On March 26, 2014, I became a new staff member of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, I committed the rest of my scientific future there despite the allegations of espionage leveled at one of its weapons scientists, Wen Ho Lee, who, notably, has never been and may never be officially charged. I valued the accomplishments of its distinguished scientists and was confident its able leaders would receive the political support they needed from Washington to cope with the potential damage to its programs arising from the scandal.
But in the months since then that support has come into question—and the damage has become real. Washington’s reaction to the incident has created an atmosphere of suspicion, which, coupled with efforts to restrict scientific interchange and reduce funds for key research, threaten the essence of the lab—its ability to provide the kind of science-based security that has made it a national treasure.
Los Alamos burst upon the national consciousness on Aug 6, 1945, the day it was announced that the atomic weapon dropped on Hiroshima had been developed by scientists working at the lab under the direction of Robert Oppenheimer. The secret of their success was an almost magical mix of three key ingredients: the quality and dedication of the researchers, an open scientific environment that promote collaboration and Oppenheimer’s brilliant leadership.
That excellence, openness and leadership have largely been maintained in the ensuing 54 years under the enlightened management of the University of California. During the cold war, when national security demanded that we have a competitive edge over the Soviets in nuclear weapons and weapons-related research, Los Alamos led the way. When it became evident that science-based national security depended on world leadership in science, the lab rose to the challenge. It developed an outstanding program to attract the best young researchers and established world-class trans-disciplinary centers for pure and applied scientific research. Indeed, what brought me to Los Alamos was the new Institute for Complex Adaptive Matter, established to work on what promises to be the most exciting science of the new millennium—the search for the higher organizing principles in nature that govern emergent behavior in matter.
But in the past six months members of Congress and the Washington bureaucracy have put the scientific environment at Los Alamos seriously at risk. With the laudable goal of improving the security of classified research, they have attempted to impose inefficient micromanagement strategies while decreasing funding for vital research. As Sen. Pete Domenici, Republican of New Mexico, wrote recently to a House colleague: “The House action is irresponsible.” The damage, he said, “would be as serious and more assured than the suspected damage that may have been caused by Wen Ho Lee.”
Some of that damage has already been done. By my count there’s been a 60 percent drop in the number of top researchers accepting postdoctoral fellowships at the lab. Promising young staffers are leaving for university and industry jobs, while leading university scientists have refused to be considered for key administrative positions at Los Alamos. Then, too, there’s the loss of the young scientist from China who wanted to come to the lab to work with me this fall. Despite his outstanding record of scientific publication and glowing letters of recommendation, I felt obligated to discourage him from entering the postdoctoral competition. In the current atmosphere, I felt his every move would be monitored. But I wonder whether we’ve lost a chance to attract to America a major contributor to science—and a potential Nobel laureate.
Washington must never forget that science is done by scientists, not by computers. It is vital to build security barriers in physical space and cyberspace to protect classified information. But science is not done in isolation. We must not make it difficult for scientists, including those working on secret projects, to discuss unclassified research with colleagues inside and outside the lab whose expertise they need to solve their problems. Doing so will not only make it impossible for the staff at Los Alamos to do their best work, but will also make it impossible for lab to compete for the best and brightest researchers of the future.
The damage that’s been done can be repaired. Scientific openness and support for basic research can be restored. The chill fog of suspicion can be dissipated. But as Congress considers its next steps, the unanimous message from the scientific community is very simple, the scientific environment at Los Alamos has worked extremely well. Don’t even think about trying to “fix” it.
1. The author devoted himself to scientific studies at Los Alamos because ______.
2. Washington put scientific environment at Los Alamos at risk except ______.
3. The word “distinguished” in the first paragraph is closest in meaning to ______.
4. What damage had Washington caused?
5. In the last paragraph, the author’s tone is ______.
问题1选项
A.he appreciated its scientific environment
B.he esteemed its distinguished scientists and treasured their accomplishments
C.it obtained support from Washington
D.its leaders were all able to cope with the potential damage to its programs
问题2选项
A.they improved the security of classified research
B.they restricted scientific interchange
C.they reduced funds for key research
D.they planned to use computer to replace scientists
问题3选项
A.definite
B.remarkable
C.different
D.noble
问题4选项
A.There’s been a 60 percent drop in the number of researchers.
B.Washington has created an atmosphere of suspicion.
C.Promising young scientists are leaving for university.
D.All of the above mentioned in the statements.
问题5选项
A.saddened
B.excited
C.ironic
D.indignant
第1题:B
第2题:D
第3题:B
第4题:D
第5题:A
第1题:
【选项释义】
The author devoted himself to scientific studies at Los Alamos because ________. 作者在洛斯阿拉莫斯致力于科学研究,因为________。
A. he appreciated its scientific environment A. 他欣赏它的科学环境
B. he esteemed its distinguished scientists and treasured their accomplishments B. 他尊敬这里的杰出科学家,珍视他们的成就
C. it obtained support from Washington C. 它获得了华盛顿的支持
D. its leaders were all able to cope with the potential damage to its programs D. 它的领导人都能够应对其项目的潜在损害
【答案】B
【考查点】细节事实题。
【解题思路】根据题干定位至第一段最后一句“我重视这里杰出科学家的成就,并相信美国有能力的领导人将从华盛顿获得所需的政治支持,以应对这一丑闻对其项目造成的潜在损害”可知,作者是因为重视洛斯阿拉莫斯的杰出科学家的成就,所以在这里进行科学研究,该题选择B项“他尊敬这里的杰出科学家,珍视他们的成就”符合题意。
【干扰项排除】
A项“他欣赏它的科学环境”没有提到,该项属于无中生有;
C项“它获得了华盛顿的支持”根据解题思路可知,文章中提到的是将从华盛顿获得所需的政治支持,并不是已经获得,该项属于曲解原文;
D项“它的领导人都能够应对其项目的潜在损害”表述绝对,该项属于曲解原文。
第2题:
【选项释义】
Washington put scientific environment at Los Alamos at risk except ________. 华盛顿把洛斯阿拉莫斯的科学环境置于危险之中,除了________。
A. they improved the security of classified research A. 他们提高了机密研究的安全性
B. they restricted scientific interchange B. 他们限制科学交流
C. they reduced funds for key research C. 他们减少了关键研究的经费
D. they planned to use computer to replace scientists D. 他们计划用计算机代替科学家
【答案】D
【考查点】细节事实题。
【解题思路】根据题干定位至第五段的内容,第二段指出“为了提高分类研究的安全性这一值得称赞的目标,他们(国会议员和华盛顿官僚机构)试图强加低效的微观管理策略,同时减少对重要研究的资助”,从中可知,华盛顿提高了洛斯阿拉莫斯科学研究的安全性,减少了重要研究的经费,还加强了管理,只有D项“他们计划用计算机代替科学家”没有提到,但是符合题干,所以该题选择D项。
【干扰项排除】
A项“他们提高了机密研究的安全性”、B项“他们限制科学交流”和C项“他们减少了关键研究的经费”都是华盛顿把洛斯阿拉莫斯的科学环境置于危险之中的措施,这三项属于反向干扰。
第3题:
【选项释义】
The word “distinguished” in the first paragraph is closest in meaning to ________. 在第一段中单词“distinguished”的意思最接近________。
A. definite A. 肯定的,确定的
B. remarkable B. 显著的,非凡的
C. different C. 不同的,有区别的
D. noble D. 崇高的
【答案】B
【考查点】词义推测题。
【解题思路】根据题干定位至第一段最后一句“我重视(valued)这里distinguished的科学家的成就……”,从valued一词可知,value表示“重视,珍视”,所以distinguished肯定表达的是科学家好的一方面,而accomplishments指“成就”,可推测这些科学家是非凡杰出的,所以distinguished一词在文章中最有可能的意思是“非凡的,杰出的”,故该题选择B项“显著的,非凡的”。
【干扰项排除】
A项“肯定的,确定的”、C项“不同的,有区别的”和D项“崇高的”在原文没有依据,这三项属于无中生有。
第4题:
【选项释义】
What damage had Washington caused? 华盛顿造成了什么损害?
A. There’s been a 60 percent drop in the number of researchers. A. 研究人员的数量已经下降了60%。
B. Washington has created an atmosphere of suspicion. B. 华盛顿制造了一种怀疑的气氛。
C. Promising young scientists are leaving for university. C. 有前途的年轻科学家都要去上大学了。
D. All of the above mentioned in the statements. D. 以上都是。
【答案】D
【考查点】细节事实题。
【解题思路】根据关键词damage定位至第六段,前三句指出“其中一些损害已经造成。据我统计,接受该实验室博士后奖学金的顶尖研究人员数量下降了60%。有前途的年轻员工纷纷离开,去大学和企业工作,而一流的大学科学家拒绝被考虑在洛斯阿拉莫斯担任关键的行政职位。”,从中可知,顶尖研究人员数量下降了60%,并且有前途的年轻员工纷纷去大学和企业工作了;倒数第二句还指出“在目前的氛围下,我觉得他的一举一动都会受到监视”可以看出,华盛顿对研究人员的监视造成了一种疑虑的氛围,A、B、C三项都是华盛顿造成的损害,所以该题选择D项“以上都是”符合题意。
【干扰项排除】
A项“研究人员的数量已经下降了60%”、B项“华盛顿制造了一种怀疑的气氛”和C项“有前途的年轻科学家都要去上大学了”都是华盛顿造成的损害之一,这三项属于以偏概全。
第5题:
【选项释义】
In the last paragraph, the author’s tone is ________. 在最后一段中,作者的语气是________。
A. saddened A. 令人悲伤的
B. excited B. 激动的
C. ironic C. 讽刺的
D. indignant D. 愤愤不平的
【答案】A
【考查点】观点态度题。
【解题思路】根据最后一段的内容“已经造成的伤害是可以修复的。恢复科学开放和对基础研究的支持。疑虑的寒雾就会消散。但在国会考虑其下一步行动时,科学界的一致意见非常简单,洛斯阿拉莫斯的科学环境非常好。不要想着去‘修复’它。”,从中可知,作者认为对洛斯阿拉莫斯造成的伤害都可以修复,但是不要再去修复它了,由此可见作者的语气是非常悲伤的,所以A项“令人悲伤的”符合题意。
【干扰项排除】
B项“激动的”、C项“讽刺的”和D项“愤愤不平的”在原文没有依据,这三项属于无中生有。
【文章来源】《新闻周刊》(Newsweek)1999
【参考译文】
1999年3月26日,我成为洛斯阿拉莫斯国家实验室的一名新工作人员,尽管该实验室的一名武器科学家李文和被指控从事间谍活动,但我仍将剩下的科学前途寄托在这里,值得注意的是,他从未被正式指控,也可能永远不会被指控。我重视其杰出科学家的成就,并相信其有能力的领导人将从华盛顿获得他们所需的政治支持,以应对丑闻对其项目造成的潜在损害。
但在那之后的几个月里,这种支持受到了质疑——而且损害已经变成了现实。华盛顿对这一事件的反应造成了一种怀疑的气氛,再加上限制科学交流和削减关键研究资金的努力,威胁到了该实验室的本质——它提供以科学为基础的安全的能力,这使它成为国家的财富。
洛斯阿拉莫斯在1945年8月6日突然进入了全国的意识,这一天宣布投在广岛的原子弹是由罗伯特•奥本海默指导下的实验室科学家研制的。他们成功的秘诀几乎是三个关键因素的神奇组合:研究人员的质量和奉献精神,促进合作的开放科学环境,以及奥本海默卓越的领导能力。
在随后的54年里,在加州大学开明的管理下,这种卓越、开放和领导力在很大程度上得以保持。在冷战期间,当国家安全要求我们在核武器和武器相关研究方面比苏联有竞争优势时,洛斯阿拉莫斯发挥了带头作用。当以科学为基础的国家安全明显地取决于在科学方面的世界领先地位时,该实验室奋起迎接挑战。它制定了一个杰出的计划来吸引最优秀的年轻研究人员,并建立了世界级的纯学科和应用科学研究中心。事实上,把我带到洛斯阿拉莫斯的是一个新的复杂适应性物质研究所,它的成立是为了研究有望成为新青年最激动人心的科学——寻找自然界中管理物质突发行为的更高组织原则。
但是在过去的六个月里,国会议员和华盛顿的官僚机构已经把洛斯阿拉莫斯的科学环境严重地置于危险之中。他们以提高机密研究的安全性这一值得称赞的目标为主,试图实施低效的微观管理策略,同时减少对重要研究的资助。正如新墨西哥州共和党参议员皮特•多梅尼西最近写给众议院同事的信中所说:“众议院的行动是不负责任的。”他说,这种损害“将比李文和可能造成的疑似损害同样严重,而且更有可能发生”。
其中一些损害已经造成。据我统计,接受该实验室博士后奖学金的顶尖研究人员的数量下降了60%。有前途的年轻员工纷纷离开洛斯阿拉莫斯,去大学和工业界工作,而顶尖大学科学家不再担任洛斯阿拉莫斯的关键行政职位的考虑范围之内。此外,还失去了一位来自中国的年轻科学家,他想在今年秋天来实验室和我一起工作。尽管他在科学论文发表上有出色的成绩,并且有光鲜的推荐信,我还是觉得有义务劝阻他参加博士后竞争。在目前的氛围下,我觉得他的一举一动都会受到监视。但我想知道,我们是否已经失去了一个把一位对科学做出重大贡献的人——一位可能获得诺贝尔奖的人——吸引到美国来的机会。
华盛顿永远不能忘记,科学是由科学家完成的,而不是由计算机完成的。在物理空间和网络空间建立安全屏障以保护机密信息是至关重要的。但科学不是孤立进行的。我们不能让科学家,包括那些从事秘密项目的科学家,难以与实验室内外的同事讨论非机密的研究,他们需要这些同事的专业知识来解决他们的问题。这样做不仅会使洛斯阿拉莫斯的工作人员无法做到最好,也会使实验室无法竞争未来最优秀、最聪明的研究人员。
已经造成的伤害是可以修复的。科学开放和对基础研究的支持可以恢复。怀疑的寒雾可以消散。但在国会考虑下一步行动时,科学界的一致意见非常简单,洛斯阿拉莫斯的科学环境运作得非常好。想都别想去“修复”它。