Reading Comprehension Text 3
Any fair-minded assessment of the dangers of the deal between Britain’s National Health Service (NHS) and DeepMind must start by acknowledging that both sides mean well. DeepMind is one of the leading artificial intelligence (AI) companies in the world. The potential of this work applied to healthcare is very great, but it could also lead to further concentration of power in the tech giants. It is against that background that the information commissioner, Elizabeth Denham, has issued her damning verdict against the Royal Free hospital trust under the NHS, which handed over to DeepMind the records of 1.6 million patients in 2015 on the basis of a vague agreement which took far too little account of the patients’ rights and their expectations of privacy.
DeepMind has almost apologised. The NHS trust has mended its ways. Further arrangements—and there may be many—between the NHS and DeepMind will be carefully scrutinised to ensure that all necessary permissions have been asked of patients and all unnecessary data has been cleaned. There are lessons about informed patient consent to learn. But privacy is not the only angle in this case and not even the most important. Ms Denham chose to concentrate the blame on the NHS trust, since under existing law it “controlled” the data and DeepMind merely “processed” it. But this distinction misses the point that it is processing and aggregation, not the mere possession of bits, that gives the data value.
The great question is who should benefit from the analysis of all the data that our lives now generate. Privacy law builds on the concept of damage to an individual from identifiable knowledge about them. That misses the way the surveillance economy works. The data of an individual there gains its value only when it is compared with the data of countless millions more.
The use of privacy law to curb the tech giants in this instance feels slightly maladapted. This practice does not address the real worry. It is not enough to say that the algorithms DeepMind develops will benefit patients and save lives. What matters is that they will belong to a private monopoly which developed them using public resources. If software promises to save lives on the scale that drugs now can, big data may be expected to behave as a big pharma has done. We are still at the beginning of this revolution and small choices now may turn out to have gigantic consequences later. A long struggle will be needed to avoid a future of digital feudalism. Ms Denham’s report is a welcome start.
31. What is true of the agreement between the NHS and DeepMind?
32. The NHS trust responded to Denham’s verdict with
33. The author argues in Paragraph 2 that
34. According to the last paragraph, the real worry arising from this deal is
35. The author’s attitude toward the application of AI to healthcare is
答案与解析 (Answers)
31. [B] It failed to pay due attention to patient’s rights.
解析：第一段末尾提到协议“took far too little account of the patients’ rights（极少考虑到病人的权利）”，即未给予应有的关注。
32. [C] necessary adjustments.
解析：第二段开头提到“The NHS trust has mended its ways（NHS托管机构已改过自新）”，对应必要调整。
33. [D] the value of data comes from the processing of it.
解析：第二段最后一句强调“it is processing and aggregation... that gives the data value”，即数据的价值在于加工和整合。
34. [D] the monopoly of big data by tech giants.
解析：最后一段提到“What matters is that they will belong to a private monopoly”，作者担心私营垄断（特别是利用公共资源开发的技术）带来的“数字封建主义”。
35. [C] appreciative.
解析：第一段提到“The potential of this work... is very great（这项工作的潜力非常巨大）”，且最后一段认为这类报告是“a welcome start”，表明作者对AI应用于医疗的**潜力与前景**持欣赏和认可态度（虽然对具体交易过程持批判意见）。
全文翻译
对英国国家医疗服务体系（NHS）与DeepMind之间协议的危险性的任何公正评估，都必须首先承认双方都是善意的。DeepMind是世界领先的人工智能（AI）公司之一。这项工作应用于医疗保健的潜力非常巨大，但它也可能导致科技巨头权力的进一步集中。正是在这种背景下，信息专员伊丽莎白·德纳姆对NHS下的皇家自由医院信托作出了严厉的判决，该信托在2015年以一份模糊的协议将160万患者的记录移交给了DeepMind，该协议对患者的权利和他们对隐私的期望考虑得太少。DeepMind几乎已经道歉了。NHS信托已经改正了其做法。NHS与DeepMind之间的进一步安排——可能还有很多——将受到仔细审查，以确保所有必要的许可都已向患者征得，所有不必要的数据都已被清理。这里有关于知情患者同意的教训要吸取。但隐私并不是此案的唯一角度，甚至不是最重要的。德纳姆女士选择将责任集中在NHS信托上，因为根据现行法律，它"控制"了数据，而DeepMind只是"处理"了数据。但这种区分忽略了这一点，即正是处理和聚合，而不仅仅是对比特的持有，赋予了数据价值。重大问题是，谁应该从我们生活现在产生的所有数据的分析中受益。隐私法建立在对个体可识别知识造成损害的概念之上。这忽略了监控经济的运作方式。单个人的数据只有在与无数其他人的数据进行比较时才获得其价值。在这个案例中使用隐私法来遏制科技巨头感觉有点不太适应。这种做法没有解决真正的担忧。仅仅说DeepMind开发的算法将惠及患者并拯救生命是不够的。重要的是它们将属于一个使用公共资源开发它们的私人垄断企业。如果软件承诺以药物现在所能达到的规模拯救生命，那么大数据可能会被期望像大型制药公司一样行事。我们还处于这场革命的初期，现在的小选择日后可能会产生巨大的后果。将需要长期的斗争来避免数字封建主义的未来。德纳姆女士的报告是一个受欢迎的开端。
核心长难句精解 (Highlighted Sentences)
1. 强调句与定语从句结构：
"It is against that background that the information commissioner... has issued her damning verdict against the hospital trust... which handed over to DeepMind the records..."
【解析】It is... that... 构成强调句，强调状语 against that background。which 引导非限制性定语从句修饰 hospital trust。
【翻译】正是在那样的背景下，信息专员伊丽莎白·丹汉姆对 NHS 旗下的皇家自由医院托管机构发出了严厉谴责，该机构在 2015 年根据一份模糊协议向 DeepMind 移交了 160 万名患者的记录。
"It is against that background that the information commissioner... has issued her damning verdict against the hospital trust... which handed over to DeepMind the records..."
【解析】It is... that... 构成强调句，强调状语 against that background。which 引导非限制性定语从句修饰 hospital trust。
【翻译】正是在那样的背景下，信息专员伊丽莎白·丹汉姆对 NHS 旗下的皇家自由医院托管机构发出了严厉谴责，该机构在 2015 年根据一份模糊协议向 DeepMind 移交了 160 万名患者的记录。
2. 强调句与否定对立：
"But this distinction misses the point that it is processing and aggregation, not the mere possession of bits, that gives the data value."
【解析】that 引导同位语从句解释 point。从句中嵌套了一个 it is... that... 强调句，通过 not... 形成对比，强调 processing and aggregation 的重要性。
【翻译】但这种区分忽略了一点：正是处理和整合，而非仅仅拥有数据碎片，才赋予了数据价值。
"But this distinction misses the point that it is processing and aggregation, not the mere possession of bits, that gives the data value."
【解析】that 引导同位语从句解释 point。从句中嵌套了一个 it is... that... 强调句，通过 not... 形成对比，强调 processing and aggregation 的重要性。
【翻译】但这种区分忽略了一点：正是处理和整合，而非仅仅拥有数据碎片，才赋予了数据价值。
3. 让步与结论：
"If software promises to save lives on the scale that drugs now can, big data may be expected to behave as a big pharma has done."
【解析】on the scale that... 意为“在...的规模上”。be expected to behave 表达了一种逻辑推演。
【翻译】如果软件能像现在的药物那样大规模地挽救生命，那么大数据可能会表现得像大型制药公司过去所做的那样。
"If software promises to save lives on the scale that drugs now can, big data may be expected to behave as a big pharma has done."
【解析】on the scale that... 意为“在...的规模上”。be expected to behave 表达了一种逻辑推演。
【翻译】如果软件能像现在的药物那样大规模地挽救生命，那么大数据可能会表现得像大型制药公司过去所做的那样。