思是“只要一想”，词组conjure up意为“幻想起，（念咒）召唤起”。Mary Shelley是英国著名诗人雪莱的妻子，著有科幻小说《弗兰肯斯坦》（或译《科学怪人》）。小说中，年轻的科学家弗兰肯斯坦创造出一个他自己都难以控制的怪物。Frankenfood指转基因作物，其中的寓意是，它将是人类创造出的并最终失去人控制的东西。
译文
我们生活在这样一个时代，其中各式科学知识面临有组织的——经常是激烈的对抗，其中包括有关氟化物、疫苗的安全和气候变化的真相的知识。怀疑者从他们的各种信息来源和他们对研究成果的解释获得支持，对专家们的一些共识宣战。今天，我们面对如此多的争议，以至于你会认为有一个邪恶的机构在故意兴风作浪，使人们陷入各种争论。
对科学的怀疑已经成为一个流行文化基因。最近的电影《星际穿越》场景设在未来的美国，其中，美国航空航天局被迫藏匿起来，在电影中，学校课本上说阿波罗登月计划是伪造的。这在一定意义上来说并不令人惊奇。我们的生活从来没有像今天这样被科学技术渗透。对我们很多人来说，这个新的世界令人感觉神奇、舒适、有求必应——但是也更加复杂，而且有时令人胆怯。我们现在面临一些难以分析的危险。
这个世界充满真正的和想象的危险，把前者和后者分清楚不是一件容易的事情。比如说我们被要求接受吃含有转基因机体的食物是安全的，因为专家们指出，没有证据表明它不安全，没有理由相信在实验室中准确改变基因比通过传统培育方法大规模改变基因更危险。但是，一提到在物种之间转换基因，就有些人会想起那些疯狂的科学家，所以，在玛丽·雪莱创作了《弗兰肯斯坦》两个世纪之后，人们开始谈论“弗兰肯食物”。
我们是否应该担心埃博拉病毒将演变成空气传播的超级瘟疫呢？——虽然它现在只是通过直接接触体液传播。科学共识说，这不太可能：没有任何病毒被观察到彻底改变在人身上的传播方式，而且也没有丝毫证据证明，最新型的埃博拉有何不同。但是，如果你将“空气中的埃博拉”键入互联网的搜索引擎，你就进入了一个反乌托邦的世界，在那里，这种病毒几乎有超自然力，包括灭绝我们所有人的力量。
在这个迷茫的世界里，我们不得不决定信什么以及如何据此去行动。从原则上来说，这就是科学的目的。“科学不是一大堆事实，”地球物理学家Marcia McNutt指出，他是美国地质勘察局的负责人，现在是著名杂志《科学》的编辑。“科学是一种方法，它帮助我们决定我们所信奉的东西是否有自然规律作为基础。”科学方法把我们带向事实，这些事实也许不那么一目了然，经常令我们惊愕，有时也难以接受。
TEXT 77
Hwang Woo-suk was a Korean scientist who claimed to have developed a breakthrough cloning technique in 2004. But he was fired in 2006 after he admitted his results had been falsified. But that didn't stop the United States Patent and Trademark Office from issuing him a patent based on the fake research.
This would already be awkward enough for the patent office, but the story actually gets worse. According to Matt Levy, an attorney at the Computer and Communications Industry Association, the patent office initially rejected Hwang's application due to his misconduct. Levy describes what happened next: But just last year, Hwang submitted an affidavit claiming that he had actually done the things the examiner cited, and giving his expert opinion that they were within the skill of an ordinary person in the art. One might expect the examiner to respond with peals of laughter followed by throwing the affidavit in the trash. Nope. The examiner accepted the affidavit and issued the patent.
So is this the patent office's fault? Surprisingly, many legal experts say no. Dan Burk, a legal scholar at the University of California, describes it as “not terribly surprising” that an application based on fraudulent research could be approved by the patent office. “The Patent Office is not the Food and Drug Administration,” Burk argues. “They're not in the business of guaranteeing the safety or efficacy of things that are submitted to them.”
James Grimmelmann, a law professor at the University of Maryland, agrees. “The general presumptions run in favor of the inventor,” he says. “The initial attitude is one of trust rather than distrust.” But that creates a serious problem, Grimmelmann says: Once a patent has been approved by the patent office, the courts accord it a “presumption of validity.” If Hwang were to sue someone for infringing his new patent, the courts would assume the patents were valid unless the defendant could prove otherwise.
That might not be difficult to prove in this case, given the wealth of evidence of improper conduct by the ostensible inventor. But, Grimmelmann wonders, “why should it be the defendant's job to show that the person who lied actually committed fraud?” And even when the case against a patent is obvious, getting the patent thrown out can be expensive. “The defenses you would raise to validity are costly,” Grimmelmann says. “If you're going to argue inequitable conduct, you have to show intent to deceive the patent office.”
That's not something you can prove just using the materials in the original patent application. It requires gathering additional evidence about the applicant's actions.
1.When Hwang first submitted his application, it_____.
[A] was rejected on account of his fraud
[B] was approved and issued a patent
[C] was treated with laughter and ridicule
[D] was accompanied with an affidavit
2.The patent was issued to Hwang mainly because_____.
[A] he was not really a fraud as he was exposed
[B] he tried not to embarrass the patent office
[C] he actually made the invention to be patented
[D] he was an expert though he faked his research
3.Dan Burk implies that the patent office_____.
[A] is not a responsible agency
[B] should not patent a fake research
[C] care more about the invention itself
[D] should guarantee the safety of an invention
4.With “presumption of （patent） validity” the burden of proof falls upon_____.
[A] the patent office
[B] the defendant
[C] the court
[D] the inventor
5.Grimmelmann means that revoking a patented invention_____.
[A] is not usually supported by the court
[B] is fairly easy if the patent office supports it
[C] entails proving it is frequently infringed
[D] is more difficult than getting it patented
考研必备词汇
其他词汇
1.affidavit 宣誓声明
2.peals of laughter 哄堂大笑
3.inequitable 不公平的
疑难长句注解
1.They're not in the business...to them. （第三段）
本句中，in the business of意为“从事……业务，负责……事情”，efficacy意为the ability or power of sth., especially a drug or a medical treatment, to produce the results that are wanted，指某个东西——特别是药物或治疗方案，产生预期效果，即“效力”。这句话的基本意思是：专利局管过程，食品和药品管理局管结果。
2.That might not be difficult...inventor. （第五段）
承接上一句结尾处，本句中的that指“被告想证明自己没有侵犯黄禹锡的专利”；given意为“考虑到”，the wealth of evidence指“证据丰富”；在the ostensible inventor中，ostensible的意思是seeming or stated to be real or true, when this is perhaps not the case，即表面看上去或声称是真的，但事实并非如此，相当于“自封的发明者”——这里指黄禹锡。
译文
黄禹锡是韩国科学家，他在2004年宣称自己培育出一种突破性的克隆技术。但是在承认其成果作假之后，他于2006年被解雇。但是这并没有妨碍美国专利和商标局发给他一份基于伪研究的专利。
这对专利局来说已经够尴尬的了，但是事情实际上变得更糟。Matt Levy是计算机与传媒行业协会的一名律师，根据他的说法，专利局由于黄的不良行为起初拒绝了他的申请。Levy描述了接下来发生的事情：就在去年，黄提交了一份口供，发誓说自己实际上完成了审查员提到的那些事情，并给出专家意见，指出那是一些行内的普通人都有能力完成的事情。你可能认为审查员会大笑不止，然后把黄的口供丢进垃圾桶。不！审查员接受了他的口供，并发给了他专利证书。
这是专利局的错误吗？令人吃惊的是，许多法律专家说不是。Dan Burk是加州大学法律学者，他称这件事“不是特别令人吃惊”，基于欺骗性研究的专利申请可以获得专利局批准。他争辩说，“专利局不像食品和药物管理局，他们的工作不是保证提交给他们的东西的安全性或功效。”
James Grimmelmann是马里兰州立大学法学教授，他表示赞同，“人们一般的看法是偏向发明者，最初的态度通常是信任而不是不信任。”但是，这产生一个严重的问题，Grimmelmann说，一旦一项专利被专利局批准，法庭就要赋予其“推定有效期”。如果黄起诉某人侵犯他的新专利，法庭将假定专利是有效的，除非被告能证明它无效。
在目前情况下，鉴于有大量证据证明这位自封的发明者有种种劣迹，这也不难证明。但是，令Grimmelmann感到奇怪的是，“为什么证明一个实际上已经撒谎的人犯有欺骗罪，竟然是被告的事情呢？”而且，即使对这项专利指控是正当的，要想撤销一项专利可能成本很高。Grimmelmann说，“你怀疑其有效性的辩护将涉及很高成本；如果你辩论的是行为不当，你就得证明申请人有欺骗专利局的用意。”
这就不是你仅仅用原来申请专利时的材料能证明的事情了。它需要收集涉及申请人行为的更多证据。
TEXT 78
What's the next big thing? Is it 3D printing, personal genomics, self-driving cars, wearable computing, microcurrencies, big（ger） data, faster drones?
And now for something completely different. What makes us human? In one word, preferably. It's a question, that the other day, out of sheer spontaneity, I decided to ask my Twitter followers. The most common answers were: empathy, consciousness, compassion, love.
So here's another question, given the results of my thoroughly unscientific anti-experiment. Will any of stuff in the first list necessarily, automatically bring about any more （or better） of the stuff in the second?
In the journey of human progress, there are still undoubtedly whole new continents to explore. Yet, as we continue our voyage, it's all too easy to get caught up in the technology, the technique, the formula, the mechanics and the method, the how and the now, the excitement of the moment of discovery, the exhilaration of sighting terra incognita—and fail to peer not merely over the horizon, but inside our own horizons.
Perhaps we've gotten a little too seduced by the quest for the Next Big Thing. While it's certain there will be a next big thing, the biggest thing we need to face next, perhaps, is us. Not “us” in the vague, internetzy sense of “the collective.” But “us” as in the even more imprecise, yet razor-sharp sense of what pulses through you and me when we feel most alive. The stuff that makes us us: not just well-behaved, obedient, productive atoms in the economic world, but feeling, thinking, doing, living beings in the human world.
I don't suggest our institutions be designed to give us neat and clean answers. But I do insist that the highest purpose of human life isn't merely turning disposable diapers into designer diapers, but, fundamentally, to discover a sense of possibility, to expand the boundaries of human potential, to earn and offer one another that which means something. In that case, the first great concern isn't how we organize, but why we're here: what elevates you and me in the human world. What makes us not merely productive, efficient, or effective, but painfully, achingly, enduringly, joyously human.
If there are routes to productivity, efficiency, and effectiveness, the heavens know we've found more than our forebears ever dreamt of. And here's the paradox: they're mightily solved problems—but pretty poor solutions to the questions that matter. Hence here's a minor challenge. Unless you want to spend your valuable life painstakingly working out barely better solutions to problems we've already solved, consider the following: If we're going to reboot our institutions, rethink our way of work, life, and play, then what are we going to redesign them for?
1.Which of the following is probably the “stuff in the first list”?
[A] Compassion.
[B] 3D printing.
[C] Twitter.
[D] Spontaneity.
2.The expression “terra incognita” （Para.4） refers to_____.
[A] terrible areas of scientific exploration
[B] unexplored field of human knowledge
[C] technological monsters we create for the world
[D] stuff we can see on the horizon but don't recognize
3.Our search for “the next big thing” is deemed by the author to be_____.
[A] inessential
[B] arrogant
[C] productive
[D] paradoxical
4.After all, what will be “the next big thing” according to the author?
[A] High-tech gadgets that make life convenient.
[B] Such spontaneous feeling as empathy and compassion.
[C] Essential necessities of life we need for decent survival.
[D] Fundamental questions of how to be our truthful selves.
5.A Neolithic hunter-gatherer would feel_____.
[A] disgusted with our solutions to most of today's problems
[B] delighted at human beings' endeavor to redesign their life
[C] amazed at what human beings have achieved through their efforts
[D] puzzled at why human beings have created Walmart or Apple products
考研必备词汇
其他词汇
1.genomics 基因组学
2.drone 无人驾驶飞机
3.peer 凝视，注视
4.internetzy 互联网的
疑难长句注解
1.Yet, as we continue our voyage...horizon.（第四段）
本句的主干结构是it's all too easy to get caught up in...and fail to peer...，其中两个不定式短语并列。在第一个不定式中，get caught up in意为“卷入，陷入”，这里所谓“陷入技术……中”，指过多地关注技术方面而忽视了人文方面。在第二个不定式短语中，peer over the horizon指放眼更宽广的世界，peer inside our own horizons指检验我们内心的世界。
2.But “us” as in the even...most alive.（第五段）
这里所谓“更不确定的、但却异常清晰的‘我们’”，指日常生活中活生生的普通人，那个真实的自己，也就是下一句提到的feeling, thinking, doing, living beings in the human world。而不是网络上或社交场合下伪装出来的自己。本句中，imprecise和razor-sharp都修饰sense，所谓pulses through you and me when we feel most alive，可以理解为：我们更像活生生的人时感觉到的那些冲动。
3.But I do insist that...means something.（第六段）
在宾语从句中，表语部分有四个并列成分，第一个是turning...diapers，这显然是说技术方面，其他三个不定式并列，其中表达的意思更强调人的发展和人生意义。实际上，本段中后两个句子表达的观点大同小异，都是强调对人的发展和人生意义的探讨。
4.Unless you want to...them for?（第七段）
本句包括一个条件状语从句unless...solved，而consider the following（请考虑一下下列问题）是主句。在冒号后面的句子中，reboot是用重启计算机作比喻，指重新设计并启动我们的各种制度。作者虽然没有对这个问题做出回答，根据上文，作者的答案显然是：如果我们重新设计我们的制度和生活，我们应该使它们更适合人的发展，而不是过多关注技术方面。
译文
下一件大事是什么？3D印刷、个人基因组学、无人驾驶汽车、可佩戴式计算机、微货币、（更）大数据，还是更快的无人驾驶飞机？
现在，让我们想一想完全不同的东西。是什么使我们成为人？最好只用一个词回答这个问题。这是某一天我纯粹突发奇想想到的一个问题，我决定问我的Twitter跟帖人。得到的最普遍答案是：移情、意识、同情心、爱。
考虑到我是用完全不科学的非实验方法得到的结果，我又问了第二个问题。第一个清单里有任何东西会必然地、自动地带来第二个清单中的更多（或更好）的东西吗？
在人类前进的旅程中，无疑仍有要探索的新大陆。但是，在我们继续前进的过程中，太容易陷入技术、工艺、公式、方法和方式，怎样做和当下怎样做，发现之时的兴奋，看到未知领域时的欣喜——这样不仅使我们不能放眼于更宽广的地平线，也没能好好看一看我们自己内心的地平线。
也许我们有点太容易受到寻找“下一件大事”的诱惑了。虽然一定会有下一件大事，但是也许我们需要面对的下一件最重要的事就是我们自己。“我们”不是指模糊的、互联网意义上的“集体”，而是在甚至更不精确但异常犀利意义上的“我们”，那个当我们感到最有活力时在你我心中搏动的东西。那是让我们成为“我们自己”的东西：不是经济世界里表现良好、顺从、多产的原子，而是在人类世界里感受着、思考着、行动着、生活着的生灵。
我不提倡设定制度来告诉我们干净利落的答案。但是我坚持认为，人生最高的目标不仅仅是将一次性尿布换成专门设计的尿布，而是在本质上去发现可能性的意识，去开拓人类潜能的疆界，去获得并给予彼此一种有意义的东西。在那种情况下，我们首先要关心的不是我们怎样去组织，而是我们为什么在这里：在人世中是什么使你我变得高尚。是什么不仅让我们多产、高效或有效，而且让我们痛苦地、受伤地、持续地、欢乐地成为人。
如果有通往生产力、效率、功效的途径，天知道我们已经发现的比我们祖先梦想的还多。而矛盾在这里：它们是费大力气解决了的问题——但是对要紧的问题来说却是非常糟糕的解决方法。于是这里存在着一个小小的挑战。与其你希望浪费宝贵生命，不辞辛劳地为我们已经解决了的问题寻找并不高明多少的答案，还不如考虑一下下述问题：如果我们准备重新启动我们的制度，重新思考我们工作、生活、娱乐的方式，那么我们重新设计它们是为了什么？