Question

    GENETIC testing cannot tell teachers anything useful about an individual pupil’s educational achievement. That is the conclusion of a study that looked at how well so-called polygenic scores for education predict a person’s educational achievements, based on a long-term study of thousands of people in the UK. “Some people with a very low genetic score are very high performers at age 16. Some are even in the top 3 percent,” says Tim Morris at the University of Bristol, UK.

And while Morris expects the accuracy of polygenic scores for educational achievements to improve, he doesn’t think they will ever be good enough to predict how well an individual will do. Even relatively simple qualities such as height are influenced by thousands of genetic variants, each of which may only have a tiny effect. It has been claimed that polygenic scores can be used to make useful predictions, such as a person’s likelihood of developing various diseases. One company is even offering embryo screening (screening of an unborn baby in the very stages of development) based on polygenic scores for disease risk.

Some researchers - notably Robert Plomin of King’s College London - think that schools should start using polygenic scores for educational achievement. In most cases, the scores may reflect qualities such as persistence as well as intelligence.

To assess the usefulness of polygenic scores in education, Morris and his colleagues calculated them for 8,000 people in Bristol who are part of a long-term study known as the Children of the 90s. The participants’ genomes have been queued and their academic results are available to researchers. Among other things, the team found a correlation of 0.4 between a person’s polygenic score and their exam results at age 16. But there would need to be a correlation of at least 0.8 to make useful predictions about individuals, says Morris.

Plomin, however, argues that the results support his opinion. “A correlation of 0.4 makes it the strongest polygenic predictor in the behavioural sciences,” says Plomin. “It’s so much stronger than a lot of other things we base decisions on. So it’s a very big finding.”

Morris says schools already have access to other predictors that are more accurate, such as a pupil’s earlier test results. Looking at parents’ educational achievements is also a better predictor of a pupil’s academic results than studying their genome, his results show. Providing teachers with an extra predictor based on genetics would just confuse matters, says Morris, and the cost cannot be justified.

1.In paragraph 2, Morris talks about “height” in order to tell readers that _____.

A.some qualities are hardly affected by any genetic variants

B.some qualities are influenced by thousands of genetic variants

C.genetic scores are useful in predicting one’s potential diseases

D.genetic scores can help children improve their scores at school

2.How did Morris prove the effect of polygenetic scores in education?

A.By providing opposite examples. B.By explaining how the genome works.

C.By listing findings from another scientist. D.By presenting facts and data from research.

3.According to Plomin, a correlation of 0.4 is reliable because it is _____.

A.useful in telling you how intelligent and persistent children are

B.useful in predicting people who might struggle academically

C.stronger compared to other factors in behavioural sciences

D.strongly correlated to children’s academic achievements

4.Morris suggested that schools should _____.

A.study every pupil’s genomes

B.spend some money on genetic tests

C.know about parents’ educational achievements

D.provide teachers with students’ genetic information

Answer

1.B

2.D

3.C

4.C

【解析】

这是一篇说明文。一项在对英国数千人进行长期研究的基础上，考察了所谓的多基因教育分数如何预测一个人的教育成就。研究发现基因测试不能告诉老师任何有关单个学生教育成就的有用信息。研究人员希望多基因分数对教育成就的准确性有所提高，但这些分数永远不足以预测一个人的表现。文章主要说明了研究过程，以及人们对研究结论的看法。

1.

推理判断题。根据第二段中And while Morris expects the accuracy of polygenic scores for educational achievements to improve, he doesn’t think they will ever be good enough to predict how well an individual will do. Even relatively simple qualities such as height are influenced by thousands of genetic variants, each of which may only have a tiny effect.可知尽管Morris希望多基因分数对教育成就的准确性有所提高，但他认为这些分数永远不足以预测一个人的表现。即使是像身高这样相对简单的品质也会受到成千上万种基因变异的影响，每一种变异的影响都很小。由此可推知，在第2段中，Morris谈到“身高”是为了告诉读者一些品质是受成千上万的遗传变异影响的。故选B。

2.

推理判断题。根据第四段To assess the usefulness of polygenic scores in education, Morris and his colleagues calculated them for 8,000 people in Bristol who are part of a long-term study known as the Children of the 90s. The participants’ genomes have been queued and their academic results are available to researchers. Among other things, the team found a correlation of 0.4 between a person’s polygenic score and their exam results at age 16. But there would need to be a correlation of at least 0.8 to make useful predictions about individuals, says Morris.可知为了评估多基因分数在教育中的作用，Morris和他的同事对布里斯托尔的8000人进行了计算，这些人是一项名为“90年代的孩子”的长期研究的一部分。参与者的基因组已经排列好，他们的学术成果可供研究人员使用。除此之外，研究小组发现，一个人的多基因分数与他们16岁时的考试成绩之间的相关性为0.4。但Morris说，相关性至少要达到0.8才能对个体做出有用的预测。由此判断出，Morris是通过展示研究的事实和数据，来证明多基因分数对教育的影响的。故选D。

3.

细节理解题。根据倒数第二段中“A correlation of 0.4 makes it the strongest polygenic predictor in the behavioural sciences,” says Plomin. “It’s so much stronger than a lot of other things we base decisions on. So it’s a very big finding.”可知“0.4的相关性使其成为行为科学中最强的多基因预测因子，” Plomin说。“它比我们赖以做决定的其他很多东西都强大得多。所以这是一个很大的发现。”由此可知，0.4的相关性是可靠的，因为它比行为科学中的其他因素更强。故选C。

4.

细节理解题。根据最后一段中Looking at parents’ educational achievements is also a better predictor of a pupil’s academic results than studying their genome, his results show. Providing teachers with an extra predictor based on genetics would just confuse matters, says Morris, and the cost cannot be justified.可知他的研究结果显示，与研究学生的基因组相比，观察父母的教育成就也是预测学生学业成绩的更好手段。Morris说，为教师提供一个基于遗传学的额外预测器只会使事情变得混乱，而且花费也不合理。由此可知，Morris建议学校应该了解父母的教育成就。故选C。