2013年六級(jí)閱讀：孤獨(dú)會(huì)對(duì)你的健康不利的原因

　　The reason loneliness could be bad for your health

　　孤獨(dú)會(huì)對(duì)你的健康不利的原因

　　SCIENCE has many uses, but it doesn't often produce handy pick-up lines. Recent work on thegenetics of disease, however, suggest a way of opening a conversation with that solitaryattractive stranger in a bar: loneliness can make you ill.

　　科學(xué)有很多用處，但是它通常不會(huì)給你順口的搭訕理由。然而，近來(lái)對(duì)疾病遺傳學(xué)的研究卻給了我們一個(gè)在酒吧里跟某個(gè)孤單的吸引你的陌生人搭訕的理由：孤獨(dú)會(huì)讓你生病。

　　Lonely people, it seems, are at greater risk than the gregarious of developing illnesses associated with chronic inflammation, such as heart disease and certain cancers. According to a paper published last year in the Public Library of Science, Medicine, the effect on mortality of loneliness is comparable with that of smoking and drinking. It examined, and combined the results of, 148 previous studies that followed some 300,000 individuals for an average period of 7.5 years each, and controlled for factors such as age and pre-existing illness. It concluded that, over such a period, a gregarious person has a 50% better chance of surviving than a lonely one.

　　孤獨(dú)的人跟愛(ài)交際的人相比，似乎患跟慢性炎癥相關(guān)的疾病——如心臟病和某些癌癥——的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)更大。據(jù)去年發(fā)表在《科學(xué)公共圖書(shū)館——醫(yī)學(xué)》雜志上的一篇論文稱，孤獨(dú)對(duì)死亡率的影響跟抽煙和酗酒相當(dāng)。文章仔細(xì)檢查了148個(gè)先前的研究(這些研究跟蹤觀察了大約30萬(wàn)人，每人平均跟蹤觀察7年半)，并綜合其結(jié)果，還控制了諸如年齡和已患疾病此類因素，最后下結(jié)論：超過(guò)這樣一段時(shí)間，一個(gè)愛(ài)交際的人比一個(gè)孤獨(dú)的人的生存率高50%。

　　Steven Cole of the University of California, Los Angeles, thinks he may know why this is so. He told the AAAS meeting in Washington, DC, about his work studying the expression of genes in lonely people. Dr Cole harvested samples of white blood cells from both lonely and gregariouspeople. He then analysed the activity of their genes, as measured by the production of asubstance called messenger RNA. This molecule carries instructions from the genes telling acell which proteins to make. The level of messenger RNA from most genes was the same in both types of people. There were several dozen genes, however, that were less active in the lonely, and several dozen others that were more active. Moreover, both the less active and the more active gene types came from a small number of functional groups.

　　加州大學(xué)洛杉磯分校的Steven Cole認(rèn)為他可能知道這是為什么。他在華盛頓特區(qū)舉辦的美國(guó)科學(xué)促進(jìn)會(huì)大會(huì)上展示了他對(duì)孤獨(dú)的人的基因表達(dá)所做的研究。Cole博士收集了孤獨(dú)之人和愛(ài)交際之人的白細(xì)胞樣品。然后他分析了他們基因的活性——靠測(cè)量信使RNA的多少。這種分子攜帶著基因上的指令，告訴細(xì)胞合成那類蛋白質(zhì)。在這兩種人中，大多數(shù)基因的信使RNA的水平是一樣的。然而有些基因在孤獨(dú)之人中活力較弱，同時(shí)另外一些基因卻活力較高。而且，無(wú)論是活力較高的基因還是活力較低的基因都來(lái)自少數(shù)功能群。

　　Broadly speaking, the genes less active in the lonely were those involved in staving off viralinfections. Those that were more active were involved in protecting against bacteria. Dr Cole suspects this could help explain not only why the lonely are iller, but how, in evolutionaryterms, this odd state of affairs has come about. For inflammation is an antibacterial response.

　　一般來(lái)說(shuō)，孤獨(dú)的人體內(nèi)活力較低的基因是那些幫助人們避開(kāi)病毒感染的基因。而那些活力較高的基因幫助人們抵抗細(xì)菌。Cole博士懷疑這不但能夠解釋為什么孤獨(dú)之人容易得病，而且能從進(jìn)化的角度這種奇怪的狀態(tài)時(shí)怎么進(jìn)化來(lái)的。因?yàn)檠装Y反應(yīng)時(shí)抵抗細(xì)菌的反應(yīng)。

　　The crucial bit of the puzzle is that viruses have to be caught from another infected individual and they are usually species-specific. Bacteria, in contrast, often just lurk in theenvironment (like tetanus), and may thrive on many hosts (as does bubonic plague, for example). The gregarious are therefore at greater risk than the lonely of catching viruses, and Dr Cole thus suggests that past evolution has created a mechanism (the details of which remain unclear) which causes white cells to respond appropriately. Conversely, the lonely are better off ramping up their protection against bacterial infection, which is a bigger relative risk to them.

　　這個(gè)問(wèn)題的關(guān)鍵點(diǎn)是，病毒必須從另外一個(gè)已經(jīng)感染此病毒的身上感染另一個(gè)人，并且病毒通常有其一對(duì)一的特殊宿主。細(xì)菌卻相反，它們潛伏在周圍環(huán)境中(像是破傷風(fēng)桿菌)，并且宿主眾多(比如說(shuō)黑死病)。因而愛(ài)交際的人比孤獨(dú)之人更易感染病毒。因此Cole博士認(rèn)為進(jìn)化過(guò)程創(chuàng)造出了一種機(jī)制(細(xì)節(jié)仍不清楚)，可以讓白細(xì)胞對(duì)這一狀況進(jìn)行反應(yīng)。相反，孤獨(dú)之人更善于加強(qiáng)他們對(duì)細(xì)菌感染的保護(hù)反應(yīng)，這對(duì)他們來(lái)說(shuō)是一個(gè)相對(duì)更大的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。

　　What Dr Cole seems to have revealed, then, is a mechanism by which the environment (in this case the social environment) reaches inside a person's body and tweaks its genome so that it responds appropriately. It is not that the lonely and the gregarious are genetically different from each other. Rather, their genes are regulated differently, according to how sociable an individual is. Dr Cole thinks this regulation is part of a wider mechanism that tunes individuals to the circumstances they find themselves in. Where it goes wrong is when loneliness becomeschronic, and the inflammatory response becomes chronic at the same time.

　　Cole博士想要揭示的是這樣一種機(jī)制：環(huán)境(在這里是社交環(huán)境)可以影響人們體內(nèi)的生化活動(dòng)，調(diào)整人體內(nèi)的基因組以讓其做出合適的反應(yīng)。并不是說(shuō)孤獨(dú)之人和愛(ài)交際之人在基因上彼此不同。而是他們根據(jù)個(gè)人對(duì)交際喜愛(ài)的程度不同，各自以不同的方式調(diào)控各自的基因。Cole博士認(rèn)為這種調(diào)節(jié)是一種更廣泛的讓個(gè)人適應(yīng)他們所在環(huán)境的機(jī)制中的一部分。當(dāng)孤獨(dú)的生活狀態(tài)變成一種常態(tài)，問(wèn)題就出現(xiàn)了——炎癥反應(yīng)同時(shí)也變成常態(tài)了(成了慢性疾病)。

　　Before civilisation intervened, such chronic loneliness would have been so rare (becauseisolated individuals are so vulnerable to predation) that evolution would have ignored it. Now,paradoxically, the large population that civilisation makes possible means loneliness iscommonplace—and with it consequences that natural selection, which is blind to the future, has not yet had time to deal with.

　　在文明到來(lái)之前，這種常態(tài)性的孤獨(dú)非常罕見(jiàn)(因?yàn)閱为?dú)的個(gè)體易被捕食)，進(jìn)化就把它忽略了。現(xiàn)在，自相矛盾地，文明使得人口眾多成為可能，意味著孤獨(dú)狀態(tài)成為常事——在這種情況下看不清未來(lái)的自然選擇的后果還來(lái)不及去應(yīng)付。

　　編輯推薦：

　　2013 年6月大學(xué)英語(yǔ)四級(jí)(CET-4)高頻詞匯匯總

　　2013 年大學(xué)英語(yǔ)四級(jí)(CET-4)改錯(cuò)練習(xí)題匯總

　　2013 年6月大學(xué)英語(yǔ)六級(jí)(CET-6)高頻詞匯匯總