When Ellen M. Roche, 24, volunteered for the asthma experiment, she didn't expect to benefit from it--except for the $365 she'd be paid. Unlike clinical trials, in which most patients hope that an experimental therapy will help them, this study was designed just to answer a basic question: how does the way a normal lung reacts to irritants shed light on how an asthmatic lung responds To find out, scientists led by Dr. Alkis Togias of Johns Hopkins University had Roche and other healthy volunteers inhale a drug called hexamethonium. Almost immediately Roche began to cough and feel short of breath. Within weeks her lungs failed and her kidneys shut down. On June 2 Roche died--a death made more tragic by the possibility that it was preventable. Last week the federal Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) ruled that Hopkins's system for protecting human subjects is so flawed that virtually all its U.S.-supported research had to stop.

　　The worst part is that Hopkins, one of the nation's premier medical institutions, is not alone. Two years ago the inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services warned that the system safeguarding human subjects is in danger of a meltdown. The boards that review proposed studies are overburdened, understaffed and shot through with conflicts of interest. Oversight is so porous that no one knows how many people volunteer to be human guinea pigs (21 million a year is an educated guess), how many are hurt or how many die. "Thousands of deaths are never reported, and adverse events in the tens of thousands are not reported," says Adil Shamoo, a member of the National Human Research Protections Advisory Committee and professor at the University of Maryland. Greg Koski, head of OHRP, has called the clinical-trials system "dysfunctional."

　　The OHRP findings on Hopkins are nothing short of devastating. After a three-day inspection last week, OHRP concluded that the Hopkins scientists failed to get information on the link between hexamethonium and lung toxicity, even though data were available via "routine" Internet searches and in textbooks. The drug is not approved for use in humans; the hexa-methonium Togias used was labeled [F]OR LABORATORY USE ONLY. The review board, OHRP charges, never asked for data on the safety of inhaled hexamethonium in people. The consent form that Roche signed states nowhere that hexamethonium is not approved by the FDA (the form describes it as a "medication") and didn't warn about possible lung toxicity.

　　Hopkins itself concluded that the review board did not do all it could to protect the volunteers, and suspended all 10 of Togias's studies. Still, the university--whose $301 million in federal grants for 2,000 human studies made it the largest recipient of government research money last year--is seething. "Hopkins has had over 100 years of doing clinical trials," says Dr. Edward Miller, CEO of Johns Hopkins Medicine. "We have had one death in all of those years. We would have done anything in the world to prevent that death, but [suspending the studies] seems out of proportion." Hopkins calls the shutdown of its experiments "unwarranted, unnecessary, paralyzing and precipitous." OHRP is letting trials continue "where it is in the best interests" of subjects. The rest of the studies can resume once Hopkins submits a plan to restructure its system for protecting research subjects. How quickly that happens, says a government spokesman, depends on Hopkins.

　　1.In the opening paragraph, the author introduces his topic by
　　[A]explaining a phenomenon
　　[B]justifying an assumption
　　[C]stating an incident
　　[D]making a comparison

　　2.The statement “The OHRP findings on Hopkins are nothing short of devastating.”(Line 1, Paragraph 3) implies that
　　[A]The OHRP findings on Hopkins are much too impressive.
　　[B]The OHRP findings on Hopkins are much too shocking.
　　[C]The OHRP findings on Hopkins are much too convincing.
　　[D]The OHRP findings on Hopkins are much too striking.

　　3.The main reasons for Roche’s death are as following, except that _______.
　　[A]the protecting system hasn’t been set up
　　[B]the review board has neglected their duty
　　[C]the research team was not responsible enough for its volunteers
　　[D]the possibility of lung toxicity was overlooked

　　4.The OHRP has found that
　　[A]Hopkins has loose control over the experiment.
　　[B]the volunteers knew nothing about the experiment.
　　[C]there is something wrong with every aspect of the experiment.
　　[D]there exist many hidden troubles in human subjects safeguarding system.

　　5.What can we infer from the last paragraph
　　[A]Hopkins had no fault in this accident.
　　[B]Hopkins seemed not to quite agree with The OHRP
　　[C]Togias's studies shouldn’t be suspended.
　　[D]Hopkins wanted to begin their experiments as soon as possible.

　　答案:CBACB

　　篇章剖析

　　本文采用提出问题——分析问题的模式，着重分析了约翰-霍普金斯大学参与医学实验的自愿者死亡事件发生的原因以及产生的后果。第一段指出一名自愿者在人体实验中不幸死亡；第二段指出人体实验保护系统存在的漏洞和缺陷；第三段指出人类研究保护办公室在霍普金斯大学令人震惊的发现；第四段指出霍普金斯大学的态度和反应。

　　词汇注释

　　crackdown on sb/sth 制裁；取缔

　　therapy[5WerEpI]n.治疗

　　irritant[5IrItEnt]n.刺激物

　　shed light on sth. v.使某事清楚明白地显示出来

　　inhale[In5heIl]vt.吸入vi.吸气

　　hexamethonium[9heksEme`WEJnIEm]n.[药]六甲铵(降血压药)

　　premier[5premIE(r); (@) pri:5mIEr]adj.第一的, 首要的

　　inspector general n.检查长, 监察长

　　meltdown n. 彻底垮台

　　overburden[EJvE5b\:d(E)n]vt.装载过多, 负担过多, 使过劳

　　understaffed[QndE5stB:ft; (@) -5stAft]adj.人员不足的, 人手不足的

　　shot through with sth 很有（某气质）；充满着

　　conflict of interest 违背公众利益的行为,利益冲突

　　guinea pigs n.豚鼠

　　adverse[5Adv\:s]adj.不利的, 敌对的, 相反的

　　clinical trial n.临床试验

　　dysfunction[dIs5fQnkF(E)n]n.[医] 机能不良, 功能紊乱, 官能障碍

　　nothing short of 简直不比…差，简直可以说…

　　devastating[5devEsteItIN]adj.令人十分震惊的;具有强大冲击力的

　　toxicity[tCk`sIsEtI]n.毒性

　　FDA abbr.Food and Drug Administration(美国)食品及药物管理局

　　medication[medI5keIF(E)n]n.药物治疗, 药物处理, 药物

　　suspend[sE5spend]vt.吊, 悬挂v.延缓

　　recipient[rI5sIpIEnt]n.容纳者, 容器

　　seething[`si:TIN]adj.沸腾的, 火热的

　　CEO abbr.Chief Executive Officer 执行总裁

　　out of proportion 不合情理的

　　shutdown[5FQtdaJn]n.关门, 停