2020考研英語(yǔ)閱讀理解精讀100篇：Unit 92

Unit 92

“The fundamental question is whether it is still worthwhile to invest in pharmaceutical science,” says Severin Schwan, the newish boss of Roche, a once-stodgy Swiss drugs firm. A cursory glance at his rivals, who have been trying to concentrate less on coming up with new medicines and more on making simpler things such as “branded” generics and over-the-counter drugs, suggests that the answer is no. Indeed, some analysts claim that the industry’s giants face such a precipitous decline in sales from drugs coming off patent, with so few promising new prospects to replace them, that their entire business model is collapsing.

That argument has Mr Schwan leaping out of his seat with indignation. Using a deck of PowerPoint slides he sets out to disprove “the chorus of gloom”. Drug making is “so crude”, he argues, that half of all known diseases cannot be treated at all, and the drugs for the other half work properly only half the time and with huge side effects. “Imagine a car that starts only half the time, and whose brakes often don’t work,” he says. He sees this sorry state of affairs as a huge business opportunity. In particular, he is convinced that rapid advances in diagnostics, genomics and biotechnology will bring “a brand new revolution” in personalised medicine.

Accordingly, Roche is betting big on research into new drugs, even as rivals seek to diversify and “de-risk”. Earlier this year it bought Genentech, a Californian biotech pioneer. It hopes these deals will put it in the vanguard, since developing drugs tailored to individuals will involve tying manufacturing to the results of genetic tests—as, for example, with Genentech’s treatment for breast cancer, Herceptin.

By taking over Genentech, Roche has added promising drugs for cancer and other potentially lucrative treatments to its otherwise anaemic research pipeline. Tim Anderson of Bernstein Research calculates that Roche is now among the big drugs firms best positioned to cope with the coming generic assault. He projects that its revenues will grow by a quarter over the next five years and its earnings per share will increase by half.

Several potential snags could hold Roche back, however. One fear is that the bureaucracy of a big pharmaceutical firm will crush Genentech’s more innovative culture（it has been called the Google of biotech）. “There is no interference in the way we do things,” insists Richard Scheller, head of research and early development at Genentech. That very few senior executives have left since the takeover supports his claim. Even so, scale is usually not an advantage when it comes to pharmaceutical research and a creative atmosphere can easily dissipate.

Another worry is that Roche’s long-term vision may come at the expense of the shorter-term returns expected by some shareholders. Michael Leuchten of Barclays Capital, an investment bank, reckons that personalised medicine will not start generating profits for some time. That may be fine with Roche’s patient founding family, which controls the firm thanks to its dual-share structure, but it could dismay other investors. Moreover, there is a risk of catastrophic failure. Mr Schwan notes that new drugs earn outsized rewards—but that is because they are much harder to make. It is anybody’s guess whether Roche’s newly filled pipeline of early-stage drugs will become commercial hits in ten or 20 years’ time.

注（1）：本文選自Economist；

注（2）：本文習(xí)題命題模仿對(duì)象：第1、2題分別模仿1999年真題Text 4第1題和Text 2第2題；第3題模仿1998年真題Text 3第2題；第4、5題分別模仿2004年真題Text 2第3題和Text 3第5題。

1. We can learn from the first paragraph that ______.

A) Severin Schwan believes that the entire business model is to destroy the industry

B) drugs with patent expired tend to make less profit in the market

C) Roche may switch its strategy to focus on generics and over-the-counter drugs

D) Roche’s competitors will not answer the question raised by Severin Schwan

2. Speaking of personalised medicine, the author implies that ______.

A) it is a new business model for the pharmaceutical industry

B) it will bring a brand new revolution to Roche

C) it may not be approved by Roche’s shareholders

D) it may not be feasible in the new future

3. Paragraphs 5 and 6 are written to ______.

A) argue against Severin Schwan’s point of view

B) predict the future of Roche

C) introduce Roche’s fears

D) point out potential problems of Roche’s approach

4. By saying “Roche is now among the big drugs firms best positioned to cope with the coming generic assault” （Lines 3~4, Paragraph 4）, Tim Anderson of Bernstein Research means that ______.

A) Roche will beat all the other rivals in terms of producing generic drugs

B) Roche is now capable of competing against generic drugs

C) Roche will acquire a much better capacity in anaemic research

D) Roche is giving the public its promises to produce more new drugs

5. To which of the following is the author likely to agree?

A) Roche’s acquisition of other firms is to reduce its innovativeness.

B) Roche may emerge as the new Google of the biotechnology industry.

C) Roche’s new drugs in research may not be commercialized in a decade.

D) Roche’s shareholders support the company’s R&D efforts in new drugs.

篇章剖析

本文前三段首先介紹了世界主要制藥公司在新藥研發(fā)上減少投入的趨勢(shì)，并主要說(shuō)明了瑞士的羅氏制藥公司在新藥研發(fā)投資決策中的立場(chǎng)，隨后討論了使用基因生物技術(shù)的前景。文章的后三段討論了羅氏制藥公司在未來(lái)發(fā)展過(guò)程中可能面臨的一些問(wèn)題，以及羅氏商業(yè)模式的利弊。

詞匯注釋

stodgy /?st?d?i/ adj. 平庸的；乏味的；非常守舊的

cursory /?k??s?ri/ adj. 倉(cāng)促的，草率的；粗略的

generic /d???ner?k/ n. 非專(zhuān)利藥，仿制藥

precipitous /pr??s?p?t?s/ adj. 急促的；急劇的

indignation /??nd?g?ne???n/ n. 憤怒，憤慨，義憤

genomics /d???n??m?ks/ n. 基因組學(xué)；基因體學(xué)

vanguard /?v?ngɑ?d/ n. 前衛(wèi)，先鋒；領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者

tailor /?te?l?/ v. 修改；使合適

anaemic /??ni?m?k/ adj. 貧血的；無(wú)活力的

assault /??s??lt/ n. 攻擊，襲擊；譴責(zé)，抨擊

snag /sn?g/ n. 意料不到的障礙

dissipate /?d?s?pe?t/ v. 驅(qū)散（霧等），使消散；消除，使消失

catastrophic /?k?t??str?f?k/ adj. 悲慘的；慘敗的

outsized /?a?tsa?zd/ adj. 特大號(hào)的

難句突破

A cursory glance at his rivals, who have been trying to concentrate less on coming up with new medicines and more on making simpler things such as “branded” generics and over-the-counter drugs, suggests that the answer is no.

主體句式：A cursory glance at his rivals...suggests that the answer is no.

結(jié)構(gòu)分析：本句的主體句式其實(shí)非常簡(jiǎn)單，但是因?yàn)橹虚g有一個(gè)很長(zhǎng)的定語(yǔ)從句干擾，考生比較容易混淆句子的結(jié)構(gòu)，理解本句的關(guān)鍵是要抓住句子主干。由who引導(dǎo)的定語(yǔ)從句修飾rivals，其中包含了兩個(gè)并列結(jié)構(gòu)，即concentrate less on... and more on...，也就是做了一個(gè)對(duì)比，說(shuō)明其他制藥公司關(guān)注的重點(diǎn)。此外，定語(yǔ)從句中還用such as引導(dǎo)了兩個(gè)例子。

句子譯文：粗略地看一下羅氏的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手們，他們都在設(shè)法減少對(duì)新藥研發(fā)的投入，將更多的精力投入到生產(chǎn)“品牌”仿制藥和非處方藥這些更容易的事情上，這說(shuō)明他們對(duì)這個(gè)問(wèn)題的回答是“不值得”。

題目分析

1. B 推理題。本題的對(duì)應(yīng)信息在文章第一段。該段最后一句指出，業(yè)界巨頭們認(rèn)為整個(gè)醫(yī)藥行業(yè)的商業(yè)模式正在垮塌，但這并不是塞韋林·施萬(wàn)的觀(guān)點(diǎn)，因此A不正確。該段提到了generics and over-the-counter drugs，但這是羅氏的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手的做法，并非羅氏的做法，因此C也不正確。第一段的the answer is no不是說(shuō)對(duì)手們不會(huì)回答這個(gè)問(wèn)題，而是說(shuō)如果他們回答這個(gè)問(wèn)題的話(huà)，答案應(yīng)該是“不”，因此D也不正確。第一段還提到“專(zhuān)利藥到期后銷(xiāo)售量會(huì)大幅下降”，可以推出專(zhuān)利過(guò)期后就不會(huì)創(chuàng)造那么多利潤(rùn)，因此B是正確選項(xiàng)。

2. C 推理題。文章第二段和最后一段都提到了personalised medicine。首先看第二段：塞韋林·施萬(wàn)將這種令人遺憾的現(xiàn)象看作是巨大的商機(jī)，他相信診斷學(xué)、基因組學(xué)和生物技術(shù)領(lǐng)域的飛速發(fā)展將給個(gè)性化藥品帶來(lái)“全新的革命”。這里并沒(méi)有明確說(shuō)明個(gè)性化藥品是一個(gè)全新的商業(yè)模式，故A不正確；同樣這里所謂的革命是指?jìng)€(gè)性化藥品的研制，而不是指羅氏公司發(fā)生變化，所以B也不正確。再來(lái)看最后一段：羅氏的長(zhǎng)期愿景可能將以犧牲部分股東的短期回報(bào)為代價(jià)。巴克萊投資銀行的邁克爾·勒奇頓認(rèn)為，個(gè)性化藥品在短時(shí)間內(nèi)不會(huì)贏利。但這并不表示個(gè)性化藥品就不可行，因此D不正確。正是因?yàn)閭€(gè)性化藥品不會(huì)很快盈利，“可能會(huì)使其他投資者感到沮喪”，所以很可能股東會(huì)反對(duì)這一決策，因此C是正確答案。

3. D 細(xì)節(jié)題。文章第五段指出“Several potential snags could hold Roche back, however”，也就是說(shuō)最后兩段開(kāi)始談羅氏這一戰(zhàn)略面臨的問(wèn)題。即使不知道snag這個(gè)詞的意思，也可以從however這個(gè)轉(zhuǎn)折詞和上下文的意思來(lái)綜合判斷，很顯然只有D是正確答案。

4. B 語(yǔ)義題。引文來(lái)自文章第四段第二句：伯恩斯坦研究公司的蒂姆·安德森認(rèn)為，羅氏現(xiàn)在已經(jīng)成為世界上定位最佳的大型制藥公司之一，能夠應(yīng)對(duì)即將到來(lái)的仿制藥襲擊。只有B選項(xiàng)與這個(gè)意思最為貼切。

5. C 細(xì)節(jié)題。文章倒數(shù)第二段指出“就藥品研發(fā)而言，規(guī)模通常不是優(yōu)勢(shì)，相反容易對(duì)創(chuàng)新的氛圍造成傷害”，但前文也說(shuō)明羅氏盡量保持被收購(gòu)公司原有的行事方式，因此作者在這一點(diǎn)上也只是提出猜測(cè)，并不是一個(gè)明確的觀(guān)點(diǎn)，因此A不正確。文章第五段中提到，被稱(chēng)為生物技術(shù)領(lǐng)域的谷歌的是已經(jīng)被羅氏并購(gòu)的基因泰克公司，并非羅氏，文章也沒(méi)有提及羅氏可能成為生物技術(shù)領(lǐng)域的谷歌，故B是錯(cuò)誤的。D與文章最后一段意思相反，作者指出有些股東可能反對(duì)開(kāi)發(fā)新藥，所以該選項(xiàng)也不正確。C是正確答案，因?yàn)樽髡咴谧詈笠痪湓?huà)中指出“至于羅氏剛剛投入研發(fā)的新品能否在10年或20年后獲得商業(yè)利潤(rùn)，目前誰(shuí)都說(shuō)不準(zhǔn)”。

參考譯文

“問(wèn)題的根本在于，新藥研發(fā)是否還值得我們進(jìn)行投資?！币欢刃袆?dòng)保守的瑞士羅氏制藥公司剛剛走馬上任的總裁塞韋林·施萬(wàn)說(shuō)道。粗略地看一下羅氏的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手們，他們都在設(shè)法減少對(duì)新藥研發(fā)的投入，將更多的精力投入到生產(chǎn)“品牌”仿制藥和非處方藥這些更容易的事情上，這說(shuō)明他們對(duì)這個(gè)問(wèn)題的回答是“不值得”。的確，一些分析人士稱(chēng)，制藥業(yè)巨頭們都面臨專(zhuān)利藥到期后銷(xiāo)售量大幅下降的問(wèn)題，況且目前也沒(méi)有前景看好的新藥來(lái)替代前者的位置，整個(gè)醫(yī)藥行業(yè)的商業(yè)模式正在崩潰瓦解中。

這一爭(zhēng)論使得施萬(wàn)先生感到氣憤不已，他再也沉不住氣了。他用一組PPT幻燈片對(duì)那一片“憂(yōu)郁之聲”進(jìn)行反駁。他說(shuō)，制藥業(yè)是“非常殘酷的”，在我們所知道的疾病中，半數(shù)都是不能治愈的，而對(duì)于另一半，藥品也只有一半的時(shí)間會(huì)起作用，并且伴有嚴(yán)重副作用。他說(shuō)：“這就像一輛汽車(chē)僅有一半時(shí)間可以正常行駛，而剎車(chē)又經(jīng)常不靈?！比f林·施萬(wàn)將這種令人沮喪的現(xiàn)象看作是巨大的商機(jī)。他尤其相信診斷學(xué)、基因組學(xué)和生物技術(shù)領(lǐng)域的飛速發(fā)展將給個(gè)性化藥品帶來(lái)“全新的革命”。

因此，羅氏在新藥研究上下了很大的賭注，即便其競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手都在尋求多樣化的產(chǎn)品組合和“化解風(fēng)險(xiǎn)”的辦法。今年早些時(shí)候，羅氏收購(gòu)了位于美國(guó)加州的生物技術(shù)先鋒基因泰克公司。羅氏希望這些交易能使其成為業(yè)界先鋒，因?yàn)楦鶕?jù)個(gè)性化需求開(kāi)發(fā)藥品意味著要把制藥與遺傳學(xué)的試驗(yàn)結(jié)果結(jié)合在一起，例如，與基因泰克公司用于治療乳腺癌的藥品赫賽汀相結(jié)合。

通過(guò)收購(gòu)基因泰克，羅氏彌補(bǔ)了原先研究領(lǐng)域的不足，將其研究領(lǐng)域擴(kuò)展到了有前景的抗癌藥和其他潛在的有利可圖的療法。伯恩斯坦研究公司的蒂姆·安德森認(rèn)為，羅氏現(xiàn)在已經(jīng)成為世界上定位最佳的大型制藥公司之一，能夠應(yīng)對(duì)即將到來(lái)的仿制藥襲擊。他預(yù)測(cè)羅氏今后五年內(nèi)營(yíng)業(yè)收入將增長(zhǎng)四分之一，股票每股收益將增長(zhǎng)過(guò)半。

但是，羅氏在其發(fā)展道路上可能會(huì)遇到幾個(gè)障礙。人們的一個(gè)擔(dān)憂(yōu)是大型制藥公司的官僚作風(fēng)會(huì)摧垮基因泰克的更具創(chuàng)新性的文化（該公司曾被稱(chēng)為生物技術(shù)領(lǐng)域的谷歌）。曾經(jīng)供職于基因泰克開(kāi)發(fā)部，現(xiàn)任羅氏研發(fā)負(fù)責(zé)人的理查德·謝勒強(qiáng)調(diào)：“沒(méi)人會(huì)干涉我們行事的方式?！绷_氏接管該公司后幾乎沒(méi)有高管離職這一事實(shí)充分支持了他的說(shuō)法。即便如此，就藥品研發(fā)而言，規(guī)模通常不是優(yōu)勢(shì)，相反容易對(duì)創(chuàng)新的氛圍造成傷害。

另一個(gè)擔(dān)憂(yōu)是，羅氏的長(zhǎng)期愿景可能將以犧牲部分股東的短期回報(bào)為代價(jià)。巴克萊投資銀行的邁克爾·勒奇頓認(rèn)為，個(gè)性化藥品在短時(shí)間內(nèi)不會(huì)贏利。這對(duì)羅氏也許是有利的，其創(chuàng)始家族通過(guò)雙重股權(quán)結(jié)構(gòu)牢牢地控制著公司，但也可能會(huì)使其他投資者感到沮喪。更嚴(yán)重的是，這種商業(yè)模式還存在潰敗的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。施萬(wàn)先生強(qiáng)調(diào)說(shuō)，新藥之所以能獲得巨大的回報(bào)，是因?yàn)檫@些藥的生產(chǎn)具有相當(dāng)難度。至于羅氏剛剛投入研發(fā)的新品能否在10年或20年后獲得商業(yè)利潤(rùn)，目前誰(shuí)都說(shuō)不準(zhǔn)。