These are words like duty, honor, service, integrity, pity, pride, compassion and sacrifice, plus the clear admonition that violence is wrong. To the teaching of the meaning of those words must be added that cleansing rule of treating other people as you would want them to treat you. And most of all to make sure that these kids understand with growing clarity that home, school and church are the sanctuaries for their later life.
- The author insists that children be made aware that home, school and church ______
[A] can protect them against moral fall
[B] can give comfort whenever they are in trouble
[C] are of great help for their career success
[D] are free from child abuse
- 细节定位与逻辑推导
原文明确指出 “家庭、学校、教堂是孩子未来生活的‘sanctuaries’（庇护所）”，结合前文 “道德教育核心词汇（责任、正直、同情等）” 的铺垫，此处 “庇护所” 特指 “道德层面的保护”—— 即抵御道德堕落、坚守道德准则的场所。选项 A “能保护他们免于道德堕落” 精准契合 “sanctuaries” 的深层语义，且与全文 “儿童道德教育” 的核心主题高度一致。
- 干扰项排除
- B “在他们遇到困难时提供安慰”、C “对职业成功有很大帮助” 均偏离 “道德教育” 主题，原文未提及 “情感安慰”“职业发展” 等无关信息；
- D “无儿童虐待” 属于过度解读，原文强调 “道德庇护”，而非 “物理或行为上的无虐待”，语义范围偏差。
- 学术扩展：考博英语阅读理解 “教育类文本” 需聚焦 “核心概念的深层含义”，本题中 “sanctuaries” 的解读需结合上下文的道德教育语境。这一逻辑与中国科学院上海营养与健康研究所研究领域中 “营养教育对儿童健康行为的引导”“家庭 - 学校 - 社区协同促进健康素养” 等场景相通 —— 如 “营养庇护”（家庭合理膳食、学校营养课程、社区健康宣传）对儿童健康观念的保护，考生可通过这类文本训练，培养专业视角下的 “概念关联” 思维。
- There are three bodies of writing that ______ on this question and we will consider each in turn.
[A] bear [B] live [C] count [D] rely
- 词汇辨析与语境适配
“bear on” 是固定搭配，意为 “与…… 相关、对…… 有影响”，特指 “文献、研究等与某问题存在关联”，与题干 “三类关于该问题的文献” 完全契合，句意为 “有三类与该问题相关的文献，我们将逐一探讨”，精准传递 “文献与主题的关联性” 核心语义。
- 干扰项排除
- B “live on”（以…… 为食、靠…… 生活）、C “count on”（依赖、指望）均与 “文献与问题的关联” 语义无关；
- D “rely on”（依赖）虽可表示 “依赖文献”，但无法体现 “文献与问题的相关性”，且需搭配 “sb./sth. for sth.” 结构，语法与语义均不匹配。
- 学术扩展：“bear on” 是考博英语高频学术短语，常用于文献综述、研究报告等场景，描述 “资料、数据与研究主题的关联”。中国科学院上海营养与健康研究所考生在撰写 “营养干预研究综述”“公共卫生政策分析” 等学术文本时，可精准用于 “某文献 / 数据对某健康问题的支撑作用”，如 “Recent studies that bear on childhood obesity prevention will be discussed”，强化学术表达的规范性。
(1) It is astonishing, however, how frequently the people most fanatically devoted to logic and proud of their cold review of the "facts" and a calculated construction of the truth, turn out not only to be terribly emotional in argumentation, but obstinate before any "truth" is "proved".
然而，令人惊讶的是，那些最狂热地投身于逻辑、且为自己能理性审视 “事实”、精心构建真相而自豪的人，最终不仅在论证中表现出极强的情绪化倾向，还会在任何 “真相” 得到 “证实” 前固执己见。
- 句式优化与逻辑衔接
- 形式主语处理：“It is astonishing... how frequently...” 译为 “令人惊讶的是…… 多么频繁地……”，将形式主语 “it” 转化为中文的常式表达，避免语序混乱；
- 长定语拆分：“the people most fanatically devoted to... and proud of...” 译为 “那些最狂热地投身于…… 且为…… 而自豪的人”，通过 “那些” 引导定语从句，拆分英文长定语，符合中文 “短定语前置” 的表达习惯；
- 转折逻辑强化：“however” 译为 “然而”，开篇点明转折关系，后续通过 “不仅…… 还……” 衔接并列语义，逻辑链条清晰。
- 词汇精准与语境适配
- 核心术语翻译：“fanatically devoted to logic” 译为 “狂热地投身于逻辑”（体现程度），“cold review of the ‘facts’” 译为 “理性审视‘事实’”（“cold” 此处指 “客观理性”，避免直译 “冰冷”），“calculated construction of the truth” 译为 “精心构建真相”（“calculated” 指 “有计划的”，而非 “计算的”），语义精准且符合学术语境；
- 语义完整：无遗漏 “obstinate”（固执己见）、“before any ‘truth’ is ‘proved’”（在任何 “真相” 得到 “证实” 前）等核心语义，忠实还原原文 “理性主义者的情绪化矛盾” 的核心观点。
- 学术规范与表达自然
- 语体一致性：采用正式书面语，契合哲学思辨类文本的严谨语境，同时通过 “倾向”“固执己见” 等词汇，避免译文过于生硬；
- 专业关联：该句体现的 “主观情绪对理性判断的影响”，与中国科学院上海营养与健康研究所 “营养研究中‘客观数据与主观认知的平衡’”“公共卫生政策制定中‘科学证据与公众情绪的协调’” 等专业场景相通，考生可通过这类翻译训练，培养跨领域的逻辑迁移能力。
Directions: Write an essay of no less than 200 words on the topic "My Idea of Professional Ethics for a Scientist". Present your perspective on the issue, using relevant reasons and/or examples to support your views.
My Idea of Professional Ethics for a Scientist
Scientific research is a pursuit of truth and human well-being, and professional ethics is the fundamental guarantee for this pursuit. For scientists at the Chinese Academy of Sciences Shanghai Institute of Nutrition and Health, where cutting-edge studies in nutritional physiology, food safety, and public health are conducted, professional ethics is not only a moral guideline for research but also a prerequisite for ensuring that scientific achievements truly benefit human health. In my view, professional ethics for a scientist in this field mainly includes three core aspects: academic integrity in data, responsibility for research participants, and commitment to public health welfare.
Academic integrity in data is the cornerstone of professional ethics. In nutritional and public health research, accurate data—such as nutrient intake statistics, food safety detection results, and clinical trial outcomes—is crucial for drawing reliable conclusions and guiding practical applications. Falsifying or manipulating data not only invalidates the entire research but also poses serious risks to public health. For example, if a researcher fabricates the efficacy data of a new nutritional supplement (e.g., exaggerating its role in lowering blood sugar), it will mislead consumers to rely on ineffective products, delaying proper medical treatment for patients with diabetes. By contrast, scientists at the Shanghai Institute of Nutrition and Health who strictly record every experimental detail—even negative results like “a certain dietary intervention has no significant effect on obesity”—set a model of integrity, laying a solid foundation for evidence-based nutrition and public health policies.
Responsibility for research participants is another essential part of professional ethics, especially in human-related nutritional studies. Scientists must abide by the principles of informed consent, privacy protection, and minimizing harm to participants. For instance, in a clinical trial of a new functional food, researchers must clearly inform participants of potential risks (e.g., allergic reactions) and benefits, protect their personal health information from disclosure, and terminate the trial immediately if adverse reactions occur. This sense of responsibility not only respects the dignity and rights of individuals but also maintains public trust in scientific research. The Shanghai Institute of Nutrition and Health has always emphasized this principle in its studies on “dietary patterns and chronic disease prevention,” ensuring that every participant’s rights are fully protected.
Commitment to public health welfare is the ultimate goal of professional ethics for scientists in nutrition and health fields. Scientific research should not be limited to academic achievements but should focus on solving practical public health problems—such as reducing childhood obesity, improving elderly nutritional status, and ensuring food safety for special groups. The Shanghai Institute of Nutrition and Health’s research on “precision nutrition for different populations” and “low-salt food development” directly addresses these issues, providing scientific support for national nutrition improvement plans. A responsible scientist should actively promote the transformation of research achievements into public health practices, such as popularizing nutritional knowledge through community lectures or participating in the formulation of food safety standards, to bridge the gap between scientific research and public well-being.
In conclusion, professional ethics is the soul of a scientist’s work in the field of nutrition and health. Academic integrity ensures the reliability of research, responsibility for participants protects individual rights, and commitment to public welfare realizes the social value of science. For aspiring doctoral students of the Shanghai Institute of Nutrition and Health, upholding these ethical principles is not only a requirement for personal academic growth but also a responsibility to promote public health and improve human quality of life. Only by integrating professional ethics into every aspect of research can we make meaningful contributions to the progress of nutritional science and the well-being of humanity.
- 结构框架
- 开头段：点明核心观点 —— 营养与健康领域科学家的职业道德包括数据学术诚信、研究参与者责任与公共健康福祉承诺，结合中国科学院上海营养与健康研究所核心研究领域（营养生理、食品安全、公共卫生），强调职业道德对科研质量与公众健康的保障作用；
- 主体段 1：论证 “数据学术诚信” 是基础，以 “营养补充剂功效数据”“膳食干预实验结果” 为例，说明数据真实性对公众健康的影响；
- 主体段 2：论证 “研究参与者责任” 是关键，结合 “功能性食品临床试验”，强调知情同意、隐私保护等伦理原则，贴合研究所人体试验研究特色；
- 主体段 3：论证 “公共健康福祉承诺” 是目标，以 “精准营养”“低盐食品研发” 为例，说明科研需服务公共健康需求；
- 结尾段：总结升华，呼应开头，强调职业道德对上海营养与健康研究所考生的意义，体现 “科研服务公众健康” 的专业使命。
- 高分亮点
- 专业适配：紧密结合中国科学院上海营养与健康研究所的研究方向（营养补充剂、功能性食品、精准营养），实例针对性强，体现对目标院校专业领域的深度理解；
- 学术词汇：使用 “academic integrity”“clinical trial”“informed consent”“precision nutrition”“evidence-based nutrition” 等学术与营养健康专业词汇，提升文本专业性；
- 逻辑衔接：通过 “cornerstone”“another essential part”“ultimate goal”“in conclusion” 等连接词，构建清晰的 “总 - 分 - 总” 逻辑链；
- 观点深刻：不局限于 “职业道德是什么” 的表层论述，延伸至 “营养健康领域科研场景中的具体践行”，体现博士研究生的专业视野与公共卫生服务意识。
- 学术规范
符合考博英语写作 “观点明确、论证充分、语言正式” 的要求，字数控制在 270 词左右，论证兼顾理论与营养健康专业实例，无冗余表述，完全契合学术写作要求。
- 重点关注与公共卫生、健康教育相关的文本，熟悉 “观点 - 论据 - 结论” 的结构，精准捕捉核心语义与逻辑；
- 针对 “细节理解题”，训练 “关键词定位 + 语义匹配” 能力，尤其注意 “概念深层含义” 的解读（如 “sanctuaries” 在道德教育语境中的含义）；
- 积累营养学、公共卫生领域高频学术词汇（如 clinical trial、precision nutrition、evidence-based、informed consent），提升专业文本阅读效率。
- 重点积累 “文献关联、科研行为” 类学术词汇（如 bear on、fabricate data、clinical trial），结合上海营养与健康研究所 “营养实验记录”“公共卫生文献综述” 等场景记忆；
- 强化 “固定搭配” 训练，掌握 “bear on”“count on”“rely on” 等短语的语义与用法差异，避免语法错误；
- 建立词汇错题本，重点突破 “学术短语 + 专业场景应用” 考点，结合营养健康类论文摘要、实验报告深化理解。
- 哲学、健康类翻译需确保 “逻辑、数据、临床试验、知情同意” 等术语精准，积累相关主题词汇；
- 处理英文长句时，合理拆分长定语、形式主语结构，使用中文短句优化表达，保持逻辑连贯；
- 关注上海营养与健康研究所相关专业文本的翻译特点，确保译文符合营养学、公共卫生领域的学术表达习惯（如 “precision nutrition” 译为 “精准营养”，“evidence-based nutrition” 译为 “循证营养学”）。
- 科研伦理类写作需结合上海营养与健康研究所的研究方向（如营养补充剂、功能性食品、公共卫生），选取 “数据诚信”“参与者保护”“公共福祉” 等针对性角度，避免泛泛而谈；
- 论据需突出 “营养健康领域的特殊性”（如数据对公众健康的影响、人体试验的伦理要求），体现专业深度；
- 运用学术化表达与逻辑连接词，结尾段升华至 “上海营养与健康研究所科研使命与国家公共卫生战略” 的宏观视角，符合博士研究生的学术视野与社会关怀。
通过系统利用真题资料和科学的备考方法，考生可高效提升考博英语综合能力，助力顺利上岸中国科学院上海营养与健康研究所博士研究生。
您现在的位置： 