Unit 93
Depending on whom you ask, the experiment announced at a Texas medical conference last week was a potential breakthrough for infertile women, a tragic failure or a dangerous step closer to the nightmare scenario of human cloning.
There's truth to all these points of view. Infertility was clearly the motivation when Chinese doctors used a new technique to help one of their countrywomen get pregnant. Unlike some infertile women, the 30-year-old patient produced eggs just fine, and those eggs could be fertilized by sperm. But they never developed properly, largely because of defects in parts of the egg outside the fertilized nucleus. So using a technique developed by Dr. James Grifo at New York University, Dr. Zhuang Guanglun of Sun Yat-sen University in Guangzhou took the patient's fertilized egg, scooped out the chromosome-bearing nuclear material and put it in a donated egg whose nucleus had been removed. In this more benign environment, development proceeded normally, and the woman became pregnant with triplets who carried a mix of her DNA and her husband's——pretty much like any normal baby.
What has some doctors and ethicists upset is that this so-called nuclear-transfer technique has also been used to produce clones, starting with Dolly the sheep. The only significant difference is that with cloning, the inserted nucleus comes from a single, usually adult, cell, and the resulting offspring is genetically identical to the parent. Doing that with humans is ethically repugnant to many. Besides, for reasons that aren't yet well understood, cloned animals often abort spontaneously or are born with defects; Dolly died very young, though she had seemed healthy. And because the Chinese woman's twins were born prematurely and died （the third triplet was removed early on to improve chances for the remaining two）, critics have suggested that cloning and nuclear transfer are equally risky for humans.
Not likely, says Grifo. "The obstetric outcome was a disaster," he admits, "but the embryos were chromosomally normal. We have no evidence that it had anything to do with the procedure." Even so, concern over potential risks is why the Food and Drug Administration created a stringent approval process for such research in 2001——a process that Grifo found so onerous that he stopped working on the technique and gave it to the researchers in China, where it was subsequently banned （but only this month, long after Zhuang's patient became pregnant）.
The bottom line, say critics, is that perfecting a technique that could be used for human cloning, even if it were developed for another purpose, is just a bad idea——an assertion Zhuang rejects. "I agree that it makes sense to control these experiments," he says. "But we've developed an effective technology to help people. We understand how to do it. We need it."
注（１）：本文選自Time; 10/27/2003, p47；
注（２）：本文習(xí)題命題模仿對(duì)象2003年真題Text 4；
1. What is implied in the first paragraph?
[A]Some people regard it as a tragic failure.
[B]The new experiment means a breakthrough for some people.
[C]People have different reactions to the new experiment.
[D]The new experiment means a step further to the dangerous human cloning.
2. The author uses the case of Dolly and the Chinese pregnant woman to show that _________.
[A]both nuclear-transfer and cloning are dangerous for humans and animals
[B]both of them benefit from the new technique
[C]both of them are the examples of technical failure
[D]both of them are the fruits of the new technology
3. Zhuang's attitude toward the critics' conclusion is one of __________.
[A]reserved consent
[B]strong disapproval
[C]slight contempt
[D]enthusiastic support
4. The only difference existing between nuclear-transfer and cloning technique is ________.
[A]whether it is used for research or for helping the infertile
[B]whether the offspring looks like the parent
[C]whether it is used in animals or human beings
[D]whether the inserted nucleus comes from a single and usually adult cell
5. The text intends to express the idea that _________.
[A]research of cloning has potential risks
[B]the research of cloning should be stopped totally
[C]ethics and research of cloning are in contradiction
[D]researchers should have the right to continue the study of cloning
答案：CABDC
篇章剖析
本文采用提出問(wèn)題——分析問(wèn)題的模式，指出細(xì)胞核移植和克隆技術(shù)上存在的倫理方面的爭(zhēng)議以及研究人員本人對(duì)此事的看法。在第一段指出人們對(duì)一項(xiàng)新成果的不同看法；第二段指出這一技術(shù)對(duì)一名中國(guó)不孕婦女的幫助；第三段指出細(xì)胞核移植和克隆技術(shù)的區(qū)別以及都存在的危險(xiǎn)性；第四段和第五段指出研究人員的一些做法和看法。
詞匯注釋
ethical[5eWIk（E）l]adj.與倫理有關(guān), 民族的, 民族特有的
impregnate[5Impre^neIt; （?@） Im5pre^net]vt.使懷孕, 使受精, 使充滿, 注入, 灌輸
deem[di:m]v.認(rèn)為, 相信
infertile[In5f\:taIl]adj.不肥沃的, 貧瘠的, 不毛的, 不結(jié)果實(shí)的
breakthrough[5breIkWru:]n.突破
scenario[sI5nB:rIEJ]n.想定；游戲的關(guān),或是某一特定情節(jié)
clone[klEJn]n.無(wú)性系, 無(wú)性繁殖, 克隆v.無(wú)性繁殖, 復(fù)制
fertilize[5f\:tIlaIz]vt.施肥, 使豐饒, 使受精, 使肥沃, 使多產(chǎn)
sperm[sp\:m]n.精液, 精子, 鯨油
nucleus[5nju:klIEs; （?@） 5nu:-]n.核子
scoop out v.接應(yīng), 舀出
chromosome[5krEJmEsEJm]n.[生物]染色體
benign[bI5naIn]adj.（病）良性的, （氣候）良好的, 仁慈的, 和藹的
triplet[5trIplIt]n.三個(gè)一幅, 三個(gè)一組, 三份
triplets n.三胞胎
repugnant[rI5pQ^nEnt]adj. 引起厭惡或反感的；討厭的或可憎的；不一致的
obstetric[Cb`stetrIk]adj.產(chǎn)科的
stringent[5strIndVEnt]adj.嚴(yán)厲的, 迫切的, 銀根緊的
onerous[5RnErEs, 5EJnErEs]adj.繁重的, 費(fèi)力的, 負(fù)有法律責(zé)任的
bottom line n. 結(jié)果，結(jié)局,最后結(jié)果或聲明；
難句突破
Even so, concern over potential risks is why the Food and Drug Administration created a stringent approval process for such research in 2001——a process that Grifo found so onerous that he stopped working on the technique and gave it to the researchers in China, where it was subsequently banned （but only this month, long after Zhuang's patient became pregnant）.
主體句式：…concern over potential risks is why …
結(jié)構(gòu)分析：“a process”在句子中的語(yǔ)法成分是同位語(yǔ)；后面又跟了一個(gè)“that”引導(dǎo)的定語(yǔ)從句；在從句中又使用了“so…that”句式；在從句中又使用了“where”引導(dǎo)的從句。
句子譯文：盡管如此，由于擔(dān)心潛在的危險(xiǎn)，美國(guó)食品藥物管理局2001年就類似研究制定了較為嚴(yán)格的批準(zhǔn)程序——這是一套令葛瑞佛覺(jué)得太過(guò)于煩瑣而終止了這一技術(shù)的研究工作，并將其轉(zhuǎn)給了中國(guó)研究人員的程序。這項(xiàng)研究工作后來(lái)在中國(guó)也被禁止（在本月才剛被禁止，這是發(fā)生在莊的病人懷孕后很久以后的事了）。
題目分析
１.答案為C,屬推理判斷題。做好本題的關(guān)鍵是對(duì)“depending on whom you ask”的理解。對(duì)于不同的人來(lái)說(shuō)，他們對(duì)實(shí)驗(yàn)的反應(yīng)也不相同。
２.答案為A,屬推理判斷題。原文對(duì)應(yīng)信息“critics have suggested that cloning and nuclear transfer are equally risky for humans”。文中提到的“多莉”羊和一名中國(guó)孕婦分別是為了進(jìn)一步具體說(shuō)明克隆和細(xì)胞核移植技術(shù)及其存在的一些危險(xiǎn)。
1． 答案為B，屬情感態(tài)度題。原文對(duì)應(yīng)信息是“．．．a(chǎn)n assertion Zhuang rejects”?！皉eject”
這個(gè)詞比較正式，也表達(dá)較強(qiáng)的感情色彩。
４.答案為D，屬事實(shí)細(xì)節(jié)題。原文對(duì)應(yīng)信息是“The only significant difference is that with cloning, the inserted nucleus comes from a single, usually adult, cell, and the resulting offspring is genetically identical to the parent.”
5.答案為C，屬中心思想題。有關(guān)克隆技術(shù)的研究，從研究角度來(lái)說(shuō)無(wú)可厚非，但是從倫理學(xué)角度來(lái)說(shuō)爭(zhēng)議不小。
參考譯文
上周在德克薩斯醫(yī)學(xué)會(huì)議上宣布了一項(xiàng)實(shí)驗(yàn)。對(duì)于不同的詢問(wèn)對(duì)象，實(shí)驗(yàn)的意義也不相同。對(duì)于不孕婦女來(lái)說(shuō)這是一種潛在的突破；對(duì)某些人來(lái)說(shuō)這是一種悲劇性的失敗，或者是朝人類無(wú)性繁殖的噩夢(mèng)般的境地又邁出了危險(xiǎn)的一步。
所有這些觀點(diǎn)都有各自的道理。中國(guó)醫(yī)生采用一種新技術(shù)來(lái)幫助一位農(nóng)婦懷孕，其動(dòng)機(jī)很明顯是治療不孕癥。跟一些不孕婦女不同的是，這位三十歲的病人可以排出健康的卵細(xì)胞，并且那些卵細(xì)胞可以跟精子結(jié)合成受精卵。但是這些卵細(xì)胞卻不能正常發(fā)育，其原因主要是受精核外部的部分卵細(xì)胞有缺陷。因此，使用由紐約大學(xué)的詹姆士·葛瑞佛博士和廣東中山醫(yī)科大學(xué)的莊廣倫博士發(fā)明的技術(shù)，可以把病人的受精卵取出來(lái)，提取帶有染色體的核物質(zhì)，并把它放入已經(jīng)去除核子的別人捐贈(zèng)的卵細(xì)胞內(nèi)。在這種更為有利的環(huán)境中，細(xì)胞發(fā)育正常進(jìn)行。這位婦女懷上了三胞胎，胎兒攜帶著她和她丈夫兩人的DNA——這跟其他正常的嬰兒沒(méi)什么大的差別。
使一些醫(yī)生和倫理學(xué)家感到心煩的是，這項(xiàng)所謂的細(xì)胞核移植技術(shù)被用于克隆，“多莉”羊就是這一技術(shù)最開(kāi)始的產(chǎn)物。其中的不同之處僅在于在克隆過(guò)程中，嵌入的細(xì)胞核來(lái)自單細(xì)胞，通常又是成熟的細(xì)胞。從遺傳上來(lái)說(shuō)，這樣產(chǎn)生的后代同母體是一樣的。把這種實(shí)驗(yàn)用于人體，從倫理學(xué)的角度來(lái)說(shuō)，很多人都對(duì)此感到反感。此外，由于我們無(wú)法搞懂的原因，克隆動(dòng)物通常會(huì)自行流產(chǎn)，或者具有天生缺陷。“多莉”盡管看起來(lái)很健康，但是她很早就死了。因?yàn)槟俏恢袊?guó)婦女早產(chǎn)下雙胞胎，并且都未能保住性命（為了提高其它兩個(gè)胎兒的存活幾率，第三個(gè)胎兒早就被做掉了），所以評(píng)論家認(rèn)為克隆和細(xì)胞核移植對(duì)于人類來(lái)說(shuō)都是同等危險(xiǎn)的。
葛瑞佛認(rèn)為事情并不一定是這樣?！爱a(chǎn)科產(chǎn)生這樣的后果真是一場(chǎng)災(zāi)難，”他承認(rèn)說(shuō)，“但是從染色體來(lái)看，這些胚胎都是正常的。我們沒(méi)有證據(jù)顯示這跟實(shí)驗(yàn)中的每一個(gè)環(huán)節(jié)有任何關(guān)系?！北M管如此，由于擔(dān)心潛在的危險(xiǎn)，美國(guó)食品藥物管理局2001年就類似研究制定了較為嚴(yán)格的批準(zhǔn)程序——這是一套令葛瑞佛覺(jué)得太過(guò)于煩瑣而終止了這一技術(shù)的研究工作，并將其轉(zhuǎn)給了中國(guó)研究人員的程序。這項(xiàng)研究工作后來(lái)在中國(guó)也被禁止（在本月才剛被禁止，這是發(fā)生在莊的病人懷孕后很久以后的事了）。
評(píng)論家認(rèn)為所做的結(jié)論是：盡管是出于其它目的而進(jìn)行研究的，但是完善可能會(huì)用做人類克隆的技術(shù)不是一個(gè)好主意——這項(xiàng)聲明是莊極力反對(duì)的?！拔屹澩刂七@些實(shí)驗(yàn)確實(shí)有一定的意義，”他說(shuō)，“但是我們已經(jīng)發(fā)明了這項(xiàng)可以幫助人的有效的技術(shù)。我們知道該如何使用。我們也需要它?！?BR>
Depending on whom you ask, the experiment announced at a Texas medical conference last week was a potential breakthrough for infertile women, a tragic failure or a dangerous step closer to the nightmare scenario of human cloning.
There's truth to all these points of view. Infertility was clearly the motivation when Chinese doctors used a new technique to help one of their countrywomen get pregnant. Unlike some infertile women, the 30-year-old patient produced eggs just fine, and those eggs could be fertilized by sperm. But they never developed properly, largely because of defects in parts of the egg outside the fertilized nucleus. So using a technique developed by Dr. James Grifo at New York University, Dr. Zhuang Guanglun of Sun Yat-sen University in Guangzhou took the patient's fertilized egg, scooped out the chromosome-bearing nuclear material and put it in a donated egg whose nucleus had been removed. In this more benign environment, development proceeded normally, and the woman became pregnant with triplets who carried a mix of her DNA and her husband's——pretty much like any normal baby.
What has some doctors and ethicists upset is that this so-called nuclear-transfer technique has also been used to produce clones, starting with Dolly the sheep. The only significant difference is that with cloning, the inserted nucleus comes from a single, usually adult, cell, and the resulting offspring is genetically identical to the parent. Doing that with humans is ethically repugnant to many. Besides, for reasons that aren't yet well understood, cloned animals often abort spontaneously or are born with defects; Dolly died very young, though she had seemed healthy. And because the Chinese woman's twins were born prematurely and died （the third triplet was removed early on to improve chances for the remaining two）, critics have suggested that cloning and nuclear transfer are equally risky for humans.
Not likely, says Grifo. "The obstetric outcome was a disaster," he admits, "but the embryos were chromosomally normal. We have no evidence that it had anything to do with the procedure." Even so, concern over potential risks is why the Food and Drug Administration created a stringent approval process for such research in 2001——a process that Grifo found so onerous that he stopped working on the technique and gave it to the researchers in China, where it was subsequently banned （but only this month, long after Zhuang's patient became pregnant）.
The bottom line, say critics, is that perfecting a technique that could be used for human cloning, even if it were developed for another purpose, is just a bad idea——an assertion Zhuang rejects. "I agree that it makes sense to control these experiments," he says. "But we've developed an effective technology to help people. We understand how to do it. We need it."
注（１）：本文選自Time; 10/27/2003, p47；
注（２）：本文習(xí)題命題模仿對(duì)象2003年真題Text 4；
1. What is implied in the first paragraph?
[A]Some people regard it as a tragic failure.
[B]The new experiment means a breakthrough for some people.
[C]People have different reactions to the new experiment.
[D]The new experiment means a step further to the dangerous human cloning.
2. The author uses the case of Dolly and the Chinese pregnant woman to show that _________.
[A]both nuclear-transfer and cloning are dangerous for humans and animals
[B]both of them benefit from the new technique
[C]both of them are the examples of technical failure
[D]both of them are the fruits of the new technology
3. Zhuang's attitude toward the critics' conclusion is one of __________.
[A]reserved consent
[B]strong disapproval
[C]slight contempt
[D]enthusiastic support
4. The only difference existing between nuclear-transfer and cloning technique is ________.
[A]whether it is used for research or for helping the infertile
[B]whether the offspring looks like the parent
[C]whether it is used in animals or human beings
[D]whether the inserted nucleus comes from a single and usually adult cell
5. The text intends to express the idea that _________.
[A]research of cloning has potential risks
[B]the research of cloning should be stopped totally
[C]ethics and research of cloning are in contradiction
[D]researchers should have the right to continue the study of cloning
答案：CABDC
篇章剖析
本文采用提出問(wèn)題——分析問(wèn)題的模式，指出細(xì)胞核移植和克隆技術(shù)上存在的倫理方面的爭(zhēng)議以及研究人員本人對(duì)此事的看法。在第一段指出人們對(duì)一項(xiàng)新成果的不同看法；第二段指出這一技術(shù)對(duì)一名中國(guó)不孕婦女的幫助；第三段指出細(xì)胞核移植和克隆技術(shù)的區(qū)別以及都存在的危險(xiǎn)性；第四段和第五段指出研究人員的一些做法和看法。
詞匯注釋
ethical[5eWIk（E）l]adj.與倫理有關(guān), 民族的, 民族特有的
impregnate[5Impre^neIt; （?@） Im5pre^net]vt.使懷孕, 使受精, 使充滿, 注入, 灌輸
deem[di:m]v.認(rèn)為, 相信
infertile[In5f\:taIl]adj.不肥沃的, 貧瘠的, 不毛的, 不結(jié)果實(shí)的
breakthrough[5breIkWru:]n.突破
scenario[sI5nB:rIEJ]n.想定；游戲的關(guān),或是某一特定情節(jié)
clone[klEJn]n.無(wú)性系, 無(wú)性繁殖, 克隆v.無(wú)性繁殖, 復(fù)制
fertilize[5f\:tIlaIz]vt.施肥, 使豐饒, 使受精, 使肥沃, 使多產(chǎn)
sperm[sp\:m]n.精液, 精子, 鯨油
nucleus[5nju:klIEs; （?@） 5nu:-]n.核子
scoop out v.接應(yīng), 舀出
chromosome[5krEJmEsEJm]n.[生物]染色體
benign[bI5naIn]adj.（病）良性的, （氣候）良好的, 仁慈的, 和藹的
triplet[5trIplIt]n.三個(gè)一幅, 三個(gè)一組, 三份
triplets n.三胞胎
repugnant[rI5pQ^nEnt]adj. 引起厭惡或反感的；討厭的或可憎的；不一致的
obstetric[Cb`stetrIk]adj.產(chǎn)科的
stringent[5strIndVEnt]adj.嚴(yán)厲的, 迫切的, 銀根緊的
onerous[5RnErEs, 5EJnErEs]adj.繁重的, 費(fèi)力的, 負(fù)有法律責(zé)任的
bottom line n. 結(jié)果，結(jié)局,最后結(jié)果或聲明；
難句突破
Even so, concern over potential risks is why the Food and Drug Administration created a stringent approval process for such research in 2001——a process that Grifo found so onerous that he stopped working on the technique and gave it to the researchers in China, where it was subsequently banned （but only this month, long after Zhuang's patient became pregnant）.
主體句式：…concern over potential risks is why …
結(jié)構(gòu)分析：“a process”在句子中的語(yǔ)法成分是同位語(yǔ)；后面又跟了一個(gè)“that”引導(dǎo)的定語(yǔ)從句；在從句中又使用了“so…that”句式；在從句中又使用了“where”引導(dǎo)的從句。
句子譯文：盡管如此，由于擔(dān)心潛在的危險(xiǎn)，美國(guó)食品藥物管理局2001年就類似研究制定了較為嚴(yán)格的批準(zhǔn)程序——這是一套令葛瑞佛覺(jué)得太過(guò)于煩瑣而終止了這一技術(shù)的研究工作，并將其轉(zhuǎn)給了中國(guó)研究人員的程序。這項(xiàng)研究工作后來(lái)在中國(guó)也被禁止（在本月才剛被禁止，這是發(fā)生在莊的病人懷孕后很久以后的事了）。
題目分析
１.答案為C,屬推理判斷題。做好本題的關(guān)鍵是對(duì)“depending on whom you ask”的理解。對(duì)于不同的人來(lái)說(shuō)，他們對(duì)實(shí)驗(yàn)的反應(yīng)也不相同。
２.答案為A,屬推理判斷題。原文對(duì)應(yīng)信息“critics have suggested that cloning and nuclear transfer are equally risky for humans”。文中提到的“多莉”羊和一名中國(guó)孕婦分別是為了進(jìn)一步具體說(shuō)明克隆和細(xì)胞核移植技術(shù)及其存在的一些危險(xiǎn)。
1． 答案為B，屬情感態(tài)度題。原文對(duì)應(yīng)信息是“．．．a(chǎn)n assertion Zhuang rejects”?！皉eject”
這個(gè)詞比較正式，也表達(dá)較強(qiáng)的感情色彩。
４.答案為D，屬事實(shí)細(xì)節(jié)題。原文對(duì)應(yīng)信息是“The only significant difference is that with cloning, the inserted nucleus comes from a single, usually adult, cell, and the resulting offspring is genetically identical to the parent.”
5.答案為C，屬中心思想題。有關(guān)克隆技術(shù)的研究，從研究角度來(lái)說(shuō)無(wú)可厚非，但是從倫理學(xué)角度來(lái)說(shuō)爭(zhēng)議不小。
參考譯文
上周在德克薩斯醫(yī)學(xué)會(huì)議上宣布了一項(xiàng)實(shí)驗(yàn)。對(duì)于不同的詢問(wèn)對(duì)象，實(shí)驗(yàn)的意義也不相同。對(duì)于不孕婦女來(lái)說(shuō)這是一種潛在的突破；對(duì)某些人來(lái)說(shuō)這是一種悲劇性的失敗，或者是朝人類無(wú)性繁殖的噩夢(mèng)般的境地又邁出了危險(xiǎn)的一步。
所有這些觀點(diǎn)都有各自的道理。中國(guó)醫(yī)生采用一種新技術(shù)來(lái)幫助一位農(nóng)婦懷孕，其動(dòng)機(jī)很明顯是治療不孕癥。跟一些不孕婦女不同的是，這位三十歲的病人可以排出健康的卵細(xì)胞，并且那些卵細(xì)胞可以跟精子結(jié)合成受精卵。但是這些卵細(xì)胞卻不能正常發(fā)育，其原因主要是受精核外部的部分卵細(xì)胞有缺陷。因此，使用由紐約大學(xué)的詹姆士·葛瑞佛博士和廣東中山醫(yī)科大學(xué)的莊廣倫博士發(fā)明的技術(shù)，可以把病人的受精卵取出來(lái)，提取帶有染色體的核物質(zhì)，并把它放入已經(jīng)去除核子的別人捐贈(zèng)的卵細(xì)胞內(nèi)。在這種更為有利的環(huán)境中，細(xì)胞發(fā)育正常進(jìn)行。這位婦女懷上了三胞胎，胎兒攜帶著她和她丈夫兩人的DNA——這跟其他正常的嬰兒沒(méi)什么大的差別。
使一些醫(yī)生和倫理學(xué)家感到心煩的是，這項(xiàng)所謂的細(xì)胞核移植技術(shù)被用于克隆，“多莉”羊就是這一技術(shù)最開(kāi)始的產(chǎn)物。其中的不同之處僅在于在克隆過(guò)程中，嵌入的細(xì)胞核來(lái)自單細(xì)胞，通常又是成熟的細(xì)胞。從遺傳上來(lái)說(shuō)，這樣產(chǎn)生的后代同母體是一樣的。把這種實(shí)驗(yàn)用于人體，從倫理學(xué)的角度來(lái)說(shuō)，很多人都對(duì)此感到反感。此外，由于我們無(wú)法搞懂的原因，克隆動(dòng)物通常會(huì)自行流產(chǎn)，或者具有天生缺陷。“多莉”盡管看起來(lái)很健康，但是她很早就死了。因?yàn)槟俏恢袊?guó)婦女早產(chǎn)下雙胞胎，并且都未能保住性命（為了提高其它兩個(gè)胎兒的存活幾率，第三個(gè)胎兒早就被做掉了），所以評(píng)論家認(rèn)為克隆和細(xì)胞核移植對(duì)于人類來(lái)說(shuō)都是同等危險(xiǎn)的。
葛瑞佛認(rèn)為事情并不一定是這樣?！爱a(chǎn)科產(chǎn)生這樣的后果真是一場(chǎng)災(zāi)難，”他承認(rèn)說(shuō)，“但是從染色體來(lái)看，這些胚胎都是正常的。我們沒(méi)有證據(jù)顯示這跟實(shí)驗(yàn)中的每一個(gè)環(huán)節(jié)有任何關(guān)系?！北M管如此，由于擔(dān)心潛在的危險(xiǎn)，美國(guó)食品藥物管理局2001年就類似研究制定了較為嚴(yán)格的批準(zhǔn)程序——這是一套令葛瑞佛覺(jué)得太過(guò)于煩瑣而終止了這一技術(shù)的研究工作，并將其轉(zhuǎn)給了中國(guó)研究人員的程序。這項(xiàng)研究工作后來(lái)在中國(guó)也被禁止（在本月才剛被禁止，這是發(fā)生在莊的病人懷孕后很久以后的事了）。
評(píng)論家認(rèn)為所做的結(jié)論是：盡管是出于其它目的而進(jìn)行研究的，但是完善可能會(huì)用做人類克隆的技術(shù)不是一個(gè)好主意——這項(xiàng)聲明是莊極力反對(duì)的?！拔屹澩刂七@些實(shí)驗(yàn)確實(shí)有一定的意義，”他說(shuō)，“但是我們已經(jīng)發(fā)明了這項(xiàng)可以幫助人的有效的技術(shù)。我們知道該如何使用。我們也需要它?！?BR>