2020考研英語閱讀理解精讀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）：本文習題命題模仿對象：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，并主要說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，隨后討論了使用基因生物技術的前景。文章的后三段討論了羅氏制藥公司在未來發(fā)展過程中可能面臨的一些問題，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. 倉促的，草率的；粗略的

generic /d???ner?k/ n. 非專利藥，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；基因體學

vanguard /?v?ngɑ?d/ n. 前衛(wèi)，先鋒；領導者

tailor /?te?l?/ v. 修改；使合適

anaemic /??ni?m?k/ adj. 貧血的；無活力的

assault /??s??lt/ n. 攻擊，襲擊；譴責，抨擊

snag /sn?g/ n. 意料不到的障礙

dissipate /?d?s?pe?t/ v. 驅散（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.

結構分析：本句的主體句式其實非常簡單，但是因為中間有一個很長的定語從句干擾，考生比較容易混淆句子的結構，理解本句的關鍵是要抓住句子主干。由who引導的定語從句修飾rivals，其中包含了兩個并列結構，即concentrate less on... and more on...，也就是做了一個對比，說明其他制藥公司關注的重點。此外，定語從句中還用such as引導了兩個例子。

句子譯文：粗略地看一下羅氏的競爭對手們，他們都在設法減少對新藥研發(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，這說明他們對這個問題的回答是“不值得”。

題目分析

1. B 推理題。本題的對應信息在文章第一段。該段最后一句指出，業(yè)界巨頭們認為整個醫(yī)藥行業(yè)的商業(yè)模式正在垮塌，但這并不是塞韋林·施萬的觀點，因此A不正確。該段提到了generics and over-the-counter drugs，但這是羅氏的競爭對手的做法，并非羅氏的做法，因此C也不正確。第一段的the answer is no不是說對手們不會回答這個問題，而是說如果他們回答這個問題的話，答案應該是“不”，因此D也不正確。第一段還提到“專利藥到期后銷售量會大幅下降”，可以推出專利過期后就不會創(chuàng)造那么多利潤，因此B是正確選項。

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·施萬將這種令人遺憾的現(xiàn)象看作是巨大的商機，他相信診斷學、基因組學和生物技術領域的飛速發(fā)展將給個性化藥品帶來“全新的革命”。這里并沒有明確說明個性化藥品是一個全新的商業(yè)模式，故A不正確；同樣這里所謂的革命是指個性化藥品的研制，而不是指羅氏公司發(fā)生變化，所以B也不正確。再來看最后一段：羅氏的長期愿景可能將以犧牲部分股東的短期回報為代價。巴克萊投資銀行的邁克爾·勒奇頓認為，個性化藥品在短時間內不會贏利。但這并不表示個性化藥品就不可行，因此D不正確。正是因為個性化藥品不會很快盈利，“可能會使其他投資者感到沮喪”，所以很可能股東會反對這一決策，因此C是正確答案。

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

4. B 語義題。引文來自文章第四段第二句：伯恩斯坦研究公司的蒂姆·安德森認為，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，能夠應對即將到來的仿制藥襲擊。只有B選項與這個意思最為貼切。

5. C 細節(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，相反容易對創(chuàng)新的氛圍造成傷害”，但前文也說明羅氏盡量保持被收購公司原有的行事方式，因此作者在這一點上也只是提出猜測，并不是一個明確的觀點，因此A不正確。文章第五段中提到，被稱為生物技術領域的谷歌的是已經(jīng)被羅氏并購的基因泰克公司，并非羅氏，文章也沒有提及羅氏可能成為生物技術領域的谷歌，故B是錯誤的。D與文章最后一段意思相反，作者指出有些股東可能反對開發(fā)新藥，所以該選項也不正確。C是正確答案，因為作者在最后一句話中指出“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，目前誰都說不準”。

參考譯文

“問題的根本在于，新藥研發(fā)是否還值得我們進行投資?！币欢刃袆颖Ｊ氐娜鹗苛_氏制藥公司剛剛走馬上任的總裁塞韋林·施萬說道。粗略地看一下羅氏的競爭對手們，他們都在設法減少對新藥研發(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，這說明他們對這個問題的回答是“不值得”。的確，一些分析人士稱，制藥業(yè)巨頭們都面臨專利藥到期后銷售量大幅下降的問題，況且目前也沒有前景看好的新藥來替代前者的位置，整個醫(yī)藥行業(yè)的商業(yè)模式正在崩潰瓦解中。

這一爭論使得施萬先生感到氣憤不已，他再也沉不住氣了。他用一組PPT幻燈片對那一片“憂郁之聲”進行反駁。他說，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，而對于另一半，藥品也只有一半的時間會起作用，并且伴有嚴重副作用。他說：“這就像一輛汽車僅有一半時間可以正常行駛，而剎車又經(jīng)常不靈?！比f林·施萬將這種令人沮喪的現(xiàn)象看作是巨大的商機。他尤其相信診斷學、基因組學和生物技術領域的飛速發(fā)展將給個性化藥品帶來“全新的革命”。

因此，羅氏在新藥研究上下了很大的賭注，即便其競爭對手都在尋求多樣化的產(chǎn)品組合和“化解風險”的辦法。今年早些時候，羅氏收購了位于美國加州的生物技術先鋒基因泰克公司。羅氏希望這些交易能使其成為業(yè)界先鋒，因為根據(jù)個性化需求開發(fā)藥品意味著要把制藥與遺傳學的試驗結果結合在一起，例如，與基因泰克公司用于治療乳腺癌的藥品赫賽汀相結合。

通過收購基因泰克，羅氏彌補了原先研究領域的不足，將其研究領域擴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，能夠應對即將到來的仿制藥襲擊。他預測羅氏今后五年內營業(yè)收入將增長四分之一，股票每股收益將增長過半。

但是，羅氏在其發(fā)展道路上可能會遇到幾個障礙。人們的一個擔憂是大型制藥公司的官僚作風會摧垮基因泰克的更具創(chuàng)新性的文化（該公司曾被稱為生物技術領域的谷歌）。曾經(jīng)供職于基因泰克開發(fā)部，現(xiàn)任羅氏研發(fā)負責人的理查德·謝勒強調：“沒人會干涉我們行事的方式。”羅氏接管該公司后幾乎沒有高管離職這一事實充分支持了他的說法。即便如此，就藥品研發(fā)而言，規(guī)模通常不是優(yōu)勢，相反容易對創(chuàng)新的氛圍造成傷害。

另一個擔憂是，羅氏的長期愿景可能將以犧牲部分股東的短期回報為代價。巴克萊投資銀行的邁克爾·勒奇頓認為，個性化藥品在短時間內不會贏利。這對羅氏也許是有利的，其創(chuàng)始家族通過雙重股權結構牢牢地控制著公司，但也可能會使其他投資者感到沮喪。更嚴重的是，這種商業(yè)模式還存在潰敗的風險。施萬先生強調說，新藥之所以能獲得巨大的回報，是因為這些藥的生產(chǎn)具有相當難度。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，目前誰都說不準。