克鲁格曼诺贝尔奖获奖演讲

American Economic Review 2009, 99:3, 561–571

https://www.wendangku.net/doc/7518290270.html,/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.3.561

The Increasing Returns Revolution in Trade and Geography?

By Paul Krugman*

Thirty years have passed since a small group of theorists began applying concepts and tools from industrial organization to the analysis of international trade. The new models of trade that emerged from that work didn’t supplant traditional trade theory so much as supplement it, creat-ing an integrated view that made sense of aspects of world trade that had previously posed major puzzles. The “new trade theory”—an unfortunate phrase, now quite often referred to as “the old new trade theory”—also helped build a bridge between the analysis of trade between countries and the location of production within countries.

In this paper I will try to retrace the steps and, perhaps even more important, the state of mind that made this intellectual transformation possible. At the end I’ll also ask about the relevance of those once-revolutionary insights in a world economy that, as I’ll explain, is arguably more classical now than it was when the revolution in trade theory began.

I. Trade Puzzles

In my first year as an assistant professor, I remember telling colleagues that I was working on international trade theory—and being asked why on earth I would want to do that. “Trade is such

a monolithic field,” one told me. “It’s a finished structure, with nothing interesting left to do.”

Yet even before the arrival of new models, there was an undercurrent of dissatisfaction with conventional trade theory. I used to think of the propagation of this dissatisfaction as the trade counterculture. There were even some underground classics. In particular, Staffan Burenstam Linder’s An Essay on Trade and Transformation (1961), with its argument that exports tend to reflect the characteristics of the home market, was passed hand to hand by graduate students as if it were a samizdat pamphlet. And there was also an important empirical literature on intra-industry trade, notably the work of Bela Balassa (1966) and Herbert G. Grubel and Peter J. Lloyd (1975), that cried out for a theoretical framework.

Why did the trade counterculture flourish despite the apparent completeness of conventional trade theory? Call it the similar-similar problem: the huge role in world trade played by exchanges of similar products between similar countries, exemplified by the massive two-way trade in auto-motive products between the United States and Canada.

In 1980, this similar-similar trade was still a relatively new phenomenon. Trade in the first great age of globalization—the age made possible by steam engines and telegraphs—was mainly dissimilar-dissimilar: trade in dissimilar goods between dissimilar countries. Comparative advantage, which one may define as the idea that countries trade to take advantage of their dif-ferences, clearly explained most of what was going on. It was only with the recovery of trade after World War II, and especially after the major trade agreements of the 1950s and 1960s, that the more puzzling trade patterns that fed the counterculture became prominent.

? This article is a revised version of the lecture Paul Krugman delivered in Stockholm, Sweden, on December 8, 2008, when he received the Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel. This article is copyright ? The Nobel Foundation 2008 and is published here with the permission of the Nobel Foundation.

* Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08554 (e-mail: pkrugman@https://www.wendangku.net/doc/7518290270.html,).

561

JUNE 2009

562

THE AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW Figures 1, 2, and 3 make this point, using data on British trade. Figure 1 shows the commod-ity composition of British exports and imports on the eve of World War I. The pattern of trade made perfect sense in terms of classical comparative advantage: Britain, a densely populated nation with abundant capital but scarce land, exported manufactured goods and imported raw materials.

By contrast, Figure 2—which shows comparable data for 1990—offers no comparably easy interpretation: Britain both imported and exported mainly manufactured goods. One might have hoped that a look within the manufacturing sector would reveal a clearer pattern, but this brings us to the issue of intraindustry trade: trade in manufactured goods, especially between countries at similar levels of development, consists to a large extent of two-way exchanges within even narrowly defined product categories.

And trade, as reconstituted after World War II, did take place to a large extent between similar countries, much more so than in the first age of globalization. Figure 3 illustrates this crudely, comparing Britain’s trade with Europe and with rest of the world in 1913 and 1990.

Before World War I, Britain traded remarkably little, by modern standards, with its neighbors, instead focusing on distant lands able to produce what Britain could not—cheap wheat and meat, tea, jute, and so on. By 1990, however, while such trade had by no means vanished, Britain was part of a European economy in which nations seemingly made a living by taking in each other’s washing, buying goods that they could, and, at least as far as the statistics indicated, did produce for themselves.

So what was going on?

II. Increasing Returns and Trade

It shouldn’t have been that hard to make sense of similar-similar trade. Indeed, for some economists it wasn’t. In his seminal paper on the rise of intraindustry trade in Europe, Balassa (1966) stated it quite clearly: each country produced only part of the range of potential products within each industry, importing those goods it did not produce, because “specialization in nar-rower ranges of machinery and intermediate products will permit the exploitation of economies of scale through the lengthening of production runs.”

100%50%

0%

Exports Imports

Figure 1. Composition of British Trade circa 1910

Source: Richard E. Baldwin and Philippe Martin (1999).

VOL. 99 NO. 3563

KRUgMAN: THE INCREASINg RETURNS REVOLUTION IN TRAdE ANd gEOgRApHy Yet this straightforward-seeming explanation of similar-similar trade was not at all part of the standard corpus of international trade theory circa 1975. It was not so much that these ideas were rejected as that they seemed incomprehensible. Why?

The answer was that unexhausted economies of scale at the firm level necessarily imply imper-fect competition, and there were no readily usable models of imperfect competition to hand. Even more to the point, there were no general equilibrium models of imperfect competition readily to hand—and trade theory, perhaps more than any other applied field of economics, is built around general equilibrium analysis.

100%

50%

0%

Exports Imports

100%

50%

0%

circa 1910 1990s

Figure 2. Composition of British Trade in the 1990s

Source: Baldwin and Martin (1999).

Figure 3. Destination of British Exports

Source: Baldwin and Martin (1999).

564THE AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW

JUNE 2009 The result was the state of affairs almost triumphantly described by Harry Johnson (1967): “The theory of monopolistic competition has had virtually no impact on the theory of interna-tional trade.”

Then came the new monopolistic competition models: Kelvin J. Lancaster (1979), Michael Spence (1976), and above all Avinash Dixit and Joseph Stiglitz (1977). All of these papers were intended by their authors as ways to address the classic welfare questions about whether monopolistic com-petition led to inefficient scale, or perhaps to production of the wrong mix of products. But when I learned about the new literature (in a short course taught by Robert Solow in 1976), I—like a number of other people working independently, including Victor Norman (1976) and Lancaster (1980) him-self—quickly saw that the new models provided “gadgets,” ways to think about the role of increasing returns in a variety of contexts. And there was, in particular, a near-perfect match between simple models of monopolistic competition and the stories already circulating about intraindustry trade.

It quickly became apparent (Norman 1976; Krugman 1979; Lancaster 1980) that one could use monopolistic competition models to offer a picture of international trade that completely bypassed conventional arguments based on comparative advantage. In this picture, countries that were identical in resources and technology would nonetheless specialize in producing different products, giving rise to trade as consumers sought variety. A natural extension—although, like many things that seem obvious in retrospect, it was surprisingly hard at first to figure out how to do it—was to bring comparative advantage back in. This was most easily done by assum-ing that all the differentiated products within an industry were produced with the same factor proportions; one could then explain inter industry specialization in terms of Heckscher-Ohlin, with an overlay of intra industry specialization due to increasing returns. And this extension, as represented for example by Elhanan Helpman (1981) and Dixit-Norman (1980), in turn meant that the new models offered an intellectually satisfying explanation of similar-similar trade: similar countries had little comparative advantage with respect to each other, so their trade was dominated by intraindustry trade caused by economies of scale.

What was really needed to get peoples’ attention, however, was a “killer ap”: a demonstration that the new view offered a fundamentally different insight into something that mattered. I found that killer ap in an empirical insight by Balassa (1966), who pointed out that trade liberaliza-tion among industrial countries had proved surprisingly nondisruptive, belying fears that, for example, there would be a major rearrangement of Europe’s industrial landscape after the forma-tion of the Common Market, and possibly large effects on income distribution. Because trade expansion had taken the form of intraindustry specialization rather than interindustry specializa-tion, Balassa noted, “the fears expressed in various member countries of the Common Market concerning the demise of particular industries have not been realized. There are no examples of declining manufacturing industries in any of the member countries.”

In Krugman (1981) I built a special version of the emerging style of model to encapsulate this phenomenon. What the model showed was that the classic Stolper-Samuelson result, in which trade liberalization hurts scarce factors, can emerge—but only if comparative advantage is strong and/or economies of scale weak. In the reverse case, which seemed to describe the growth of trade among industrial countries, trade was win-win.

There was one more significant insight from the application of Dixit-Stiglitz–based models to trade: Burenstam Linder was right! Once one added transport costs to the model, it was straight-forward to show that countries would, other things equal, tend to become exporters in the indus-tries in which they had large domestic markets. As is so often the case, the logic of this result was obvious once the result had been devised, but not at all obvious beforehand. Indeed, I began the research that led to Krugman (1980) with the strong presumption that countries would not tend to export goods for which they had a large home market—I came to bury Burenstam Linder, not to praise him. But the algebra said otherwise, and the intuition followed. Increasing returns

KRUgMAN: THE INCREASINg RETURNS REVOLUTION IN TRAdE ANd gEOgRApHy VOL. 99 NO. 3565

provide an incentive to concentrate production of any one product in a single location; given this incentive to concentrate, transport costs are minimized by choosing a location close to the largest market, and this location then exports to other markets.

Initially, the “new trade theory” seemed to consists of a series of special-purpose, incompat-ible models. It turned out, however, that it was possible to create a common ground for many though not all of the models, and extend that common ground to much traditional trade theory as well, using an insight originally due to Paul Samuelson (1949). In explaining factor price equal-ization, Samuelson reversed the usual way we think about trade, as a process of coming together. Instead, Samuelson thought of trade as the result of a process of coming apart. He envisaged a Tower of Babel scenario, in which an angel descends from Heaven and breaks up a previously unified economy: factors of production suddenly find themselves with national labels, and are able to work only with other factors that have the same national label. Samuelson pointed out that factor price equalization would take place if and only if the international distribution of factors of production was such that it was possible, even while obeying the angel’s new limits, to reproduce the production of the pre-angel integrated economy—and that in such circumstances specializa-tion and trade could be viewed as being about reproducing the integrated economy.

Helpman and I (1985) used the same approach to think about trade involving both comparative advantage and increasing returns. The key insight was that in order to reproduce the integrated economy, it was necessary to locate all production of each good subject to economies of scale within one country. This approach united factor-proportions-based comparative advantage and specialization due to economies of scale: both could be viewed as part of how a world economy cursed by Samuelson’s angel undid the damage.

This approach also, more or less en passant, made it clear that increasing returns ordinarily reinforce, rather than call into question, the argument that there are gains from trade. To be sure, in cases where the integrated economy is not reproduced, it’s possible to conjure up examples in which countries are worse off with trade than without, in a way that isn’t possible in pure com-parative advantage models. But the clear presumption is that trade is a good thing under increas-ing returns—indeed, better than previously thought.

By the mid 1980s, then, the “new trade theory” had integrated increasing returns more or less seamlessly into our understanding of international trade. The impossible complexity that had previously daunted economists contemplating a major revision of trade theory had vanished, replaced by a surprisingly simple and elegant structure.

But how did that happen? Why did the problems facing the trade counterculture seem to melt away? I’d argue that at the heart of the story was an attitude shift on the part of international economists.

III. Some Meta Reflections

The emergence of the new trade theory was, in the first place, made possible by the new mod-els of monopolistic competition. But it did not remain confined to those models; by the mid-1980s recognizably “new trade” approaches had been taken to trade involving external economies, Cournot and Bertrand oligopoly, even contestable markets. What made it all possible was a shift in attitude among trade theorists, mainly consisting of two changes. First, there was a new willingness to explore the implications of illuminating special cases rather than trying to prove general results given some broad upfront assumptions. Second, there was a change in focus from detailed predictions—which country produces each specific good—to system-level or aggregate descriptions of the pattern of trade.

On the first point: in the late 1970s many trade theorists thought of themselves as theorem-provers. Given big initial assumptions such as constant returns, so many factors, etc., what could

566THE AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW

JUNE 2009

be proved true about trade, specialization, and welfare? There was, at least in the theoretical literature, a push for generality. Yet this generality was mainly spurious: the results were general given the big assumptions, but those assumptions were, in fact, highly restrictive, ruling out much of what was obviously true about real-world trade and specialization.

The new trade theory, instead, focused on strongly special, even silly-seeming cases. (“Dare to be silly” became one of my principles for research.) There is no good reason to believe that the assumptions of the Dixit-Stiglitz model—a continuum of goods that enter symmetrically into demand, with the same cost functions, and with the elasticity of substitution between any two goods both constant and the same for any pair you choose—are remotely true in reality. The assumptions are instead chosen, with full self-consciousness, to produce a tractable example that contains what older trade theories left out—namely, the possibility for intraindustry specializa-tion due to economies of scale.

The use of deliberately unrealistic assumptions is, of course, common in much of economics. Nonetheless, I can report from early experience that the new style of modeling was met with considerable hostility at first. Some discussants dismissed the whole enterprise as obviously pointless, given the unrealism of the setup. Some even insisted that if all the goods enter utility the same way, they must be perfect substitutes. There was a widespread sense that the new trade theorists were cheating.

Meanwhile, even with all that cheating, the new models left some questions unanswered. Who produces which differentiated product within a monopolistically competitive industry? The mod-els, by construction, could not answer that question. We all invoked some notion of randomness, but without any explicit random mechanism in mind. Instead, what was crucially involved was a redefinition of the question. The detailed pattern of trade, the new theorists in effect argued, does not matter as long as aggregate measures like the volume of trade and the welfare effects of trade can be derived from the model. In effect, one had to step back from the blackboard and unfocus one’s eyes a bit, so as to grasp the broad pattern rather than the irrelevant details.

And once the new way of doing trade theory had been established, it made its way into pure comparative advantage modeling as well. Most notably, the important work of Jonathan Eaton and Samuel Kortum (2002) on world trade patterns is based on a Ricardian model of compara-tive advantage—but the way it makes predictions about the parameters of a gravity equation that predicts the volume of bilateral trade in a multilateral world, rather than about specific goods imported and exported, is very much “new trade theory” in spirit.

Those who weren’t there, or haven’t participated in a comparable paradigm shift elsewhere in economics, probably can’t see why these “meta” changes in the way we did international trade theory were so hard, or made such a big difference. But they were, and they did. John Maynard Keynes famously described the process of arriving at his macroeconomic theory as a “struggle of escape”; the emergence of the new trade theory was a similar struggle, if less momentous, and had a profoundly liberating effect on the field.

IV. Geography Ignored

Bertil Ohlin’s classic 1933 work laying out the beginnings of factor proportions theory was, of course, titled Interregional and International Trade. It has always been obvious that the motives for shipment of goods within countries are similar to those for shipment of goods between coun-tries. It was also obvious, if one thought about it, that specialization within countries offered a new and possibly superior source of empirical evidence, if only because intra-national data are more likely to allow comparisons. So one might have expected the theory of international trade and the theory of economic geography to have developed in tandem, and in close relationship to each other, with a joint empirical research program.

KRUgMAN: THE INCREASINg RETURNS REVOLUTION IN TRAdE ANd gEOgRApHy VOL. 99 NO. 3567

In fact, however, as late as 1990 international economists took virtually no notice of trade within countries, or of the location of production in space. Nor was there really a strong inde-pendent presence of economic geography within the economics profession as a whole. Alfred Marshall (1890) may have devoted a whole chapter to “the concentration of specialized indus-tries in particular localities,” but that subject was barely touched on in the standard economics curriculum. Instead, if economic geography made any appearance at all, it was mainly urban economics, with a very limited discussion of location theory, with neither subfield having any significant interaction with the much more well-established discussion of international trade. Why was geography ignored by trade theorists? A large part of the explanation is the obvi-ous centrality of increasing returns to geographical patterns: nobody really thinks that Silicon Valley owes its existence to exogenously given factors of production or Ricardian comparative advantage. (God made the Santa Clara valley for apricots, not semiconductors.) As long as trade theorists shied away from increasing returns in general, economic geography wasn’t an inviting field.

Also, while there was elegant work in urban economics—I particularly admired J. Vernon Henderson’s (1987) work on city systems—there was something deeply unsatisfying about the treatment of increasing returns in much of this literature. Essentially, the available techniques limited theorists to assuming external economies, leading to gibes that economists believed that agglomeration takes place as a result of agglomeration economies. A particular problem was that once one is simply assuming positive external economies, it’s not at all clear how to think about the spatial limits of spillover. Do you have to be in the same city to reap positive externalities from other producers in the same industry? If so, why?

Over the course of the 1980s some researchers, notably Masahisa Fujita (1988), realized that the monopolistic competition models could be used to derive endogenous externalities, explain-ing urban concentration. But these models depended on the assumption that the monopolistically competitive goods were completely nontradable, again offering little help on the question of the spatial reach of agglomeration economies.

But the analysis of the home market effect, already an established part of the new trade theory, suggested an approach to economic geography that did not depend on making goods strictly nontradable.

V. New Economic Geography

To lay out the logic of the “new economic geography,” I find it helpful to talk in terms of a “cheat” model—a sort of model of the model—I originally devised to get some intuition about the home market effect. In this model we consider the location decision of a single producer serving two markets. We assume that the producer has fixed sales of S, S* units of a good in the two markets, with S > S*. And it must pay a transport cost of τ for each unit shipped from one location to the other. The producer has the option of having either one or two plants; by opening a second plant, the producer can eliminate transport costs but must pay an extra fixed cost F. Clearly, if the producer opens only one plant, it will be in the larger market. But will it con-centrate production? Only if F>τS*.

It goes without saying that this little exposition ignores market structure, pricing, the elasticity of demand, and more. But we know that we can put those things back in by doing a full Dixit-Stiglitz, and the cheat version conveys the essential intuition: if economies of scale, as captured by F/S*, are large enough compared to transport costs, production will be geographically con-centrated, and that concentration will, other things equal, be in the larger market.

From there it’s an obvious, short step (which for some reason took me a decade to take) to a model of geographical concentration of factors of production. Think now of a world in which

568THE AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW

JUNE 2009 there are many firms making the same kind of choice I just described, and also in which some but not all resources are mobile. Let S be the size of the overall market, μ be the share of that market attributable to “footloose” production, and suppose that there are two symmetric loca-tions. Then we can think of a possible equilibrium in which all the footloose factors concentrate in one place. In that case the other location—the smaller market—would demand S(1 ? μ)/2 units of our representative good.

And this concentration of production would be self-sustaining if F> τS(1 ? μ)/2, or F/S>τ(1 ? μ)/2. So that’s our criterion for the creation of a self-sustaining concentration of produc-

tion in space.

As in the original home market effect exercise, this doesn’t quite get it right, because it fails to take account of market structure and demand elasticity. As I showed in Krugman (1991), it also misses a second reason for agglomeration: “forward linkages,” which in the simplest case would take the form of a lower cost of living for workers residing close to production concentrations. But the essential insights are right:

(i) A self-sustaining concentration of production in space can occur if economies of scale

(F/S) are large, transport costs low, and enough production is mobile.

(ii) Which location gets the concentration of production is arbitrary, and can be presumed to be a function of initial conditions or historical accident.

What was learned from this analysis? For one thing, it immediately cast light on some impor-tant aspects of economic history. Notably, the character of US economic geography is well known to have gone through a sort of phase change in the middle of the nineteenth century, as the nation became differentiated into a farm belt and a manufacturing belt. What was happening at the time of this phase change? The answer is a rise of large-scale production (economies of scale); railroads (lower transport costs); and a declining farm share in the economy (more mobile production). A simple model explains a major qualitative change in the economy.

This “core-periphery” model, essentially a model of agglomeration, was the starting point for the new economic geography. It was immediately clear, however, that one also wanted to model other key aspects of geography, notably regional specialization in different industries and the system of cities. With a few tricks, especially by assuming increasing returns in the production of intermediate as well as final goods, it turned out to be possible to address many of these issues. As in the case of the new trade theory, a willingness to focus on tractable special cases was of the essence. In Fujita, Krugman, and Anthony Venables (1999), we described our method as “Dixit-Stiglitz, icebergs, evolution, and the computer.” We used Dixit-Stiglitz-type models to handle increasing returns and imperfect competition, “iceberg” transport costs that are propor-tional to FOB prices, simple adaptive dynamics to arrive at equilibria, and numerical simulation to deal with models that tended to be just past the edge of paper-and-pencil analysis.

Also, as in the case of the new trade theory, the new economic geography created a style of work that reached well beyond the specifics of the initial models. New economic geographers rediscovered Marshall’s chapter, which contained a beautifully laid out trinity of reasons for industry localization: knowledge spillovers (“the mysteries of the trade become no mysteries; but are, as it were, in the air”), labor market pooling, and specialized suppliers. Only the last of these three could be modeled with the original, new trade theory–inspired models, but the new focus on location led to reinvigorated interest in the others.

One gratifying result of the emergence of the new economic geography was a surge in empiri-cal work. Some of this was driven specifically by the new models, but there was also a broader effect: the new models sensitized economists to the fact that regional variations in industrial

KRUgMAN: THE INCREASINg RETURNS REVOLUTION IN TRAdE ANd gEOgRApHy VOL. 99 NO. 3569

specialization were an important laboratory for economic ideas, and that there was a great deal of evidence out there to be exploited. Before 1990 there were few high-profile economists using, say, cross-city comparisons to shed light on such subjects as externalities, innovation, and growth. But after 1990 such studies exploded, and I believe that this was largely due to the emergence of the new economic geography.

With the emergence first of the new economic geography, then of a vast literature on external economies, the increasing returns revolution in trade and geography reached maturity. The old vision of the world economy, limited by the assumption of constant returns, had been superseded by an enlarged vision that incorporated the great tradition of trade theory but went well beyond it. However, a funny thing happened on the way to this new vision. It’s at least arguable that even as classical trade theory was being rejected or at least revamped, the world itself was becoming more classical, less driven by the increasing returns the new theory emphasized.

VI. Is the World Becoming More Classical?

Sometimes the progression of economic ideas mirrors changes in the real economy. Thus, macroeconomics emerged as a discipline at least in part because the business cycle became more severe over the first several decades of the twentieth century. And the empirical observations that motivated the new trade theory largely concerned the rising role of increasing returns, as opposed to comparative advantage, in the growth of trade after 1950.

But there’s no reason the world has to keep moving in a direction that makes new theories more relevant. And there’s good reason to believe that the world economy has, over time, actually become less characterized by the kinds of increasing-returns effects emphasized by new trade and new geography.

In the case of geography, in fact, the peak impact of increasing returns probably occurred long before the new theorists arrived on the scene. Even in Krugman (1991a) I noted that the 1900 census contained an extensive monograph on the localization of industries, emphasizing precisely the cumulate causation and role for historical accident that became central to new geography. And the history of such classic localizations as that of the car industry seemed, if anything, to suggest that concentrations due to increasing returns peaked before World War II. Meanwhile, the manufacturing belt itself began to dissolve after the war, and especially after the 1950s, as industry spread to the Sunbelt.

Work by Kim (1998) seems to confirm the notion that the peak importance of increasing returns in industry location occurred circa 1930. Figure 4 shows his calculation of an index of regional manufacturing specialization (first proposed in Krugman 1991a), using manufacturing censuses. From a peak in the interwar years, this index has since declined dramatically.

To be fair, this result may in part reflect statistical noise, as old industrial classifications fail to keep up with the modern division of labor. But the data accord with common perception: many of the traditional localizations of industry have declined (think of the Akron rubber industry), and those that have arisen, such as Silicon Valley, don’t seem comparable in scale.

What about international trade? The rise of the new trade theory was motivated to a large extent by the rising relative importance of similar-similar trade: two-way exchanges of goods among advanced economies. For the last two decades, however, the trend has been in the other direction, with rapidly rising trade between advanced economies and much poorer, lower-wage economies, especially China. One simple indicator of this shift is the average hourly compen-sation of workers in top US trading partners, as a percentage of US compensation (Krugman 2008). In 1975 that indicator stood at 76, and by 1990 it had risen slightly to 81, indicating that the United States was to a large extent trading with countries at a similar level of economic development. By 2005, however, the indicator had fallen to 65, largely reflecting the rapid growth

JUNE 2009

570THE AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW

in trade with China and Mexico. In 2006, for the first time, the United States did more trade in manufactured goods with developing countries than with other advanced nations.

And nobody doubts that trade between the United States and Mexico, where wages are only 13 percent of the US level, or China, where they are only about 4 percent, reflects comparative advantage rather than arbitrary, scale-based specialization. The old trade theory has regained relevance.

Both new geography and new trade, then, may describe forces that are waning rather than gathering strength. Yet they’re hardly irrelevant. And even the fact that they may be losing force is itself an important insight. For example, the contrast between the deep troubles of the Big Three automakers in the United States and the less afflicted foreign-owned operations, many of them located outside the traditional manufacturing belt, may in part reflect the diminishing advantages of being co-located with other producers in your industry.

Whether the influence of increasing returns on trade and geography is rising or falling, one thing is clear: much was learned from the intellectual revolution that brought increasing returns into the heart of how we think about the world economy. It wasn’t just that economists could make sense of previously puzzling data, we found ourselves able to see things that had previously been in an intellectual blind spot. Many people contributed to this process of enlightenment; I’m proud to have been a part of the journey.

REFERENCES

Balassa, Bela. 1966. “Tariff Reductions and Trade in Manufactures among the Industrial Countries.”

American Economic Review, 56(3): 466–73.

Baldwin, Richard E., and Philippe Martin. 1999. “Two Waves of Globalization: Superficial Similarities, Fundamental Differences.” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 6904. Burenstam Linder, Staffan. 1961. An Essay on Trade and Transformation. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Dixit, Avinash K., and Victor Norman. 1980. Theory of International Trade: A dual, general Equilibrium Approach. London: Cambridge University Press.

Dixit, Avinash K., and Joseph E. Stiglitz. 1977. “Monopolistic Competition and Optimum Product Diver-sity.” American Economic Review, 67(3): 297–308.

Eaton, Jonathan, and Samuel Kortum. 2002. “Technology, Geography, and Trade.” Econometrica, 70(5): 1741–79.

Fujita, Masahisa. 1988. “A Monopolistic Competition Model of Spatial Agglomeration.” Regional Science and Urban Economics, 18(1): 87–124.

Fujita, Masahisa, Paul Krugman, and Anthony J. Venables. 1999. The Spatial Economy: Cities, Regions, and International Trade. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

KRUgMAN: THE INCREASINg RETURNS REVOLUTION IN TRAdE ANd gEOgRApHy VOL. 99 NO. 3571 Grubel, Herbert G., and Peter J. Lloyd. 1975. Intra-Industry Trade: The Theory and Measurement of International Trade in differentiated products. London: Macmillan.

Helpman, Elhanan. 1981. “International Trade in the Presence of Product Differentiation, Economies of Scale and Monopolistic Competition: A Chamberlin-Heckscher-Ohlin Approach.” Journal of Interna-tional Economics, 11(3): 305–40.

Helpman, Elhanan, and Paul Krugman. 1985. Market Structure and Foreign Trade.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Henderson, J. Vernon. 1987. “General Equilibrium Modelling of Systems of Cities.” In Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, 2, ed. Edwin S. Mills, 927–56. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Johnson, Harry G. 1967. “International Trade Theory and Monopolistic Competition Theory.” In Monop-olistic Competition Theory: Studies in Impact; Essays in Honor of Edward H. Chamberlin, ed. R. E. Kuenne, 203–18. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Kim, Sukko. 1998. “Economic Integration and Convergence: U.S. Regions, 1840–1990.” Journal of Eco-nomic History, 58(3): 659–83.

Krugman, Paul. 1979. “Increasing Returns, Monopolistic Competition, and International Trade.” Journal of International Economics, 9(4): 469–79.

Krugman, Paul. 1980. “Scale Economies, Product Differentiation, and the Pattern of Trade.” American Economic Review, 70(5): 950–59.

Krugman, Paul. 1981. “Intraindustry Specialization and the Gains from Trade.” Journal of political Econ-omy, 89(5): 959–73.

Krugman, Paul. 1989. “Industrial Organization and International Trade.” In Handbook of Industrial Organisation, Volume 2, ed. R. Schmalensee and R. Willig, 1179–1223. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Krugman,Paul. 1991a.geography and Trade. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Krugman, Paul. 1991b. “Increasing Returns and Economic Geography.” Journal of political Economy, 99(3): 483–99.

Krugman, Paul. 2008. “Trade and Wages, Reconsidered.” Brookings papers on Economic Activity, 2: 103–38.

Lancaster, Kelvin J. 1979. Variety, Equity and Efficiency. New York: Columbia University Press. Lancaster, Kelvin J. 1980. “Intra-Industry Trade under Perfect Monopolistic Competition.” Journal of International Economics, 10(2): 151–75.

Marshall, Alfred. 1890. principles of Economics. London: Macmillan.

Meyer, David. 1983. “Emergence of the American Manufacturing Belt: An Interpretation.” Journal of His-torical geography, 9: 145–74.

Norman, Victor.1976. “Product Differentiation and Trade.” Unpublished.

Ohlin, Bertil. 1933. Interregional and International Trade. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Samuelson, Paul A. 1949. “International Factor-Price Equalization Once Again.” The Economic Journal, 58: 181–97.

Spence, Michael. 1976. “Product Selection, Fixed Costs, and Monopolistic Competition.” Review of Eco-nomic Studies, 43(2): 217–35.

《首届诺贝尔奖颁发》教学设计

《首届诺贝尔奖颁发》教学设计《首届诺贝尔奖颁发》教学设计一 一、教学目标 1、准确把握新闻的六要素，进一步掌握消息文体特点。 2、培养学生朗读技巧，体会新闻语言的真实性、准确性。 3、了解伦琴等人所作出巨大贡献，体会诺贝尔宽广胸怀。 重点难点 重点：把握新闻六要素，掌握新闻文体特点。 难点：提高朗读技巧。 二、教学过程 1、导入新课。 2012年，中国文学家莫言获得诺贝尔文学奖；2015年，

中国医学家屠呦呦获得诺贝尔医学奖，成为第二个获得诺贝尔奖的中国人。那些人才可以获得诺贝尔奖呢？这节课，让我们一起学习《首届诺贝尔奖颁发》这则消息。 2、文学常识。 诺贝尔奖，是以瑞典著名的化学家、硝化甘油炸药的发明人阿尔弗雷德·贝恩哈德·诺贝尔的部分遗产(3100万瑞典克朗)作为基金在1900年创立的，于1901年首次颁发。诺贝尔奖分设物理学、化学、生理学或医学、文学及和平五个奖项，以基金每年的利息或投资收益授予世界上在这些领域对人类做出重大贡献的人，于1901年首次颁发。在诺贝尔奖颁发史上，发生了一些有趣的事，让我们看看课外阅读材料。 补充材料一：▲错过诺贝尔文学奖的中国作家 2001年，老舍先生的儿子、中国现代文学馆副馆长舒乙向外界披露了“1968年诺贝尔文学奖几乎被老舍得到”的内幕。舒乙透露，在入围者到了最后5名时还有老舍，最终，秘密投票结果的第一名就是老舍。那年，瑞典方面通过调查得知老舍已经去世，于是日本的川端康成获奖。

1987、1988年诺贝尔文学奖终审名单之中，沈从文均入选，而且沈从文是1988年中最有机会获奖的候选人。当时学院中有强大力量支持沈从文的候选人资格。但可惜的是，沈从文于1988年5月10日去世，因此与诺贝尔文学奖失之交臂。 补充材料二：▲最“省事儿”的诺奖得主 1901年，X射线发明人德国科学家伦琴收到一封来信，信中邀请他前往斯德哥尔摩领取诺贝尔物理学奖。而这位教授随即回复了一封出人意料的回信，信上说：斯德哥尔摩路途遥远，需向校长请假才行，麻烦得很，将奖牌与奖金寄过来行不行？瑞典的答复是：奖牌不能寄，还是跑一趟吧。伦琴无奈地来到了斯德哥尔摩，但他领到奖金与奖牌后就即刻打道回府，连获奖后例行的讲座也取消了。 补充材料三：▲最“奇葩”的诺奖得主 2013年度诺贝尔物理学奖获得者彼得·希格斯教授就是这样一个奇葩人物，他至今都不用手机，以至于他未能在第一时间获悉自己获奖的消息，而是从邻居的祝贺中得知自己

诺贝尔生物学奖历届得主

诺贝尔生物学奖的历届得主 历年诺贝尔生理学医学奖获奖名单 时间获奖人及国籍获奖原因 1901年 E . A . V . 贝林（德国人）从事有关白喉血清疗法的研究1902年 R.罗斯（英国人）从事有关疟疾的研究 1903年 N.R.芬森（丹麦人）发现利用光辐射治疗狼疮 1904年 I.P.巴甫洛夫（俄国人）从事有关消化系统生理学方面的研究 1905年 R.柯赫（德国人）从事有关结核的研究 1906年 C.戈尔季（意大利人） S.拉蒙-卡哈尔（西班牙人）从事有关神经系统精细结构的研究 1907年 C.L.A.拉韦朗（法国人）发现并阐明了原生动物在引起疾病中的作用 1908年 P.埃利希（德国人）、 E.梅奇尼科夫（俄国人）从事有关免疫力方面的研究 1909年 E.T.科歇尔（瑞士人）从事有关甲状腺的生理学、病理学以及外科学上的研究 1910年 A.科塞尔（德国人）从事有关蛋白质、核酸方面的研究 1911年 A.古尔斯特兰德（瑞典人）从事有关眼睛屈光学方面的研究1912年 A.卡雷尔（法国人）从事有关血管缝合以及脏器移植方面的研究 1913年 C.R.里谢（法国人）从事有关抗原过敏的研究 1914年 R.巴拉尼（奥地利人）从事有关内耳前庭装置生理学与病理学方面的研究 1919年 J.博尔德特（比利时人）作出了有关免疫方面的一系列发现1920年 S.A.S.克劳（丹麦人）发现了有关体液和神经因素对毛细血管运动机理的调节 1922年 A.V.希尔（英国人）从事有关肌肉能量代谢和物质代谢问题的研究 迈尔霍夫（德国人）从事有关肌肉中氧消耗和乳酸代谢问题的研究 1923年 F.G.班廷（加拿大） J.J.R.麦克劳德（加拿大人）发现胰岛素 1924年 W.爱因托文（荷兰人）发现心电图机理 1926年 J.A.G.菲比格（丹麦人）发现菲比格氏鼠癌（鼠实验性胃癌）1927年 J.瓦格纳-姚雷格（奥地利人）发现治疗麻痹的发热疗法 1928年 C.J.H.尼科尔（法国人）从事有关斑疹伤寒的研究 1929年 C.艾克曼（荷兰人）发现可以抗神经炎的维生素

2、首届诺贝尔奖颁发(消息)

二、首届诺贝热奖颁发（消息） 1、易读错的字 颁（bān）发挪（nuó）威遗嘱（zhǔ）渗（shèn）透 卓（zhuó）有颇（pō）有帕（pà）西仲（zhòng）裁 联盟（méng）拨（bō）款授（shòu）奖仪（yí）式 逝（shì）世奥（ào）斯陆巨额（é）拥（yōng）有 2、多音字 fā（颁发） yí（遗嘱） yā（渗透压） xuè（血清）发遗压血 fà（理发） wèi（以遗陛下） yà（压根儿） xiě（出血） lù（奥斯陆） zhǒng（多种） hé（和平）huó（和面） 陆种和 hè（附和）和 liù（陆仟元）z hòng（种田）hú（和牌）huò（和药）3、形近字 挪nuó（挪威）伦lún（伦琴）纶guān（纶巾）渗shèn（渗透）哪nǎ（哪里）轮lún（轮换）抡lūn （抡起） 娜nà（娜娜）沦lún（沦陷）论lùn （议论）掺chān（掺和）姆mǔ（保姆）侮wǔ（侮辱）帕pà（帕西）柏bó（柏林）（普吕多姆）悔huǐ（悔恨）怕pà（害怕）伯bó（伯伯）拇mǔ（拇指）晦huì（晦气）拍pāi （拍打）泊pō（水泊）仲zhòng（仲裁）肿zhǒng（肿胀）拨bō（拨款）拥yōng（拥有）冲chōng（冲刺）种zhǒng（种子） 忡chōng（忧心忡忡）钟zhōng（钟表）拔bá（拔牙）佣yōng（佣兵）颁bān（颁发）嘱zhǔ（遗嘱）资zī（资金） 颀qí（颀长）姿zī（姿态） 硕shuò（硕果）瞩zhǔ（举世瞩目）恣zì（恣睢suī） 4、解词 巨额：非常大的数量（多指钱财）。 颁发：授予（勋章、奖状、证书等）。 渗透：液体从物体的细小空隙中透过。 建树：表示建立了不朽的功勋或在事业上有很大的成就。 仲裁：由当事人以外的第三者对民事、经济等争议作出裁决。 遗嘱：死者生前依法处理遗产或其他事务并于死亡时发生效力的法律行为。 5、读一读，写一写 颁发遗嘱建树仲裁巨额渗透逝世卓有6、辨析词义

历届诺贝尔化学奖得主(1901-2016)(DOC)

历届诺贝尔化学奖得主 (1901-2016) 年份 获奖者 国籍 获奖原因 1901年 雅各布斯·亨里克斯·范托夫 荷兰 “发现了化学动力学法则和溶液渗透压” 1902年 赫尔曼·费歇尔 德国 “在糖类和嘌呤合成中的工作” 1903年 斯凡特·奥古斯特·阿伦尼乌斯 瑞典 “提出了电离理论” 1904年 威廉·拉姆齐爵士 英国 “发现了空气中的惰性气体元素并确定了它们在元素周期表里的位置” 1905年 阿道夫·冯·拜尔 德国 “对有机染料以及氢化芳香族化合物的研究促进了有机化学与化学工业的发展” 1906年 亨利·莫瓦桑 法国 “研究并分离了氟元素，并且使用了后来以他名字命名的电炉” 1907年 爱德华·比希纳 德国 “生物化学研究中的工作和发现无细胞发酵” 1908年 欧内斯特·卢瑟福 英国 “对元素的蜕变以及放射化学的研究” 1909年 威廉·奥斯特瓦尔德 德国 “对催化作用的研究工作和对化学平衡以及化学反应速率的基本原理的研究” 1910年 奥托·瓦拉赫 德国 “在脂环族化合物领域的开创性工作促进了有机化学和化学工业的发展的研究” 1911年 玛丽·居里 波兰 “发现了镭和钋元素，提纯镭并研究了这种引人注目的元素的性质及其化合物” 1912年 维克多·格林尼亚 法国 “发明了格氏试剂” 保罗·萨巴捷 法国 “发明了在细金属粉存在下的有机化合物的加氢法” 1913年 阿尔弗雷德·维尔纳 瑞士 “对分子内原子连接的研究，特别是在无机化学研究领域” 1914年 西奥多·威廉·理查兹 美国 “精确测定了大量化学元素的原子量” 1915年 里夏德·维尔施泰特 德国 “对植物色素的研究，特别是对叶绿素的研究” 1916年 未颁奖 1917年 未颁奖 1918年 弗里茨·哈伯 德国 “对从单质合成氨的研究” 1919年 未颁奖 1920年 瓦尔特·能斯特 德国 “对热化学的研究” 1921年 弗雷德里克·索迪 英国 “对人们了解放射性物质的化学性质上的贡献，以及对同位素的起源和性质的研究” 1922年 弗朗西斯·阿斯顿 英国 “使用质谱仪发现了大量非放射性元素的同位素，并且阐明了整数法则” 1923年 弗里茨·普雷格尔 奥地利 “创立了有机化合物的微量分析法” 1924年 未颁奖 1925年 里夏德·阿道夫·席格蒙迪 德国 “阐明了胶体溶液的异相性质，并创立了相关的分析法” 1926年 特奥多尔·斯韦德贝里 瑞典 “对分散系统的研究”

免疫学中诺贝尔奖获得者及其主要成果(DOC)

免疫学中诺贝尔奖获得者及其主要成果 其他回答共2条 免疫学领域的诺贝尔奖 免疫学研究在医学领域具有特殊地位，20世纪，诺贝尔生理学或医学奖对它的褒奖达18次之多：首届诺贝尔奖就授予免疫学成就；70年代之后，免疫学每10年都有3次获奖。 免疫是指机体的免疫系统识别“自己”与“非己”成分，并排斥异体物质的生理功能；免疫学则是一门研究免疫反应规律性的科学；而B细胞产生的免疫球蛋白即抗体，是产生体液免疫反应的关键物质，T细胞则是执行细胞吞噬功能的主体细胞。 笔者认为，免疫学在20世纪取得的最大成就，莫过于查清B细胞和T细胞免疫的隐秘。 自18世纪末19世纪初人类免疫实践的创始者、英国医生琴纳发现牛痘疫苗以来，免疫接种实践日渐丰富；自近代微生物学奠基人、法国学者巴斯德发现病原菌以后，传染性免疫现象的研究获得了长足进展。到20世纪初，从理论上解释免疫机理的要求日感迫切，这时朴素的免疫学理论应时而生。1908年，诺贝尔生理学与医学奖颁发给俄国人梅奇尼柯夫提出的第一个细胞免疫理论——细胞吞噬学说，以及德国人艾利希提出的第一个体液免疫理论“侧链说”（即“受体说”），这是医学家探索现代免疫理论的开端。 诺贝尔生理学或医学奖曾2次颁发给探索各种免疫反应奥秘的免疫生物学研究领域。 法国人里歇1907年将致敏动物的血液注入正常动物体内，发现其对过敏原呈现过敏状态，从而发现了一种与免疫现象相反的现象——过敏反应，为该项研究奠定了基础，荣获了1913年诺贝尔生理学与医学奖。 比利时人博尔德特1895年发现动物血清中，存在一种能促进病原菌溶解的物质即补体。1900年，他又发现，在补体存在的条件下，红细胞才会被溶血素溶解。将这两个发现结合起来，他又创立了补体结合试验。博尔德特因为发现补体而获取了1919年诺贝尔生理学与医学奖。 变态反应又称超敏反应，是指抗原刺激引起的免疫应答，以及由此导致的组织损伤或功能紊乱。引起变态反应的抗原称为变应原，可以是外源性抗原，或者是自身抗原。接触变应原的人群约有20％发生变态反应，一般多有家族史，是一种常染色体的显性遗传。 变态反应有4个类型：I型即速发型变态反应，通称过敏反应，如支气管哮喘、青霉素休克、血清过敏性休克、过敏性胃肠炎和荨麻疹等；Ⅱ型即溶细胞反应，

有关细胞生物学的历届诺贝尔奖

1910年诺贝尔生理学或医学奖 他对蛋白质和核酸的研究为细胞化学做出了贡献 科塞尔发现核素是蛋白质和核酸的复合物。他小心地水解核酸，得到了组成核酸的基本成分：鸟嘌呤、腺嘌呤、胸腺嘧啶和胞嘧啶，还有些具有糖类性质的物质和磷酸。确定了核酸这个生物大分子的组成之后，随之而来的问题是这些物质在大分子中的比例，它们之间是如何连接的。斯托伊德尔( H. Steudel )找到了前一个问题的答 案。通过分析，他发现单糖、每种嘌呤或嘧啶碱基、磷酸的比例为 1 ： 1 ：1。科塞尔及 其同事发现，如果小心地水解核酸，糖基团与含氮的基团是连在一起的。科塞尔还对核酸与蛋白质的结合方式进行了研究。他发现有些物种的核酸与蛋白质结合比较紧密，有些则比较松散。 1962年诺贝尔生理学或医学奖 发现了核酸的分子结构及其在遗传信息传递中的作用 1951年，美国一位23岁的生物学博士沃森来到卡文迪许实验室，他也受到薛定谔《生命是什么》的影响。克里克同他一见如故，开始了对遗传物质脱氧核糖核酸DNA 分子结构的合作研究。他们虽然性格相左，但在事业上志同道合。沃森生物学基础扎实，训练有素；克里克则凭借物理学优势，又不受传统生物学观念束缚，常以一种全新的视角思考问题。他们二人优势互补，取长补短，并善于吸收和借鉴当时也在研究DNA分子结构的鲍林、威尔金斯和弗兰克林等人的成果，结果不足两年时间的努力便完成了DNA分子的双螺旋结构模型。沃森和克里克在1953年4月25日的《自然》杂志上以1000多字和一幅插图的短文公布了他们的发现。在论文中，沃森和克里克以谦逊的笔调，暗示了这个结构模型在遗传上的重要性：“我们并非没有注意到，我们所推测 的特殊配对立即暗示了遗传物质的复制机理。”在随后发表的论文中，沃森和克里克详细地说明了DNA双螺旋模型对遗传学研究的重大意义：(1)它能够说明遗传物质的自我复制。这个“半保留复制”的设想后来被马修?麦赛尔逊( Matthew Meselson )和富兰克林?斯塔勒(Franklin W. Stahl )用同位素追踪实验证实。(2)它能够说明遗传物质是如何携带遗传信息的。(3 )它能够说明基因是如何突变的。基因突变是由于碱基序列发生了变化，这样的变化

历届诺贝尔生理学或医学奖获奖者(1901-2018)

诺贝尔生理学或医学奖历年获奖者(1901-2018) 年份得主国家得奖原因 1901年埃米尔·阿道夫·冯·贝 林 德国 “对血清疗法的研究，特别是在治疗白喉应用上 的贡献，由此开辟了医学领域研究的新途径，也 因此使得医生手中有了对抗疾病和死亡的有力武 器” 1902年罗纳德·罗斯英国“在疟疾研究上的工作，由此显示了疟疾如何进入生物体，也因此为成功地研究这一疾病以及对抗这一疾病的方法奠定了基础” 1903年尼尔斯·吕贝里·芬森丹麦“在用集中的光辐射治疗疾病，特别是寻常狼疮方面的贡献，由此开辟了医学研究的新途径” 1904年伊万·巴甫洛夫俄罗斯“在消化的生理学研究上的工作，这一主题的重要方面的知识由此被转化和扩增” 1905年罗伯特·科赫德国“对结核病的相关研究和发现” 1906年卡米洛·高尔基意大利 “在神经系统结构研究上的工作”圣地亚哥·拉蒙-卡哈尔西班牙 1907年夏尔·路易·阿方斯·拉 韦朗 法国“对原生动物在致病中的作用的研究” 1908年伊拉·伊里奇·梅契尼 科夫 俄罗斯 “在免疫性研究上的工作”保罗·埃尔利希德国 1909年埃米尔·特奥多尔·科 赫尔 瑞士 “对甲状腺的生理学、病理学以及外科学上的研 究” 1910年阿尔布雷希特·科塞尔德国“通过对包括细胞核物质在内的蛋白质的研究，为了解细胞化学做出的贡献” 1911年阿尔瓦·古尔斯特兰德瑞典“在眼睛屈光学研究上的工作” 1912年亚历克西·卡雷尔法国“在血管结构以及血管和器官移植研究上的工作” 1913年夏尔·罗贝尔·里歇法国“在过敏反应研究上的工作” 1914年罗伯特·巴拉尼奥地利“在前庭器官的生理学与病理学研究上的工作”1919年朱尔·博尔代比利时“免疫性方面的发现” 1920年奥古斯特·克罗丹麦“发现毛细血管运动的调节机理” 1922年阿奇博尔德·希尔英国“在肌肉产生热量上的发现” 奥托·迈尔霍夫德国 “发现肌肉中氧的消耗和乳酸代谢之间的固定关 系” 1923年弗雷德里克·格兰特·班 廷 加拿大 “发现胰岛素”约翰·麦克劳德加拿大 1924年威廉·埃因托芬荷兰“发明心电图装置”1926年约翰尼斯·菲比格丹麦“发现鼠癌”

《首届诺贝尔奖颁发》练习题

2 首届诺贝尔奖颁发 课时训练 1．给下列词语中加点的字注音。 颁．发（）挪．威（）渗．透（） 2.下列选项中没有错别字的一项是（） A.遗嘱瑞典仲裁基金 B.射线卓越贡献协会 C.机构拔款授奖逝世 D.图案评定粉碎安慰 3.下列句子没有语病的一项是（） A．当美联社的这则消息发出后，在社会上引起了强烈的反响。 B．科学家应该用专业的知识去传播科学性的精髓，让科学获得最广泛公众的支持和理解，这是科学家的责任，也是一种担当。 C．授奖仪式每年于12月10日诺贝尔逝世周年纪念日在瑞典的斯德哥尔摩或挪威的奥斯陆举行。 D．5月21日，临沂厉家寨樱桃节大山景区登山活动如期举行。看到初夏临港新城的壮美景色，让游客们深深地喜欢上了这里。 4.根据下面新闻内容，拟一个恰当的标题。（不超过15个字） 重庆商报讯在山水环抱的重庆，每个人都摆脱不了江河印记。5月20日，“寻美重庆江河”摄影大赛在武隆正式启动。作为来访首站的武隆迎来了国内近百名知名专家和摄影爱好者。据悉，该系列活动还将走访重庆各个区县，用镜头寻美重庆江河。只要是以重庆江河为拍摄对象，具备自然美，人文类的作品到组委会，评选结果将于今年9月15日在媒体上公布，主办方强调，这项活动能唤起人们对江河的记忆和感情，激发人们保护生态的热情。 5.请从下面这则新闻中提取主要信息。(不超过15个字)

据新华社专电这里既无风也无雨，除了不时飞落的大大小小的陨石，已经寂静了40多亿年。2018年，月球永远背向地球的那一面将首次迎来人类的着陆探测器——嫦娥四号。中国国家航天局探月与航天工程中心副主任刘彤杰，在近日举行的国家“十二五”科技创新成就展上透露，中国计划于2018年5月底或6月初将嫦娥四号的中继卫星发射至地月拉格朗日点的轨道上，并在约半年后发射嫦娥四号的着陆器和巡视器，对月球背面南极艾特肯盆地开展着陆巡视探测。 课时训练答案 1.bān nuóshèn 2.C 3.C 4.示例：“寻美重庆江河”摄影大赛启动 5.示例：嫦娥四号将去月球南极。

历届诺贝尔生理学奖或医学奖名单

历届诺贝尔生理学奖或医学奖名单（1901—2013） 1901年，E . A . V . 贝林（德国人）从事有关白喉血清疗法的研究1902年，R.罗斯（英国人）从事有关疟疾的研究 1903年，.芬森（丹麦人）发现利用光辐射治疗狼疮 1904年，.巴甫洛夫（俄国人）从事有关消化系统生理学方面的研究1905年，R.柯赫（德国人）从事有关结核的研究 1906年，C.戈尔季（意大利人）、S.拉蒙–卡哈尔（西班牙人）从事有关神经系统精细结构的研究 1907年拉韦朗（法国人）发现并阐明了原生动物在引起疾病中的作用1908年P.埃利希（德国人）、E.梅奇尼科夫（俄国人）从事有关免疫力方面的研究 1909年.科歇尔（瑞士人）从事有关甲状腺的生理学、病理学以及外科学上的研究 1910年A.科塞尔（德国人）从事有关蛋白质、核酸方面的研究 1911年A.古尔斯特兰德（瑞典人）从事有关眼睛屈光学方面的研究1912年A.卡雷尔（法国人）从事有关血管缝合以及脏器移植方面的研究 1913年.里谢（法国人）从事有关抗原过敏的研究 1914年R.巴拉尼（奥地利人）从事有关内耳前庭装置生理学与病理学方面的研究 1915年—— 1918年未颁奖 1919年 J . 博尔德特（比利时人）作出了有关免疫方面的一系列发

1920年克劳（丹麦人）发现了有关体液和神经因素对毛细血管运动机理的调节 1921年未颁奖 1922年.希尔（英国人）从事有关肌肉能量代谢和物质代谢问题的研究;迈尔霍夫（德国人）从事有关肌肉中氧消耗和乳酸代谢问题的研究1923年.班廷（加拿大），麦克劳德（加拿大人）发现胰岛素 1924年W.爱因托文（荷兰人）发现心电图机理 1925年未颁奖 1926年菲比格（丹麦人）发现菲比格氏鼠癌（鼠实验性胃癌） 1927年J.瓦格纳–姚雷格（奥地利人）发现治疗麻痹的发热疗法 1928年尼科尔（法国人）从事有关斑疹伤寒的研究 1929年C.艾克曼（荷兰人）发现可以抗神经炎的维生素;.霍普金斯（英国人）发现维生素B1缺乏病并从事关于抗神经炎药物的化学研究1930年K.兰德斯坦纳（美籍奥地利人）发现血型 1931年.瓦尔堡（德国人）发现呼吸酶的性质和作用方式 1932年.谢林顿、.艾德里安（英国人）发现神经细胞活动的机制 1933年.摩尔根（美国人）发现染色体的遗传机制，创立染色体遗传理论 1934年.迈诺特、.墨菲、.惠普尔（美国人）发现贫血病的肝脏疗法1935年H.施佩曼（德国人）发现胚胎发育中背唇的诱导作用 1936年.戴尔（英国人）、O.勒韦（美籍德国人）发现神经冲动的化学

诺贝尔生理学或医学奖历年获奖者(1901-2016)汇总

诺贝尔生理学或医学奖历年获奖者(1901-2016) 时间得主国家得奖原因 1901年埃米尔·阿道夫·冯·贝林德国“对血清疗法的研究，特别是在治疗白喉应用上的贡献，由此开辟了医学领域研究的新途径，也因此使得医生手中有了对抗疾病和死亡的有力武器” 1902年罗纳德·罗斯英国“在疟疾研究上的工作，由此显示了疟疾如何进入生物体，也因此为成功地研究这一疾病以及对抗这一疾病的方法奠定了基础” 1903年尼尔斯·吕贝里·芬森丹麦“在用集中的光辐射治疗疾病，特别是寻常狼疮方面的贡献，由此开辟了医学研究的新途径” 1904年伊万·巴甫洛夫俄罗斯“在消化的生理学研究上的工作，这一主题的重要方面的知识由此被转化和扩增” 1905年罗伯特·科赫德国“对结核病的相关研究和发现” 1906年卡米洛·高尔基意大利 “在神经系统结构研究上的工作”圣地亚哥·拉蒙-卡哈尔西班牙 1907年夏尔·路易·阿方斯·拉韦 朗 法国“对原生动物在致病中的作用的研究” 1908年伊拉·伊里奇·梅契尼科 夫 俄罗斯 “在免疫性研究上的工作”保罗·埃尔利希德国 1909年埃米尔·特奥多尔·科赫 尔 瑞士 “对甲状腺的生理学、病理学以及外科学上的研 究” 1910年阿尔布雷希特·科塞尔德国“通过对包括细胞核物质在内的蛋白质的研究，为了解细胞化学做出的贡献” 1911年阿尔瓦·古尔斯特兰德瑞典“在眼睛屈光学研究上的工作” 1912年亚历克西·卡雷尔法国“在血管结构以及血管和器官移植研究上的工作”1913年夏尔·罗贝尔·里歇法国“在过敏反应研究上的工作” 1914年罗伯特·巴拉尼奥地利“在前庭器官的生理学与病理学研究上的工作”1919年朱尔·博尔代比利时“免疫性方面的发现” 1920年奥古斯特·克罗丹麦“发现毛细血管运动的调节机理” 1922年阿奇博尔德·希尔英国“在肌肉产生热量上的发现” 奥托·迈尔霍夫德国 “发现肌肉中氧的消耗和乳酸代谢之间的固定关 系” 1923年弗雷德里克·格兰特·班 廷 加拿大 “发现胰岛素”约翰·麦克劳德加拿大 1924年威廉·埃因托芬荷兰“发明心电图装置”1926年约翰尼斯·菲比格丹麦“发现鼠癌” 1927年朱利叶斯·瓦格纳-尧雷 格 奥地利 “发现在治疗麻痹性痴呆过程中疟疾接种疗法的 治疗价值”

2首届诺贝尔奖颁发

2首届诺贝尔奖颁发 学习目标： 1、了解课文内容，理解作者通过新闻事实传达出的观点。 2、理清课文的新闻要素，了解消息在写作方式和语言等方面的主要特点。 3、学习消息的“倒金字塔结构”。 学习重难点： 重点：1、了解课文内容，理解作者通过新闻事实传达出的观点。 2、理清课文的新闻要素，了解消息在写作方式和语言等方面的主要特点。 难点：学习消息的“倒金字塔结构”，了解消息在写作方式和语言等方面的主要特点。 学法指导： 1、指导学生梳理新闻“六要素”，从“何时、何地、何人、何事”等角度全面把握课文的内容。 2、倒金字塔结构是按照新闻价值的大小，即新闻事实的重要程度、新鲜程度，以及读者感兴趣的程度等，依次将新闻事实写出的一种结构形式。由于这种结构格局前边重、后边轻，上头大、下头小，所以称之为“倒金字塔”。学生分析标题、导语、主体部分的新闻要素，体会消息的“倒金字塔”结构。 学习目标：1、了解课文内容，理解作者通过新闻事实传达出的观点。2、理清课文的新闻要素，学习消息的“倒金字塔结构”，了解消息在写作方式和语言等方面的主要特点。 一、导入新课 2012年12月10日，在瑞典首都斯德哥尔摩音乐厅举行的诺贝尔奖颁奖仪式上，中国作家莫言从瑞典国王卡尔十六世·古斯塔夫手中领取了诺贝尔文学奖。2015年，中国药学家屠呦呦再次荣获诺贝尔医学奖。在世界科学史上，有这样一位伟大的科学家——他不仅把自己的毕生精力全部贡献给了科学事业，而且在身后留下遗嘱，把自己的遗产全部捐献给科学事业，用以奖励后人勇攀科学高峰。他就是诺贝尔。今天，以他的名字命名的科学奖，已成为举世瞩目的最高荣誉奖。想知道首届诺贝尔奖得主都有谁吗？这节课，让我们一起学习《首届诺贝尔奖颁发》这则消息。 二、自主学习 目标导学一：速读课文，自主解决文章生字生词。 1、学生查阅资料，了解诺贝尔生平及诺贝尔奖的相关资料。 2、初读课文，结合课下注释、借助工具书解决生字生词。（多媒体展示PPT） A、给下列加点的字注音。 颁．发(bān)仲．裁(zhòng) 遗嘱．(zhǔ) 渗．透(shèn) 联盟．(méng) 巨额．(é) 卓．有成效(zhuó) B、理解下面的词语含义。 颁发：授予(勋章、奖状、证书等)。 遗嘱：指遗嘱人生前在法律允许的范围内，按照法律规定的方式对其遗产或其他事务所作的个人处分，并于遗嘱人死亡时发生效力的法律行为。 建树：成就；功绩。 联盟：指个人、集体或阶级的联合体。 仲裁：公认的第三者在争端两方间进行裁定公断。

课首届诺贝尔奖颁发

《首届诺贝尔奖》教学设计 教材来源：部编人教课标版八年级语文上册 内容来源：第一单元第二课 主题：新闻资讯 课型：新授课 课时设计：2课时 设计者：张旭花/巩义市米河镇第一初中 目标制定的依据： 课标要求： 1、阅读新闻，能把握文章的基本观点，获取主要信息。 2、在通读课文的基础上，理清思路，理解、分析主要内容，体味和推敲重要词句在语言环境中的意义和作用。 3、在阅读中了解叙述、描写、说明、议论、抒情等表达方式。 4、对课文的内容和表达有自己的心得，能提出自己的看法，并能运用合作的方式，共同探讨分析、解决疑难问题。 教材分析： 《首届诺贝尔奖颁发》是人教版初中语文八年级上册（2017年秋季修订版）新选入的课文。这篇课文选自《百年好文章——路透社新闻佳作》，这篇新闻所报道的是首届诺贝尔奖颁发的具体情况。文中详细列举了获奖者的国籍、姓名、所获奖项和所做贡献。同时也明确了颁奖机构，颁奖时间、地点等等，事实准确，内容详略得当，是新闻中的佳作。 学情分析： 新闻报道是电视、广播、报刊等媒介上常见的一种应用文体，但学生因为成长经历、认识体验、兴趣爱好等原因可能不太关注，也不甚了解。因此需要鼓励学生先行收集有关新闻知识，同时联系旧知，简要复习记叙六要素等知识，引导学生在初读过程中迅速把握课文结构以及主要内容。 教学目标： 1、通过分析消息的内容，进一步掌握消息文体特点。 、品味语言，理解新闻语言的准确性2． 3、学习消息的“倒金字塔结构”。 4、重点把握通过概述伦琴等人所作出的巨大贡献，归结诺贝尔宽广胸怀。 教学重点：把握新闻的特点，新闻的结构，了解导语的作用。 教学难点：补叙作用 评价任务： 1、通过活动1活动2达成学习目标1。 2、通过活动3达成学习目标2。 3、通过活动4达成学习目标3。 4、通过活动5达成学习目标4。 评价标准 1、能准确找出消息的六要素，正确标出消息的导语和主体 2、能够结合消息内容的安排说出倒金字塔式的特点

历年与生物有关的诺贝尔奖

1901年（第一届诺贝尔奖颁发），德国科学家贝林(Emil von Behring)因血清疗法防治白喉、破伤风获诺贝尔生理学或医学奖。 1902年，德国科学家费雪(Emil Fischer)因合成嘌呤及其衍生物多肽获诺贝尔化学奖。 美国科学家罗斯(Ronald Ross)因发现疟原虫通过疟蚊传入人体的途径获诺贝尔生理学或医学奖。 1903年，丹麦科学家芬森(Niels Ryberg Finsen)因光辐射疗法治疗皮肤病获诺贝尔生理学或医学奖。 1904年，俄国科学家巴浦洛夫(Ivan Pavlov)因消化生理学研究的巨大贡献获诺贝尔生理学或医学奖。 1905年，德国科学家科赫(Robert Koch)因对细菌学的发展获诺贝尔生理学或医学奖。 1906年，意大利科学家戈尔吉(Camillo Golgi)和西班牙科学家拉蒙·卡哈尔(Santiago Ramóny Cajal)因对神经系统结构的研究而共同获得诺贝尔生理学或医学奖。 1907年，德国科学家毕希纳因发现无细胞发酵获诺贝尔化学奖。 法国科学家阿方·拉瓦拉(Alphonse Laveran)因发现疟原虫在致病中的作用获诺贝尔生理学或医学奖。 1908年，德国科学家埃尔利希(Paul Ehrlich)因发明“606”、俄国科学家梅奇尼科夫(Hya Mechaikov)因对免疫性的研究而共同获得诺贝尔生理学或医学奖。 1909年，瑞士科学家柯赫尔(Theodor Kocher)因对甲状腺生理、病理及外科手术的研究获诺贝尔生理学或医学奖。 1910年，俄国科学家科塞尔（Albrecht Kossel）因研究细胞化学蛋白质及核质获诺贝尔生理学或医学奖。 1911年，瑞典科学家古尔斯特兰(Allvar gullstrand)因研究眼的屈光学获诺贝尔生理学或医学奖。 1912年，法国医生卡雷尔(Alexis Carrel)因血管缝合和器官移植获诺贝尔生理学或医学奖。 1913年，法国科学家里歇特(Charles Richet)因对过敏性的研究获诺贝尔生理学或医学奖。 1914年，奥地利科学家巴拉尼(Robert barany)因前庭器官方面的研究获诺贝尔生理学或医学奖。 1915年，德国科学家威尔泰特(Richard Willstatter)因对叶绿素化学结构的研究获诺贝尔化学奖。 1916年，1917年，1918年，（无）1919年，比利时科学家博尔德(Jules Bordet)因发现免疫力，建立新的免疫学诊断法获诺贝尔生理学或医学奖。 1920年，丹麦科学家克罗格(August Krogh)因发现毛细血管的调节机理获诺贝尔生理学或医学奖。 1921年，（无） 1922年，英国科学家希尔(Archibald 因发现肌肉生热，德国科学家迈尔霍夫(Otto Meyerhof)因研究肌肉中氧的消耗和乳酸代谢而共同获得诺贝尔生理学或医学奖。1923年，加拿大科学家班廷(Frederick 、英国科学家麦克劳德(John Macleod)因发现胰岛素而共同获得诺贝尔生理学或医学奖。 1924年，荷兰科学家埃因托芬(Willem Einthoven)因发现心电图机制获诺贝尔生理学或医学奖。 1925年，（无） 1926年，丹麦医生菲比格(Johannes Fibiger)因对癌症的研究获诺贝尔生理学或医学奖。 1927年，德国科学家维兰德(Heinrich Wieland)因发现胆酸及其化学结构获诺贝尔化学奖。 奥地利医生尧雷格(Julius Wagner-Jauregg)因研究精神病学、治疗麻痹性痴呆获诺贝尔生理学或医学奖。 1928年，德国科学家温道斯(Adolf Windaus)因研究丙醇及其维生素的关系获诺贝尔化学奖。 法国科学家尼科尔因对斑疹伤寒的研究获诺贝尔生理学或医学奖。 1929年，英国科学家哈登(Arthur Harden)因有关糖的发酵和酶在发酵中作用研究、瑞典科学家奥伊勒歇尔平(Hans Yon Euler-Chelpin)因有关糖的发酵和酶在发酵中作用而共同获得诺贝尔化学奖。 荷兰科学家艾克曼(Christiaan Eijkman)因发现防治脚气病的维生素B1、英国科学家霍普金斯(Sir Frederick Hopkins)因发现促进生命生长的维生素而共同获得诺贝尔生理学或医学奖。 1930年，德国科学家费歇尔(Hans Fischer)因研究血红素和叶绿素，合成血红素获诺贝尔化学奖。 美国科学家兰斯坦纳(Karl Landsteiner)因研究人体血型分类、并发现四种主要血型获诺贝尔生理学或医学奖。 1931年，德国科学家瓦尔堡(Otto Warburg)因发现呼吸酶的性质及作用获诺贝尔生理学或医学奖。 1932年，英国科学家艾德里安(Edgar Adrian)因发现神经元的功能、英国科学家谢

历届(1901-2019)诺贝尔生理学或医学奖获奖者

诺贝尔生理学或医学奖历年获奖者(1901-2019)年份得主国家得奖原因 1901年埃米尔·阿道夫·冯·贝 林 德国 “对血清疗法的研究，特别是在治疗白喉应用上 的贡献，由此开辟了医学领域研究的新途径，也 因此使得医生手中有了对抗疾病和死亡的有力武 器” 1902年罗纳德·罗斯[ 英国“在疟疾研究上的工作，由此显示了疟疾如何进入生物体，也因此为成功地研究这一疾病以及对抗这一疾病的方法奠定了基础” 1903年尼尔斯·吕贝里·芬森丹麦“在用集中的光辐射治疗疾病，特别是寻常狼疮方面的贡献，由此开辟了医学研究的新途径” 1904年伊万·巴甫洛夫俄罗斯“在消化的生理学研究上的工作，这一主题的重要方面的知识由此被转化和扩增” 1905年} 罗伯特·科赫 德国“对结核病的相关研究和发现” 1906年卡米洛·高尔基意大利 “在神经系统结构研究上的工作”圣地亚哥·拉蒙-卡哈尔西班牙 * 1907年夏尔·路易·阿方斯·拉 韦朗 法国“对原生动物在致病中的作用的研究” 1908年伊拉·伊里奇·梅契尼 科夫 俄罗斯 “在免疫性研究上的工作”保罗·埃尔利希德国 1909年埃米尔·特奥多尔·科 赫尔 瑞士 “对甲状腺的生理学、病理学以及外科学上的研 究” 1910年阿尔布雷希特·科塞尔德国“通过对包括细胞核物质在内的蛋白质的研究，为了解细胞化学做出的贡献” 1911年阿尔瓦·古尔斯特兰德— 瑞典 “在眼睛屈光学研究上的工作” 1912年亚历克西·卡雷尔法国“在血管结构以及血管和器官移植研究上的工作” 1913年夏尔·罗贝尔·里歇法国“在过敏反应研究上的工作” 1914年@ 罗伯特·巴拉尼 奥地利“在前庭器官的生理学与病理学研究上的工作”1919年朱尔·博尔代比利时“免疫性方面的发现” 1920年奥古斯特·克罗丹麦“发现毛细血管运动的调节机理” ~ 1922年阿奇博尔德·希尔英国“在肌肉产生热量上的发现” 奥托·迈尔霍夫德国 “发现肌肉中氧的消耗和乳酸代谢之间的固定关 系” 1923年弗雷德里克·格兰特·班 廷 加拿大% “发现胰岛素”

历届(1901-2019)诺贝尔生理学或医学奖获奖者

诺贝尔生理学或医学奖历年获奖者(1901-2019) 年份得主国家得奖原因 1901年埃米尔·阿道夫·冯·贝 林 德国 “对血清疗法的研究，特别是在治疗白喉应用上 的贡献，由此开辟了医学领域研究的新途径，也 因此使得医生手中有了对抗疾病和死亡的有力武 器” 1902年罗纳德·罗斯英国“在疟疾研究上的工作，由此显示了疟疾如何进入生物体，也因此为成功地研究这一疾病以及对抗这一疾病的方法奠定了基础” 1903年尼尔斯·吕贝里·芬森丹麦“在用集中的光辐射治疗疾病，特别是寻常狼疮方面的贡献，由此开辟了医学研究的新途径” 1904年伊万·巴甫洛夫俄罗斯“在消化的生理学研究上的工作，这一主题的重要方面的知识由此被转化和扩增” 1905年罗伯特·科赫德国“对结核病的相关研究和发现” 1906年卡米洛·高尔基意大利 “在神经系统结构研究上的工作”圣地亚哥·拉蒙-卡哈尔西班牙 1907年夏尔·路易·阿方斯·拉 韦朗 法国“对原生动物在致病中的作用的研究” 1908年伊拉·伊里奇·梅契尼 科夫 俄罗斯 “在免疫性研究上的工作”保罗·埃尔利希德国 1909年埃米尔·特奥多尔·科 赫尔 瑞士 “对甲状腺的生理学、病理学以及外科学上的研 究” 1910年阿尔布雷希特·科塞尔德国“通过对包括细胞核物质在内的蛋白质的研究，为了解细胞化学做出的贡献” 1911年阿尔瓦·古尔斯特兰德瑞典“在眼睛屈光学研究上的工作” 1912年亚历克西·卡雷尔法国“在血管结构以及血管和器官移植研究上的工作” 1913年夏尔·罗贝尔·里歇法国“在过敏反应研究上的工作” 1914年罗伯特·巴拉尼奥地利“在前庭器官的生理学与病理学研究上的工作”1919年朱尔·博尔代比利时“免疫性方面的发现” 1920年奥古斯特·克罗丹麦“发现毛细血管运动的调节机理” 1922年阿奇博尔德·希尔英国“在肌肉产生热量上的发现” 奥托·迈尔霍夫德国 “发现肌肉中氧的消耗和乳酸代谢之间的固定关 系” 1923年弗雷德里克·格兰特·班 廷 加拿大 “发现胰岛素”约翰·麦克劳德加拿大 1924年威廉·埃因托芬荷兰“发明心电图装置”1926年约翰尼斯·菲比格丹麦“发现鼠癌”

《首届诺贝尔奖颁发》教案

2首届诺贝尔奖颁发 教学目标 知识与能力 1．巩固上一课所学的消息的知识，继续培养学生阅读消息的能力。 2．学习理清本课这则消息的层次，品味文章的语言特色。 过程与方法 1．让学生在阅读中培养快速阅读能力，运用所学的消息知识阅读本课文章。 2．引导学生结合课文旁批，了解这则消息的结构和内容。 情感态度与价值观 1．体会诺贝尔奖在促进世界科学发展中的巨大作用，培养科学精神。 2．感受人类精英对人类历史发展所做出的巨大贡献，激发民族自信心和对民族文化的热爱之情。 教学重难点 教学重点 分析这则消息的结构，理解其内容，提高学生阅读消息的能力。 教学难点 品味消息准确精练的语言，学习写作消息。 课时安排 1课时 教学过程 一、新课导入 2012年12月10日，在瑞典首都斯德哥尔摩音乐厅举行的诺贝尔奖颁奖仪式上，中国作家莫言从瑞典国王卡尔十六世·古斯塔夫手中领取了诺贝尔文学奖。2015年，中国药学家屠呦呦再次荣获诺贝尔生理学或医学奖。在世界科学史上，有这样一位伟大的科学家——他不仅把自己的毕生精力全部贡献给了科学事业，而且在身后留下遗嘱，把自己的遗产全部捐献给科学事业，用以奖励后人勇攀科学高峰。他就是诺贝尔。今天，以他的名字命名的科学

奖，已成为举世瞩目的最高荣誉奖。想知道首届诺贝尔奖得主都有谁吗？这节课，让我们一起学习《首届诺贝尔奖颁发》这则消息。 二、自主预习 1．背景资料 阿尔弗雷德·贝恩哈德·诺贝尔(1833—1896)，瑞典化学家、工程师、发明家、军工装备制造商和炸药的发明者。诺贝尔一生拥有355项专利发明，并在欧美等五大洲20个国家开设了约100家公司和工厂，积累了巨额财富。 1895年，诺贝尔立嘱将其遗产的大部分(约920万美元)作为基金，将每年所得利息分为5份，设立诺贝尔奖，分为物理学奖、化学奖、生理学或医学奖、文学奖及和平奖5种奖金(1969年瑞典银行增设经济学奖)，授予世界各国在这些领域对人类做出重大贡献的人。为了纪念诺贝尔做出的贡献，人造元素锘(Nobelium)以诺贝尔命名。 2．检查预习 (1)订正字音 颁．发(bān) 仲．裁(zhòng) 遗嘱．(zhǔ) 渗．透(shèn) 联盟．(méng) 巨额．(é) 卓．有成效(zhuó) (2)词语释义 颁发：授予(勋章、奖状、证书等)。 遗嘱：指遗嘱人生前在法律允许的范围内，按照法律规定的方式对其遗产或其他事务所作的个人处分，并于遗嘱人死亡时发生效力的法律行为。 建树：成就；功绩。 联盟：指个人、集体或阶级的联合体。 仲裁：公认的第三者在争端两方间进行裁定公断。 巨额：数量很大的(钱财)。 (3)词语辨析 “颁发”和“颁布”两个词都有“公布”的意思。“颁发”另外还有授予(勋章、奖状、证书等)的意思。“颁布”着重指向下颁发，颁布者一般是高级领导机关或成员，内容常常是法令等。 三、合作探究 (一)初读课文，整体感知

首届诺贝尔奖颁发 说课稿

2首届诺贝尔奖颁发 1、 说教材 本文出自部编版八年级语文上册第一单元的一篇课文，属于一篇消息。介绍了诺贝尔奖设立的宗旨，首届获奖者的基本情况及主要成就，诺贝尔奖的颁奖机构、时间、地点及奖金来源。 2、 说学生 对于八年级的学生来说，阅读消息已经没有障碍，但是分析消息，掌握消息的结构，概括主要内容，以及品析文中重要词语的含义及表达效果仍有难度。 三、说教学目标 1、把握首届诺贝尔奖颁发的内容，进一步掌握消息文体特点。 2、了解伦琴等人所作出的巨大贡献，体会诺贝尔宽广胸怀。 3、理清新闻的内容、要素、结构，体会语言的真实准确。 四、说重点难点 重点：把握新闻的特点，重点把握新闻的结构，了解导语的作用。 难点：补叙作用。 5、 教学方法：合作学习、教师点拨 6、 教学准备：PPT等 七、教学过程 一、导入新课。 2015年，中国医学家屠呦呦获得诺贝尔医学奖，成为第二个获得诺贝尔奖的中国人。什么是诺贝尔奖？首届诺贝尔奖得主都是谁？这节课，让我们一起学习《首届诺贝尔奖颁发》这则消息。 一提到诺贝尔，我们马上想到代表最高荣誉的诺贝尔奖，现在，让我们走进课文，了解首届诺贝尔奖设置、颁发的过程，感触诺贝尔激励后来科学研究的高尚品德。 二、文学常识。 诺贝尔奖，是以瑞典著名的化学家、硝化甘油炸药的发明人阿尔弗

雷德·贝恩哈德·诺贝尔的部分遗产 (3100万瑞典克朗)作为基金在1900年创立的，于1901年首次颁发。诺贝尔奖分设物理学、化学、生理学或医学、文学及和平五个奖项，以基金每年的利息或投资收益授予世界上在这些领域对人类做出重大贡献的人，于1901年首次颁发。 三、字词积累 1、生字 颁发( )挪威( ) 遗嘱( ) 渗透( ) 炸药( ) 仲裁( ) 卓有成就( ) 2、词语 【遗嘱】 【渗透】 【建树】 【仲裁】 【卓有成就】 四、整体感知 1.默读课文，把握消息的时间、地点、人物和事件。 时间：1901年12月10日； 地点：瑞典的斯德哥尔摩； 人物：瑞典国王和挪威诺贝尔基金会； 事件：首次颁发诺贝尔奖。 2.导语都讲了哪些内容？主体部分讲了哪些内容？ 导语部分讲了首届诺贝尔奖颁发和诺贝尔的遗嘱。 主体部分讲了首届诺贝尔奖获得者及其贡献，诺贝尔奖颁发的机构、时间及地点，诺贝尔奖的奖金来源及评审权等消息背景。 3.你认为这则消息的背景部分可以删去吗？ 不可以。背景部分交代了诺贝尔奖资金的来源以及诺贝尔奖评议权

历届诺贝尔化学奖获得者名单及贡献

历届诺贝尔化学奖获得者名单及贡献 1901-荷兰科学家范托霍夫因化学动力学和渗透压定律获诺贝尔化学奖。 1902-德国科学家费雪因合成嘌呤及其衍生物多肽获诺贝尔化学奖。 1903-瑞典科学家阿伦纽斯因电解质溶液电离解理论获诺贝尔化学奖。 1904-英国科学家拉姆赛因发现六种惰性所体，并确定它们在元素周期表中的位置获得诺贝尔化学奖。 1905-德国科学家拜耳因研究有机染料及芳香剂等有机化合物获得诺贝尔化学奖。 1906-法国科学家穆瓦桑因分离元素氟、发明穆瓦桑熔炉获得诺贝尔化学奖。 1907-德国科学家毕希纳因发现无细胞发酵获诺贝尔化学奖。 1908-英国科学家卢瑟福因研究元素的蜕变和放射化学获诺贝尔化学奖。 1909-德国科学家奥斯特瓦尔德因催化、化学平衡和反应速度方面的开创性工作获诺贝尔化学奖。 1910-德国科学家瓦拉赫因脂环族化合作用方面的开创性工作获诺贝尔化学奖。 1911-法国科学家玛丽·居里(居里夫人)因发现镭和钋，并分离出镭获诺贝尔化学奖。 1912-德国科学家格利雅因发现有机氢化物的格利雅试剂法、法国科学家萨巴蒂埃因研究金属催化加氢在有机化合成中的应用而共同获得诺贝尔化学奖。 1913-瑞士科学家韦尔纳因分子中原子键合方面的作用获诺贝尔化学奖。 1914-美国科学家理查兹因精确测定若干种元素的原子量获诺贝尔化学奖。 1915-德国科学家威尔泰特因对叶绿素化学结构的研究获诺贝尔化学奖。

1916-1917-1918-德国科学家哈伯因氨的合成获诺贝尔化学奖。 1919-1920-德国科学家能斯脱因发现热力学第三定律获诺贝尔化学奖。 (1921年补发)1921-英国科学家索迪因研究放射化学、同位素的存在和性质获诺贝尔化学奖。 1922-英国科学家阿斯顿因用质谱仪发现多种同位素并发现原子获诺贝尔化学奖。 1923-奥地利科学家普雷格尔因有机物的微量分析法获诺贝尔化学奖。 1924-1925-奥地利科学家席格蒙迪因阐明胶体溶液的复相性质获诺贝尔化学奖。 1926-瑞典科学家斯韦德堡因发明高速离心机并用于高分散胶体物质的研究获诺贝尔化学奖。 1927-德国科学家维兰德因发现胆酸及其化学结构获诺贝尔化学奖。 1928-德国科学家温道斯因研究丙醇及其维生素的关系获诺贝尔化学奖。 1929-英国科学家哈登因有关糖的发酵和酶在发酵中作用研究、瑞典科学家奥伊勒歇尔平因有关糖的发酵和酶在发酵中作用而共同获得诺贝尔化学奖。 1930-德国科学家费歇尔因研究血红素和叶绿素，合成血红素获诺贝尔化学奖。 1931-德国科学家博施、伯吉龙斯因发明高压上应用的高压方法而共同获得诺贝尔化学奖。 1932-美国科学家朗缪尔因提出并研究表面化学获诺贝尔化学奖。 1933-1934-美国科学家尤里因发现重氢获诺贝尔化学奖。 1935-法国科学家约里奥·居里因合成人工放射性元素获诺贝尔化学奖。 1936-荷兰科学家德拜因 X射线的偶极矩和衍射及气体中的电子方面的研究获诺贝尔化学奖。