单项选择题

The Science of the Future

Until recently, the "science of the future" was supposed to be electronics and artificial intelligence. Today it seems more and more likely that the next great breakthroughs in technology will be brought through a combination of those two sciences with organic chemistry and genetic engineering. This combination is the science of biotechnology.
Organic chemistry enables us to produce marvelous synthetic (合成的) materials. However, it is still difficult to manufacture anything that has the capacity of wool to conserve heat and also to absorb moisture. Nothing that we have been able to produce so far comes anywhere near the combination of strength, lightness and flexibility that we find in the bodies of ordinary insects.
Nevertheless, scientists in the laboratory have already succeeded in "growing" a material that has many of the characteristics of human skin. The next step may well be "biotech hearts and eyes" which can replace diseased organs in human beings. These will not be rejected by the body, as is the case with organs from humans.
The application of biotechnology to energy production seems even more promising. In 1996 the famous science-fiction writer, Arthur C. Clarke, many of whose previous predictions have come true, said that we may soon be able to develop remarkably cheap and renewable sources of energy. Some of these power sources will be biological. Clarke and others have warned us repeatedly that sooner or later we will have to give up our dependence on non-renewable power sources. Coal, oil and gas are indeed convenient. However, using them also means creating dangerously high levels of pollution. It will be impossible to meet the growing demand for energy without increasing that pollution to catastrophic (灾难性的) levels unless we develop power sources that are both cheaper and cleaner.
It is attempting to think that biotechnology or some other "science of the future" can solve our problems. Before we surrender to that temptation we should remember nuclear power. Only a few generations ago it seemed to promise limitless, cheap and safe energy. Today those promises lie buried in a concrete grave in a place called Chernobyl, in the Ukraine. Biotechnology is unlikely, however, to break its promises in quite the same or such a dangerous way.
According to the passage, it may soon be possible

A.to make something as good as human skin.
B.to produce drugs without side effects.
C.to transplant human organs.
D.to make artificial hearts and eyes.
热门 试题

单项选择题
The computer performed better than people in the study because A.the computer worked harder. B.the computer was not busy. C.people tended to be biased. D.people were not good at statistics.
A bunch of behavior sensors (传感器) and a clever piece of software could do just that, by analyzing your behavior to determine if it’s a good time to interrupt you. If built into a phone, the system may decide you’re too busy and ask the caller to leave a message or ring back later.
James Fogarty and Scott Hudson at Camegie Mellon University in Pennsylvania based their system on tiny microphones, cameras and touch sensors that reveal body language and activity. First they had to study different behaviors to find out which ones strongly predict whether your mind is interrupted.
The potential "busyness" signals they focused on included whether the office doors were left open or closed, the time of day, if other people were with the person in question, how close they were to each other, and whether or not the computer was in use.
The sensors monitored these and many other factors while four subjects were at work. At random intervals, the subjects rated how interruptible they were on a scale ranging from "highly interruptible" to "highly not-interruptible". Their ratings were then correlated with the various behaviors. "It is a shotgun (随意的) approach, we used all the indicators we could think of and then let statistics find out which were important," says Hudson.
The model showed that using the keyboard, and talking on a landline or to someone else in the office correlated most strongly with how interruptible the subjects judged themselves to be.
Interestingly, the computer was actually better than people at predicting when someone was too busy to be interrupted. The computer got it right 82 percent of the time, humans 77 percent. Fogarty speculates that this might be because people doing the interrupting are inevitably biased towards delivering their message, whereas computers don’t care.
The first application for Hudson and Fogarty’s system is likely to be in an instant messaging system, followed by office phones and cellphones. "There is no technological roadblock (障碍) to it being deployed in a couple of years," says Hudson.