IELTS READING COMPREHENSION Lesson 1

IELTS READING COMPREHENSION 1

https://youtu.be/0eyVQ-6QlfY

 

Academic Reading Lesson 1

 

 

Read the passage below and answer the questions that follow:

Complementary and Alternative Medicine

(1) Is complementary medicine hocus-pocus or does it warrant large-scale scientific investigation? Should science range beyond conventional medicine and conduct research on alternative medicine and the supposed growing links between mind and body? This will be hotly debated at the British Association for the Advancement of Science.

(2) One Briton in five uses complementary medicine, and according to the most recent Mintel survey, one in ten uses herbalism or homoeopathy. Around £130 million is spent on oils, potions and pills every year in Britain, and the complementary and alternative medicine industry is estimated to be worth £1.6 billion. With the help of Professor Edzard Ernst, Laing chair of complementary medicine at The Peninsula Medical School, Universities of Exeter and Plymouth, we asked scientists their views on complementary and alternative medicine. Seventy-five scientists, in fields ranging from molecular biology to neuroscience, replied.

(3) Surprisingly, our sample of scientists was twice as likely as the public to use some form of complementary medicine, at around four in 10 compared with two in 10 of the general population. Three quarters of scientific users believed they were effective. Acupuncture, chiropractic and osteopathy were the most commonly used complementary treatments among scientists and more than 55 per cent believed these were more effective than a placebo and should be available to all on the National Health Service.

(4) Scientists appear to place more trust in the more established areas of complementary and alternative medicine, such as acupuncture, chiropractic and osteopathy, for which there are professional bodies and recognised training, than therapies such as aromatherapy and spiritual healing. ‘Osteopathy is now a registered profession requiring a certified four-year degree before you can advertise and practise,’ said one neuroscientist who used the therapy. Nearly two thirds of the scientists who replied to our survey believed that aromatherapy and homoeopathy were no better than placebos, with almost a half thinking the same of herbalism and spiritual thinking. Some of the comments we received were scathing, even though one in ten of our respondents had used homeopathy. ‘Aromatherapy and homoeopathy are scientifically nonsensical,’ said one molecular biologist from the University of Bristol. Dr Romke Bron, a molecular biologist at the Medical Research Council Centre at King’s College London, added: ‘Homoeopathy is a big scam and I am convinced that if someone sneaked into a homoeopathic pharmacy and swapped labels, nobody would notice anything.’

(5) Two centuries after homeopathy was introduced, it still lacks a watertight demonstration that it works. Scientists are happy that the resulting solutions and sugar baffled by how they can do anything.

(6) Both complementary and conventional medicine should be used in routine health care, according to followers of the ‘integrated health approach’, who want to treat an individual ‘as a whole’. But the scientists who responded to our survey s expressed serious concerns about this approach, with more than half believing that integrated medicine was an attempt to bypass rigorous scientific testing. Dr Bron said: ‘There is an awful lot of bad science going on in alternative medicine and the general public has a hard time to distinguish between scientific myth and fact. It is absolutely paramount to maintain rigorous quality control in health care. Although the majority of alternative health workers mean well, there are just too many frauds out there preying on vulnerable people.’

(7) One molecular biologist from the University of Warwick admitted that ‘by doing this poll I have realised how shamefully little I understand about alternative therapy. Not enough scientific research has been performed. There is enough anecdotal evidence to suggest that at least some of the alternative therapies are effective for some people, suggesting this is an area ripe for research.’

(8) When asked if complementary and alternative medicine should get more research funding, scientists believed the top three (acupuncture, chiropractic and osteopathy) should get money, as should herbalism. It seems that therapies based on physical manipulation or a known action – like the active ingredients in a herb on a receptor in the body – are the ones that the scientific community has faith in. Less than a quarter thought that therapies such as aromatherapy, homoeopathy and spiritual healing should get any funding.

(9) Scientists believed that the ‘feelgood’ counselling effect of complementary medicine and the time taken to listen to patients’ problems was what worked, rather than any medicinal effect. In contrast, the average visit to the doctor lasts only eight minutes, says the British Medical Association. Dr Stephen Nurrish, a molecular biologist at University College London, said: ‘Much of the benefit people get from complementary medicine is the time to talk to someone and be listened to sympathetically, something that is now lacking from medicine in general.’

(10) But an anonymous neuroscientist at King’s College London had a more withering view of this benefit: ‘On the validity of complementary and alternative medicines, no one would dispute that ‘feeling good’ is good for your health, but why discriminate between museum-trip therapy, patting-a-dog therapy and aromatherapy? Is it because only the latter has a cadre of professional ‘practitioners’?’

(11) There are other hardline scientists who argue that there should be no such thing as complementary and alternative medicine. As Professor David Moore, director of the Medical Research Council’s Institute for Hearing Research, said: ‘Either a treatment works or it doesn’t. The only way to determine if it works is to test it against appropriate controls (that is, scientifically).’

Questions 1-6:

Look at the following views (Questions 1 – 6) and the list of people below them.

Match each view with the person expressing it in the passage.

You may use any letter more than once.

  1.  Complementary medicine provides something that conventional medicine no longer does.
  2.  It is hard for people to know whether they are being told the truth or not.
  3.  Alternative medicine is differentiated from other types of therapies.
  4.  Nothing can be considered a form of medicine unless it has been proved effective.
  5.  It seems likely that some forms of alternative medicine do work.
  6.  One particular kind of alternative medicine is a deliberate attempt to cheat the public.

List of People

  1.  Dr Romke Bron
  2.  a molecular biologist from the University of Warwick
  3.  Dr Stephen Nurrish
  4.  a neuroscientist at King’s College London
  5.  Professor David Moore

Questions 7-9:

Complete each sentence with the correct ending A-F from those given below.

  1.  The British Association for the Advancement of Science will be discussing the issue of……….
  2.  A recent survey conducted by a certain organisation addressed the issue of……….
  3.  The survey in which the writer of the article was involved gave information on……….
  4. what makes people use complementary rather than conventional medicine.
  5. how many scientists themselves use complementary and alternative medicine.
  6. whether alternative medicine should be investigated scientifically.
  7. research into the use of complementary and conventional medicine together.
  8. how many people use various kinds of complementary medicine.
  9. the extent to which attitudes to alternative medicine are changing.

Questions 10-13:

Classify the following information as being given about

A     acupuncture

B     aromatherapy

C     herbalism

D     homoeopathy

Write the correct letter, A, B, C or D.

  1.  scientists believe that it is scamming the public.
  2.  Scientists felt that it could be added to the group of therapies that deserved to be provided with resources for further investigation.
  3.  Scientists felt that it deserved to be taken seriously because of the organised way in which it has developed.
  4. A number of scientists had used it, but harsh criticism was expressed about it.

ANSWERS AND EXPLANATION BELOW:

  1. C. Paragraph 9: Dr Stephen Nurrish, a molecular biologist at University College London, said: ‘Much of the benefit people get from complementary medicine is the time to talk to someone and be listened to sympathetically, something that is now lacking from medicine in general.’
  2. A. Paragraph 6: Dr Bron said: ‘There is an awful lot of bad science going on in alternative medicine and the general public has a hard time to distinguish between scientific myth and fact.
  3. D. Paragraph 10: But an anonymous neuroscientist at King’s College London had a more withering view of this benefit: ‘On the validity of complementary and alternative medicines, no one would dispute that ‘feeling good’ is good for your health, but why discriminate between museum-trip therapy, patting-a-dog therapy and aromatherapy? Is it because only the latter has a cadre of professional ‘practitioners’?’
  4. E. Last paragraph: As Professor David Moore, director of the Medical Research Council’s Institute for Hearing Research, said: ‘Either a treatment works or it doesn’t. The only way to determine if it works is to test it against appropriate controls (that is, scientifically).’
  5. B. Paragraph 7: One molecular biologist from the University of Warwick admitted that ‘by doing this poll I have realised how shamefully little I understand about alternative therapy. Not enough scientific research has been performed. There is enough anecdotal evidence to suggest that at least some of the alternative therapies are effective for some people, suggesting this is an area ripe for research.
  6. A. Paragraph 4 states:  Dr Romke Bron, a molecular biologist at the Medical Research Council Centre at King’s College London, added: ‘Homoeopathy is a big scam and I am convinced that if someone sneaked into a homoeopathic pharmacy and swapped labels, nobody would notice anything.
  7. C. Paragraph 1: Should science range beyond conventional medicine and conduct research on alternative medicine and the supposed growing links between mind and body? This will be hotly debated at the British Association for the Advancement of Science.
  8. E. Paragraph 2: One Briton in five uses complementary medicine, and according to the most recent Mintel survey, one in ten uses herbalism or homoeopathy.
  9. B. Paragraph 3: Surprisingly, our sample of scientists was twice as likely as the public to use some form of complementary medicine, at around four in 10 compared with two in 10 of the general population. Three quarters of scientific users believed they were effective.
  10. D. Paragraph 4:  Homoeopathy is a big scam.
  11. C. Paragraph 8: When asked if complementary and alternative medicine should get more research funding, scientists believed the top three (acupuncture, chiropractic and osteopathy) should get money, as should herbalism. Acupuncture is already a part of the group. Herbalism could be added to this group.
  12. A. Paragraph 4: Scientists appear to place more trust in the more established areas of complementary and alternative medicine, such as acupuncture, chiropractic and osteopathy, for which there are professional bodies and recognised training.
  13. D. Again, in paragraph 4: Some of the comments we received were scathing, even though one in ten of our respondents had used homeopathy.
Medicina complementaria y alternativa (1) ¿Es la medicina complementaria un hocuspocus o justifica una investigación científica a gran escala? ¿Debería la ciencia ir más allá de la medicina convencional y realizar investigaciones sobre medicina alternativa y los supuestos vínculos crecientes entre la mente y el cuerpo? Esto será muy debatido en la Asociación Británica para el Avance de la Ciencia. (2) Un británico de cada cinco usa medicina complementaria, y de acuerdo con la encuesta más reciente de Mintel, uno de cada diez usa herbolaria u homeopatía. Alrededor de £ 130 millones se gastan en aceites, pociones y pastillas cada año en Gran Bretaña, y se estima que la industria de la medicina complementaria y alternativa vale £ 1,6 billones. Con la ayuda del profesor Edzard Ernst, director de medicina complementaria de Laing en The Peninsula Medical School, Universities of Exeter y Plymouth, les pedimos a los científicos sus opiniones sobre la medicina complementaria y alternativa. Setenta y cinco científicos, en campos que van desde la biología molecular hasta la neurociencia, respondieron. (3) Sorprendentemente, nuestra muestra de científicos tenía el doble de probabilidades que el público de usar alguna forma de medicina complementaria, alrededor de cuatro de cada 10 en comparación con dos de cada 10 de la población general. Tres cuartas partes de los usuarios científicos creían que eran efectivos. La acupuntura, la quiropráctica y la osteopatía fueron los tratamientos complementarios utilizados más comúnmente entre los científicos, y más del 55 por ciento cree que estos fueron más efectivos que un placebo y deberían estar disponibles para todos en el Servicio Nacional de Salud. (4) Los científicos parecen confiar más en las áreas más establecidas de medicina complementaria y alternativa, como la acupuntura, la quiropráctica y la osteopatía, para las cuales existen cuerpos profesionales y capacitación reconocida, además de terapias como la aromaterapia y la curación espiritual. "La osteopatía es ahora una profesión registrada que requiere un título certificado de cuatro años antes de que puedas publicitar y practicar", dijo un neurocientífico que utilizó la terapia. Casi dos tercios de los científicos que respondieron a nuestra encuesta creían que la aromaterapia y la homeopatía no eran mejores que los placebos, y que casi la mitad pensaban lo mismo de herbalismo y pensamiento espiritual. Algunos de los comentarios que recibimos eran mordaces, a pesar de que uno de cada diez de nuestros encuestados había usado la homeopatía. "La aromaterapia y la homeopatía son científicamente absurdas", dijo un biólogo molecular de la Universidad de Bristol. El Dr. Romke Bron, biólogo molecular del Medical Research Council Center en King's College London, agregó: "La homeopatía es una gran estafa y estoy convencido de que si alguien entrara sigilosamente en una farmacia homeopática e intercambiara etiquetas, nadie se daría cuenta".
(5) Dos siglos después de que se introdujera la homeopatía, todavía carece de una demostración hermética de que funcione. Los científicos están contentos de que las soluciones resultantes y el azúcar desconcertado por cómo pueden hacer cualquier cosa. (6) Tanto la medicina complementaria como la convencional deben usarse en la atención médica de rutina, de acuerdo con los seguidores del "enfoque integrado de salud", que quieren tratar a un individuo "como un todo". Pero los científicos que respondieron a nuestra encuesta expresaron serias preocupaciones sobre este enfoque, con más de la mitad creyendo que la medicina integrada era un intento de eludir las rigurosas pruebas científicas. El Dr. Bron dijo: "Hay una gran cantidad de malas ciencias pasando en la medicina alternativa y el público en general tiene dificultades para distinguir entre el mito científico y los hechos. Es absolutamente primordial mantener un control de calidad riguroso en el cuidado de la salud. Aunque la mayoría de los trabajadores de salud alternativos tienen buenas intenciones, existen demasiados fraudes que se aprovechan de las personas vulnerables ". (7) Un biólogo molecular de la Universidad de Warwick admitió que "al hacer esta encuesta me di cuenta de cuán vergonzosamente poco entiendo acerca de la terapia alternativa. No se ha realizado suficiente investigación científica. Existe suficiente evidencia anecdótica para sugerir que al menos algunas de las terapias alternativas son efectivas para algunas personas, lo que sugiere que esta es un área madura para la investigación ". (8) Cuando se les preguntó si la medicina complementaria y alternativa debería obtener más fondos para la investigación, los científicos creían que los tres principales (acupuntura, quiropráctica y osteopatía) deberían obtener dinero, al igual que la herboristería. Parece que las terapias basadas en la manipulación física o una acción conocida, como los ingredientes activos en una hierba en un receptor en el cuerpo, son en las que la comunidad científica tiene fe. Menos de la cuarta parte pensó que las terapias como la aromaterapia, la homeopatía y la curación espiritual debería recibir financiación. (9) Los científicos creían que el efecto de consejería 'feelgood' de la medicina complementaria y el tiempo necesario para escuchar los problemas de los pacientes era lo que funcionaba, más que cualquier efecto medicinal. Por el contrario, la visita promedio al médico dura solo ocho minutos, dice la British Medical Association. El Dr. Stephen Nurrish, biólogo molecular del University College London, dijo: "Gran parte del beneficio que obtienen las personas de la medicina complementaria es el momento de hablar con alguien y ser escuchado con simpatía, algo que ahora le falta a la medicina en general".