Most of us spend our lives seeking the natural world. To this end, we walk the dog, play golf, go fishing, sit in the garden, drink outside rather than inside the pub, have a picnic, live in the suburbs, go to the seaside, buy a weekend place in the country. The most popular free time activity in Britain is going for a walk. And when joggers (慢跑者) jog, they don’t run the streets. Every one of them automatically heads to the park or the river. It is my firm belief that not only do we all need nature, but we all seek nature, whether we know we are doing so or not.

But despite this, our children are growing up nature-deprived (丧失). I spent my boyhood climbing trees. These days, children are robbed of these ancient freedoms, due to problems like crime, traffic, the loss of the open spaces and strange new ideas about what is best for children, that is to say, things that can be bought, rather than things that can be found.

The truth is to be found elsewhere. A study in the US: families had moved to better housing and the children were assessed for ADHD (多动症). Those whose housing had more natural views showed an improvement of 19%; those who had the same improvement in material surroundings but no nice view improved just 4%.

A study in Sweden indicated that kindergarten children who could play in a natural environment had less illness and greater physical ability than children used only to a normal playground. A US study suggested that when a school gave children access to a natural environment, the entire school would do better in studies.

Another study found that children play differently in a natural environment. In playgrounds, children create a hierarchy (等级) based on physical abilities, with the tough ones taking the lead. But when a grassy area was planted with bushes, the children got much more into fantasy play, and the social hierarchy was now based on imagination and creativity.

Most bullying (恃强凌弱) is found in schools where there is a tarmac (柏油碎石) playground; the least bullying is in a natural area that the children are encouraged to explore. This reminds me unpleasantly of Sunnyhill School, with its hard tarmac, where I used to hang about in corners dreaming about wildlife.

But children are frequently discouraged from involvement with natural spaces, for health and safety reasons, for fear that they might get dirty or that they might cause damage. So, instead, the damage is done to the children themselves: not to their bodies but to their souls.

One of the great problems of modern childhood is ADHD, now increasingly and expensively treated with drugs. Yet one study after another indicates that contact with nature gives huge benefits to ADHD children. However, we spend money on drugs rather than on green places.

The life of old people is much better when they have access to nature. The most important for the growing population of old people is in quality rather than quantity of years. And study after study finds that a garden is the single most important thing in finding that quality.

In wider and more difficult areas of life, there is evidence to indicate that natural surroundings improve all kinds of things. Even problems with crime and aggressive behaviour are reduced when there is contact with the natural world.

Dr William Bird, researcher from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, states in his study, “A natural environment can reduce violent behaviour because its process helps reduce anger and behavior that people might regret later.” Wild places need encouraging for this reason, no matter how small their contribution.

We tend to think human beings are doing nature some kind of favor when we are protecting nature. The error here is far too deep: not only do humans need nature for themselves, but the very idea that humanity and the natural world are separable things is damaging.

Human beings are a species of animals. For seven million years we lived on the planet as part of nature. So we miss the natural world and long for contact with non-human life. Anyone who has patted a dog, stroked a cat, sat under a tree with a glass of beer, given or received a bunch of flowers or chosen to walk through the park on a nice day, understands that.

We need the wild world. It is necessary to our well-being, our health, our happiness. Without other living things around us we are less than human.

1.What is the author’s firm belief?

　　A. People seek nature in different ways.

　　B. People should spend most of their lives in the wild.

　　C. People have quite different ideas of nature.

　　D. People must make more efforts to study nature.

2.What does the author say people prefer for their children nowadays?

　　A. Personal freedom.　　            B. Things that are natural.

　　C. Urban surroundings.　　          D. Things that are purchased.

3.What does a study in Sweden show?

　　A. The natural environment can help children learn better.

　　B. More access to nature makes children less likely to fall ill.

　　C. A good playground helps kids develop their physical abilities.

　　D. Natural views can prevent children from developing ADHD.

4.Children who have chances to explore natural areas ________.

　  A. tend to develop a strong love for science　    

B. are more likely to dream about wildlife

　  C. tend to be physically tougher in adulthood　   

D. are less likely to be involved in bullying

5.What does the author suggest we do to help children with ADHD?

　　A. Find more effective drugs for them.　　   

B. Provide more green spaces for them.

　　C. Place them under more personal care.　　

D. Engage them in more meaningful activities

6. In what way do elderly people benefit from their contact with nature?

　　A. They look on life optimistically.　　    B. They enjoy a life of better quality.

C. They are able to live longer.            D. They become good-humored

In recent years, especially during the l960s, there was much discussion about “the brain drain (排干, 流失),” which dealt with the problem of students and learned people who left their own countries for other countries that offered better chances for study, research, and employment．For example, according to a report from U．N., between 1962 and l966 more than 50 percent of all engineering graduates of Iran and 14 percent of Iranian scientists left their country for work abroad．Over 30 percent of Chilean engineers and 15 percent of Turkish physicians also went to work in other countries．Probably the greatest brain drain occurred among young scientists who had gone abroad to study．Many of them had planned to return to their countries to teach but chose to remain in more industrialized nations where they were able to continue their work and their research in fields in which there were no job possibilities at home．The countries that attracted most of these scientists were the United States, Great Britain, Germany, France, Canada, and Australia.

　　Recent studies show that the brain drain to the United States may be decreasing．Many foreign scientists are going home again, and in some cases American scientists are leaving the United States for employment in other countries．The main reasons are that good jobs are becoming fewer here, money for national research has been sharply cut, and university fellowships reduced too．However, in the field of medicine the drain to the United States still goes on．Today more than one of every five American doctors is foreign - born, and several thousand foreign doctors immigrate to the United States each year．Over eighty countries have asked the State Department to send students who are skilled in important fields such as medicine back home when their study programs are over.

Which of the following is not the reason for “the brain drain”?

A．Good housing.　　           B．Better research condition.

C．Good job possibility　　      D．Better chances of study..

The brain drain to the United States may be decreasing mainly because __________.

A．many foreign scientists are ordered to return to their motherlands

B．they don't need any foreign scientists now

C．there are fewer and fewer good jobs in the USA

D．the universities refuse to provide money for the foreign scientists

How many American doctors are foreign - born?

A．About half of them.　 　 B More than 20 percent　

C．Several thousand.　　    D．About 15 percent.

Which is the best title for this passage?

A．How to seek a job in the USA.　　  B．Doctors' immigration to the USA.

C．A strange case.                  D．The brain drain. 

In recent years, especially during the l960s, there was much discussion about “the brain drain (排干, 流失),” which dealt with the problem of students and learned people who left their own countries for other countries that offered better chances for study, research, and employment．For example, according to a report from U．N., between 1962 and l966 more than 50 percent of all engineering graduates of Iran and 14 percent of Iranian scientists left their country for work abroad．Over 30 percent of Chilean engineers and 15 percent of Turkish physicians also went to work in other countries．Probably the greatest brain drain occurred among young scientists who had gone abroad to study．Many of them had planned to return to their countries to teach but chose to remain in more industrialized nations where they were able to continue their work and their research in fields in which there were no job possibilities at home．The countries that attracted most of these scientists were the United States, Great Britain, Germany, France, Canada, and Australia.
　　Recent studies show that the brain drain to the United States may be decreasing．Many foreign scientists are going home again, and in some cases American scientists are leaving the United States for employment in other countries．The main reasons are that good jobs are becoming fewer here, money for national research has been sharply cut, and university fellowships reduced too．However, in the field of medicine the drain to the United States still goes on．Today more than one of every five American doctors is foreign - born, and several thousand foreign doctors immigrate to the United States each year．Over eighty countries have asked the State Department to send students who are skilled in important fields such as medicine back home when their study programs are over.
【小题1】Which of the following is not the reason for “the brain drain”?

John　Dewey　believed　that　education　should　be　a　preparation　for　life，that　a　person　learns　by　doing，and　that　teaching　must＿＿the　curiosity　and　creativity　of　children．

A)seek　B)stimulate　C)shape　D)secure

Most of us spend our lives seeking the natural world. To this end, we walk the dog, play golf, go fishing, sit in the garden, drink outside rather than inside the pub, have a picnic, live in the suburbs, go to the seaside, buy a weekend place in the country. The most popular free time activity in Britain is going for a walk. And when joggers (慢跑者) jog, they don’t run the streets. Every one of them automatically heads to the park or the river. It is my firm belief that not only do we all need nature, but we all seek nature, whether we know we are doing so or not.
But despite this, our children are growing up nature-deprived (丧失). I spent my boyhood climbing trees. These days, children are robbed of these ancient freedoms, due to problems like crime, traffic, the loss of the open spaces and strange new ideas about what is best for children, that is to say, things that can be bought, rather than things that can be found.
The truth is to be found elsewhere. A study in the US: families had moved to better housing and the children were assessed for ADHD (多动症). Those whose housing had more natural views showed an improvement of 19%; those who had the same improvement in material surroundings but no nice view improved just 4%.
A study in Sweden indicated that kindergarten children who could play in a natural environment had less illness and greater physical ability than children used only to a normal playground. A US study suggested that when a school gave children access to a natural environment, the entire school would do better in studies.
Another study found that children play differently in a natural environment. In playgrounds, children create a hierarchy (等级) based on physical abilities, with the tough ones taking the lead. But when a grassy area was planted with bushes, the children got much more into fantasy play, and the social hierarchy was now based on imagination and creativity.
Most bullying (恃强凌弱) is found in schools where there is a tarmac (柏油碎石) playground; the least bullying is in a natural area that the children are encouraged to explore. This reminds me unpleasantly of Sunnyhill School, with its hard tarmac, where I used to hang about in corners dreaming about wildlife.
But children are frequently discouraged from involvement with natural spaces, for health and safety reasons, for fear that they might get dirty or that they might cause damage. So, instead, the damage is done to the children themselves: not to their bodies but to their souls.
One of the great problems of modern childhood is ADHD, now increasingly and expensively treated with drugs. Yet one study after another indicates that contact with nature gives huge benefits to ADHD children. However, we spend money on drugs rather than on green places.
The life of old people is much better when they have access to nature. The most important for the growing population of old people is in quality rather than quantity of years. And study after study finds that a garden is the single most important thing in finding that quality.
In wider and more difficult areas of life, there is evidence to indicate that natural surroundings improve all kinds of things. Even problems with crime and aggressive behaviour are reduced when there is contact with the natural world.
Dr William Bird, researcher from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, states in his study, “A natural environment can reduce violent behaviour because its process helps reduce anger and behavior that people might regret later.” Wild places need encouraging for this reason, no matter how small their contribution.
We tend to think human beings are doing nature some kind of favor when we are protecting nature. The error here is far too deep: not only do humans need nature for themselves, but the very idea that humanity and the natural world are separable things is damaging.
Human beings are a species of animals. For seven million years we lived on the planet as part of nature. So we miss the natural world and long for contact with non-human life. Anyone who has patted a dog, stroked a cat, sat under a tree with a glass of beer, given or received a bunch of flowers or chosen to walk through the park on a nice day, understands that.
We need the wild world. It is necessary to our well-being, our health, our happiness. Without other living things around us we are less than human.
【小题1】What is the author’s firm belief?

A．Find more effective drugs for them.

B．Provide more green spaces for them.

C．Place them under more personal care.

D．Engage them in more meaningful activities

A．They look on life optimistically.	B．They enjoy a life of better quality.
C．They are able to live longer.	D．They become good-humored