Disease lobby groups have always made energetic efforts to ensure that the formidable resources of the US Nationsl Institutes of Heahh(NIH)are brought to bear on the health issues that interest them； and that is as it should he．When these resources are expandin9，there has been room for most of the participants in the process to feel that they are winnin9．Now that the budget of the largest research agency in the world is effectively frozen，there are likely to be more losers．
The NIH’s success has beer．built on a tacit accommodation between scientists，who run its 27 institutes and centres on a day-to-day basis，and the public，as represented by Congress．Institutes have been established--often against the scientists’advice--to desl with specific conditions or diseases of particular organ systems．Then Congress has，in large part，left the researchers and physicians in the agencies to pursue their work as they see fit，without indulging in tOO much micromanagement．
This has enabled the NIH to maintain a formidable reputation for scientific integrity and excellence, while also appearing to be reasonably responsive to patient needs．It has produced an agency that does a great deal of basic scientific research--with unknown and largely serendipitous benefits for the development of drugs and devices--as well as plenty of laboratory and clinical work devoted to particular ailments．
The public is paying for the NIH’s annual budget of$29 billion。and it is entirely appropriate that it should energetically articulate its demands of the agency．That is one of the roles of the disease- advocacy groups。and their input，as any NIH institute director will attest，provides invaluable assistance in assigning research directions and priorities．
That said，the power of some advocacy groups must be tempered to some degree--especially in today’s difficult funding environment．Otherwise，these groups’ability to influence budgets is likely to dominate，to the detriment of both basic laboratory science and of research targeted at diseases that have weaker constituencies．
It falls to the scientist-administrators who run the NIH to work closely with members of the congressional appropriations committees that fund the agency to make sure that this does not happen．⑦ Both groups understand the careful political balance that has allowed the agency to thrive；they must act as moderators whenever the more energetic lobby groups are pushing the agency’s agenda too far in the direction of one public-health issue at the expense of others．kaoshida,④[408 words]
1．It can be inferred from the text that the Success of research into one disease may have come______．
A．with the budget of NIH expanding annually
B．a(chǎn)t the expense of research into other diseases
C．without the advocaey of disease lobby groups
D．no matter whether the budget of NIH is frozen
2．The scientific integrity and excellence of NIH is mainly due to the fact that the scientists of NIH______．
A．can easily communicate with the public
B．a(chǎn)re ready to take the advice of the public
C．a(chǎn)re allowed to pursue whatever they see fit
D．a(chǎn)re excellent in various disciplines of medicine
3．The author argues that disease lobby groups______．
A．should work harmoniously with NIH
B．should be responsive to patient needs
C．should state clearly their demands of NIH
D．should be given credit for their aid to NIH
4．The word“temper”(Line 1，Paragraph 5)most probably means______．
A．eliminate
B．moderate
C．a(chǎn)ggravate
D．a(chǎn)ccommodate
5．The author suggests that the NIH should______．
A．a(chǎn)lleviate the influence of disease lobby groups on its budgets
B．cooperate with disease lobby groups in determining priorities
C．ensure the SUCCESS of both basic research and applied research
D．maintain a careful political balance with government agencies
超綱詞匯
Lobby n．院外活動(dòng)集團(tuán)(美國(guó))
Formidable adj．強(qiáng)大的，令人敬畏的
tacit adj．心照不宣的，默許的
Indulge vi．／vt．縱容，放任
Serendipitous 偶然發(fā)現(xiàn)的
ailment n．小病，不嚴(yán)重的疾病
Articulate vt．明白表示，清楚地表達(dá)
attest 證明，表明
Temper vt．沖淡，緩和，調(diào)劑
Detriment n．損害，傷害，破壞
Constituency n．(一批)顧客，支持者，贊助者
Appropriation n．撥款
Moderator n．調(diào)停人，調(diào)解人
The NIH’s success has beer．built on a tacit accommodation between scientists，who run its 27 institutes and centres on a day-to-day basis，and the public，as represented by Congress．Institutes have been established--often against the scientists’advice--to desl with specific conditions or diseases of particular organ systems．Then Congress has，in large part，left the researchers and physicians in the agencies to pursue their work as they see fit，without indulging in tOO much micromanagement．
This has enabled the NIH to maintain a formidable reputation for scientific integrity and excellence, while also appearing to be reasonably responsive to patient needs．It has produced an agency that does a great deal of basic scientific research--with unknown and largely serendipitous benefits for the development of drugs and devices--as well as plenty of laboratory and clinical work devoted to particular ailments．
The public is paying for the NIH’s annual budget of$29 billion。and it is entirely appropriate that it should energetically articulate its demands of the agency．That is one of the roles of the disease- advocacy groups。and their input，as any NIH institute director will attest，provides invaluable assistance in assigning research directions and priorities．
That said，the power of some advocacy groups must be tempered to some degree--especially in today’s difficult funding environment．Otherwise，these groups’ability to influence budgets is likely to dominate，to the detriment of both basic laboratory science and of research targeted at diseases that have weaker constituencies．
It falls to the scientist-administrators who run the NIH to work closely with members of the congressional appropriations committees that fund the agency to make sure that this does not happen．⑦ Both groups understand the careful political balance that has allowed the agency to thrive；they must act as moderators whenever the more energetic lobby groups are pushing the agency’s agenda too far in the direction of one public-health issue at the expense of others．kaoshida,④[408 words]
1．It can be inferred from the text that the Success of research into one disease may have come______．
A．with the budget of NIH expanding annually
B．a(chǎn)t the expense of research into other diseases
C．without the advocaey of disease lobby groups
D．no matter whether the budget of NIH is frozen
2．The scientific integrity and excellence of NIH is mainly due to the fact that the scientists of NIH______．
A．can easily communicate with the public
B．a(chǎn)re ready to take the advice of the public
C．a(chǎn)re allowed to pursue whatever they see fit
D．a(chǎn)re excellent in various disciplines of medicine
3．The author argues that disease lobby groups______．
A．should work harmoniously with NIH
B．should be responsive to patient needs
C．should state clearly their demands of NIH
D．should be given credit for their aid to NIH
4．The word“temper”(Line 1，Paragraph 5)most probably means______．
A．eliminate
B．moderate
C．a(chǎn)ggravate
D．a(chǎn)ccommodate
5．The author suggests that the NIH should______．
A．a(chǎn)lleviate the influence of disease lobby groups on its budgets
B．cooperate with disease lobby groups in determining priorities
C．ensure the SUCCESS of both basic research and applied research
D．maintain a careful political balance with government agencies
超綱詞匯
Lobby n．院外活動(dòng)集團(tuán)(美國(guó))
Formidable adj．強(qiáng)大的，令人敬畏的
tacit adj．心照不宣的，默許的
Indulge vi．／vt．縱容，放任
Serendipitous 偶然發(fā)現(xiàn)的
ailment n．小病，不嚴(yán)重的疾病
Articulate vt．明白表示，清楚地表達(dá)
attest 證明，表明
Temper vt．沖淡，緩和，調(diào)劑
Detriment n．損害，傷害，破壞
Constituency n．(一批)顧客，支持者，贊助者
Appropriation n．撥款
Moderator n．調(diào)停人，調(diào)解人