小編整理了2015考研英語通過閱讀識單詞，希望大家能通過閱讀翻譯結(jié)合語境來牢記單詞意義。
To paraphrase 18th-century statesman Edmund Burke, all that is needed for the triumph of a misguided cause is that good people do nothing. “One such cause now seeks to end biomedical research because of the theory that animals have rights ruling out their use in research. Scientists need to respond forcefully to animal rights advocates, whose arguments are confusing the public and thereby threatening advances in heath knowledge and care. Leaders of the animal rights movement target biomedical research because it depends on public funding, and few people understand the process of health care research. Hearing allegations of cruelty to animals in research settings, many are perplexed that anyone would deliberately harm an animal.
For example, a grandmotherly woman staffing an animal rights booth at a recent street fair was distributing a brochure that encouraged readers not to use anything that opposed immunizations; she wanted to know if vaccines come from animal research. When assured that they do, she replied, “Then I would have to say yes.” Asked what will happen when epidemics return, she said, “Don’t worry, scientists will find some way of using computers.” Such well-meaning people just don’s understand.
Scientists must communicate their message to the public in a compassionate, understandable way in human terms, not in the language of molecular biology. We need to make clear the connection between animal research and a grandmother’s hip replacement, a father’s bypass operation, a baby’s vaccinations, and even a pet’s shots. To those who are unaware that animal research was needed to produce these treatments, as well as new treatments and vaccines, animal research seems wasteful at best and cruel at worst.
Much can be done. Scientists could “adopt” middle school classes and present their own research. They should be quick to respond to letters to the editor, lest animal rights misinformation go unchallenged and acquire a deceptive appearance of truth. Research institutions could be opened to tours; to show that laboratory animals receive humane care. Finally, because the ultimate stakeholders are patients, the health research community should actively recruit to its cause not only well-known personalities such as Stephen Cooper, who has made courageous statements about the value of animal research, but all who receive medical treatment. If good people do nothing there is a real possibility that an uninformed citizenry will extinguish the precious embers of medical progress.
譯文
為了解釋18世紀政治家愛蒙德·伯克的話，“被誤導(dǎo)的運動要想成功，所需的只是好人不作為?！爆F(xiàn)在，就有這樣的運動尋求終止生化研究，其依據(jù)是動物有權(quán)要求人們在研究活動中不再被使用的理論?？茖W(xué)家應(yīng)該對動物權(quán)利倡導(dǎo)者做出有力的反擊，因為這些人的觀點正在蠱惑公眾，從而威脅到了保健知識與醫(yī)療的發(fā)展。動物權(quán)利運動的之所以將目標對準生化研究，是因為生化研究依賴公共基金，而且?guī)缀鯖]有人理解保健醫(yī)療研究的作用。聽到有關(guān)在研究中殘忍對待動物的斷言，許多人感到困惑，以為任何人都會故意去傷害動物。
比如，在近的街頭集市上，一位在動物權(quán)利保護攤位服務(wù)的老太太在分發(fā)小冊子，鼓勵讀者不要使用任何來自于動物或在動物身上做過實驗的任何東西。當問及她是否反對免疫接種時，她說她想知道疫苗是否來自于動物實驗。當確信疫苗是來自于動物試驗時，她回答說：“那么，我得說我反對?！碑攩柤叭绻餍胁【硗林貋碓撛趺崔k時，她說：“不用擔心，科學(xué)家會利用計算機找到某種解決辦法的?！边@樣的好心人只是不了解情況。
科學(xué)家必須用一種富于同情，易于理解的方式將信息傳遞給公眾——用人性化的語言不是分子生物學(xué)的術(shù)語。我們必須澄清動物研究與祖母的髖骨置換、父親的旁道管手術(shù)、小孩的免疫接種甚至寵物的防疫注射之間的關(guān)系。對于那些不了解只有通過動物研究才能研制出治療方案、才能開發(fā)出新方案和新疫苗的人來說，動物研究說得好聽一點是浪費，說得難聽一點是殘忍。
有許多事情可以做到?？茖W(xué)家可以“走進”中學(xué)課堂，介紹他們的科研活動。他們應(yīng)盡快答復(fù)郵寄給編輯的來信，以防動物權(quán)利組織的錯誤信息沒有引起質(zhì)疑，從而蒙蔽真理。研究機構(gòu)也應(yīng)該向游客開放，以表明實驗室的動物受到了人道地對待。后，因為有利害關(guān)系是病人，所以，醫(yī)學(xué)研究界不僅要邀請像史蒂芬·庫伯(他已經(jīng)就動物的研究價值發(fā)表了勇敢的聲明)那樣的知名人士來支持自己的事業(yè)，還要邀請所有接受過醫(yī)療的人來支持自己。如果醫(yī)學(xué)研究人員再不采取行動，不明真理的公眾真有可能會不滅醫(yī)療發(fā)展的寶貴火種。
To paraphrase 18th-century statesman Edmund Burke, all that is needed for the triumph of a misguided cause is that good people do nothing. “One such cause now seeks to end biomedical research because of the theory that animals have rights ruling out their use in research. Scientists need to respond forcefully to animal rights advocates, whose arguments are confusing the public and thereby threatening advances in heath knowledge and care. Leaders of the animal rights movement target biomedical research because it depends on public funding, and few people understand the process of health care research. Hearing allegations of cruelty to animals in research settings, many are perplexed that anyone would deliberately harm an animal.
For example, a grandmotherly woman staffing an animal rights booth at a recent street fair was distributing a brochure that encouraged readers not to use anything that opposed immunizations; she wanted to know if vaccines come from animal research. When assured that they do, she replied, “Then I would have to say yes.” Asked what will happen when epidemics return, she said, “Don’t worry, scientists will find some way of using computers.” Such well-meaning people just don’s understand.
Scientists must communicate their message to the public in a compassionate, understandable way in human terms, not in the language of molecular biology. We need to make clear the connection between animal research and a grandmother’s hip replacement, a father’s bypass operation, a baby’s vaccinations, and even a pet’s shots. To those who are unaware that animal research was needed to produce these treatments, as well as new treatments and vaccines, animal research seems wasteful at best and cruel at worst.
Much can be done. Scientists could “adopt” middle school classes and present their own research. They should be quick to respond to letters to the editor, lest animal rights misinformation go unchallenged and acquire a deceptive appearance of truth. Research institutions could be opened to tours; to show that laboratory animals receive humane care. Finally, because the ultimate stakeholders are patients, the health research community should actively recruit to its cause not only well-known personalities such as Stephen Cooper, who has made courageous statements about the value of animal research, but all who receive medical treatment. If good people do nothing there is a real possibility that an uninformed citizenry will extinguish the precious embers of medical progress.
譯文
為了解釋18世紀政治家愛蒙德·伯克的話，“被誤導(dǎo)的運動要想成功，所需的只是好人不作為?！爆F(xiàn)在，就有這樣的運動尋求終止生化研究，其依據(jù)是動物有權(quán)要求人們在研究活動中不再被使用的理論?？茖W(xué)家應(yīng)該對動物權(quán)利倡導(dǎo)者做出有力的反擊，因為這些人的觀點正在蠱惑公眾，從而威脅到了保健知識與醫(yī)療的發(fā)展。動物權(quán)利運動的之所以將目標對準生化研究，是因為生化研究依賴公共基金，而且?guī)缀鯖]有人理解保健醫(yī)療研究的作用。聽到有關(guān)在研究中殘忍對待動物的斷言，許多人感到困惑，以為任何人都會故意去傷害動物。
比如，在近的街頭集市上，一位在動物權(quán)利保護攤位服務(wù)的老太太在分發(fā)小冊子，鼓勵讀者不要使用任何來自于動物或在動物身上做過實驗的任何東西。當問及她是否反對免疫接種時，她說她想知道疫苗是否來自于動物實驗。當確信疫苗是來自于動物試驗時，她回答說：“那么，我得說我反對?！碑攩柤叭绻餍胁【硗林貋碓撛趺崔k時，她說：“不用擔心，科學(xué)家會利用計算機找到某種解決辦法的?！边@樣的好心人只是不了解情況。
科學(xué)家必須用一種富于同情，易于理解的方式將信息傳遞給公眾——用人性化的語言不是分子生物學(xué)的術(shù)語。我們必須澄清動物研究與祖母的髖骨置換、父親的旁道管手術(shù)、小孩的免疫接種甚至寵物的防疫注射之間的關(guān)系。對于那些不了解只有通過動物研究才能研制出治療方案、才能開發(fā)出新方案和新疫苗的人來說，動物研究說得好聽一點是浪費，說得難聽一點是殘忍。
有許多事情可以做到?？茖W(xué)家可以“走進”中學(xué)課堂，介紹他們的科研活動。他們應(yīng)盡快答復(fù)郵寄給編輯的來信，以防動物權(quán)利組織的錯誤信息沒有引起質(zhì)疑，從而蒙蔽真理。研究機構(gòu)也應(yīng)該向游客開放，以表明實驗室的動物受到了人道地對待。后，因為有利害關(guān)系是病人，所以，醫(yī)學(xué)研究界不僅要邀請像史蒂芬·庫伯(他已經(jīng)就動物的研究價值發(fā)表了勇敢的聲明)那樣的知名人士來支持自己的事業(yè)，還要邀請所有接受過醫(yī)療的人來支持自己。如果醫(yī)學(xué)研究人員再不采取行動，不明真理的公眾真有可能會不滅醫(yī)療發(fā)展的寶貴火種。