Cousteau Remembered Jacques-Ives Cousteau died in Paris on 26 June, 1997 at the age of 87. His influence is great. Scientists respected his creative engineering; engineers praised his science. Cousteau, who claimed to be neither scientist nor engineer, contributed significantly to both disciplines—and to many more.
Throughout his adventure-filled life, Cousteau challenged definitions. Yes, he was a captain in the French Navy, and early on, a filmmaker and natural storyteller. Later, he became a famous ocean explorer, designer of underwater equipment, expedition leader, author, speaker, businessman, environmentalist, teacher and leader of an influential organisation （the Cousteau Society）.
All who care about the sea—and even those who don’t think much about the ocean one way or another—owe Cousteau a tremendous debt. The knowledge gained as a consequence of his direct contributions, and the strong impact he had on others, have transformed the way the world thinks about the sea. His stories of encounters with sharks and other fish inspired many to go see themselves. Cousteau pioneered ventures in underwater living in the 1960’s: sub-sea labs where scientists submerged for days or weeks—the underwater labs similar to Skylab or the space station. His films and television programmes won two Academy Rewards, three Emnies, and the hearts and minds of viewers worldwide for decades.
Showered with honours, Cousteau remarked recently that he thought his most important accomplishment was to make people aware of—and care about—the ocean. Thanks to him, we grew concerned about our growing population and the consequences of overfishing and ocean pollution that threaten the health of the sea, and we were inspired to do something to improve the way things are done.
We shared the sad feeling with Cousteau when Simone, his wife and partner for many years, died and when his son Phillippe was killed in a plane crash. We shared his joy when Jean-Michel, his eldest son, became an explorer and a spokesman for the sea in his own right. We were happy for Cousteau when he began a new family with his second wife, Fracine. And now that his voice of the ocean is silenced, we feel very sad.
1. According to the passage, Cousteau’s influence is great because he
A. was both a scientist and an engineer.
B. invented Skylab.
C. made contributions to science and engineering.
D. was a captain in the French Navy.
2. From the second paragraph, we know that
A. Cousteau did not like any scientific definitions.
B. Cousteau wrote many adventure-filled stories.
C. Cousteau’s main job was protecting environment.
D. Cousteau’s contributions were not limited to science and engineering.
3. Of all the careers he followed, his main concern was concentrated on
A. building the sub-water labs
B. ocean and ocean pollution.
C. making films and television programmes.
D. writing encounters with sea animals, such as sharks.
4. What debt do we owe Cousteau according to Paragraphs 3 and 4?
A. His work has made us realise we should improve the way things are done.
B. His contributions have pushed science toward a higher stage of development.
C. His invention of sub-sea labs has made ocean exploration easier.
D. His adventures have made people go and see the sea.
5. Which of the following statement about Cousteau’s family life is NOT true?
A. His second wife died some time ago.
B. His son Phillippe was killed in a plane crash. C. His first wife died before Cousteau.
D. His elder son became the spokesman for the sea.
IQ-Gene In the angry debate over how much of IQ comes from the genes that children inherit from parents and how much comes from experiences, one little fact gets overlooked: no one has identified any genes（other than those that cause retardation）that affect intelligence. So researchers led by Robert Plomin of London’s Institute of Psychiatry decided to look for some. They figured that if you want to find a “smart gene,” you should look in smart kids. They therefore examined the DNA of students like those who are so bright that they take college entrance exams four years early—and still score at Princeton-caliber levels. The scientists found what they sought. “We have,” says Plomin, “the first specific gene ever associated with general intelligence.”
Plomin’s colleagues drew blood from two groups of 51 children each, all 6 to 15 years old and living in six counties around Cleveland. In one group, the average IQ is 103. All the children are white. Isolating the blood cells, the researchers then examined each child’s chromosome 6. Of the 37 landmarks on chromosome 6 that the researchers looked for, one jumped out: a form of gene called IGF2R occurred in twice as many children in the high-IQ group as in the average group—32 percent versus 16 percent. The study, in the May issue of the journal Psychological Science, concludes that it is this form of the IGF2R gene that contributes to intelligence.
Some geneticists see major problems with the IQ-gene study. One is the possibility that Plomin’s group fell for “chopsticks fallacy”. Geneticists might think they’ve found a gene for chopsticks flexibility, but all they’ve really found is a gene more common in Asians than, say, Africans. Similarly, Plomin’s IQ gene might simply be one that is more common in groups that emphasize academic achievement. “What is the gene that they’ve found reflects ethnicity? ”asks geneticist Andrew Feinberg of Johns Hopkins University.“ That alone might explain the link to intelligence, since IQ tests are known for being culturally sensitive and affected by a child’s environment.” And Neil Risch of Standford University points out that if you look for 37 genes on a chromosome, as the researchers did, and find that one is more common in smarter kids, that might reflect pure chance rather than a causal link between the gene and intelligence. Warns Feinberg: “I would take these findings with a whole box of salt.”
1. In the beginning of paragraph one we are told that scientists can not agree
A. how much of IQ comes from intelligence.
B. how many children inherit genes from parents.
C. how much of IQ comes from genes.
D. how many children learn by experience.
2. What does “some ”in the second sentence of paragraph one stands for?
A. Parents.
B. Children.
C. Experiences.
D. Genes.
3. A gene for chopsticks flexibility is found to be
A. unrelated to the ability to use chopsticks.
B. related to the ability to use chopsticks.
C. unrelated to the ability to use forks.
D. related to the ability to use forks.
4. Plomin’s IQ-gene study is similar to the chopsticks gene finding in that
A. there may not be a causal link between gene and intelligence.
B. there is a close correlation between gene and intelligence.
C. there may be a close relation between chopsticks flexibility and children’s academic score.
D. there is not a close relation between chopsticks flexibility and children’s academic score.
5. What does Feinberg mean by saying “I would take these findings with a whole box of salt”?
A. He would consider them while eating his meals.
B. He definitely believes the findings.
C. He would consider them while shopping for salt.
D. He doubts the findings very much.
上一页 [1] [2]
责任编辑：wangpeng6151
