去国外后如何跟外国人交流？（留学生请进）

1、和外国人（英语是母语）交往中更富有成效；也使那些为学好英语而苦恼的朋友少走一些弯路，更快、更好的学好、用好英语。中国人在学习英语上花的时间最长，效果也最差。这和学习和应用英语方面存在重大误区有关，一是长期的“填鸭式的”教育方法，使很多人认为学英语是为了考试，其英语实际水平可想而知；二是误认为英语不过是由“发音、语法、句子和词汇”组成的。认为只要学习“发音、语法、句子和词汇”就能学好英语。事实上，如果以达到有效交流为目的，比英语的发音、语法、句子最重要的部分，但被国内学习和使用英语的人忽略的是：表达语言所应用的、符合英语文化和习俗的正确方式、方法和内容。

2、学习英语的目的多种多样，但学口语的目的，只有一个：为了能与Native English speakers进行“有效的交流”，即工作中能与Native speakers 建立、保持和发展良好的工作关系；或生活中结交几个native speaker 的朋友，能够彼此交流感情、相互鼓励和帮助。而不是为了和同胞交流，英语学到这程度，那由中国式的、复杂的句子结构、严谨的语法和庞大的词汇构成的英语能力，只不过是“聋子的耳朵，摆设而已” ，因为那不“交流”，也根本不值得花这么多时间学习英语口语。

3、所有学习英语的策略和技巧大致可以分为二类。一类是需要自己安下心来，花费时间去反复记忆，记忆那些自己和别人总结、归纳的知识。学好英语的话，那中国人的英语水平，理论上应当是顶尖的了，事实却正好相反。（在国外学习，深深感到：大概是因为长期训练的结果，记忆和背诵能力，尤其是记忆、背诵那些不理解的东西，是咱们中国人的强项；但实际应用和创新能力，总体来讲是弱项。）

4、因此，另一类是“如何在现实生活中，有效的运用英语以达到交流目的”的经验和技巧

。中国人勇于理论而逊于实践（为读书而读书：“万般皆下品，唯有读书尊”）。因为应用技巧很强，这部分技能被国内学英语的人士长期忽略。或是因为接触Native speakers有限，难以得到“真经”，或是因为学英语追求“高、大、全式”英语的嗜好和国人好面子的心理, 使大多数人乐于采用传统的、也是最安全的的学习方法：对句子、语法和词汇的执著偏爱，甚于使用英语和Native speakers交流。其实，语言只是一种工具，除非以此作为职业，否则它本身没有任何意义，也没有任何用处，如果它不能为“交流目的”而服务的话。

5、读书和自学对提高英语有帮助。但书的缺点，和自学一样，没有反馈，没有双向的交流

。理论上知道的事，实际做起来是不一样的。尤其是语言，遵循“用进废退”的原理。掌握这部分的最有效方法是：创造条件和机会，同英语为母语或在国外生活过的人学习和交流。不去了解和学习英语国家文化在交流、沟通运用上的体现，而只是套用本国的文化和习俗，往往是造成交流障碍的原因。其后果和损害，远远大于因为发音、语法和句子的缺陷而造成的损害。因为发音、语法和句子暂时不好，每个人都会表示理解，因为毕竟英语不是母语，可以慢慢提高。

“Don't scientists have a responsibility to use animals in order to find cures for human diseases?”

Educating people and encouraging them to avoid fat and cholesterol, quit smoking, reduce alcohol and other drug consumption, exercise regularly, and clean up the environment will save more human lives and prevent more human suffering than all the animal tests in the world. Animal tests are primitive, and modern technology and human clinical tests are much more effective and reliable.

Even if we had no alternative to using animals, which is not the case, animal testing would still be ethically unacceptable. As George Bernard Shaw once said, “You do not settle whether an experiment is justified or not by merely showing that it is of some use. The distinction is not between useful and useless experiments, but between barbarous and civilized behaviour.” After all, there are probably some medical problems that can only be cured by testing on unwilling humans, but we don’t conduct such tests because we recognize that it would be wrong to do so.

“If we didn’t use animals, wouldn’t we have to test new drugs on people?”

The choice isn’t between animals and people. There is no guarantee that drugs are safe—even if they have been tested on animals—because the physiological differences between humans and other animals prevent the results of animal tests from being accurately extrapolated to humans. Some drugs that have been approved through animal tests can cause serious and unexpected side effects for humans. A 2002 report in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that in the last 25 years, more than 50 FDA-approved drugs had to be taken off the market or relabeled because they caused “adverse reactions.” In 2000 alone, the prescription drugs removed from the market were the popular heartburn drug Propulsid (removed because it caused “fatal heart rhythm abnormalities”), the diabetes drug Rezulin (“removed after causing liver failure”), and the irritable-bowel-syndrome treatment Lotronex (“removed for causing fatal constipation and colitis”). According to the study’s lead author, “Millions of patients are exposed to potentially unsafe drugs each year.”

If the pharmaceutical industry switched from animal experiments to quantum pharmacology and in vitro tests, we would be better protected from harmful drugs, not less protected.

“If we didn’t test on animals, how would we conduct medical research?”

Human clinical and epidemiological studies, studies on cadavers, and computer simulations are faster, more reliable, less expensive, and more humane than animal tests. Ingenious scientists have used human brain cells to develop a model “microbrain” that can be used to study tumors and have also come up with artificial skin and bone marrow. Instead of killing animals, we can now test irritancy on egg membranes, produce vaccines from cell cultures, and perform pregnancy tests using blood samples. As Gordon Baxter, cofounder of Pharmagene Laboratories—a company that uses only human tissue and computers to develop and test its drugs—says, “If you have information on human genes, what’s the point of going back to animals?”

“Doesn't animal experimentation help animals by advancing veterinary science?”

The point is not whether animal experimentation can be useful to animals or humans; the point is that we do not have the moral right to inflict unnecessary suffering on those who are at our mercy. Saying that it’s acceptable to experiment on animals to advance veterinary science is like saying that it’s acceptable to experiment on poor children to benefit rich ones.

“Don’t medical students have to dissect animals?”

No, they don’t. In fact, more and more medical students are becoming conscientious objectors who choose to learn by assisting experienced surgeons instead of by using animals. In Great Britain, it is against the law for medical students to practice surgery on animals, and British physicians are just as competent as those who were educated elsewhere. Many of the leading U.S. medical schools, including Harvard, Yale, and Stanford, now use innovative, clinical teaching methods instead of cruel animal laboratories. Harvard, for instance, offers a cardiac-anesthesia practicum in which students observe human heart bypass operations instead of performing terminal surgery on dogs. The Harvard staff members who developed this practicum have recommended that it be implemented elsewhere.

“Should we throw out all the drugs that were developed and tested on animals? Would you refuse to take them?”

Unfortunately, a number of things in our society came about through the exploitation of others. For instance, many of the roads that we drive on were built by slaves. We can’t change the past; those who have already suffered and died are lost. But what we can do is change the future by using non-animal research methods from now on.

“Don't scientists care about the animals they experiment on? Doesn't their research depend on the animals’ well-being?”

Investigations at even the most prestigious institutions show that this is simply not the case. At the City of Hope in California, one of the country’s most prominent research facilities, animals starved to death and drowned in their own feces. Many experimenters become calloused after years of research and don’t see the animals’ suffering. They treat animals like disposable tools and consider proper animal care to be too expensive.

“Don't peer-review and animal-care committees prevent animal cruelty at institutions?”

No, because many such committees are composed mainly or completely of people who have vested interests in the continuation of animal experimentation. Members of the public were not allowed access to committee meetings until lawsuits were filed.

“Cats and dogs are killed in pounds anyway, so why not let them be used in experiments to save lives?”

A painless death at an animal shelter is a far cry from a life of severe pain and deprivation and an agonizing death in a laboratory.

“Would you support an experiment that would sacrifice 10 animals to save 10,000 people?”

No. Look at it another way: Suppose that the only way to save 10,000 people was to experiment on one mentally challenged orphan. If saving people is the goal, wouldn’t that be worth it? Most people would agree that it would be wrong to sacrifice one human for the “greater good” of others because it would violate that individual’s rights, but when it comes to sacrificing animals, the assumption is that human beings have rights and animals do not. Yet there is no logical reason to deny animals the same rights that protect individual humans from being sacrificed for the common good.

“What about experiments in which animals are observed and not harmed?”

If there really is no harm, we don’t object. But “no harm” means that animals aren’t isolated in barren, cold steel cages because even confinement causes stress and fear, as shown by the differences in blood pressure between caged and free animals. Caged animals also suffer because they are prevented from performing their normal behaviors and social interactions.

“If you were in a fire and could save either your child or your dog, who would you choose?”

I would save my child, but that’s just instinct. A dog would save her pup. Regardless, my choice proves nothing about the moral legitimacy of animal experiments. I might save my own child instead of my neighbor’s, but that hardly proves that experimentation on my neighbor’s child is acceptable.

“Why Should Animals Have Rights?”

Supporters of animal rights believe that animals have an inherent worth—a value completely separate from their usefulness to humans. We believe that every creature with a will to live has a right to live free from pain and suffering. For more information, click here.

EU proposes to strengthen protection of animals used in scientific experiments

The European Commission on Wednesday proposed legislation to strengthen the protection of animals used in scientific experiments and to minimize the number of animals being tested on.

The proposal, which intends to strengthen existing European Union (EU) legislation, asks ethical evaluations to be carried out before projects using animals are authorized and lays down minimum requirements on housing and animal care.

The proposed directive covers all live non-human vertebrate animals plus certain other species likely to experience pain. The use of non-human primates is subject to restrictions, and the use of great apes -- chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas and orangutans -- is banned in scientific procedures. Only when survival of the species itself is at stake, or in the case of an unexpected outbreak of a life-threatening or debilitating disease in human beings, can a member state exceptionally be granted permission for their use.

The proposal seeks to ensure that animals are used only where no other means are available. Their use must be fully justifiable and the expected benefits must outweigh the harm caused to the animals. The proposal would also ensure that animals receive suitable care and treatment such as appropriately sized cages and an environment adapted to each species.

The proposal would also require projects involving animals to be authorized by a competent authority before they can go ahead. Organizations wishing to breed, supply or use animals would be obliged to seek authorization for their activities and for the personnel working with the animals.

"It is absolutely important to steer away from testing on animals. Scientific research must focus on finding alternative methods to animal testing, but where alternatives are not available the situation of animals still used in experiments must be improved," said EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas.

留学生招生网zhaoSheng.neT提供欧洲,美洲,亚洲等留学申请,留学流程,留学签证,留学费用,留学预科择校,预科课程，帮助初中生,高中生,本科生,硕士和研究生自助留学。