经济学人100篇精彩编辑文章.doc

*- [2010.04.08] Protection racket 保护的喧闹 4 [2009.10.29] The unrepentant chocolatier 不思悔改的巧克力制造商 6 [2010.04.15] Extrasolar planets 系外行星 17 [2010.03.25] Ethiopia: Forget about democracy 忘记民主吧 19 [2010.03.18] Africa: When feeding the hungry is political 当喂饱饥民成为政治工具 22 [2010.03.31]Genetic Shock 基因大休克 25 [2010.04.08]Novel sources of uranium 铀的新来源 28 [2010.03.13] A game of consequences? 因果游戏？ 30 [2010.03.31]E-publish or perish 不做电子版就灭亡 34 [2010.03.29] Fish tales 食鱼传说 39 [2010.03.31] Another Russian tragedy 另一出俄罗斯悲剧 43 [2010.03.18] Back on the map 立陶宛：重振国威 46 [2010.03.18] Eaten away 捕尽吃绝 55 [2010.03.19] Let bygones be bygones? 过去的就让它过去吗？ 57 [2010.04.04] Launch pad iPad登台亮相，蓄势待发 61 [2010.02.18] Polar ice shelves 极地冰架 63 [2010 03 25]一些人断言：她们不需要妇女权利 65 [2010.03.31] Sweeping the skies 扫天：清走宇宙垃圾 67 [2010.03.31] The truth hurts 真相伤人 68 [2010.03.25]Easy come, easy go 来如流水逝如风 71 [2009.8.6] The sun also rises 日升如故，阴霾潜伏 74 [2010.03.18]electric supercars电动超级车 78 [2010.03.18] Slash and earn 企业“瘦身”，利润“增肥” 82 [2010.03.31] Remote-control warfare 遥控战争 86 [2010.02.25] How siestas help memory 午睡怎样增进记忆力 88 [2010.03.23] University Ranking 大学排行榜 91 [2010.03.04] The grim rater 绝不留情 95 [2010.03.04]A step in the right direction 往正确方向的一步 98 [2010.03.11]The cost of reconstruction重建的代价 104 [2010.03.04] The worldwide war on baby girls 对女婴的全球性围剿 107 [2010.03.18]Middle-income and developing countries 中等收入与发展中国家 120 [2010.03.06]Do the locomotion活动活动（关于动物始祖） 122 [2010.03.11]Sovereign debt and the euro 国债与欧元 124 [2010.03.11]Advances in pain relief 进一步的缓解疼痛 126 [2010.01.21] investing in brains 智力投资 128 [2010.02.25]Whats good for General Motors 通用汽车好，那美国也好 132 [2010.02.04] Of governments and geeks 关于政府和极客 134 [2010.02.18] Hitmen old and new 魔高一尺道高一丈 140 [2010.01.07] Planet Hunting 行星狩猎 142 [2010.03.04] The net generation, unplugged 网络世代，不插电 144 [2010.03.11] All for one 应对主权债务危机：创建欧洲货币基金？ 148 [2010.1.28] A needier era 更加渴望的时代 150 [2010.02.04]Classes apart 课堂不再 153 [2009.12.10] Filthy lucre fouls the air 不义之财污染空气 155 [2010.03.04]Flaky science 雪花的科学 158 [2010.02.18] Moon dreams 奔月之梦 160 [2010 2 25]a weighty matter重物质 163 [2010.02.18]Assassinations：A time to kill 暗杀：动手！ 165 [2010.01.21] Reaching the poorest 给予赤贫者受教育的机会 170 [2009.12.30] Why farms may be the new forests 为什么农田会成为新的森林 173 [2009.12.17]Too many chains 束缚重重 174 [2010.02.18] Hands off 放下手来 178 [2010.02.27]Fired up着火了！！！ 180 [2009.12.10]How much evil can you not see?有多少罪恶是你所看不到的？ 184 [2009.12.17] Climate change and forests 气候改变和森林 187 [2010.02.27]A sunny clean up阳光清洁 190 [2009.12.03]Cap, trade and block 排放量设限，妥协仍遭堵截 193 [2010.02.11] Tree and leaf 树与叶 195 [2009.12.10]Filthy lucre fouls the air 脏钱污染空气浊 198 [2009.12.11] Green enough? 绿色够了吗？ 201 [2009.11.25]Fish tales有关鱼的故事 210 [2009.11.26]Wider still and weaker? 膨胀依旧弱更甚？ 215 [2010.01.07]No hiding place? 人类已无藏身之处？ 219 [2010.02.18]Making a bit of me 略显不同 222 [2010.02.11] Opting for the quiet life 选择宁静的生活 （祝大家虎年大吉！） 225 [2009.11.26]The gloves go on 减贫正未有穷期 229 [2010-02-03]Space to thrive孕育繁荣的空间 231 [2009.11.21][Food markets][食品市场] 235 [2009.10.01] Extradition 引渡 236 [2009.11.05] (Not yet) marching as to war （尚未）发展到战争的地步 240 [2010.02.02] Computer etiquette 电脑礼仪：点点头，眨眨眼 243 [2009.11.21] If words were food, nobody would go hungry如果说话可以当饭吃，就没人会挨饿了 246 [2010.01.14]Stem cells in China 中国的干细胞研究 255 [2010.01.16]Its a knockout 冲床“以旧换新” 260 [2009.11.05]Sounding the Trumpet 吹响集结号 262 [2009.10.22] To the rigger the spoils 舞弊者获利 266 [2010.01.13]Well received 接收效果良好 268 [2010.01.19] Safer helicopters 更加安全的直升飞机 270 [2010.01.07]Looking for life in the shadows 寻找暗处的生命 272 [2010.1.14] The end of an institution? 皇家学院的终结？ 274 [2010.01.07]Electronic colouring 电子着色 276 [2009.12.16] All pumped up 全都泵起来 279 [2009.12.10]Alone in the crowd群体的孤独感 281 [2010.3.25] A weight on their shoulders 压在肩上的重担 283 [2009.12.30] Dambusterbusters 堤坝除险，以水御水 286 [2010.3.18] The waiting game 等待之中的游戏 289 [2009.12.19] Girls on top 女孩优先 291 [2010 03 11] The inflation solution 通胀式解药 293 [2009.12.10] War games 战争游戏 296 [2010.03.20] It wasnt us 不是我们的错 301 [2009.12.17] An early Christmas present? 暗物质: 一份提前送出的圣诞礼物？ 305 [2010.03.25]Rising prices in Asia 亚洲的物价上涨问题 307 [2010.03.04]Financial inclusion 金融扩展计划 310 [2009.12.19] Dashed hopes 破灭的希望 312 [2010.03.04]Low definition 敢问“界”在何方? 314 [2009.12.10] Commercial space flight 商业性太空飞行 317 [2010.03.02]Recovery in progress 正在复苏中 319 [2009.12.03] No pinch of salt 盐能发电？此言不差！ 322 [2010.2.18] Fundamental questions 极其重要的问题 324 [2010.04.08] Protection racket 保护的喧闹 Eating lots of fruit and vegetables may not help stave off cancer, after all 终究， 吃大量的水果和蔬菜并不能避免癌症 Apr 8th 2010 | From The Economist print edition FOR snivelling children and recalcitrant carnivores, requests that they should eat five portions of fruit and vegetables every day have mostly fallen on deaf ears. But those who did comply with official advice from charities, governments and even the mighty World Health Organisation (WHO), could remind themselves, rather smugly, that the extra greens they forced down at lunchtime would greatly reduce their chances of getting cancer. Until now, that is. Because a group of researchers led by Paolo Boffetta, of the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, have conducted a new study into the link between cancer and the consumption of fruit and vegetables, and found it to be far weaker than anyone had thought. 对于哭哭啼啼的小孩和顽固的肉食主义者，每天吃五种不同的蔬菜和水果的要求他们基本上会当做耳旁风。 但是那些遵循慈善团体、 政府、 甚至是权威的WHO的官方建议的人会沾沾自喜的提醒自己午饭时候硬塞进去的绿色食品会极大的减少患癌症的几率。 到现在为止， 确实如此。 因为由纽约西奈山医学院的Paolo Boffetta带领的一组研究人员进行了一个癌症与蔬菜和水果的消费之间关系的研究， 并且发现这个关系要比想象得弱得多。 In the past, veggie-associated reductions of cancer-risk rates as high as 50% had been reported. But it appears that some of these early investigations may have been biased by the use of “case-control” studies. Such studies try to identify the factors contributing to cancer by comparing people who have the disease with those who do not, but are otherwise similar. The problem is that they can easily be biased if researchers do not adequately establish that the two groups being compared are, indeed, otherwise similar. Walter Willet, at the Harvard School of Public Health, says it appears that earlier investigations were more likely to use health-conscious people as their controls. These types of people are, unsurprisingly, more likely to agree to be interviewed about their health than slobby couch potatoes. 过去曾有过蔬菜能够减少高达50%的癌症发病率的报道。 但是现在看来先前许多的研究都用了“病例对照”而产生了偏见。 这一类研究通过对比其它条件相似的癌症患者和健康人试图明确是什么因素导致了癌症。 问题是如果研究人员没有适当地建立两个组， 也就是其它因素都相似， 研究很容易产生偏见。 哈佛公共卫生学院的Walter Willet说， 以前的研究似乎都喜欢用有健康意识的人来作为对照组。 毫不意外， 这类人比那些懒在沙发里面吃薯片的人更喜欢坐健康的研究。 Dr Boffetta and his colleagues have therefore carried out a different kind of study, known as prospective cohort study, which they report in theJournal of the National Cancer Institute. Their work follows a group of individuals over time and looks at how different factors contribute to different outcomes—in this case, the development of cancer. Analysis of dietary data from almost 500,000 people in Europe found only a weak association between high fruit and vegetable intake and reduced overall cancer risk. 因此Boffetta博士和同事进行了另一种类型的研究， 被称作是前瞻性群体研究， 发表在《美国癌症学会杂志》上面。 他们在一段时间内跟踪一组个体并观察不同的因素导致了什么样的不同结果——在这个研究中， 就是癌症的发生。 欧洲将近500,000人中的饮食数据分析发现大量的蔬菜和水果的摄入与所有的癌症患病率之间的关系非常小。 Green with envy 充满嫉妒 According to Susan Jebb, of the British Medical Research Council’s Collaborative Centre for Human Nutrition Research in Cambridge, the new study suggests that if Europeans increased their consumption of fruit and vegetables by 150g a day (about two servings, or 40% of the WHO’s recommended daily allowance), it would result in a decrease of just 2.6% in the rate of cancers in men and 2.3% in women. Even those who eat virtually no fruit and vegetables, the paper suggests, are only 9% more likely to develop cancer than those who stick to the WHO recommendations. 来自英国医学研究会的剑桥人类营养研究合作中心的Susan Jebb说， 新的研究表明如果欧洲人每天增加150g的蔬菜和水果的摄入量（大约每日两次， 或者是WHO推荐摄入量的40%）, 这将只会降低男性2.6%、 女性2.3%的肿瘤发生率。 研究显示即使是那些几乎没有蔬菜和水果摄入的人， 他们的癌症发生率比坚持按照WHO推荐摄入量的人仅仅高出9%。 On the face of it, that is quite a blow to the smug salad eaters, and the health lobby’s spin-doctors were out in force in the wake of the paper’s publication, to play down its conclusions. Before racing to the food-recycling bin with the contents of an ageing fruit bowl, they pointed out, there are a number of other factors that nutritionists would urge that you consider. 从表面看来， 这无疑是对沾沾自喜的沙拉坚守者的巨大打击， 而且这篇文章发表以后倡导健康生活的医生们失去了自己以前说服病人的有力证据， 他们闭口不谈这篇文章的重要性。 营养专家指出， 别急着把你一直伴随你的水果盘里面的水果扔到垃圾桶里， 还有很多其它的因素需要你考虑。 One is that this kind of study has attempted to adjust for every possible factor that might contribute to the relationship, and isolate only the contribution that fruit and vegetables make. This means that if people who turn away from fruit and vegetables end up eating more processed meats or foods high in fat instead, they probably will increase their cancer risk, even though the direct cause is not the consumption of less fruit and veg. 其中一个因素是这一类型的研究试图调节好在这个关系中的每一个因子， 于是孤立了蔬菜和水果在其中所起到的作用。 这意味着如果把吃蔬菜和水果转而变成吃更多的精细肉类和其他高脂食物， 会增加癌症的发病率， 即便直接的原因并不是蔬菜和水果的摄入过少。 More importantly, there is still good evidence that fruit and vegetables protect against heart disease and strokes by reducing blood pressure. A separate investigation of the people involved in Dr Boffetta’s study suggests that those who eat five servings a day of fruit and vegetables have a 30% lower incidence of heart disease and strokes than those who eat less than one and a half servings. It is also possible that some specific foods, such as tomatoes, broccoli and other cruciferous vegetables, do offer protective effects against particular kinds of cancer. 更重要的是， 依然有很充分的证据说明蔬菜和水果的降压作用可以预防心脏病和中风。Boffetta博士一项独立的研究表明每天吃五份水果和蔬菜的人比每天只吃一份半蔬菜和水果的人心脏病和中风的发病率要低30%。 而且某些特定的食物， 比如番茄、 西兰花和萝卜等蔬菜， 对特定的癌症还是有预防作用的。 As a consequence, the best advice is probably still to eat your five a day. But for snivelling children and recalcitrant carnivores the fleeting thought that you might not have to was nice while it lasted. 因而， 最好的建议是依然坚持每天吃五份蔬菜和水果。 但是对于哭哭啼啼的小孩和顽固的肉食主义者， 改变他们的想法让它一瞬即逝好了。 [2009.10.29] The unrepentant chocolatier 不思悔改的巧克力制造商 Oct 29th 2009 | LAUSANNE AND VEVEY From The Economist print edition The world’s biggest food company is betting on an emerging class of health and nutrition products to spur its growth. But risks abound 世界头号食品公司将宝压在健康营养产品，借助这些产品的发展以促进公司壮大。然而，危机四伏 IT IS a curious blend of kitchen and laboratory. From one room wafts the bittersweet smell of chocolate being gently heated and stirred by chocolatiers. Around the corner it is all science. A double row of cubicles contains human guinea pigs who sniff and taste from little tubs, scoring each on criteria such as sweetness or bitterness to produce complex flavour charts. Down the corridor, women in comfortable chairs talk about how chocolate makes them feel. Cameras and microphones record their most minute gestures for the scrutiny of psychologists and anthropologists 这种厨房与实验室的结合着实新奇。制造商将巧克力微微加热，使其散发出甜中带苦的口味。事情虽小确是科学。两排小隔间的实验对象嗅闻、品尝小盒中的食物，并根据甜、苦等标准打分，制造商据此创造复杂的口味系列。穿过走廊，很多女士坐在舒服的座椅上，描述吃巧克力的感觉。她们每一个细微的动作都被摄像机和麦克风记录下来，稍后心理学家和人类学家将对这些数据进行仔细分析。 This is the science behind Nestl’s 110-year-old chocolate factory next door, which each morning exhales the aroma of roasting almonds and cocoa beans over Broc, a chocolate-box-perfect Swiss village where even the weeds in an overgrown lot seem orderly. It is in these laboratories, where a pinch of art is mixed with SFr25m ($23.6m) of technology, that new chocolate recipes are devised. At another Nestl research centre in Lausanne, meanwhile, researchers have been working out how chocolate affects metabolism and the behaviour of gut microbes—in other words, analysing chocolate as a pharmaceutical product, rather than a treat 这就是雀巢110年巧克力工厂的科学之道。每天早上布罗克村都飘散出烘烤杏仁和可可豆的芳香气息。布罗克是瑞士的巧克力之乡。在这，即使是空地上蔓延生长的杂草似乎也井然有序。就是在这些实验室里诞生了新的巧克力配方。（也是在这里有少数艺术与身价2500万瑞士法郎约合2360万英镑的技术相结合）。与此同时，在雀巢的另一家研发中心洛桑市，研究者们一致在研究巧克力如何影响新陈代谢和肠道微生物行为。换言之，把巧克力当做药物来分析，而不是食品。 Investment in this kind of research may seem indulgent, particularly in a recession. But it exemplifies Nestl’s strategy for future growth. Although the company is best known for chocolate, ice-cream and sugary snacks, Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, the firm’s chairman, and Paul Bulcke, its chief executive, hope to transform the food company into the world’s leading health, nutrition and “wellness” firm. It is tempting to dismiss this as a mere marketing stunt—an effort to make people feel better about eating things they really shouldn’t. Yet there is a sound commercial logic behind Nestl’s shift towards health and nutrition. 在这种研究上投入资金似乎是败家之举，尤其是在经济萧条时期。然而，这是雀巢为促进未来成长的战略缩影。虽然雀巢是以巧克力、冰激凌、甜食著称，但是董事长Peter Brabeck-Letmathe和执行官Paul Bulcke希望把公司从食品企业转为世界顶级保健、营养和“健康”公司。人们很容易将此举理解为营销的愚蠢行为（努力让消费者觉得吃不应该吃的食品没什么大不了的）。然而，在雀巢转型成为保健、营养型公司的背后有一套行之有效的商业逻辑 Sales of foodstuffs that have been intentionally modified and improved by manufacturers to provide claimed health benefits—known as “functional foods”—are, in many cases, growing far more quickly than foods sales as a whole. Sales of functional foods in western Europe grew by 10.2% a year between 2004 and 2007, whereas sales of packaged food grew by 6.3% a year over that period (see chart 1), according to Euromonitor, a market-research firm. Some categories are growing even faster. In America, sales of functional foods that promote “gut health”, for example, grew by an average of 15.8% a year between 2002 and 2007, according to a recent PricewaterhouseCoopers report, compared with overall food-sales growth of 2.9% a year, according to Datamonitor (see chart 2). The PricewaterhouseCoopers report predicts that the global market for functional foods will grow in value from $78 billion in 2007 to $128 billion in 2013. “功能性食品”即经过制造商刻意修改和改进、宣传有益健康的食物。这类食品的销售额在大部分情况下增速远远快于其他食品的整体销售增速。市场调研公司欧睿的调查显示，功能性食品在西欧的销售额在2004至2007年期间保持着每年10.2%的增速，而包装类食品在同期的增速为每年6.3%（见图一）。有些种类的增速甚至更快。例如，普华永道最近的一份报告显示，促进“肠道健康”的功能性食品在美销售额在2002年至2007年的年平均增速为15.8%，而欧睿的调查显示同期美国食品的总体销售额增速只有2.9%。普华永道在报告中还预测功能性食品的全球市场将从2007年的78亿美元扩大到2013年的1280亿美元。 Looking further ahead, Nestl sees great potential in the idea of “personalised” nutrition. Just as drugs companies have long talked of devising drugs that take account of genetic variations between people, the firm wants to do the same with food. That is why it is investing in the nascent fields of metabolomics and proteomics with the aim of providing foods, diets, devices and even services for particular subgroups of the population. It forecasts that by 2017, global sales of nutrition for “specific need states” could reach $100 billion. Existing examples include Musashi whey-protein supplements and PowerBar snacks for athletes; Sondalis and Nutren Glytrol liquid diets for diabetics; and Optifast po