经济类英语冲刺阅读材料

1、文档来源为 :从网络收集整理.word 版本可编辑.欢迎下载支持经济类英语冲刺阅读材料今天有两个任务。一是有一篇关于学术造假方面的文章，是应有些同学的要求提供的。注意文中的粗体部分，是一些可以借鉴的词汇与句子。二是选了经济学家的文章，文章本身并不难，如果不明白，可以看文章后面的摘要。今天的结束语是：唯一不变的是变化本身。学术行为不端academic misconduct伪造数据 falsify and fabricate dataemf researcher made up data, ori saysin a blow to a research area hungry for credib

2、le findings, the federal office of research integrity (ori) reported last month that a biochemist "engaged in scientific misconduct. by intentionally falsifyingand fabricating data and claims" in two studies on how electromagnetic fields (emfs)-the kind shed by power lines and home applian

3、ces-affect living cells. the researcher, robert p. liburdy, formerly of the lawrence berkeley national laboratory (lbnl) in california, has agreed to ask the journals toretract the results."there's a lot of acrimony in thedebate, and thiswon't calm things down," says richard g. ste

4、vens, a cancer epidemiologist at the pacific northwest 1文档来源为 :从网络收集整理.word 版本可编辑.欢迎下载支持.national laboratory in hanford, washington.liburdy's findings were among the first to offer a plausible mechanism for a possible link between emf exposure and cancer or other diseases. in a pair of 1992 pape

5、rs of which he is the sole author, liburdy offered evidence that emfs increase the flow of calcium into lymphocytes, a kind of immune cell produced in the thymus. the papers created a stir, as calcium ions signal cells to turn genes on and off, and play a role in cell division. because tumor growth

6、is tied to cell proliferation, an alteration in calcium signaling could conceivably lead to cancer. but in an analysis obtained by science, ori states that "liburdy's claims that emf causes cellular effects related to calcium signaling are not supported by the primary data."responding

7、to an unknown whistle-blower's allegations of scientific misconduct by liburdy, lbnl in january 1995 appointed a panel of four lab scientists to investigate. after reviewing raw data and interviewing liburdy and other scientists, the panel concluded in a july 1995 report that liburdy "delib

8、erately created 'artificial' data where no such 2文档来源为:从网络收集整理.word 版本可编辑.欢迎下载支持.文档来源为 :从网络收集整理.word 版本可编辑.欢迎下载支持data existed" in a figure in febsletters. in addition, it found, he fabricated data noise for a figure in theannals of the new york academy of sciences "in orderto misle

9、ad the reader." these actions, the panel stated, "fall within the definition of scientific misconduct." when contacted by science, lbnl officials declined to comment, other than to confirm that liburdy no longer works at the lab.because liburdy had been awarded more than $ million in

10、federal grants for his emf research, orilaunched a formal review of lbnl's report in fall 1997. ori approved a request by liburdy for an interview with ori staff and two outside experts, which took place inmarch 1998. at the meeting, liburdy produced originaldata he had not shared with lbnl inve

11、stigators, according to the ori report. but the data failed toexculpate him: in its analysis, ori accuses liburdy of having lied to lbnl and ori investigators, and it "concurs with findings of scientific misconduct." "some of the numbers, essentially, he made up," saysjohn kruege

12、r, an ori investigator involved in the case.in a may 1999 agreement signed by liburdy and ori acting director chris pascal, liburdy agreed to retract the tainted figures in the two papers and not to receive federal funds for 3 years. he "neither admits nor denies ori's findings of scientifi

13、c misconduct," the document states. liburdy did not respond to requests for an interview.the misconduct findings are unlikely to shift the playing field in emf research. since 1992, 20 to 30 scientific papers have looked at emf exposures and calcium signaling, without settling the issue, says c

14、hristopher portier, associate director of the environmental toxicology program at the national institute of environmental health sciences (niehs). in a report to congress released on 15 june, niehsdirector kenneth olden states the scientific evidence that emf exposures "pose any health risk is

15、weak" and that mechanistic and toxicology studies "fail to demonstrate any consistent pattern." the day before the report came out, national institutes of health officials had asked niehs to determine quickly whether any of liburdy's research had influenced the report's conclu

16、sions, portier says. the truth was simple, he4文档来源为:从网络收集整理.word 版本可编辑.欢迎下载支持.文档来源为 :从网络收集整理.word 版本可编辑.欢迎下载支持says: "it had no impact whatsoever."shock treatmentoil prices have a special place in economic folklore. the two nastiest global recessions of recent decades were preceded by huge

17、and sudden rises in the price of oil, first in 1973 and then in 1979. these twin spikes, both engineered by the organisation of the petroleumexporting countrieslimiting its oilshipments, are still the textbook example of an economic“ shock ” a sudden change in businessconditions. abrupt increases in

18、 the oil price have prompted anxiety about stunted growth ever since.higher oil prices hurt the economy because they act like a tax increase. firms that use oil face higher costs which, if they cannot be passed on in higher prices, might mean that some production becomes unprofitable. consumers payi

19、ng more for their petrol and heating oil have less to spend on other things. if they look for higher wages to compensate for a drop in purchasing power, that will only lead to job losses.oil-producing countries benefit from higher crude prices so the impact on global demanddepends how their 5文档来源为:从

20、网络收集整理.word 版本可编辑.欢迎下载支持.文档来源为 :从网络收集整理.word 版本可编辑.欢迎下载支持extra income is spent. but even if oil windfalls are spent largely on goods produced by oil importers, the abrupt shift in the distribution of global income will still be destabilising.given the gloomy history, the lingering unease about highe

21、r oil prices is understandable. a demonstration of this came on november 13th when, after a rough few days, stockmarkets rose on news that the oil price had fallen below $93. after all the talk of breaking the three-figure barrier, a drop towards a mere $90 spurred a relief rally.yet for all that, s

22、omething has changed. today's oil prices would have been unthinkable until very recently. six years ago, when a barrel of crude could be bought for as little as $20, oil prices at today's levelswould have raised fearsof deep recession.notwithstanding the spectre of past oil shocks, crude pri

23、ceshave risento ever-dizzier heights withoutderailing a five-year period of strong global growth.but why has the oil bogeyman become less scary? two new papers* by three well-known economists set out to explain. they come to similar conclusions: oil shocksdo not hurt as much because oil is used less

24、 intensively than before, because the economy is more flexible and because central banks are better at controlling inflation.what makes oil special is that it is a uniquely dense and portable form of energy. it is not easy to switch to alternatives very quickly, so disruptions to supply are damaging

25、. yet improvements in energy efficiency mean dependence on oil is not what it once was. rich countries use less than half as much oil as they did in 1970 for each inflation-adjusted dollar of gdp. so although prices in real terms have returned to levels last seen in the 1970s, their impact is not as

26、 powerful when set against the diminished economic importance of oil.the blow from dearer oil is less powerful than it was and compared with their rigid state in the 1970s, today's more flexible economies are better able to take a punch. higher oil prices have some unavoidable direct consequence

27、s on companies' production costs and on prices paid by consumers for oil-derived products. wider damage to jobs and output depends on how wellthese increased costs are absorbed. if workers insiston higher cash wages to maintain their spending power, firms' costs will take an additional hit, resulting in lay-offs, higher unemployment and depressed demand. to the extent that workers take it on the chin, accepting higher oil prices as a temporary tax increase that lowers their real take-home pay, the collateral damage will be smaller. the rigidity of the 1970