UNIFESP 2002 Inglês - Questões

The New York Times on the web

The rush to enhancement: Medicine isn’t just for the sick anymore

By Sherwin B. Nuland

Until the mid-1960s, medical research was primarily driven by the desire to solve the problems of sick people. Although Aristotle was what might be termed today a pure laboratory investigator, with no thought of the clinical usefulness of his findings, the vast majority of those physicians later influenced by his contributions to biology were trying to solve the mysteries of human anatomy and physiology for the distinct purpose of combating sickness. The discovery of blood circulation in the 17th century, the elucidation of the anatomical effects of disease in the 18th, the introduction of antisepsis and anesthesia in the 19th, the development of antibiotics and cardiac and transplant surgery in the 20th— all of these were the direct results of physicians and others having recognized a specific group of challenges that stood in the way of making sick people better. Armed with knowledge of the disease processes, they entered their laboratories to address specific clinical issues. Their goal was improving the lot of actual patients, often their own.

The rise of molecular biology since the late 1950s has had the gradual and quite unforeseen effect of turning the eyes of medical scientists increasingly toward the basic mechanisms of life, rather than disease and death. Of course, this has always been the orientation of all non-medical biologists, studying growth, reproduction, nutrition or any of the other characteristics shared by all living things.

But now the boundaries have become blurred, between research that will alter the approach to disease and research that will alter the approach to life itself. While until very recently the bedside usually determined what was done in the medical research laboratory, the findings coming out of the laboratory nowadays are just as likely to tell the clinician what he can do at the bedside. The tail often wags the dog. In fact, the tail is becoming the dog.

(Texto condensado e adaptado. Encontra-se na íntegra no endereço

http://nytimes.com/library/review/051098medicine-review.html)

The focus of medical research until the mid 60s was to

The New York Times on the web

The rush to enhancement: Medicine isn’t just for the sick anymore

By Sherwin B. Nuland

Until the mid-1960s, medical research was primarily driven by the desire to solve the problems of sick people. Although Aristotle was what might be termed today a pure laboratory investigator, with no thought of the clinical usefulness of his findings, the vast majority of those physicians later influenced by his contributions to biology were trying to solve the mysteries of human anatomy and physiology for the distinct purpose of combating sickness. The discovery of blood circulation in the 17th century, the elucidation of the anatomical effects of disease in the 18th, the introduction of antisepsis and anesthesia in the 19th, the development of antibiotics and cardiac and transplant surgery in the 20th— all of these were the direct results of physicians and others having recognized a specific group of challenges that stood in the way of making sick people better. Armed with knowledge of the disease processes, they entered their laboratories to address specific clinical issues. Their goal was improving the lot of actual patients, often their own.

The rise of molecular biology since the late 1950s has had the gradual and quite unforeseen effect of turning the eyes of medical scientists increasingly toward the basic mechanisms of life, rather than disease and death. Of course, this has always been the orientation of all non-medical biologists, studying growth, reproduction, nutrition or any of the other characteristics shared by all living things.

But now the boundaries have become blurred, between research that will alter the approach to disease and research that will alter the approach to life itself. While until very recently the bedside usually determined what was done in the medical research laboratory, the findings coming out of the laboratory nowadays are just as likely to tell the clinician what he can do at the bedside. The tail often wags the dog. In fact, the tail is becoming the dog.

(Texto condensado e adaptado. Encontra-se na íntegra no endereço

http://nytimes.com/library/review/051098medicine-review.html)

One of the recent medical developments of last century was

The New York Times on the web

The rush to enhancement: Medicine isn’t just for the sick anymore

By Sherwin B. Nuland

Until the mid-1960s, medical research was primarily driven by the desire to solve the problems of sick people. Although Aristotle was what might be termed today a pure laboratory investigator, with no thought of the clinical usefulness of his findings, the vast majority of those physicians later influenced by his contributions to biology were trying to solve the mysteries of human anatomy and physiology for the distinct purpose of combating sickness. The discovery of blood circulation in the 17th century, the elucidation of the anatomical effects of disease in the 18th, the introduction of antisepsis and anesthesia in the 19th, the development of antibiotics and cardiac and transplant surgery in the 20th— all of these were the direct results of physicians and others having recognized a specific group of challenges that stood in the way of making sick people better. Armed with knowledge of the disease processes, they entered their laboratories to address specific clinical issues. Their goal was improving the lot of actual patients, often their own.

The rise of molecular biology since the late 1950s has had the gradual and quite unforeseen effect of turning the eyes of medical scientists increasingly toward the basic mechanisms of life, rather than disease and death. Of course, this has always been the orientation of all non-medical biologists, studying growth, reproduction, nutrition or any of the other characteristics shared by all living things.

But now the boundaries have become blurred, between research that will alter the approach to disease and research that will alter the approach to life itself. While until very recently the bedside usually determined what was done in the medical research laboratory, the findings coming out of the laboratory nowadays are just as likely to tell the clinician what he can do at the bedside. The tail often wags the dog. In fact, the tail is becoming the dog.

(Texto condensado e adaptado. Encontra-se na íntegra no endereço

http://nytimes.com/library/review/051098medicine-review.html)

From the late 1950s on, medical scientists started increasingly to focus on

The New York Times on the web

The rush to enhancement: Medicine isn’t just for the sick anymore

By Sherwin B. Nuland

Until the mid-1960s, medical research was primarily driven by the desire to solve the problems of sick people. Although Aristotle was what might be termed today a pure laboratory investigator, with no thought of the clinical usefulness of his findings, the vast majority of those physicians later influenced by his contributions to biology were trying to solve the mysteries of human anatomy and physiology for the distinct purpose of combating sickness. The discovery of blood circulation in the 17th century, the elucidation of the anatomical effects of disease in the 18th, the introduction of antisepsis and anesthesia in the 19th, the development of antibiotics and cardiac and transplant surgery in the 20th— all of these were the direct results of physicians and others having recognized a specific group of challenges that stood in the way of making sick people better. Armed with knowledge of the disease processes, they entered their laboratories to address specific clinical issues. Their goal was improving the lot of actual patients, often their own.

The rise of molecular biology since the late 1950s has had the gradual and quite unforeseen effect of turning the eyes of medical scientists increasingly toward the basic mechanisms of life, rather than disease and death. Of course, this has always been the orientation of all non-medical biologists, studying growth, reproduction, nutrition or any of the other characteristics shared by all living things.

But now the boundaries have become blurred, between research that will alter the approach to disease and research that will alter the approach to life itself. While until very recently the bedside usually determined what was done in the medical research laboratory, the findings coming out of the laboratory nowadays are just as likely to tell the clinician what he can do at the bedside. The tail often wags the dog. In fact, the tail is becoming the dog.

(Texto condensado e adaptado. Encontra-se na íntegra no endereço

http://nytimes.com/library/review/051098medicine-review.html)

Atualmente, os dois tipos de pesquisa médica

The New York Times on the web

The rush to enhancement: Medicine isn’t just for the sick anymore

By Sherwin B. Nuland

Until the mid-1960s, medical research was primarily driven by the desire to solve the problems of sick people. Although Aristotle was what might be termed today a pure laboratory investigator, with no thought of the clinical usefulness of his findings, the vast majority of those physicians later influenced by his contributions to biology were trying to solve the mysteries of human anatomy and physiology for the distinct purpose of combating sickness. The discovery of blood circulation in the 17th century, the elucidation of the anatomical effects of disease in the 18th, the introduction of antisepsis and anesthesia in the 19th, the development of antibiotics and cardiac and transplant surgery in the 20th— all of these were the direct results of physicians and others having recognized a specific group of challenges that stood in the way of making sick people better. Armed with knowledge of the disease processes, they entered their laboratories to address specific clinical issues. Their goal was improving the lot of actual patients, often their own.

The rise of molecular biology since the late 1950s has had the gradual and quite unforeseen effect of turning the eyes of medical scientists increasingly toward the basic mechanisms of life, rather than disease and death. Of course, this has always been the orientation of all non-medical biologists, studying growth, reproduction, nutrition or any of the other characteristics shared by all living things.

But now the boundaries have become blurred, between research that will alter the approach to disease and research that will alter the approach to life itself. While until very recently the bedside usually determined what was done in the medical research laboratory, the findings coming out of the laboratory nowadays are just as likely to tell the clinician what he can do at the bedside. The tail often wags the dog. In fact, the tail is becoming the dog.

(Texto condensado e adaptado. Encontra-se na íntegra no endereço

http://nytimes.com/library/review/051098medicine-review.html)

Há pouco tempo, as pesquisas médicas