2019年翻譯資格考試英語高級筆譯材料：科學發(fā)展危險嗎

英譯漢

Is Science Dangerous?

Lewis Wolpert

Does society need protecting from scientific advances? Most emphatically not, so long as scientists themselves and their employers are committed to full disclosure of what they know.

1. The idea that knowledge is dangerous is deeply embedded in our culture. Adam and Eve were forbidden to eat from the biblical Tree of Knowledge, and in Milton’s Paradise Lost the serpent addresses the Tree as the “Mother of Science”. The archangel Raphael advises Adam to be “lowly wise” when he tries to question him about the nature of the Universe. Indeed, Western literature is filled with images of scientists meddling with nature, with disastrous results. Scientists are portrayed as a soulless group, unconcerned with ethical issues.

2. But is science in fact dangerous, and do scientists have special social responsibilities? It is essential to recognize that reliable scientific knowledge has no moral or ethical value. Science tells us how the world is: that we are not at the center of the Universe is neither good nor bad, nor is the possibility that genes could influence our intelligence or behavior.

Moral Obligations

3. Dangers and ethical issues come into play when scientific research is done in practice, for example in experiments involving humans and other animals or when science is applied to technology, or in issues related to safety. There is thus an important distinction between science and technology: between knowledge and understanding on the one hand, and the application of that knowledge to making something, or using it in some practical way, on the other.

4. Science produces ideas about how the world works, whereas the ideas in technology result in usable objects. Technology is much older than science and, unaided by any science, it gave rise to early crafts such as agriculture and metalworking. I would argue that science mad virtually no contribution to technology until the nineteenth century – even the great triumphs of engineering such as the steam engine and Renaissance cathedrals were built with imaginative trial and error, virtually without any impact of science.

5. Whatever new technology is introduced, it is not for scientists to make moral or ethical decisions about its use, as they have no special rights or skills in this regard. There is grave danger in asking scientists to be more socially responsible if they would also be given the right and authority to make such decisions on their own. The social obligations that scientists have, as distinct from those responsibilities they share with all citizens (such as supporting a democratic society and taking care of the rights of others), come from them having access to specialized knowledge of how the world works that is not easily accessible to others. Their obligation is to make public any social implications of their work and its technological applications, and to give some assessment of its reliability. In most areas of science it matters little to the public whether a particular theory is right or wrong, but in some areas, such as human and plant genetics, it matters a great deal.

6. When the facts are examined dispassionately, it is not easy to find cases where scientists have behaved unethically in relation to the public. Contrary to some claims, there is no evidence that they did so either in the case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in the United Kingdom and elsewhere or in the AIDS blood scandal currently reverberating in France, for example.

7. The most clear case of immorality in scientific research was the eugenics movement. The scientific assumptions behind this were crucial: that most human attributes (desirable and undesirable) are inherited. The scientists concerned completely failed to give an assessment of the reliability of their ideas or sufficiently to consider their implications. On the contrary, and even more blameworthy, their conclusions seem to have been driven by what they saw as desirable social implications. In contrast, the Allied scientists who built the atomic bomb behaved morally, and fulfilled their social obligations by informing their governments about the implications of atomic theory. The decision to build the bomb was taken by politicians, not scientists. Should scientists on their own ever be entitled to make such decisions? For the German eugenicists, there should have been a conflict between their responsibilities as scientists and as citizens.

8. How, then, should scientists behave when faced with a conflict between their responsibilities as researchers and their responsibility to those for whom they work? Should a scientist in government employment allow his or her superiors to keep the dangers of eating certain foods secret from the public? Similarly, what is the ethical position of a scientist working for a chemical company who believes a product is dangerous, yet whose employment contract requires confidentiality about the nature of the research? In both cases, one should not underestimate the problems in hazard assessment, in itself a complex business. The problem is no different to that of anyone, for example an accountant, who discovers corruption: if no action is taken after reporting the matter to his or her superiors, the individual must make a very difficult decision. Scientists, just like everyone else, have to try not to become the unquestioning tools of their employers. Genetic Pornography

Genetic Pornography

9. The very term “genetic engineering” conjures up the image of Frankenstein and his monster – Mary Shelley was the unintentional evil fairy godmother of genetics – a tradition well-known in literature (Brave New World, The Island of Dr Moreau and so on), and most recently manifested by the likes of Jurassic Park and Godzilla. The media are aware of this and often report what I regard as genetic pornography – reports dressed up to titillate and frighten. A nasty example was a widely disseminated picture of a mouse with a “human” ear on its back – not a human ear at all but a piece of cartilage-like material. Newspapers print sensational and unjustified headlines, such as the “Frankenstein foods” idiocy surrounding genetically modified organisms in the United Kingdom.

10. To apply genetic engineering requires considerable knowledge and, even more importantly, money, which in many cases is hard for scientists to come by. Indeed, for the public sector the expense of the applications of genetics and molecular biology can open up difficult choices: new medical treatments, requiring complex technology, cannot be given to all. There has to be some principle of rationing, and this poses serious moral and ethical dilemmas much more worthy of consideration than those of genetic engineering and the like.

Dangers of Genetics

11. So what dangers does genetics pose to society? “Bioethics” is a growth industry that purports to address this question, but one should regard this field with caution, as bioethicists have a vested interest in finding difficulties. Nevertheless, it has made some valuable contributions, including advice on experiments on human embryos in the United Kingdom and on the rights of fetuses. But advances in genetics raise few new ethical issues – there are no new ethical issues in relation to the current hysteria over cloning.

12. Some of the common fears about cloning are little more than science fiction at present, for example the danger of producing enormous numbers of genetically identical individuals. It is amusing to watch moralists swing from denying that genes have an important effect on intelligence or behavior to saying that a cloned individual’s behavior will be entirely determined by the individual’s genetic make-up. At present, the risk of human cloning leading to abnormalities is high and so it should not be attempted, and I hope no mother would be so unwise as to become involved. Gene therapy – introducing genes to cure a genetic disease such as cystic fibrosis – has risks, as do all new medical treatments. There may well be problems with insurance and testing, but are these any different from those related to someone considered to be at increased risk of contracting AIDS or cancer?

13. Genetically modified foods have raised extensive public concern, and there seems no alternative but to rely on regulatory bodies to assess their safety (as is the case with other foods.) The consumer is entitled to make a choice, and making a satisfactory choice requires trust or knowledge. But that depends on everyone sticking to the rules on quality control and full disclosure of what is in the food; the role of legislators is to make sure that these rules are rigorously followed. As with the licensing of medicines, each new genetically modified food must be considered individually. Science commissioned by a government and carried out in-house in government research labs is not appropriate when the results have important implications for public health and government policy. It is essential in doing science to expose all one’s acquired knowledge to criticism by others. The main lesson to be learned from the experience with BSE is that openness is all important.

14. Other fears related to the so-called tyranny of knowledge which, claims Ian Kennedy, arises through the choices it forces on us “for which none of us is prepared spiritually or intellectually”. Thus, couples may be faced with difficult choices about prenatal diagnosis of genetic diseases: this could lead to choices about whether or not to terminate a pregnancy, or whether to inform siblings of a possible genetic risk of which they are not aware. There are problems, but I believe that one must not underestimate people’s capacity to deal with difficult choices when they understand the issues. Ultimately, the choice as to whether to seek knowledge rests with the individual. Most ethical issues in medicine are best resolved by considering the rights of the people involved to determine their own futures.

Censorship

15. Are there areas of research that are so socially sensitive that they should be avoided, even proscribed? One possible area is the genetic basis of intelligence, and particularly the possible link between race and intelligence. Are there, as the literary critic George Steiner has argued, “certain orders of truth which would infect the marrow of politics and would poison beyond all cure the already tense relations between social classes and these communities?” In short, are there doors in front of current research that should be marked “Too dangerous to open”?

16. I realize the dangers, but I cherish the openness of scientific investigation too much to put up such a notice. I stand by the distinction between knowledge of the world and how it is used. So I must answer Steiner’s question in the negative, provided of course that scientists fulfill their social obligations. The better understanding we have of the world, the better chance we have of making a just society. One should not abandon the possibility of using a scientific idea to do good because one could use the same idea to do bad. There is no knowledge that is not susceptible to manipulation for evil purposes.

17. Once one begins to censor the acquisition of objective knowledge, one is on the most slippery slope of all. Scientists cannot easily predict the social and technological implication of research. It was once argued that radio waves would have no practical applications, and Lord Rutherford famously said that the application of atomic energy was moonshine. Those investigating the resistance of certain bacteria to viral infection did not predict the discovery of restriction enzymes, an indispensable tool for cutting up DNA and hence the basis of genetic engineering.

18. To those who doubt whether the public or politicians are capable of making the “correct” decisions about science and its applications, I commend the advice of Thomas Jefferson: “I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves, and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise that control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their direction.”

19. But how do we ensure that the public are involved in decision-making, and that scientists, doctors, engineers, bioethicists and other experts, who must be involved, do not appropriate decision-making for themselves? How do we ensure that scientists take on the social obligation of making the implications of their work public? We must rely on our democratic institutions: elected representatives; a free, vigorous and even responsible media, affected groups and the researchers themselves. National and international councils that can assess the ethical issues relating to the applications of science and promote public debate are no doubt valuable. But one wonders what such a committee would have said if the public had been offered a convenient form of transport, but at the cost, in the United Kingdom alone, of more than 3,000 lives per year, a quarter of a million injured and the untold damage of pollution. Where are the car-ethicists?

參考譯文

人類社會需要保護以抵擋科學發(fā)展帶來的危險嗎?當然不需要，只要科學家及其雇主們致力于公開他們所知道的一切詳情。

1.知識是危險的這一觀念在我們的文化中根深蒂固。圣經(jīng)中的亞當和夏娃被禁食“智慧之樹”上的果實，而彌爾頓《失樂園》中的蛇將此樹稱為“科學之母”。當亞當試圖向天使長拉斐爾詢問有關(guān)宇宙本質(zhì)的問題時，拉斐爾建議他最好“知之甚少”。事實上，西方文獻中有大量關(guān)于科學家擾亂自然界，而后導致災難后果的記載。科學家被描繪成一群冷酷和無視倫理道德的人。

2.那么科學真地是危險的嗎?科學家需要肩負起特定的社會責任嗎?我們必須認識到，可靠的科學知識并不負載道德或倫理的價值?？茖W只告訴我們世界為何等模樣：我們?nèi)祟惒惶幱谟钪娴闹行倪@一事實本身無好壞之分;基因會影響我們的智力和行為這一可能性亦無優(yōu)劣之別。

道德義務

3.當科學研究在現(xiàn)實生活中進行時，就會帶來危害性及有關(guān)的倫理問題，例如涉及人或其它動物的實驗;或是將研究成果用于技術(shù)實施;又或是相關(guān)的研究涉及到人們的安全問題。由此可見，科學和技術(shù)之間有一重要區(qū)別：科學知識旨在了解自然，而技術(shù)卻是運用這一知識制造產(chǎn)品或?qū)⑦@一知識運用于實際目的。

4.科學研究推導有關(guān)世界本質(zhì)的觀念，而技術(shù)觀念則旨在制造可使用的產(chǎn)品。技術(shù)遠比科學源遠流長。而且沒有科學的指引，單憑技術(shù)也發(fā)展了諸如農(nóng)業(yè)和金屬制造業(yè)之類的行業(yè)。我認為19世紀之前，科學實際上未對技術(shù)做出太多的貢獻——即使是那些輝煌的技術(shù)成果，如蒸汽機和文藝復興時期的大教堂，也是在沒有任何科學觀念的影響下，通過當時人們富于想象的反復試驗完成的。

5.無論發(fā)明什么樣的技術(shù)，科學家均不應該對該技術(shù)的運用做涉及道德倫理方面的決策，因為他們在這方面沒有任何特殊的權(quán)利或能力。如果要求科學家承擔更多的社會義務，并賦予他們特權(quán)進行相關(guān)的決策，那么將會出現(xiàn)嚴重的危機。科學家所承擔的社會責任有別于他們與其他公民共同分擔的社會義務(例如支持民主社會或尊重他人權(quán)益)，這種責任源于他們具備專業(yè)的知識去了解世界的本質(zhì)，而普通人未能擁有這些知識。科學家的義務是公開他們的研究成果以及有關(guān)的技術(shù)應用對社會可能產(chǎn)生的影響，同時還需對研究的可靠性加以評價。在大多數(shù)的科學研究領域，就公眾而言，某一理論的對錯無關(guān)緊要，然而在某些領域，如有關(guān)人類和植物基因的研究，理論的是非會變得至關(guān)重要。

6.如果客觀冷靜地審視以往的事實，我們很難發(fā)現(xiàn)科學家在有關(guān)研究中表現(xiàn)出有悖倫理的行為。例如最近在英國和其它地方出現(xiàn)的瘋牛病現(xiàn)象，以及在法國引起軒然大波的由輸血導致的艾滋病丑聞中，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)與某些人所宣稱的現(xiàn)象完全不同，科學家在這些事件中并未表現(xiàn)出任何違反公共倫理道德的行為。

7.科學研究中最明顯的不道德行為是優(yōu)生運動。這一運動的科學理據(jù)至為關(guān)鍵：人類絕大多數(shù)的特征(好的或不好的)均為遺傳。進行此項研究的科學家未能全面評價這一觀點的可靠性，對這一觀點的后果也是考慮不周。更有甚者，也是更應受到譴責的是，這批科學家似乎在一種他們認為是有益于社會的觀念的驅(qū)使之下，得出有關(guān)的結(jié)論。與此相反，那些共同研究原子彈的科學家的行為表現(xiàn)得十分合乎倫理。他們承擔各自的社會責任，知會政府有關(guān)原子理論可能會產(chǎn)生的社會影響。是否制造原子彈的決策權(quán)在于政治家，而不是科學家。那么應不應該賦予科學家同樣的決策權(quán)呢?對那些進行優(yōu)生研究的德國科學家而言，他們本應該感到作為科學家和公民之間的義務沖突。

8.那么，當作為研究者的義務和作為受雇者的義務之間發(fā)生沖突時，科學家應該如何行事呢?受雇于政府部門的科學家是否應該默許上司向公眾隱瞞某類食品有害的真情呢?同樣，在化學制品公司工作的科學家如果知道某一產(chǎn)品有危害，但其工作合同卻注明他必須嚴守研究機密時，他又將站在哪一方的倫理道德立場上呢?在上述兩種情形下，科學家均不應該低估這樣的事實：他們需要權(quán)衡的利弊本身就是一件十分棘手的難題。此類難題與其他行業(yè)人員所遇到的問題一樣。例如，一位會計發(fā)現(xiàn)公司財務上出現(xiàn)貪污現(xiàn)象，如果他向上司匯報了有關(guān)情況，但上司卻未采取任何行動，那么該會計就面臨難以抉擇的處境?？茖W家同其他任何人一樣，應該盡量不要成為任由雇主支配的無聲工具。

泛濫的基因宣傳

9.“基因工程”一詞本身讓人聯(lián)想起弗蘭肯斯坦和他的怪物——瑪麗·雪萊無意間成為基因科學的始作俑者——這一傳統(tǒng)在文學作品中來源已久(例如先前的《勇敢新世界》、《蒙羅博士島》等作品)，還有最近的《侏羅紀公園》和《哥拉斯》等電影。媒體十分清楚這一現(xiàn)象，而且頻繁地進行我稱之為泛濫成災的基因宣傳報道——通常是故意制造聳人聽聞的報道。一個令人作嘔的例子就是四處張貼的一幅圖片，一只老鼠背上生出一只“人耳”——其實根本不是人耳，而是一片類似軟骨的東西。報紙上大肆刊登過分夸張并且無法證實的頭條消息，例如“弗蘭肯斯坦食品”之類的極端愚蠢的話語充斥英國有關(guān)基因改造有機體的報道之中。

10.將基因工程運用于實際中需要有淵博的學識，另外，更為重要的是需要資金。而資金對大多數(shù)科學家而言一般很難獲得。事實上，在政府資助的研究中，如果將基因研究和分子生物學研究成果應用于臨床實踐，會出現(xiàn)難以抉擇的局面：新的醫(yī)學治療手段由于需要通過繁雜的技術(shù)程序，不可能提供給所有需要治療的病人。這需要一定的配給政策來權(quán)衡。而這一點恰恰向人們提出了更為嚴峻的倫理道德難題，這一難題遠比基因工程以及類似研究提出的倫理道德問題更值得人們?nèi)ド钏际鞈]。

基因研究的危險所在

11.基因研究會對社會產(chǎn)生什么樣的危害呢?“生物倫理學”是一門旨在解答此類問題的新興行業(yè)。但是人們應該審慎看待這一領域，因為生物倫理學家們只熱衷于發(fā)掘一些棘手的難題。不過，這一領域也的確有所貢獻，例如，在英國人類胚胎實驗研究方面和胎兒權(quán)利等方面所提出的建議。但是，基因研究所取得的進步并未帶來什么新的倫理問題——例如目前人人都在爭論的克隆技術(shù)就未涉及任何新的倫理道德問題。

12.人們現(xiàn)在對于克隆的恐懼其實同對科幻小說所引起的恐懼相差無幾，例如，我們害怕制造出大量基因完全相同的人。倫理學家們時而矢口否認基因會對人的智力和行為產(chǎn)生重要影響，時而又宣稱克隆人的行為完全由其基因決定?？吹竭@一現(xiàn)象不免令人啞然失笑。目前，克隆人類導致異?，F(xiàn)象的可能性還很大，所以不應該對此進行嘗試。我想任何一個明智的母親都不會做這種事情的?；虔煼?，即通過基因治愈一些先天性疾病，例如囊性纖維變性，同其他任何一種新的治療方法一樣，具有一定的危險性。這也許還有醫(yī)療保險、臨床試驗等問題;但是這些問題與病人可能會感染艾滋病或癌癥的問題有什么區(qū)別呢?

13.基因改造食品引起了人們的廣泛關(guān)注。公眾別無選擇，只能依靠監(jiān)管部門鑒定有關(guān)食品的安全性(這與其它食品屬于同樣的情形)。消費者有權(quán)利做出選擇，但是選擇本身有賴于信任和知識。這就需要所有的人嚴格遵守食品質(zhì)檢的規(guī)定，公開食品中的成份。立法機關(guān)的作用就在于監(jiān)督所有的法規(guī)得以嚴格執(zhí)行。與藥品審批程序一樣，每一種新的基因改造食品必須逐一審查。由政府委派、并在政府資助的實驗室里進行的科學研究項目，如果發(fā)現(xiàn)其研究成果會對公眾健康和政府政策產(chǎn)生嚴重影響時，應該被視為不宜之事。從事科學研究的人應該將自己所掌握的一切情況公諸于眾。瘋牛病這一事件給我們的最大教訓就是，開誠布公的確至為關(guān)鍵。

14.人們對所謂的知識獨裁產(chǎn)生恐懼，正如伊登·肯尼迪所言，是由于我們被迫要接受一些“從精神上和智力上均無任何準備”的選擇。例如，夫妻在接受產(chǎn)前先天性疾病檢查時，可能會面對艱難的選擇：也許要決定是否終止懷孕，或者是否告知親屬們他們所不了解的一種遺傳疾病。雖然困難重重，但我相信不能低估公眾了解事實真相后面對困難進行抉擇的能力。當然，是否需要了解真情取決于個人。當我們考慮到當事人的權(quán)利，由他們自己對將來作出決定，那么醫(yī)學上的諸多倫理問題都可以得到最好的解決。

審查制度

15.有無一些研究領域因為會產(chǎn)生過激的社會反應而需要避免或禁止呢?也許對智力與基因關(guān)系的研究，特別是種族與智力關(guān)系的研究屬于此類領域。有沒有如文學批評家喬治·斯坦納所說的“某些真理會重挫政府支柱，而且會無可救藥地激化原本就已十分緊張的社會階級矛盾”呢?簡言之，目前的科學研究中有沒有一些領域需要貼上“危險勿動”的標簽呢?

16.我了解科學研究的危險所在，但我更珍視科學研究的公開性，不贊成張貼此類標簽。我贊同將認識世界的科學知識與運用這種知識區(qū)別開來的做法。因此，回答斯坦納的問題時，我會說不，當然前提是科學家必須承擔自己的社會責任。只有當我們更好地認識世界時，才能建立一個公平正義的社會。不能因為科學研究成果會被誤作邪惡之用，而放棄將其用于造福人類的可能性。任何一種科學知識都不能避免遭到濫用的威脅。

17.一旦開始審查人們獲取客觀知識的可能性，我們就邁向了危險之路。科學家并不能完全準確地預測所從事的研究會產(chǎn)生何種社會和技術(shù)的影響。例如人們一度爭論放射波沒有任何實用價值;羅賽福爵士也曾斷言運用原子能乃是海市蜃樓。另外，研究細菌抗體和病毒感染的科學家也未能預見到會發(fā)現(xiàn)抑制酶，這一成分現(xiàn)在已經(jīng)成為切分核糖核酸的必要工具，其實也是基因工程的基礎。

18.對于那些懷疑公眾或政客能否就科學研究及其運用做出“正確”抉擇的人而言，我推薦托馬斯·杰弗遜說過的一句話：“我僅知道社會的最高決策權(quán)不在別處，就在人民之中。如果我們認為人民不夠開通，難以行使理智的決策權(quán)利，那么，補救的方法不是將此權(quán)利從他們手中收回，而是給他們指明方向。”

19.如何才能確保公眾參與決策?如何確?？茖W家、醫(yī)生、工程師、生物倫理家還有其他有關(guān)的老師不會濫用決策權(quán)為自己謀利呢?如何確?？茖W家確實承擔社會義務將自己的研究告知公眾呢?對此，我們必須依靠我們的民主制度：各界的代表、自由而積極負責的媒體、有關(guān)的組織機構(gòu)和研究人員。誠然，有必要建立起相關(guān)的全國和國際的理事會，以便評估科學研究之應用的倫理問題，并開展廣泛的公眾討論。但也許人們會產(chǎn)生質(zhì)疑，這樣一個理事會在面臨下述問題時會如何表態(tài)：公眾擁有了一種方便的交通工具，但其代價卻是僅在英國一個國家，每年就有約三千多人喪生，二十五萬人受傷，另外還造成無法估量的污染。此時，汽車倫理學家們會做何言論呢?