GCT综合英语第10单元课文翻译

仅做参考好好学习，天天向上Unit10PartBTheSocialControlofScienceandTechnology对科学和技术的社会监督Scienceandtechnologyarenotsimplytheworkofisolatedindividuals:theselectionofresearchproblemsandtherateanddirectionofinnovationarestronglyinfluencedbysocialforces.Itisnoaccident,forexample,thatsomuchappliedresearchintheUnitedStatesfocusesonthedevelopmentofmilitaryandcommercialproducts.Itfollowsthatscienceandtechnologycan'tberegardedassomehowindependentofsociety.Likeanyotherculturalproducts,theyarecreatedandcontrolledbycountlessindividualmenandwomen.Thedifficultyisthatthiscontrolishaphazard.Wehavecreatedacomplexinstitutiontoensurethedevelopmentofscienceandtechnology,butwehavecreatedfewmeansofmonitoringandcontrollingtheireffects—despitetheimpacttheseeffectscanhaveonthesocialorder.科学和技术不仅仅是孤立的个人的工作:研究课题的选择、创新的进度和方向均受社会力量的影响。这并非偶然，例如：在美国，许多应用研究的重点是发展军事和金融产品。因此，科学和技术不能被视为如何独立的社会。像任何其他文化产品，它们是被无数个男人和女人建立和控制的。困难的是,这种控制是偶然的。我们已经创造了一个复杂的制度以确保科技的发展,但是我们很少监控他们的影响——尽管这方面可能对社会秩序产生影响。Thelackofsystematicsocialcontroloverscientificandtechnologicalinnovationpresentsthreemainproblems:(1)Arelativelyhaphazardscientificandtechnologicaladvancemayhavemanyunforeseensocialeffects,particularlyintermsofthequalityoftheenvironment.Consider,forexample,thegrowinglistofchemicalandfoodadditivesthatmaycontributetohumancancers;theincreasingatmosphericpollutionthatsomescientiststhinkmayleadtoclimaticchangeswhichcouldcauseanewiceage;themountinghealthproblemscausedbychemicalwastesthathavebeenimproperlydisposedof;andtheominousthreatofmajoraccidentsinnuclearpowerplants.缺乏有系统的社会控制科学和技术的创新有如下三个问题：(1)相对盲目科技进步可能有许多无法预知的社会影响,特别是在环境质量方面。设想一下,例如,越来越多的化工和食品添加剂,可能导致人类得癌症;部分科学家们认为大气污染的增加,可能导致气候变化，这种变化会导致一个新的冰河时期;化学废物的处置不当会造成越来越多的健康问题，核电站重大事故的潜在威胁。(2)Unlesssocietyensuresthatinnovationsinscienceandtechnologytakeplaceinaccordancewithdefinedsocialgoals,theremaybedistortionintheprioritiesgiventoresearcheffortsindifferentfields.Criticsarguethatundertheexistingarrangements,scarceandvaluableresourcesmaybedevotedtoproducingsuchtriviaasself-heatingshavingcream,whentheymightotherwisebedevotedtomoresociallydesirableends,suchasmedicalresearchorenergyconservation.(2),除非社会能够确保科技创新的发生有明确的社会目标，在不同领域的研究工作按优先权的不同而顺序不同。批评者认为，在现有的安排下，稀缺和宝贵的资源可能会被用于生产类似于自加热剃须膏之类的产品，然而这些资源也可被用于如医疗研究或节能等更可取的地方(3)Ahighlytechnologicalsocietyposesapossiblethreattodemocracy.Publicparticipationinthedecision-makingprocessmaybecomedifficultbecausetherelevantfactsaboutmanyimportantissues—suchasthewisdomofbuildingnuclearbreederreactors—maybebeyondthecomprehensionofbothvotersandtheirelectedrepresentatives.Severalwritershavewarnedofthedangersoftechnocracy,orrulebyexperts.Inmoderncorporationsandgovernmentdepartmentstherealdecisionsareoftenmadebehindthescenesbyexpertswhosespecializedknowledgeandrecommendationsarerelieduponbythosewhoareofficiallyresponsibleforthedecisions.(3)高技术社会可能对民主带来了威胁。公众参与决策的过程可能变得困难,因为有关的事实表明许多重要课题是选民和他们选出的代表无法理解的，例如：智能建筑怒族和不明确的反应堆。几个作家已经对技术或专家规则发出警告。在现代企业和政府部门的真正的决定依赖于专家的专业知识和建议，但是这些均受制于对这些决定所负责的人的决定。Anyattempttoapplyamoresystematicformofsocialcontroloverscienceandtechnologywouldprobablyrunintosevereproblems.Onesuchprobleminvolvesaconflictofvalues.andideallythisactivityshouldtakeplaceinanatmosphereofcompleteintellectualfreedom.Thereareenoughunhappyexamplesinthepastofnonscientistsattemptingtodictatetoscientistswhattheyshouldandshouldnotinvestigate;weshouldbewaryofdoingthesame.Shouldweimposerestrictionsonresearch,andifso,whatrestrictions?Asimilarconflictofvaluesmightariseifsocietyattemptedtoshiftprioritiesinappliedresearchfromthemanufactureoftrivialcommercialproductstoothersocialgoals.RadicalchangesintheseprioritieswouldinevitablyinterferewiththeworkingofthecapitalistsystemthatmostAmericansvaluesohighly.关于科学与技术的应用系统形式的社会控制可能导致严重的问题。其中的一个问题是价值冲突。科学对象是对知识的追求，理想状态下，这种活动在一个完整的知识自由的氛围下产生。许多不幸的例子表明，在过去非科学家告诉科学家什么该做，什么不该做。我们担心类似事情的发生。我们应该对研究施加限制吗？如果是，是那种限制那？如果社会试图将优先权从琐碎的商业产品制造转向其他社会的目标将会产生类似的价值观的冲突。彻底改变这些优先权不可避免地会妨碍资本主义制度的运作,这种制度是大多数美国人所支持的。Anotherprobleminvolvesthemoralresponsibilityfordecisionsaboutresearchthatmayhavefar-reachingconsequences.Thedevelopmentofthehydrogenbombisbutoneexampleofmanyinwhichtechnicalandmoralissuesarenoteasilyseparatedinpractice.Atpresent,scientistsusuallycan'tanddonotcontroltheusestowhichtheirworkisput,althoughtherearesignsthatmanyscientistsarenowverydisturbedaboutthissituation.Oughttheresponsibilityfordecisionsaboutnewresearchandtechnologyrestwithscientiststhemselves,orwithgovernment,orwithsomenewcontrolagencysuchasa"sciencecourt"withfulllegalpowerstorestrictcertainresearch?Thequestionisavitalone,forscientificandtechnologicaladvanceintheyearsaheadmaychangeourmaterialandsocialenvironmentinwaysthatmanypeoplemightconsiderundesirable.另一个问题涉及道德责任的研究可能有深远的影响。氢弹的发展就是许多在技术和道德的问题并不是容易分离中的其中一个例子。目前科学家通常不能也无法控制他们在工作中的使用，有迹象显示，现在许多科学家都对这种情况感到不安。关于新研究技术的责任取决于科学家本身，还是政府，还是类似于“科学法院”之类的具有充分的法律权力科学研究机构。科学和技术在未来几年内的进步可能会改变我们的物质和社会环境，这可能是很多人所不喜欢的。Someofthescientificresearchcurrentlyinprogressillustratesthesignificanceofthisproblem.Scientistsarenowworkingontechniquesthatmaymakeitpossibleforparentstodeterminethesexoftheirchildren.Ifamarketableproducteventuallyemerges,commercialinterestsmayencouragewidespreadsexselectionofchildren.Thismaysoundlikesociallyusefultechnologyuntilweconsideronefactor.OpinionpollsintheUnitedStatesandelsewherehaveindicatedthatalargemajorityofparentswouldprefertohaveboysratherthangirls.Theresultofsexselectionmightbeasocietyinwhichmalesheavilyoutnumberfemales,withimportanteffectsonpopulationstructure,familypatterns,andsexualnorms.Dowewantthiskindofsituation,andshouldthedecisionbelefttocommercialinterests?目前一些科学研究的紧张表明这种问题的严重性。科学家们现在正致力于父母决定孩子的性别技术的研究。如果最终出现一个适销对路的产品，商业利益可能鼓励孩子的性别的选择。直到我们考虑的因素之一，这听起来像是对社会有用的技术。民意调查显示,在美国和其他地方,大多数的父母希望男孩多于女孩。性别选择的结果是：可能在一个社会里，男性的数量远远超过了女性的数量，这将对人口结构、,家庭模式,和性准则产生重要影响。我们真的希望这种情况发生吗？这种事情应交由商业利益来决定吗？Anothercontroversialfieldofresearchinvolvesthere-arrangementoflivingmolecules,inparticulartheDNAmoleculethatdeterminesthehereditaryofalllivingthings.Thisresearchcanhavemanyuses,rangingfromthecontrolofinsectpeststothetreatmentofcancers.Thedangerexists,however,thatnewandharmfulstrainsofvirusesandbacteriacanbecreatedinthecourseofthisresearch.Humanbeingswouldhavenonaturalimmunitytothesestrains.Lossofcontroloversuchnewlifeformscouldleadtocatastrophic,worldwideepidemics.ScientistshavebeenquicktorecognizethisdangerandhavethemselvessetupstrictguidelinesandsafetyproceduresforDNAresearch.Somescientists,however,believethateventhesesafeguardsareinadequateandhavecalledforatotalbanonthiskindofresearch.另一个争议的研究领域涉及重新安排的生物分子，特别是在决定了万物的遗传的DNA分子。本研究可以有许多用途,从病虫害到癌症的治疗。然而危险依然存在，一些人类没有天然免疫的新的和有害的细菌和病毒菌株能在研究过程中被创造出来。对这种新的生命形式的控制损失，可能会导致灾难性的后果，全球的流行病。科学家们很快就认识到这种危险，并有自己建立的关于DNA研究的严格的指导方针和安全程序。然而，一些科学家认为，即使这些保障措施是不够的，并已呼吁全面禁止这方面的研究。TheseareexamplesoftheproblemsposedbyscienceandtechnologythatweinAmericaandothersocietiesface.Scienceandtechnologyhavedevelopedfarfasterthanhavesocialmechanismstocontrolthem.Acenturyago,sciencewasofmarginalimportancetosocietyandtechnologywasrelativelyundeveloped.Todaytheyoffertheprospectofsocialupheavalandeventhedestructionofhumanlife—orthepotentialforunprecedentedsocialbenefitsandnewlevelsofcivilizedexistence.Anurgentsocialchallengeinthefuturewillbetoensurethatscienceandtechnologydevelopexclusivelyintheseconddirection.这些都是科学和技术所造成的问题，这些问题在美国和其他国家正在面临。科学和技术的快速发展已经超出社会机制的控制。一个世纪前,科学对社会重要性不大，技术比较落后。今天,他们提供的社会动荡的前景,甚至能够破坏人类生活——或潜在的空前的社会效益和新层次的文明的存在。一个紧迫的社会挑战的未来将是确保科学和技术发展完全在第一方向。PassageOneSomeanalystsconsidertheprocessofautomationasecondindustrialrevolutionwiththepotentialityforsocialupheavalthatmarkedthebirthofthefactoryacenturyandahalfago.Othersinsistitisjustanotherstepinindustry'sprogresstowardgreaterefficiency,nodifferentinitsbasicattributesfromanyofthetechnologicaladvancesthathavehelpedraiseAmericanwages,employmenttotalsandlivingstandards.Congressionalinvestigations,puzzledaboutwhatactionthegovernmentshouldtake,havebeentoldbyunionleadersthatautomationthreatensmassunemploymentandbybusinessexecutivesthatitwillbringunparalleledprosperity.Engineerssaythatpush-buttonfactoriesmayeventuallypermitaworkscheduleinwhichtheweek-endwillbelongerthantheweek.Educatorsseethisleisurepromotingascholasticrenaissanceinwhichculturalattainmentswillbecometheyardstickofsocialrecognitionforworkerandbossalike.Gloomierobserversfearthetrendtoward"inhumanproduction"willendbymakingmenobsolete.Thepassageisprimarilyconcernedwith_____.A.robotsatworkB.machinesvsmankindC.speculationsonautomationD.ourrisingstandardofliving2.Thepassagestatesthatautomationhas_____.A.causedgreatsocialchangesB.madetheUnitedStatesamoreculturalandemployeesC.broughtaboutbetterrelationsbetweenemployersandemployeesD.alreadybeenbroughttotheattentionofCongress3.Whichofthefollowingstatementsistrue?A.Thegovernmentfavorsautomation.B.Industryhasmadegreatadvancesinthepast150yearsC.Engineersopposeautomation.D.Morepeoplefavorautomationthanopposeit.4.Thepositionoftheauthoristo____.A.presentunfavorableopinionsonautomationB.convincethereadersofthebenefitsofautomationC.presentdifferentopinionsonautomationD.urgethegovernmenttopromoteautomation5.Whoseopinionindicatesthatautomationwillbringgreatsocialchange?A.Someanalysts.B.Unionleaders.C.Education.D.Someobservers.PassageTwoTheannouncementthatEngland'smadcowdiseasewasinvolvedin10casesofafatalhumanbraindisorderhasbeenmetwithunderstandablehysteria.ThemarketforBritishbeefcollapsed,100,000farmers'jobsareinjeopardy,andthegovernmentistryingtodefuseacrisisthatcouldcausebillionsofdollarsinlosses.Butwhatisstrikingaboutthesituationishowsharplythedecisivepublicreactiontothecrisiscontrastswiththecautiouslanguageintheannouncement.Scientistssaidconsumptionofcontaminatedbeefwas"themostlikelyexplanation"for10casesofasimilarhumanillnesscalledCreutzfeldt-Jakobdisease—nothingmorethanthat.Thecrisisisatellingexampleofaphenomenonoccurringevermorefrequently:acomplexscientificdebateissuddenlythrustuponananxiouspublicthatisill-equippedtounderstandit.Instantcommunications,combinedwiththegreaterwillingnessofgovernmentandindustryleaderstogopublicwiththeirscientificdispute,triggerconcern.Thecoreofrealsciencegetsoverwhelmedbyaflurryof"junkscience"—conflictingstatementsbypoliticians,confusingpressreports,legaldepositions,evenduelingads.Therealproblemisthenatureofscientificinquiry,whichinevitablyinvolvesuncertainty.Researcherscannotsayconclusivelywhethermadcowdiseaseposesarisktohumans.Theydon'tknowtheextentoftheepidemicorhowitcanbestopped.Indeed,theycan'tevenagreeonthecause."Thisistremendouslydifficultforthepublictosortout.Ifscientistsaredisagreeing,what'sthecitizentopresume?"asksPaulSlovic,anAmericanpsychologistatDecisionResearchinEugene.Onelessontobedrawnfromthemadcowcrisisisthatgovernmentsshouldn'tcutfundingforbasicresearch,whichcanhelppreventtomorrow'scrises.Buttheonlyrealsolutionisforgovernmentandindustryleaderstousescientificinformationresponsibly.Unresolvedscientificdisputeshavebecomeafactofmodernlife.Nothingelsesoclearlyillustratesscience'slimits.6.Theannouncementindicatingtheconnectionbetweenthemadcowdiseaseandthefatalhuma