2. 考研
  3. There is a substantial body of evidence showing that HIV causes AIDS—and that antiretroviral treatment (ART) has turned the vira

There is a substantial body of evidence showing that HIV causes AIDS—and that antiretroviral treatment (ART) has turned the vira

admin2019-08-17  19
问题     There is a substantial body of evidence showing that HIV causes AIDS—and that antiretroviral treatment (ART) has turned the viral infection from a death sentence into a chronic disease. Yet a small group of AIDS denialists keeps alive the conspiratorial argument that ART is harmful and that HIV science has been corrupted by commercial interests. Unfortunately, AIDS denialist have had a disproportionate effect on efforts to stem the AIDS epidemic. In 2000, South African President Thabo Mbeki took these claims seriously, opting to debate the issue, thus delaying the introduction of ART into the South African public health sector. At least 330,000 South Africans died unnecessarily as a result.
    The "hero scientist" of AIDS denialism, University of California, Berkeley, virologist Peter Dues-berg, argues that HIV is a harmless passenger virus and that ART is toxic, even a cause of AIDS. He has done no clinical research on HIV and ignores the many rebuttals of his claims in the scientific literature. In 1993, John Maddox, then editor of Nature, complained that Duesberg was "wrongly using tendentious arguments to confuse understanding of AIDS," and that because he was not engaging as a scientist, he would no longer be granted an automatic "right of reply. "
    More recently, in 2009, ADIS activists and HIV scientists, including Nobel Laureate Francoise Barre-Sinoussi, complained to Elsevier, the publisher of Medical Hypotheses, when that journal published a paper by Duesberg defending Mbeki and denying the existence of the African AIDS epidemic. Medical Hypotheses had a policy against peer review, so Elsevier asked The Lancet to oversee a peer review of the paper. When the panel of reviewers unanimously recommended rejection, Elsevier permanently withdrew it and forced Medical Hypotheses to introduce peer review. Last December Duesberg published a reworked version in an Italian journal, sparking further controversy and protests from the journal’s editorial board, one of whom has already resigned.
    Efforts by scientists to defend science are supplemented by pro-science activists operating on the Internet. Physician, author, and blogger Ben Goldacre argued in his Guardian column Bad Science that a "ragged band of bloggers from all walks of life" has been very successful at exposing pseudo-scientific claims and cheating alternative practitioners selling quack cures. The Internet now poses a double-edged sword for AIDS denialists. It is becoming a tougher place for people to segregate themselves in a comfortable cocoon of the like-minded. While the web allows denialists to advertise their ideas and build networks, it also exposes potential converts to scientific rebuttals of their claims, as well news about the deaths of the "living icons" —high-profile HIV-positive people who rejected ART.
    The key living icon for AIDS denialism was Christine Maggiore. She founded Alive & Well AIDS Alternatives (an organization with Duesberg on its board), campaigned against the use of ART to prevent mothers passing HIV to their babies, and met President Mbeki. Despite her 3-year-old daughter’s succumbing to AIDS, Maggiore remained firmly opposed to HIV science and ART. She opted for alternative therapies and died at the age of 52, from AIDS-related infections.
    Scientists often have a tough time responding to anti-science conspiracy theories because their integrity is attacked by the conspiratorial moves made against them. But precisely because living icons like Maggiore lent confidence to AIDS denialism by appearing to offer "living proof" that the science of HIV pathogenesis and treatment is wrong, pro-science activists maintain a list of denialists who have died of AIDS. The weapons of science and reason are still very much in contention, but the gloves have come off in a broader struggle over credibility.
In Maddox’s Opinion, Duesberg’s arguments are________.
选项 A、solid
B、empirical
C、appealing
D、biased
答案D
解析 事实细节题。根据Maddox定位到第二段最后一句，该句讲到，马多克斯抱怨杜斯伯格 “错误地使用倾向性论点混淆对艾滋病的理解”，而且由于杜斯伯格没有以一名科学家的身份参与进来，他将不再自动拥有“答辩权”。由此可知，马多克斯认为杜斯伯格的观点是带有偏见的，故答案为D项。solid意为“可靠的”；empirical意为“经验主义的”；appealing意为“有吸引力的”。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/xVra777K
本试题收录于： 翻译硕士（翻译硕士英语）题库专业硕士分类
0

翻译硕士（翻译硕士英语）

专业硕士

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)