0910G SPECTACULAR 备考日记 by Mason.PD[AR] -寄托是我永远的家

尾羽UID: 2482591

。。。。。这么多字~难怪没人改。。（呵呵`说笑）

missingusaUID: 2625832

Mason PD.同学 考完疯了几天 昨天刚回来 谢谢你的批改阿~! 虽然AW考完了, 但是还是会把修改稿发上去的. 这两天在给组里的人改, 等到把他们都顺利送上考场, 就来修改  再次谢谢MASON同学 祝=August Rush=组的同学们都取得好成绩~!

Mason.PDUID: 2592013

Mason PD.同学 考完疯了几天 昨天刚回来 谢谢你的批改阿~! 虽然AW考完了, 但是还是会把修改稿发上去的. 这两天在给组里的人改, 等到把他们都顺利送上考场, 就来修改  再次谢谢MASON同学 祝=August Rush=组的同学们都 ...
missingusa 发表于 2009-8-16 01:17

不用不用，大家互相帮助哈~

我又来贴好作文了
Issue 147
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=989262&highlight=

尾羽UID: 2482591

例子好多啊~~收下收下！！

Mason.PDUID: 2592013

头一次贴这么长的东西

说白了就是
Woo SukHwang scandal

Korean scandal will have global fallout（这牛B）

The possibility that Woo Suk Hwang's cloning experiments were faked threatens to undermine confidence in stem-cell research. （咱考试就拿这句话了！）

In one of the biggest scientific scandals of recent times, South Korea's star cloner Woo Suk Hwang last week asked to retract his landmark paper on the creation of embryonic stem cells from adult human tissue. The request, along with new doubts about his earlier work, confirms what researchers in the field were already starting to realize - that the advance marked by Hwang's research, with all it promised for therapeutic cloning, may amount to nothing.

Worse, scientists fear that the episode will damage not only public perceptions of stemcell research, but science's image as a whole.

The request for retraction of the paper (W. S. Hwang et al. Science 308, 1777-1783; 2005) came after three authors claimed the work was untrustworthy. Fertility expert Sung Il Roh of MizMedi Hospital in Seoul, claimed on 15 December that Hwang had admitted to him that data were fabricated, and there were no patient-specific cells. In a documentary aired the same day, Sun Jong Kim, formerly of Seoul National University (SNU), told the Seoulbased Munhwa Broadcasting Corporation (MBC) that Hwang had asked him to falsify images. And Gerald Schatten at the University of Pittsburgh asked for his name to be removed from the paper, claiming that information from a team member had caused him to doubt the work's accuracy.

And there are now concerns about earlier work. For example, in the paper in which Hwang claimed to have extracted the first stem-cell line from a cloned human embryo (W. S. Hwang et al. Science 303, 1669-1674; 2004), figures supposedly showing cloned cell lines are identical to those in an earlier paper showing normal embryonic stem cells (J. H. Park et al. Molecules and Cells 17, 309-315; 2004). Nature has also announced an investigation into Hwang's paper on the first cloned dog (see 'Dogged by doubts').

Hwang admitted on 16 December that there were errors in the 2005 stem-cell paper, but denied fraud. He maintains that 11 patient-specific stem-cell lines were created as reported, but six were never frozen, and subsequently became contaminated. He says five lines being thawed now will prove his success.

Culture of secrecy

Hwang's claims are meeting with increasing scepticism. "He was given a chance [to explain] but he didn't use it," says a molecular biologist at SNU, who asked not to be named. Robert Lanza of Advanced Cell Technology in Worcester, Massachusetts, who is also attempting to clone human cells, says it is difficult to believe that cell lines of such value weren't stored properly: "What stem-cell scientist doesn't freeze their cells?"

The SNU is investigating the team's work. The lab's atmosphere of pervasive secrecy and tradition of deference towards Hwang will make investigators' job difficult. But if there was fabrication, it will be hard for Hwang to plead ignorance. When Nature visited in 2004, he declined to show his first cloned stem-cell line, kept under lock and key. "Many lab members aren't allowed to see it either," he said. Taken together, the concerns about Hwang's work leave biologists with no proof that stem cells can be extracted from cloned human embryos (see Where now for stem-cell cloners?).

And the scandal's implications will reach further. There have been cases in which fraud has been established that have involved more papers: a 2002 investigation by Bell Laboratories in Murray Hill, New Jersey, found that Jan Hendrik Schön fabricated data in at least 16 papers while working there. But Schön's field of materials science has a lower public profile than cloning and stem-cell research.（延伸吧~就是我就不住）

"This is such an important experiment and there was so much publicity around it," says Rudolf Jäenisch, a mouse-cloning expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "It is shocking to think that it might have been fabricated."

"It will probably affect the general perception of scientists and what we do," says Theodore Friedmann, a gene-therapy researcher at the University of California, San Diego, who has chaired the US Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee. "There's a climate of mistrust of science now that's stronger than in the past. That will be exacerbated by this sort of event."

The debacle may well strengthen the hand of those trying to ban stem-cell research in the United States. "This is an example of the corruption of science that this whole cloning field has been tending toward, with its end-justifiesthe- means mentality," says Gene Tarne of Do No Harm, a Washington DC-based coalition that coordinates opposition to stem-cell research. "For almost a decade now, we've heard these overhyped claims about therapeutic cloning. Somebody took the first step in providing any evidence for these claims and it turns out the evidence simply wasn't there."

Lessons to learn

Researchers are left wondering how such a fiasco happened. （要的就是这句话！）The journal Science, which published two of Hwang's high-profile papers, has defended its peer-review process. Donald Kennedy, Science's editor-in-chief, says the journal typically takes 120 days to review and publish biology manuscripts. Hwang's 2005 paper took 58 days, leading some to wonder whether it was rushed. "If it's a really hot paper and you want to get it out quickly, how many shortcuts do you take?" says Nobel laureate Paul Berg of Stanford University, California.(瞧瞧这地道的。。。shortcut！)

In a press conference on 16 December, Kennedy insisted the journal does not rush papers. "I think we were appropriately suspicious in this case. I don't think this points to a generic fault in the peer-review system," he said.

Asked whether Nature could have been caught out in the same way, editor-in-chief Philip Campbell agrees. "We would hope the errors would have been noticed," he says. "But usually reviewers have to take on faith that the authors are presenting what they say they are." He suggests that in future some important claims should be independently tested.

Others are questioning Schatten's role. He promoted the South Korean group in the West, and was senior author on the 2005 paper, although he did not perform any of the experiments it describes. "The lesson I've learned is that I would not be a co-author on a paper unless I was essentially willing to stake my entire career on every piece of data in that paper," says cloning researcher Kevin Eggan of Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Schatten referred Nature's inquiries to Jane Duffield at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center's news bureau. "He is still not doing interviews with reporters," Duffield wrote in an e-mail.

But some have sympathy for Schatten. "Many scientists would be tempted to do similar things if someone offered them authorship on what seemed like an important breakthrough," says Friedmann.

The field as a whole should tone down its rhetoric,（这句是牛。。就是我不理解什么意思。。。） he adds. "I have been very concerned about some of the language used. It seems reminiscent of the gene-therapy experience, where so much promise was obvious, but it was hyped and exaggerated to the detriment of the field. We should be more circumspect."

再弄个Argument模版化结尾
On balance, the reasoning of the arguer lack sufficient evidence and well-rounded consideration as discussed above. Far more detailed and scientific studies and scrutiny should be exerted to provide believable data showing the real situation about。。。（作者那啥假设啊论据啊）

再来模版
the arguer assumes the characteristics of a group apply to every member of that group

Mason.PDUID: 2592013

我也开始焦虑了啊~I的提纲现在还不熟。。模考只有一次进了45分钟。。
还剩3天了！

再来贴文章，不过这次的文章文笔例子挺好，就是思路不建议。。
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=921939&highlight=
关于Issue 43 我还想到了Bernard Madoff
commit defrauding of billions of dollars from public individuals just because of his lust for money and losing of ethical and moral standards

Mason.PDUID: 2592013

从猫猫那里我又学到了不少。。发现自己例子贫乏的可以。。

Konosuke Matsushita   First of all, listen carefully to the views of others

lela900UID: 2634833

97# Mason.PD
唉,看到我的QQ签名了吗? 完全是我的最近心态...
给自己一点勇气吧~一点信心~
话说我还剩2天,已经抱着能看一点是一点的挣扎.
I的语言词汇,再修也修不高级.
I的例子,再新我也不想换了.
唯一可做的,就是把思路顺顺. =.=下笔如有神吧~

加油加油!

Mason.PDUID: 2592013

97# Mason.PD  
唉,看到我的QQ签名了吗? 完全是我的最近心态...
给自己一点勇气吧~一点信心~
话说我还剩2天,已经抱着能看一点是一点的挣扎.
I的语言词汇,再修也修不高级.
I的例子,再新我也不想换了.
唯一可做 ...
lela900 发表于 2009-8-18 20:24

木子我和你说，我们都是准备AW有快4个月的人，不管这质量效率如何，绝对比大部分临阵磨枪的人强
你要相信自己，你见过3分的官方范文吧，你觉得自己是写出那种文章的人吗？
上次你让我看的文章绝对是4+的标准，相信自己的实力吧

尾羽UID: 2482591

从猫猫那里我又学到了不少。。发现自己例子贫乏的可以。。

Konosuke Matsushita   First of all, listen carefully to the views of others
Mason.PD 发表于 2009-8-18 15:28

这名字真的很复杂。。。。。

crepuscularlywUID: 2645654

来看看组长大人。
相信大家一定都没问题的！
这几天理理心态，看看提纲。一般语言这东西，几天提高不了的~
预祝RP大爆发，抽到高频~BLESS~~

lela900UID: 2634833

99# Mason.PD

恩,不管怎么说最后一天好好努力!!!
加油!

wisleUID: 2578616

今天我考了
I50（高频）
A34（超低考前没看过）
还好模考时是随机的所以可以接受这个残酷的现状
估计今天心态不错
保持好心态，既然已经走了这么远的路了，好好努力再走一程！

尾羽UID: 2482591

哆啦加油！！还有木子~我一下子找不到她日志链接了~就一起在这里祝福吧~！！
大家都高频！！！

Mason.PDUID: 2592013

我来这里做最后的忏悔。
明天下午1点南大，刚才再次模考I130限时失败。
我最近感觉自己脑子混沌，肚子也老是不舒服，就像那次我失利的高考前一样
下午没心思背提纲，又玩了会游戏，最后几天的效率竟然是最低的。
我本来计划把Issue提纲拉到前40，Argument再过遍题库的。。。
现在的情况是Issue很不熟（前30都不大熟，写过的都不大熟，都怪我平时太依赖电子词典。。）
Argument怎么写字数都不到450.。（熟的420，生的400不到。。）
这种状况明天真是要祈祷奇迹了。。
上帝，请原谅我这几天的懈怠。。今晚我至少会全力以赴。。