2. 职称英语
  3. In 2010, Pamela Fink, an employee of a Connecticut energy company, made a ne

In 2010, Pamela Fink, an employee of a Connecticut energy company, made a ne

游客2024-02-20  43
问题     In 2010, Pamela Fink, an employee of a Connecticut energy company, made a new kind of discrimination claim: she charged that she had been fired because she carries genes that make her more likely to get cancer. Fink quickly became the public face for the cutting edge of civil rights: genetic discrimination.
    The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) , which was passed out of concern for just such cases in the wake of huge advances in genetics testing, took effect in late 2009. GINA, as it is known, makes it illegal for employers to fire or refuse to hire workers based on their " genetic information"—including genetic tests and family history of disease. When Congress issued GINA in 2008, the House of Representatives supported it 414-1, and the whole Senate backed it.
    There are two major reasons that so many people—even congressional Republicans who are highly doubtful of civil rights laws—like GINA. First, there is the kind of discrimination it is aimed at: penalizing people for DNA and RNA that they inherited from their parents through no fault of their own. In general, our society has decided to protect people for qualities that are "immutable"—that is, something about them that is impossible or, at least, very difficult to change. So we make it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, national origin, skin color and sex. Genes are a classic immutable characteristic : outside of some complicated medical procedures, we’re pretty much stuck with the genes we were bom with.
    The second major reason genetic-discrimination laws are popular is that this is a kind of bias everyone feels they could be exposed to. None of us has perfect genes—and for the most part, we have no idea what is hiding in our DNA and RNA. Our genes are complex enough that we all have some negative information—and none of us wants to lose a job or be denied insurance over it. When juries begin to hear these cases, they are far more likely to identify with the accusers than with the companies that discriminate. That doesn’t mean that there won’t be plenty of companies looking to benefit from genetic information , but if they use it, they may well have to pay. [br] What can we learn from Paragraph 3?
选项 A、Genes are difficult or even impossible to change.
B、People are protected from immutable characteristics.
C、Congress doubts the effect of GINA as a civil rights law.
D、People are stuck with complicated medical procedures.
答案 A
解析 推理判断题。本题考查对第三段信息的理解。由定位段可知，人们有一些与生俱来的特质，如种族、国籍、肤色和性别，而这些特质是很难或是不可能通过后天的努力改变的。基因也是其中的一种，即便是复杂的医疗程序也无法改变它。因此，A)“基因很难甚至是不可能被改变”正确。B)“人们被保护免受不可改变特质的影响”未在原文中提到，故排除；C)“国会质疑GINA作为民权法案的效力”和原文不符，在第三段开头作者提到，即使高度质疑民权法案的国会共和党人也非常喜欢GINA，故排除；D)“人们无法摆脱复杂的医疗程序”和原文无关，故排除。
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3466075.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)