The news ________a Nobel prize winner will visit our school has got round.

A．which

B．what

C．how

D．that

Medicine Award Kicks off Nobel Prize Announcements

Two scientists who have won praise for research into the growth of cancer cells could be candidates for the Nobel Prize in medicine when the 2008 winners are presented on Monday, kicking off six days of Nobel announcements.

Australian-born U. S. citizen Elizabeth Blackburn and American Carol Greider have already won a series of medical honors for their enzyme research and experts say they could be among the front-runners for a Nobel.

Only seven women have won the medicine prize since the first Nobel Prizes were handed out in 1901. The last female winner was U. S. researcher Linda Buck in 2004, who shared the prize with Richard Axel.

Among the pair's possible rivals are Frenchman Pierre Chambon and Americans Ronald Evans and Elwood Jensen, who opened up the field of studying proteins called nuclear hormone receptors.

As usual, the award committee is giving no hints about who is in the running before presenting its decision in a news conference at Stockholm's Karolinska Institute.

Alfred Nobel, the Swede who invented dynamite, established the prizes in his will in the categories of medicine, physics, chemistry, literature and peace. The economics prize is technically not a Nobel but a 1968 creation of Sweden's central bank.

Nobel left few instructions on how to select winners, but medicine winners are typically awarded for a specific breakthrough rather than a body of research.

Hans Jornvall, secretary of the medicine prize committee, said the 10 million kronor (US $1.3 million) prize encourages groundbreaking research but he did not think winning it was the primary goal for scientists.

"Individual researchers probably don't look at themselves as potential Nobel Prize winners when they're at work," Jornvatl told The Associated Press. "They get their kicks from their research and their interest in how life functions."

In 2006, Blackburn, of the University of California, San Francisco, and Greider, of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, shared the Lasker prize for basic medical research with Jack Szostak of Harvard Medical School. Their work set the stage for research suggesting that cancer cells use telomerase to sustain their uncontrolled growth.

Who is NOT a likely candidate for this year's Nobel Prize in medicine？

A．Elizabeth Blackburn.

B．Carol Greider.

C．Linda Buck:

D．Pierre Chambon.

interesting experiment, as Alexander Polyakov said when he accepted this year’s award in March. And it is far from the only one of its type. As a News Feature article in Nature discusses, a string of lucrative awards for researchers have joined the Nobel Prizes in recent years. Many, like the Fundamental Physics Prize, are funded from the telephone-number-sized bank accounts of Internet entrepreneurs. These benefactors have succeeded in their chosen fields, they say, and they want to use their wealth to draw attention to those who have succeeded in science. What’s not to like？ Quite a lot, according to a handful of scientists quoted in the News Feature. You cannot buy class, as the old saying goes, and these upstart entrepreneurs cannot buy their prizes the prestige of the Nobels, The new awards are an exercise in self-promotion for those behind them, say scientists. They could distort the achievement-based system of peer-review-led research. They could cement the status quo of peer-reviewed research. They do not fund peer-reviewed research. They perpetuate the myth of the lone genius. The goals of the prize-givers seem as scattered as the criticism. Some want to shock, others to draw people into science, or to better reward those who have made their careers in research. As Nature has pointed out before, there are some legitimate concerns about how science prizes—both new and old—are distributed. The Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences, launched this year, takes an unrepresentative view of what the life sciences include. But the Nobel Foundation’s limit of three recipients per prize, each of whom must still be living, has long been outgrown by the collaborative nature of modern research—as will be demonstrated by the inevitable row over who is ignored when it comes to acknowledging the discovery of the Higgs boson. The Nobels were, of course, themselves set up by a very rich individual who had decided what he wanted to do with his own money. Time, rather than intention, has given them legitimacy. As much as some scientists may complain about the new awards, two things seem clear. First, most researchers would accept such a prize if they were offered one. Second, it is surely a good thing that the money and attention come to science rather than go elsewhere, It is fair to criticize and question the mechanism—that is the culture of research, after all—but it is the prize-givers’ money to do with as they please. It is wise to take such gifts with gratitude and grace. The Fundamental Physics Prize is seen as

A.a symbol of the entrepreneurs’ wealth.

B.a possible replacement of the Nobel Prizes.

C.an example of bankers’ investments.

D.a handsome reward for researchers.

A.1

B.1.544

C.125

D.192

A.cw

B.v

C.pri

D.ed

A.Nobel Medal

B.Nobel trophy

C.Nobel Medal and Diploma

D.A gold laureate