中科院博士研究生英语精读-课文翻译及原文

第7课饮毒和摄取营养物质Drinking Hemlock and Other Nutritional Matters在一个阴冷的早晨，我早早地起来之后心想（诚然一项情愿地）应该适时打开电视与外界交流一下。

令我大吃一惊的是，电视上有位几年前著名的影星正在讲述糖的害处。

这位前好莱坞偶像强烈地谴责这种乙醣二聚体，特别是它的纯化的晶体形态。

她斥之为“非天然食品”，这种称呼极大地损坏了进行光合作用的甘蔗和甜菜的形象。

给人的感觉就像一位庄严的法官永久地宣判一种“反常行为”一样。

我马上就被这位伟大的女士的讨伐行动吸引住了，并且心里一直在嘀咕“讨厌蔗糖”，同时调好一种非天然的咖啡豆提取物并且往里面扔了一片高度合成的糖精。

过了一会儿，当睡意消去时，对原因的怀疑取代了情绪的自信，我开始纳闷，多年来我的同事们一直在生化营养物方面迷惑不解，我的电影女主角在这方面那么有把握，她的自信从何得来？或许所有这些脏乱的实验工作，如碾磨和提炼组织以及其他类似无聊的实验室里的工作，都不是获取“真理”的最便捷的途径。

也许我们这群穿着白大褂的人忽略了一条通往真理的神秘通道，在这里一些人靠令人无法理解的洞察力来发现有关营养学的“真正的”知识，这些知识改变了其信奉者的生活。

所有这一切都使唤起了生物医学家们一次次频繁痛苦的经历，这种经历就像反复出现的噩梦一样时刻萦绕在心头。

某一回是在鸡尾酒会或者别的社交聚会上，有人出现在人群中，然后就对“好营养”问题开始慷慨陈词。

所阐述的“事实”与众所周知的代谢途径、细胞组织生理学、酶学和常识经常不一致。

如果有听众斗胆提出疑问，“你是怎么知道的？”迎接他或她的眼神就像当年哥伦布问“你怎么知道，世界是平的”时所受的那样。

营养学似乎很像政治，对此人人都是专家。

于是，百姓大众就以为，一个人不管他熟知一门复杂学科的多少事实和理论，他多年受到的教育，与不费吹灰之力就可获取的知识相比，仍显得苍白而无用。

所描述的情况绝非仅限于食物的选择，当然我觉得还没有准备好要去介入蔗糖辩论。

第1课知识的悖论The Paradox of KnowledgeThe greatest achievement of humankind in its long evolution from ancient hominoid ancestors to its present status is the acquisition and accumulation of a vast body of knowledge about itself, the world, and the universe. The products of this knowledge are all those things that, in the aggregate, we call "civilization," including language, science, literature, art, all the physical mechanisms, instruments, and structures we use, and the physical infrastructures on which society relies. Most of us assume that in modern society knowledge of all kinds is continually increasing and the aggregation of new information into the corpus of our social or collective knowledge is steadily reducing the area of ignorance about ourselves, the world, and the universe. But continuing reminders of the numerous areas of our present ignorance invite a critical analysis of this assumption.In the popular view, intellectual evolution is similar to, although much more rapid than, somatic evolution. Biological evolution is often described by the statement that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"--meaning that the individual embryo, in its development from a fertilized ovum into a human baby, passes through successive stages in which it resembles ancestral forms of the human species. The popular view is that humankind has progressed from a state of innocent ignorance, comparable to that of an infant, and gradually has acquired more and more knowledge, much as a child learns in passing through the several grades of the educational system. Implicit in this view is an assumption that phylogeny resembles ontogeny, so that there will ultimately be a stage in which the accumulation of knowledge is essentially complete, at least in specific fields, as if society had graduated with all the advanced degrees that signify mastery of important subjects.Such views have, in fact, been expressed by some eminent scientists. In 1894 the great American physicist Albert Michelson said in a talk at the University of Chicago:While it is never safe to affirm that the future of Physical Science has no marvels in store even more astonishing than those of the past, it seems probable that most of the grand underlying principles have been firmly established and that further advances are to be sought chiefly in the rigorous application of these principles to all the phenomena which come under our notice .... The future truths of Physical Science ate to be looked for in the sixth place of decimals.In the century since Michelson's talk, scientists have discovered much more than the refinement of measurements in the sixth decimal place, and none is willing to make a similar statement today. However, many still cling to the notion that such a state of knowledge remains a possibility to be attained sooner or later. Stephen Hawking, thegreat English scientist, in his immensely popular book A Brief History of Time (1988), concludes with the speculation that we may "discover a complete theory" that "would be the ultimate triumph of human reason--for then we would know the mind of God." Paul Davies, an Australian physicist, echoes that view by suggesting that the human mind may be able to grasp some of the secrets encompassed by the title of his book The Mind of God (1992). Other contemporary scientists write of "theories of everything," meaning theories that explain all observable physical phenomena, and Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg, one of the founders of the current standard model of physical theory, writes of his Dreams of a Final Theory (1992).Despite the eminence and obvious yearning of these and many other contemporary scientists, there is nothing in the history of science to suggest that any addition of data or theories to the body of scientific knowledge will ever provide answers to all questions in any field. On the contrary, the history of science indicates that increasing knowledge brings awareness of new areas of ignorance and of new questions to be answered.Astronomy is the most ancient of the sciences, and its development is a model of other fields of knowledge. People have been observing the stars and other celestial bodies since the dawn of recorded history. As early as 3000 B.C. the Babylonians recognized a number of the constellations. In the sixth century B.C., Pythagoras proposed the notion of a spherical Earth and of a universe with objects in it chat moved in accordance with natural laws. Later Greek philosophers taught that the sky was a hollow globe surrounding the Earth, that it was supported on an axis running through the Earth, and chat stars were inlaid on its inner surface, which rotated westward daily. In the second century A.D., Ptolemy propounded a theory of a geocentric (Earth-centered) universe in which the sun, planets, and stars moved in circular orbits of cycles and epicycles around the Earth, although the Earth was not at the precise center of these orbits. While somewhat awkward, the Ptolemaic system could produce reasonably reliable predictions of planetary positions, which were, however, good for only a few years and which developed substantial discrepancies from actual observations over a long period of time. Nevertheless, since there was no evidence then apparent to astronomers that the Earth itself moves, the Ptolemaic system remained unchallenged for more than 13 centuries.In the sixteenth century Nocolaus Copernicus, who is said to have mastered all the knowledge of his day in mathematics, astronomy, medicine, and theology, became dissatisfied with the Ptolemaic system. He found that a heliocentric system was both mathematically possible and aesthetically more pleasing, and wrote a full exposition of his hypothesis, which was not published until 1543, shortly after his death. Early inthe seventeenth century, Johannes Kepler became imperial mathematician of the Holy Roman Empire upon the death of Tycho Brahe, and he acquired a collection of meticulous naked-eye observations of the positions of celestial bodies chat had been made by Brahe. On the basis of these data, Kepler calculated that both Ptolemy and Copernicus were in error in assuming chat planets traveled in circular orbits, and in 1609 he published a book demonstrating mathematically chat the planets travel around the sun in elliptical orbits. Kepler's laws of planetary motion are still regarded as basically valid.In the first decade of the seventeenth century Galileo Galilei learned of the invention of the telescope and began to build such instruments, becoming the first person to use a telescope for astronomical observations, and thus discovering craters on the moon, phases of Venus, and the satellites of Jupiter. His observations convinced him of the validity of the Copernican system and resulted in the well-known conflict between Galileo and church authorities. In January 1642 Galileo died, and in December of chat year Isaac Newton was born. Modern science derives largely from the work of these two men.Newton's contributions to science are numerous. He laid the foundations for modem physical optics, formulated the basic laws of motion and the law of universal gravitation, and devised the infinitesimal calculus. Newton's laws of motion and gravitation are still used for calculations of such matters as trajectories of spacecraft and satellites and orbits of planets. In 1846, relying on such calculations as a guide to observation, astronomers discovered the planet Neptune.While calculations based on Newton's laws are accurate, they are dismayingly complex when three or more bodies are involved. In 1915, Einstein announced his theory of general relativity, which led to a set of differential equations for planetary orbits identical to those based on Newtonian calculations, except for those relating to the planet Mercury. The elliptical orbit of Mercury rotates through the years, but so slowly that the change of position is less than one minute of arc each century. The equations of general relativity precisely accounted for this precession; Newtonian equations did not.Einstein's equations also explained the red shift in the light from distant stars and the deflection of starlight as it passed near the sun. However, Einstein assumed chat the universe was static, and, in order to permit a meaningful solution to the equations of relativity, in 1917 he added another term, called a "cosmological constant," to the equations. Although the existence and significance of a cosmological constant is still being debated, Einstein later declared chat this was a major mistake, as Edwin Hubble established in the 1920s chat the universe is expanding and galaxies are receding fromone another at a speed proportionate to their distance.Another important development in astronomy grew out of Newton's experimentation in optics, beginning with his demonstration chat sunlight could be broken up by a prism into a spectrum of different colors, which led to the science of spectroscopy. In the twentieth century, spectroscopy was applied to astronomy to gun information about the chemical and physical condition of celestial bodies chat was not disclosed by visual observation. In the 1920s, precise photographic photometry was introduced to astronomy and quantitative spectrochemical analysis became common. Also during the 1920s, scientists like Heisenberg, de Broglie, Schrodinger, and Dirac developed quantum mechanics, a branch of physics dealing with subatomic particles of matter and quanta of energy. Astronomers began to recognize that the properties of celestial bodies, including planets, could be well understood only in terms of physics, and the field began to be referred to as "astrophysics."These developments created an explosive expansion in our knowledge of astronomy. During the first five thousand years or more of observing the heavens, observation was confined to the narrow band of visible light. In the last half of this century astronomical observations have been made across the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation, including radio waves, infrared, ultraviolet, X-rays, and gamma rays, and from satellites beyond the atmosphere. It is no exaggeration to say chat since the end of World War II more astronomical data have been gathered than during all of the thousands of years of preceding human history.However, despite all improvements in instrumentation, increasing sophistication of analysis and calculation augmented by the massive power of computers, and the huge aggregation of data, or knowledge, we still cannot predict future movements of planets and other elements of even the solar system with a high degree of certainty. Ivars Peterson, a highly trained science writer and an editor of Science News, writes in his book Newton's Clock (1993) that a surprisingly subtle chaos pervades the solar system. He states:In one way or another the problem of the solar system's stability has fascinated and tormented asrtonomers and mathematicians for more than 200 years. Somewhat to the embarrassment of contemporary experts, it remains one of the most perplexing, unsolved issues in celestial mechanics. Each step toward resolving this and related questions has only exposed additional uncertainties and even deeper mysteries.Similar problems pervade astronomy. The two major theories of cosmology, general relativity and quantum mechanics, cannot be stated in the same mathematical language, and thus are inconsistent with one another, as the Ptolemaic and Copernicantheories were in the sixteenth century, although both contemporary theories continue to be used, but for different calculations. Oxford mathematician Roger Penrose, in The Emperors New Mind (1989), contends that this inconsistency requires a change in quantum theory to provide a new theory he calls "correct quantum gravity."Furthermore, the observations astronomers make with new technologies disclose a total mass in the universe that is less than about 10 percent of the total mass that mathematical calculations require the universe to contain on the basis of its observed rate of expansion. If the universe contains no more mass than we have been able to observe directly, then according to all current theories it should have expanded in the past, and be expanding now, much more rapidly than the rate actually observed. It is therefore believed that 90 percent or more of the mass in the universe is some sort of "dark matter" that has not yet been observed and the nature of which is unknown. Current theories favor either WIMPs (weakly interacting massive particles) or MACHOs (massive compact halo objects). Other similar mysteries abound and increase in number as our ability to observe improves.The progress of biological and life sciences has been similar to that of the physical sciences, except that it has occurred several centuries later. The theory of biological evolution first came to the attention of scientists with the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species in 1859. But Darwin lacked any explanation of the causes of variation and inheritance of characteristics. These were provided by Gregor Mendel, who laid the mathematical foundation of genetics with the publication of papers in 1865 and 1866.Medicine, according to Lewis Thomas, is the youngest science, having become truly scientific only in the 1930s. Recent and ongoing research has created uncertainty about even such basic concepts as when and how life begins and when death occurs, and we are spending billions in an attempt to learn how much it may be possible to know about human genetics. Modern medicine has demonstrably improved both our life expectancies and our health, and further improvements continue to be made as research progresses. But new questions arise even more rapidly than our research resources grow, as the host of problems related to the Human Genome Project illustrates.From even such an abbreviated and incomplete survey of science as this, it appears that increasing knowledge does not result in a commensurate decrease in ignorance, but, on the contrary, exposes new lacunae in our comprehension and confronts us with unforeseen questions disclosing areas of ignorance of which we were not previously aware.Thus the concept of science as an expanding body of knowledge that will eventually encompass or dispel all significant areas of ignorance is an illusion. Scientists and philosophers are now observing that it is naive to regard science as a process that begins with observations that are organized into theories and are then subsequently tested by experiments. The late Karl Popper, a leading philosopher of science, wrote in The Growth of Scientific Knowledge (1960) chat science starts from problems, not from observations, and chat every worthwhile new theory raises new problems. Thus there is no danger that science will come to an end because it has completed its task, clanks to the "infinity of our ignorance."At least since Thomas Kuhn published The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), it has been generally recognized that observations are the result of theories (called paradigms by Kuhn and other philosophers), for without theories of relevance and irrelevance there would be no basis for determining what observations to make. Since no one can know everything, to be fully informed on any subject (a claim sometimes made by those in authority) is simply to reach a judgment that additional data are not important enough to be worth the trouble of securing or considering.To carry the analysis another step, it must be recognized that theories are the result of questions and questions are the product of perceived ignorance. Thus it is chat ignorance gives rise to inquiry chat produces knowledge, which, in turn, discloses new areas of ignorance. This is the paradox of knowledge: As knowledge increases so does ignorance, and ignorance may increase more than its related knowledge.My own metaphor to illustrate the relationship of knowledge and ignorance is based on a line from Matthew Arnold: "For we are here as on a darkling plain...." The dark chat surrounds us, chat, indeed, envelops our world, is ignorance. Knowledge is the illumination shed by whatever candles (or more technologically advanced light sources) we can provide. As we light more and more figurative candles, the area of illumination enlarges; but the area beyond illumination increases geometrically. We know chat there is much we don't know; but we cannot know how much there is chat we don't know. Thus knowledge is finite, but ignorance is infinite, and the finite cannot ever encompass the infinite.This is a revised version of an article originally published in COSMOS 1994. Copyright 1995 by Lee Loevinger.Lee Loevinger is a Washington lawyer and former assistant attorney general of the United States who writes frequently for scientific c publications. He has participated for many years as a member, co-chair, or liaison with the National Conference of Lawyers and Scientists, and he is a founder and former chair of the Science andTechnology Section of the American Bar Association. Office address: Hogan and Hartson, 555 Thirteenth St. NW, Washington, DC 20004.人类从古类人猿进化到当前的状态这个长久的进化过程中的最大成就是有关于人类自身、世界以及宇宙众多知识的获得和积聚。

Rats and Men"Insoluble" ProblemsProfessor N. R. F. Maier of the University of Michigan performed a series of experiments several years ago in which "neurosis" is induced in rats. The rats are first trained to jump off the edge of a platform at one of two doors.If the rat jumps to the right, the door holds fast, and it bumps its nose and falls into a net; if it jumps to the left, the door opens, and the rat finds a dish of food. When the rats are well trained to this reaction, the situation is changed. The food is put behind the other door, so that in order to get their reward they now have to jump to the right instead of to the left. (Other changes, such as marking the two doors in different ways, may also be introduced by the experimenter.)If the rat fails to figure out the new system, so that each time it jumps it never knows whether it is going to get food or bump its nose, it finally gives up and refuses to jump at all. At this stage, Dr. Maier says, "Many rats prefer to starve rather than make a choice."密執安大學のN.R.F. 麥耶教授幾年前做過一系列可以誘導鼠產生“神經官能症”の實驗。

The End Is Not at HandThe environmental rhetoric overblown.The planet will surviveRobert J. SamuelsonWhoever coined the phrase "save the planet" is a public relation genius. It conveys the sense of impending catastrophe and high purpose that has wrapped environmentalism in an aura of moral urgency.It also typifies environmentalism's rhetorical excesses, which, in any other context, would be seen as wild exaggeration or simple dishonesty.无论是谁杜撰了“拯救地球”这一说法，他都是一位公共关系方面的天才。

这一说法既表达了对即将来临的灭顶之灾的意识，也满怀着使环境保护论带有道义紧迫感这一大的目标。

同时这种说法也表明环境保护论言过其实，这种夸大在其他任何场合都会被视为是在危言耸听或愚蠢的欺骗。

Up to a point, our environmental awareness has checked a mindless enthusiasm for unrestrained economic growth.We have sensibly curbed some of growth's harmful side effects. But environmentalism increasingly resembles a holy crusade addicted to hypeand ignorant of history.Every environmental ill is depicted as an onrushing calamity that—if not stopped will end life as we know it.就某种程度而言，我们的环境意识遏制了对自由经济增长所表现出的盲目热情。

Unit1 从能力到责任1当代的大学生对他们在社会中所扮演的角色的认识模糊不清。

他们致力于寻求在他们看来似乎是最现实的东西：追求安全保障，追逐物质财富的积累。

年轻人努力想使自己成人成才、有所作为，但他们对未来的认识还是很模糊的。

处于像他们这样前程未定的年龄阶段，他们该信仰什么?大学生一直在寻找真我的所在，寻找生活的意义。

一如芸芸众生的我们，他们也陷入了两难的境地。

一方面，他们崇尚奉献于人的理想主义，而另一方面，他们又经不住自身利益的诱惑，陷入利己主义的世界里欲罢不能。

2最终而言，大学教育素质的衡量取决于毕业生是否愿意为他们所处的社会和赖以生存的城市作出贡献。

尼布尔曾经写道：“一个人只有意识到对社会所负有的责任，他才能够认识到自身的潜力。

一个人如果一味地以自我为中心，他将会失去自我。

”本科教育必须对这种带有理想主义色彩的观念进行自我深省，使学生超越以自我为中心的观念，以诚相待，服务社会。

在这一个竞争激烈＼残酷的社会，人们期望大学生能报以正直、文明，，甚至富有同情心的人格品质去与人竞争，这是否已是一种奢望?人们期望大学的人文教育会有助于培养学生的人际交往能力，如今是否仍然适合?3毫无疑问，大学生应该履行公民的义务。

美国的教育必须立刻采取行动，使教育理所当然地承担起弥合公共政策与公众的理解程度之间的极具危险性且在日益加深的沟壑这一职责。

那些要求人们积极思考政府的议程并提供富于创意的意见的信息似乎越来越让我们感到事不关己。

所以很多人认为想通过公众的参与来解决复杂的公共问题已不再可能行得通。

设想，怎么可能让一些非专业人士去讨论必然带来相应后果的政府决策的问题，而他们甚至连语言的使用都存在困难?4核能的使用应该扩大还是削弱?水资源能保证充足的供应吗?怎样控制军备竞赛?大气污染的安全标准是多少?甚至连人类的起源与灭绝这样近乎玄乎的问题也会被列入政治议事日程。

5类似的一头雾水的感觉，公众曾经尝试过。

当他们试图弄懂有关“星球大战”的辩论的问题时，那些关于“威慑”与“反威慑”等高科技的专业术语，曾让公众一筹莫展。

中科院博士研究生英语精读-课文翻译及原文第1课知识的悖论The Paradox of KnowledgeThe greatest achievement of humankind in its long evolution from ancient hominoid ancestors to its present status is the acquisition and accumulation of a vast body of knowledge about itself, the world, and the universe. The products of this knowledge are all those things that, in the aggregate, we call "civilization," including language, science, literature, art, all the physical mechanisms, instruments, and structures we use, and the physical infrastructures on which society relies. Most of us assume that in modern society knowledge of all kinds is continually increasing and the aggregation of new information into the corpus of our social or collective knowledge is steadily reducing the area of ignorance about ourselves, the world, and the universe. But continuing reminders of the numerous areas of our present ignorance invite a critical analysis of this assumption.In the popular view, intellectual evolution is similar to, although much more rapid than, somatic evolution. Biological evolution is often described by the statement that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"--meaning that the individual embryo, in its development from a fertilized ovum into a human baby, passes through successive stages in which it resembles ancestral forms of the human species. The popular view is that humankind has progressed from a state of innocent ignorance, comparable to that of an infant, and gradually has acquired more and more knowledge, much as a child learns in passing through the several grades of the educational system. Implicit in this view is an assumption that phylogeny resembles ontogeny, so that there will ultimately be a stage in which the accumulation ofknowledge is essentially complete, at least in specific fields, as if society had graduated with all the advanced degrees that signify mastery of important subjects.Such views have, in fact, been expressed by some eminent scientists. In 1894 the great American physicist Albert Michelson said in a talk at the University of Chicago:While it is never safe to affirm that the future of Physical Science has no marvels in store even more astonishing than those of the past, it seems probable that most of the grand underlying principles have been firmly established and that further advances are to be sought chiefly in the rigorous application of these principles to all the phenomena which come under our notice .... The future truths of Physical Science ate to be looked for in the sixth place of decimals.In the century since Michelson's talk, scientists have discovered much more than the refinement of measurements in the sixth decimal place, and none is willing to make a similar statement today. However, many still cling to the notion that such astate of knowledge remains a possibility to be attained sooner or later. Stephen Hawking, the great English scientist, in his immensely popular book A Brief History of Time (1988), concludes with the speculation that we may "discover a complete theory" that "would be the ultimate triumph of human reason--for then we would know the mind of God." Paul Davies, an Australian physicist, echoes that view by suggesting that the human mind may be able to grasp some of the secrets encompassed by the title of his book The Mind of God (1992). Other contemporary scientists write of "theories of everything," meaning theories that explain all observable physicalphenomena, and Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg, one of the founders of the current standard model of physical theory, writes of his Dreams of a Final Theory (1992).Despite the eminence and obvious yearning of these and many other contemporary scientists, there is nothing in the history of science to suggest that any addition of data or theories to the body of scientific knowledge will ever provide answers to all questions in any field. On the contrary, the history of science indicates that increasing knowledge brings awareness of new areas of ignorance and of new questions to be answered.Astronomy is the most ancient of the sciences, and its development is a model of other fields of knowledge. People have been observing the stars and other celestial bodies since the dawn of recorded history. As early as 3000 B.C. the Babylonians recognized a number of the constellations. In the sixth century B.C., Pythagoras proposed the notion of a spherical Earth and of a universe with objects in it chat moved in accordance with natural laws. Later Greek philosophers taught that the sky was a hollow globe surrounding the Earth, that it was supported on an axis running through the Earth, and chat stars were inlaid on its inner surface, which rotated westward daily. In the second century A.D., Ptolemy propounded a theory of a geocentric (Earth-centered) universe in which the sun, planets, and stars moved in circular orbits of cycles and epicycles around the Earth, although the Earth was not at the precise center of these orbits. While somewhat awkward, the Ptolemaic system could produce reasonably reliable predictions of planetary positions, which were, however, good for only a few years and which developed substantial discrepancies from actual observations over a long period of time. Nevertheless, sincethere was no evidence then apparent to astronomers that the Earth itself moves, the Ptolemaic system remained unchallenged for more than 13 centuries.In the sixteenth century Nocolaus Copernicus, who is said to have mastered all the knowledge of his day in mathematics, astronomy, medicine, and theology, became dissatisfied with the Ptolemaic system. He found that a heliocentric system was both mathematically possible and aesthetically more pleasing, and wrote a full exposition of his hypothesis, which was not published until 1543, shortly after his death. Early in the seventeenth century, Johannes Kepler became imperial mathematician of the Holy Roman Empire upon the death of Tycho Brahe, and he acquired a collection of meticulous naked-eye observations of the positions of celestial bodies chat had been made by Brahe. On the basis of these data, Kepler calculated that both Ptolemy and Copernicus were in error in assuming chat planets traveled in circular orbits, and in 1609 he published a book demonstrating mathematically chat the planets travel around the sun in elliptical orbits. Kepler's laws of planetary motion are still regarded as basically valid.In the first decade of the seventeenth century Galileo Galilei learned of the invention of the telescope and began to build such instruments, becoming the first person to use a telescope for astronomical observations, and thus discovering craters on the moon, phases of Venus, and the satellites of Jupiter. His observations convinced him of the validity of the Copernican system and resulted in the well-known conflict between Galileo and church authorities. In January 1642 Galileo died, and in December of chat year Isaac Newton was born. Modern science derives largely from the work of these two men.Newton's contributions to science are numerous. He laid the foundations for modem physical optics, formulated the basic laws of motion and the law of universal gravitation, and devised the infinitesimal calculus. Newton's laws of motion and gravitation are still used for calculations of such matters as trajectories of spacecraft and satellites and orbits of planets. In 1846, relying on such calculations as a guide to observation, astronomers discovered the planet Neptune.While calculations based on Newton's laws are accurate, they are dismayingly complex when three or more bodies are involved. In 1915, Einstein announced his theory of general relativity, which led to a set of differential equations for planetary orbits identical to those based on Newtonian calculations, except for those relating to the planet Mercury. The elliptical orbit of Mercury rotates through the years, but so slowly that the change of position is less than one minute of arc each century. The equations of general relativity precisely accounted for this precession; Newtonian equations did not.Einstein's equations also explained the red shift in the light from distant stars and the deflection of starlight as it passed near the sun. However, Einstein assumed chat the universe was static, and, in order to permit a meaningful solution to the equations of relativity, in 1917 he added another term, called a "cosmological constant," to the equations. Although the existence and significance of a cosmological constant is stillbeing debated, Einstein later declared chat this was a major mistake, as Edwin Hubble established in the 1920s chat the universe is expanding and galaxies are receding from one another at a speed proportionate to their distance.Another important development in astronomy grew out ofNewton's experimentation in optics, beginning with his demonstration chat sunlight could be broken up by a prism into a spectrum of different colors, which led to the science of spectroscopy. In the twentieth century, spectroscopy was applied to astronomy to gun information about the chemical and physical condition of celestial bodies chat was not disclosed by visual observation. In the 1920s, precise photographic photometry was introduced to astronomy and quantitative spectrochemical analysis became common. Also during the 1920s, scientists like Heisenberg, de Broglie, Schrodinger, and Dirac developed quantum mechanics, a branch of physics dealing with subatomic particles of matter and quanta of energy. Astronomers began to recognize that the properties of celestial bodies, including planets, could be well understood only in terms of physics, and the field began to be referred to as "astrophysics."These developments created an explosive expansion in our knowledge of astronomy. During the first five thousand years or more of observing the heavens, observation was confined to the narrow band of visible light. In the last half of this century astronomical observations have been made across the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation, including radio waves, infrared, ultraviolet, X-rays, and gamma rays, and from satellites beyond the atmosphere. It is no exaggeration to say chat since the end of World War II more astronomical data have been gathered than during all of the thousands of years of preceding human history.However, despite all improvements in instrumentation, increasing sophistication of analysis and calculation augmented by the massive power of computers, and the huge aggregation of data, or knowledge, we still cannot predict future movements of planets and other elements of even the solar system with ahigh degree of certainty. Ivars Peterson, a highly trained science writer and an editor of Science News, writes in his book Newton's Clock (1993) that a surprisingly subtle chaos pervades the solar system. He states:In one way or another the problem of the solar system's stability has fascinated and tormented asrtonomers and mathematicians for more than 200 years. Somewhat to the embarrassment of contemporary experts, it remains one of the most perplexing, unsolved issues in celestial mechanics. Each step toward resolving this and related questions has only exposed additional uncertainties and even deeper mysteries.Similar problems pervade astronomy. The two major theories of cosmology,general relativity and quantum mechanics, cannot be stated in the same mathematical language, and thus are inconsistent with one another, as the Ptolemaic and Copernican theories were in the sixteenth century, although both contemporary theories continue to be used, but for different calculations. Oxford mathematician Roger Penrose, in The Emperors New Mind (1989), contends that this inconsistency requires a change in quantum theory to provide a new theory he calls "correct quantum gravity."Furthermore, the observations astronomers make with new technologies disclose a total mass in the universe that is less than about 10 percent of the total mass that mathematical calculations require the universe to contain on the basis of its observed rate of expansion. If the universe contains no more mass than we have been able to observe directly, then according to all current theories it should have expanded in the past, and be expanding now, much more rapidly than the rate actually observed. It istherefore believed that 90 percent or more of the mass in the universe is some sort of "dark matter" that has not yet been observed and the nature of which is unknown. Current theories favor either WIMPs (weakly interacting massive particles) or MACHOs (massive compact halo objects). Other similar mysteries abound and increase in number as our ability to observe improves.The progress of biological and life sciences has been similar to that of the physical sciences, except that it has occurred several centuries later. The theory of biological evolution first came to the attention of scientists with the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species in 1859. But Darwin lacked any explanation of the causes of variation and inheritance of characteristics. These were provided by Gregor Mendel, who laid the mathematical foundation of genetics with the publication of papers in 1865 and 1866.Medicine, according to Lewis Thomas, is the youngest science, having become truly scientific only in the 1930s. Recent and ongoing research has created uncertainty about even such basic concepts as when and how life begins and when death occurs, and we are spending billions in an attempt to learn how much it may be possible to know about human genetics. Modern medicine has demonstrably improved both our life expectancies and our health, and further improvements continue to be made as research progresses. But new questions arise even more rapidly than our research resources grow, as the host of problems related to the Human Genome Project illustrates.From even such an abbreviated and incomplete survey of science as this, it appears that increasing knowledge does not result in a commensurate decrease in ignorance, but, on thecontrary, exposes new lacunae in our comprehension and confronts us with unforeseen questions disclosing areas of ignorance of which wewere not previously aware.Thus the concept of science as an expanding body of knowledge that will eventually encompass or dispel all significant areas of ignorance is an illusion. Scientists and philosophers are now observing that it is naive to regard science as a process that begins with observations that are organized into theories and are then subsequently tested by experiments. The late Karl Popper, a leading philosopher of science, wrote in The Growth of Scientific Knowledge (1960) chat science starts from problems, not from observations, and chat every worthwhile new theory raises new problems. Thus there is no danger that science will come to an end because it has completed its task, clanks to the "infinity of our ignorance."At least since Thomas Kuhn published The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), it has been generally recognized that observations are the result of theories (called paradigms by Kuhn and other philosophers), for without theories of relevance and irrelevance there would be no basis for determining what observations to make. Since no one can know everything, to be fully informed on any subject (a claim sometimes made by those in authority) is simply to reach a judgment that additional data are not important enough to be worth the trouble of securing or considering.To carry the analysis another step, it must be recognized that theories are the result of questions and questions are the product of perceived ignorance. Thus it is chat ignorance gives rise to inquiry chat produces knowledge, which, in turn, discloses newareas of ignorance. This is the paradox of knowledge: As knowledge increases so does ignorance, and ignorance may increase more than its related knowledge.My own metaphor to illustrate the relationship of knowledge and ignorance is based on a line from Matthew Arnold: "For we are here as on a darkling plain...." The dark chat surrounds us, chat, indeed, envelops our world, is ignorance. Knowledge is the illumination shed by whatever candles (or more technologically advanced light sources) we can provide. As we light more and more figurative candles, the area of illumination enlarges; but the area beyond illumination increases geometrically. We know chat there is much we don't know; but we cannot know how much there is chat we don't know. Thus knowledge is finite, but ignorance is infinite, and the finite cannot ever encompass the infinite.This is a revised version of an article originally published in COSMOS 1994. Copyright 1995 by Lee Loevinger.Lee Loevinger is a Washington lawyer and former assistant attorney general of the United States who writes frequently for scientific c publications. He hasparticipated for many years as a member, co-chair, or liaison with the National Conference of Lawyers and Scientists, and he is a founder and former chair of the Science and Technology Section of the American Bar Association. Office address: Hogan and Hartson, 555 Thirteenth St. NW, Washington, DC 20004.人类从古类人猿进化到当前的状态这个长久的进化过程中的最大成就是有关于人类自身、世界以及宇宙众多知识的获得和积聚。

第四课科学的事实：如何与基督徒的信仰协调？Scientific Facts: Compatible with Christian Faith?有人会认为，科学与基督教之间不必要的争斗已在很久之前完满结束。

然而，科学家及神学家近年的言论显示他们并不认同这看法。

例如， Richard Dawkins ——一位敢言的无神论者——认为「达尔文使成为知性上完满的无神论者变得可能」。

在神学界方面，一个基要派的基督徒组织 Institute of Creation Research (ICR) 不断出版反进化论的刊物，其中提及「……爬虫类动物进化成哺乳类动物，是科学上不能接纳的主张」。

有趣的是，正如 ICR 过去的出版物都有瑕疵一样，这些言论在科学界比起反基督教的科学家在神学界更广为人知。

科学与基督教争斗的原因可追溯至三个错误。

首先，双方的支持者都无法介定「进化」一词。

此外，双方都不能接受科学是基督徒世界观的一种产物。

最后，双方对科学与神学的限制都产生混淆。

甚么是进化？The American Scientific Affiliation 出版了一本超卓的著作，名为Teaching Science in a Climate of Controversy ，对象是任教高中科学的老师。

书中对「进化」有五个解释。

微观进化 ( 即在繁殖项目中产生杂交品种，或因适应环境而产生轻微变化的品种 ) 经常发生。

宏观进化 ( 即假设人类从单细胞或无机混合物进化而来 ) 的学说并不明显，争议性亦较高。

最后，「进化」有时被视为自然主义者的富宗教色彩的信念，认为「人类是无目的及自然过程中的产物」。

只有少数人 ( 如果有的话 ) 会否认，随着时间的过去，植物界及动物界会有轻微的变化。

相反地，只有少数人会认为人类 ( 以及宇宙中其余的生物 ) 只是随机而来的产物。

当一些生物学家把宏观进化论的假设指为「事实」时，他们会歪曲证据或掩饰事情的真相。

第四课科学的事实：如何与基督徒的信仰协调？Scientific Facts: Compatible with Christian Faith?有人会认为，科学与基督教之间不必要的争斗已在很久之前完满结束。

然而，科学家及神学家近年的言论显示他们并不认同这看法。

例如， Richard Dawkins ——一位敢言的无神论者——认为「达尔文使成为知性上完满的无神论者变得可能」。

在神学界方面，一个基要派的基督徒组织 Institute of Creation Research (ICR) 不断出版反进化论的刊物，其中提及「……爬虫类动物进化成哺乳类动物，是科学上不能接纳的主张」。

有趣的是，正如 ICR 过去的出版物都有瑕疵一样，这些言论在科学界比起反基督教的科学家在神学界更广为人知。

科学与基督教争斗的原因可追溯至三个错误。

首先，双方的支持者都无法介定「进化」一词。

此外，双方都不能接受科学是基督徒世界观的一种产物。

最后，双方对科学与神学的限制都产生混淆。

甚么是进化？The American Scientific Affiliation 出版了一本超卓的著作，名为Teaching Science in a Climate of Controversy ，对象是任教高中科学的老师。

书中对「进化」有五个解释。

微观进化 ( 即在繁殖项目中产生杂交品种，或因适应环境而产生轻微变化的品种 ) 经常发生。

宏观进化 ( 即假设人类从单细胞或无机混合物进化而来 ) 的学说并不明显，争议性亦较高。

最后，「进化」有时被视为自然主义者的富宗教色彩的信念，认为「人类是无目的及自然过程中的产物」。

只有少数人 ( 如果有的话 ) 会否认，随着时间的过去，植物界及动物界会有轻微的变化。

相反地，只有少数人会认为人类 ( 以及宇宙中其余的生物 ) 只是随机而来的产物。

当一些生物学家把宏观进化论的假设指为「事实」时，他们会歪曲证据或掩饰事情的真相。

The End Is Not at HandThe environmental rhetoric overblown.The planet will surviveRobert J. SamuelsonWhoever coined the phrase "save the planet" is a public relation genius. It conveys the sense of impending catastrophe and high purpose that has wrapped environmentalism in an aura of moral urgency.It also typifies environmentalism's rhetorical excesses, which, in any other context, would be seen as wild exaggeration or simple dishonesty.无论是谁杜撰了"拯救地球〞这一说法,他都是一位公共关系方面的天才.这一说法既表达了对即将来临的灭顶之灾的意识,也满怀着使环境保护论带有道义紧迫感这一大的目标.同时这种说法也表明环境保护论言过其实,这种夸大在其他任何场合都会被视为是在危言耸听或愚蠢的欺骗.Up to a point, our environmental awareness has checked a mindless enthusiasm for unrestrained economic growth.We have sensibly curbed some of growth's harmful side effects. But environmentalism increasingly resembles a holy crusade addicted to hype and ignorant of history.Every environmental ill is depicted as an onrushing calamity that—if not stopped will end life as we know it.就某种程度而言,我们的环境意识遏制了对自由经济增长所表现出的盲目热情.我们已明智地抑制了增长中所出现的一些有害的副作用,但是环境保护论却越来越像一场沉缅于狂热的宣传与对历史一无所知的圣战.每一由环境问题引发的不幸都被描绘成一场势不可挡的灾难.这场灾难如不加以制止,正像我们所知晓的那样,就会摧毁生命.Take the latest scare: the greenhouse effect. We' re presented with the horrifying specter of a world that incinerates itself.Act now, or sizzle later. Food supplies will wither. Glaciers will melt. Coastal areas will flood. In fact, the probable losses from any greenhouse warming are modest: 1 to 2 percent of our economy's output by the year 2050, estimates economist William Cline.The loss seems even smaller compared with the expected growth of the economy <a doubling> over the same period.以最近出现的恐慌——温室效应——为例.展现在我们面前的是一个自我焚毁、可怕的幽灵般的世界.即刻行动,否则世界将咝咝烧焦.食品供应即将枯竭.冰川即将溶化.沿海地区即将淹没.事实上,任何温室热效应可能造成的损失都是有限的：经济学家威廉·克莱恩估计,到2050年只占我们经济产出的1%到2%.与预想的同期经济增长<翻一番>相比,这一损失更显得微不足道.No environmental problem threatens the "planet" or rates with the danger of a nuclear war.No oil spill ever caused suffering on a par with today's civil war in Yugoslavia, which isa minor episode in human misery. World WarⅡleft more than35 million dead. Cambodia's civil war resulted in 1 million to 3 million deaths.The great scourges of humanity remain what they have always been: war, natural disaster, oppressive government, crushing poverty and hate. On any scale of tragedy, environmental distress is a featherweight.没有任何环境问题威胁这颗"星球〞,任何环境问题无法用核战争所带所来的危害来衡量.任何石油溢出造成的危害也无法同今日南斯拉夫内战——它不过是人类苦难中的一段小插曲——相比拟.第二次世界大战导致 3 500 多万人死亡.柬埔寨内战导致100至300万人死亡.人类的巨大祸患一如既往：战争、自然灾害、暴虐政府、极度的贫困与仇恨.在悲剧的任何尺度上,环境问题造成的痛苦都轻如鸿毛.This is not an argument for indifference or inaction. It is an argument for perspective and balance. You can believe <as I do> that the possibility of greenhouse warming enhances an already strong case for an energy tax.A tax would curb ordinary air pollution, limit oil imports, cut the budget deficit and promote energy efficient investments that make economic sense.这并非在为漠不关心或无动于衷进行辩解,这是在为前途和平衡而进行辩论.你可以相信<像我那样>,温室热效应的可能性强化了已具说服力的征缴能源税的理由.税收会抑制通常的空气污染,限制石油进口,减少预算赤字并提高具有经济意义的能效投入.But it does not follow that anyone who disagrees with me is evil or even wrong.On the greenhouse effect, for instance, there‘s ample scientific doubt over whether warming will occur and, if so, how much. Moreover, the warming would occur over decades. People and businesses could adjust. To take one example: farmers could shift to more heat-resistant seeds.但这并非意味着同我观点相悖的人就是居心叵测,或甚至是错误的.例如,就温室效应而言,热效应是否会发生,如果发生,其程度如何,对这类问题还存在大量的科学疑问.此外,热效应的发生需几十年的时间.人与行业可以进行调整.举一例：农民可改用更为耐热的种子.Unfortunately, the impulse of many environmentalists is to vilify and simplify. Critics of environmental restrictions are portrayed as selfish and ignorant creeps.Doomsday scenarios are developed to prove the seriousness of environmental dangers. Cline‘s recent greenhouse study projected warming 250 years into the future. Guess what, it increases sharply. This is anabsurd exercise akin to predicting life in 1992 at the time of the French and Indian War <1754～1763>.遗憾的是,许多环境保护论者感情用事,搞中伤和将事情简单化.环境限制法的批评者被描绘为自私自利、愚昧无知的小人.创作出了有关世界末日的电影剧本以证实环境危险的严重性.克莱恩最近对温室效应的研究展现了热效应在今后250年间的变化.猜猜吧,结果是什么?它在急剧增长.这就类似于一种在法印战争〔1754~1763〕时期预言1992的生活的无稽之谈.The rhetorical overkill is not just innocent excess. It clouds our understanding. For starters, it minimizes the great progress that has been made, especially in industrialized countries. In the United States, air and water pollution have dropped dramatically.Since 1960, particulate emissions <soot, cinders> are down by 65 percent. Lead emissions have fallen by 97 percent since 1970. Smog has declined in most cities.大谈特谈过多的伤亡并非过分的无知,它混淆人们的视听.对工业刚起步的国家来说,它低估了特别是工业化国家已取得的巨大成就.在美国,空气与水污染已得到显著缓解.自1960年以来,微颗粒物排放量〔煤灰、煤渣〕已下降65%.自1970年以来,铅排放量已降低97%.在大多数城市中,烟雾已减少.What's also lost is the awkward necessity for choices. Your environmental benefit may be my job. Not every benefit is worth having at any cost.Economists estimate that environmental regulations depress the economy's output by 2.6 to 5 percent, or about $150 billion to $290 billion. <Note: this is larger than the estimated impact of global warming.> For that cost, we've lowered health risks and improved our surroundings. But some gains are small compared with the costs. And some costs are needlessly high because regulations are rigid.同时我们也受到损失.这就是必须进行棘手的选择.你在环保方面所得到的好处也许就是我应尽的义务.并非每种利益都值得不惜任何代价而求之.经济学家估计,环境法规使经济产出下降2.6%至5%,或 1 500亿至2 900亿美元〔注：这一数字大于全球热效应的估计影响〕.我们用这一代价的确减轻了给身体所带来的危害,并且改善了我们的环境.但是,有些却得不偿失,而且由于法规的刻板僵化而使得一些代价毫无必要地上升.Balance: The worst sin of environmental excess is its bias against economic growth. The cure for the immense problems of poor countries usually lies with economic growth. A recent report from the World Bank estimates that more than 1 billion people lack healthy water supplies and sanitary facilities.Theresult is hundreds of millions of cases of diarrhea annually and the deaths of 3 million children <2 million of which the World Bank judges avoidable>. Only by becoming wealthier can countries correct these conditions.平衡：过份夸大环境作用的最大罪过是对经济增长所执的偏见.解决贫困国家所存在的大量问题通常与经济增长息息相关.世界银行最近的一份报告估计, 10亿多人缺少健康用水和卫生设施.其结果是每年成千百万人患痢疾,并导致三百万儿童死亡〔世界银行认为,其中200万人可以免于死亡〕.国家只有变得富裕起来才能改变这些状况.Similarly, wealthier societies have both the desire and the income to clean their air and water. Advanced nations have urban-air-pollution levels only a sixth that of the poorest countries. Finally, economic growth tends to reduce high birthrates, as children survive longer and women escape traditional roles.与此同理,较富庶的国家既具有愿望也具有财政收入来静化空气和用水,发达国家的城市空气污染仅为贫穷国家的六分之一.最终,经济增长将降低高的出生率,因为儿童寿命延长了,妇女也摆脱了传统的角色.Yes, we have environmental problems. Reactors in the former Soviet Union pose safety risks. Economic growth and theenvironment can be at odds. Growth generates carbon dioxide emissions and causes more waste. But these problems are not - as environmental rhetoric implies - the main obstacles to sustained development. The biggest hurdle is inept government. Inept government fostered unsafe reactors. Inept government hampers food production in poor countries by, say, preventing farmers from earning adequate returns on their crops.的确,我们存在环境问题.前苏联的反应堆给安全造成威胁.经济增长与环境会发生矛盾.增长产生二氧化碳排放物,并且造成更多的废弃物.但是这些问题并不像环境保护论者夸夸其谈的那样,是持续发展的主要障碍.最大的障碍是无能的政府.无能的政府培育出无安全保障的反应堆.在贫穷的国家,无能的政府,比如说,通过限止农民从其作物中获得适当的利润,阻碍食品生产.By now, everyone is an environmentalist. But the label is increasingly meaningless, because not all environmental problems are equally serious and even the serious ones need to be balanced against other concerns. Environmentalism should hold the hype. It should inform us more and frighten us less.到现在为止,人人都是环境保护论者,但是这种说法越来越没有意义,因为并非一切环境问题都同样严重,甚至即使那些严重的环境问题也需要同其他利害关系来均衡考虑.环境保护论应当终止那种刺激性宣传.它应当给予我们更多一些信息,更少一些恐吓.Supplementary ReadingJAKARTA - Planet Earth was battered by floods, drought and fire in 1997, a year which ended with the world's major polluters squabbling over ways to prevent further environmental disaster.The 160 nations attending a UN conference on global warming, billed as one of the most vital ever held, finally reached a consensus on cutting greenhouse gas emissions through the next decade.The climate was dominated in the latter part of the year by El Nino, an upswelling of warmer water off the South American coast which affects global weather patterns."I think for sure the most dramatic thing has been the El Nino phenomenon that has been experienced throughout the tropics," said Jeffrey Sayer, director general of the International Centre for Forestry Research <CIFOR>,at Bogor near Jakarta.El Nino, called by Peruvian fisherman after the Christ Child because of its appearance around Christmas, is being blamed for widespread floods and drought in the tropics, and has affected other areas as well.A major manifestation of the phenomenon was drought-aggravated bush fires in Indonesia that spread a choking smog across large areas of Southeast Asia before badly delayed monsoon rains started to fall in late November.Floods swept arid Somalia in East Africa, while the rain forests of Indonesia's lrian Jaya dried out and hundreds of tribes people died from starvation and disease.Apart from El Nino, eastern and central Europe suffered the worst floods in living memory in early July, with over 100 people killed in Poland and the Czech Republic, and many thousands of families displaced through the region and eastern Germany.In the ancient Japanese capital of Kyoto, a UN gathering of 159 countries finally agreed on cutting greenhouse gas emissions after 11 days of frenetic negotiations."Perhaps this day will be in the future remembered as the Day of the Atmosphere," conference chairman Raul Estrada told the conference after a treaty text was passed by consensus on December 11.The conference agreed that developed nations should cut emission of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse" gases blamed for global warming.The United States accepted a 7 per cent cut from 1990 levels by 2008～2112, the European Union 8 per cent and Japan 6 per cent.The conference accepted scientific evidence that heating of the Earth's surface by gases trapped in the atmosphere causes more and fiercer storms, expanding deserts, melting polar ice and raising sea levels which threaten to submerge low lying islands-and some island states, such as the Maldives in the Indian Ocean.The United States wants developing countries brought under the emission control umbrella and the treaty still faces a major hurdle in its passage in Washington through a potentially hostile Republican Congress.US Vice President Al Gore called the Kyoto agreement "a vital turning point", but echoed the EU's Environment Minister Ritt Bjerregaard that more still needed to be done."This is not good enough for the future...we would like the parties to be more ambitious," Bjerregaard said.Indonesia's Environment Minister Sarwono Kusumaatmadja said it was up to the developed countries to provide the leadership to guarantee Earth's future.The Kyoto conference would at least provide a greaterawareness of environmental problems, particularly as it took place in an El Nino year."But there is always a time lag between awareness and action, and I think that the time lag can be very long..."he said.He also condemned Western criticism of the environmental and conservation policies of developing countries, saying "market forces" were responsible for many of the problems."Basically, we are facing problems with the present contemporary civilization with its consumption and production attitude...."The market is not friendly to the environment ,and we are part of the market. It is too big a problem for us to handle ...so they want to have their cake and eat it."They want to have their market and they want to have us perform as guardians of the world's environment without them having anything to do with it."The Kyoto conference also pitted big business against campaigners for the environment-although major insurance organizations did offer support to the "greens".CIFOR's Sayer told reporters that a major development in the last two or three years was the emergence of major multinational corporations in the global timber industry."This is not necessarily a bad thing because those companies also have the resources to practice sustainable forestry if they are motivated to do so."。

Cancer ＆Chemicals—Are We Going Too Far?Marla ConeLast year, California governor George Deukmejian called together many of the state's best scientific minds to begin implementing Proposition 65，the state’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act。

This new law bans industries from discharging chemical suspected of causing cancer (carcinogens) or birth defects into water supplies。

Some claim it will also require warning labels on everything that might cause cancer。

去年,加利福尼亚州州长乔治·德米加召集本州许多优秀的科学家开会，开始执行第65号提案，即州安全饮用水和毒品实施法案。

这一新法令禁止各工业部门向水源中排放被怀疑致癌和引起先天缺陷的化学物质.有些人宣称，新法律还要求在一切可能致癌的物品上贴上警告标签。

A day of esotericscience and incomprehensible jargonwas predicted. But Bruce Ames, chairman of the department of biochemistry at the University of California at Berkeley，had plans to liven the proceedings.原来预计，开会那天将全是些玄妙的科学和难懂的术语,但加州大学伯克利分校生物化学系系主任布鲁斯·爱姆兹却打算使会议开得更有生气。