Material4_19
- 格式：doc
- 大小：30.50 KB
- 文档页数：3
Material 19Text ADisease lobby groups have always made energetic efforts to ensure that the formidable! resources of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) are brought to bear on the health issues that interest them; and that is as it should be. When these resources are expanding, there has been room for most of the participants in the process to feel that they are winning. Now that the budget of the largest research agency in the world is effectively frozen, there are likely to be more losers.The NIH's success has been built on a tacit accommodation between scientists, who run its27 ; institutes and centers on a day-to-day basis, and the public, as represented by Congress. Institutes have been established—often against the scientists' advice—to deal with specific conditions or diseases of particular organ systems. Then Congress has, in large part, left the researchers and physicians in the agencies to pursue their work as they see fit, without indulging in too much micromanagement.This has enabled the NIH to maintain a formidable reputation for scientific integrity andj excellence, while also appearing to be reasonably responsive to patient needs. It has produced an] agency that does a great deal of basic scientific research—with unknown and largely serendipitous; benefits for the development of drugs and devices—as well as plenty of laboratory and clinical j work devoted to particular ailments.The public is paying for the NIH's annual budget of $29 billion, and it is entirely appropriate! that it should energetically articulate its demands of the agency. That is one of the roles of the disease-advocacy groups, and their input, as any NIH institute director will attest, provides invaluable assistance in assigning research directions and priorities.That said, the power of some advocacy groups must be tempered to some degree—especially j in today's difficult funding environment. Otherwise, these groups' ability to influence budgets is I likely to dominate, to the detriment of both basic laboratory science and of research targeted at I diseases that have weaker constituencies.It falls to the scientist-administrators who run the NIH to work closely with members of the congressional appropriations committees that fund the agency to make sure .that this does not i happen. Both groups understand the careful political balance that has allowed the agency to thrive; | they must act as moderators whenever the more energetic lobby groups are pushing the agency's agenda too far in the direction of one public-health issue at the expense of others.1. It can be inferred from the text that the success of research into one disease may havecome ________.A. with the budget of NIH expanding annuallyB. at the expense of research into other diseasesC. without the advocacy of disease lobby groupsD. no matter whether the budget of NIH is frozen2. The scientific integrity and excellence of NIH is mainly due to the fact that the scientistsof NIH ________.A. can easily communicate with the publicB. are ready to take the advice of the publicC. are allowed to pursue whatever they see fitD. are excellent in various disciplines of medicine3. The author argues that disease lobby groups ________.A. should work harmoniously with NIHB. should be responsive to patient needsC. should state clearly their demands of NIHD. should be given credit for their aid to NIH4. The word "temper" in Paragraph 5 most probably means ________.A. eliminateB. moderateC. aggravateD. accommodate5. The author suggests that the NIH should ________.A. alleviate the influence of disease lobby groups on its budgetsB. cooperate with disease lobby groups in determining prioritiesC. ensure the success of both basic research and applied researchD. maintain a careful political balance with government agenciesText BLetting it out may be bad for your emotional health. Many people assume that sharing feelings openly and often is a positive ideal that promotes mental health. But some social critics and psychologists now conclude that repressing one's feelings may do more good than venting emotions."A small number of researchers are taking an empirical look at the general assumption that speaking out and declaring one's feelings is better than holding them in," writes Christina Sommers, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.At Suffilk University, psychologist Jane Bybee classified high-school students on the basis of their self-awareness • " sensitizers" were extremely aware of their internal states, " repressors" focused little on themselves, and "intermediates" occupied the middle range. Bybee then collected student evaluations of themselves and each other along with teacher evaluations of the students. On the whole, the repressors were more socia'ly and academically successful than their more "sensitized" classmates. Bybee speculated that repressed people, not emoters, may have a better balance of moods.In a study at Catholic University in Washington, D. C. , researcher George Bonanno tested the assumption that, in order to recover mental health, people need to vent negative emotions by discussing their feelings openly. Bonanno and other researchers found that, among adolescent girls who had suffered sexual abuse, those who " showed emotional avoidance" were healthier than those who more openly expressed grief or anger.One study of Holocaust survivors supports Bonanno in suggesting that verbalizing strong emotions may not improve a person's mental health. Researchers found that Holocaust survivors who were encouraged to talk about their experiences in the war fared worse than repressors. They concluded that repression was not pathological response to Holocaust experience and that " talking through" the atrocities failed to being closure to the survivors.Sommers note that in many societies it has been considered normal to repress private feelings, and that "in most cultures stoicism and reticence are valued, while the free expression of emotions is deemed a personal shortcoming. "She is concerned that pushing someone to be "sensitizers" may also create a preoccupation with self that excludes outside interests. Sommers is particularly critical of educational approaches that attempt to encourage self-discovery and self-esteemthrough excessive "openness".Healthy stoicism should not be confused with the emotional numbness that may be brought on by post-traumatic stress disorder. Most people experiencing such traumas as war, assault, or natural'disaster can benefit from immediate counseling, according to the National Institute of Mental Health.6. It can be inferred from the text that ________.A. researchers do not agree on how to deal with bad emotionsB. expressing one's private feelings is better than repressing themC. the tendency to repress one's feelings may arise from social valuesD. the author does not agree with the researchers7. We learn from the text that ________.A. one way to promote one's health is to share his feelingsB. expressing negative emotions might cause more problems to one's healthC. people need to vent bad emotions by discussing their feelings openlyD. teachers in the past would advice students to repress their feelings8. The word "vent" in Para. 1 most probably means " ________".A. hideB. repressC. speakD. let out9. According to Jane Bybee, "sensitizers" were ________.A. extremely sensitive to other's feelingsB. evaluated positively by the teachersC. more successful than "intermediates"D. not as emotionally healthy as "repressors"10. In the last paragraph, the author tells us that ________.A. healthy stoicism is the same as the emotional numbnessB. people who experienced traumas should hold in their emotionsC. people should resort to counseling to let out their emotionsD. repressing one's negative feelings may not be good for all。
