[风雨与共] 12.21 Issue习作 Issue 40 by 【7】

shawn_pysUID: 2770388

Issue 40 "Scholars and researchers should not be concerned with whether their work makes a contribution to the larger society. It is more important that they pursue their individual interests, however unusual or idiosyncratic those interests may seem."

欢迎拍砖~

有保留的赞成：
1. 兴趣能够有效地推动人们进行研究工作，兴趣是对研究的最好刺激，科研工作需要兴趣
2. 科研工作者的兴趣并不是随便什么都应该去追寻的，比如说克隆人体、生化武器，对兴趣的追逐还应该停留在道德和法律的范围内，不能危害社会
3. 科研对整个社会的贡献程度很多时候是无法预测的，并且可能随着科研的深入而不断扩大，最后造福于全人类

(小改了一下)
What is most important thing to a scholar or a researcher? Is it the contribution to the large society made by his work, or to pursue their individual interests, however unusual or idiosyncratic those interests may seem? I prefer the later one, to pursue one's own interest, though it may be the most eccentric, except those may haphazard the society.

This is no doubt that the interests will give great impetus to a person to accomplish his research. We can see it in our daily life that the individuals who have interests on the research are always thinking more and do more experiments on it than those without do. We human have the instinct to chase our interests, and by doing so it will give us the greatest pleasure that none else can give. Looking backward through our human history, most significant scientific achievements acquired by human attribute to the interests.

Science involves imagination and creative thinking as well as the collection of information and performing experiments. Facts by themselves are not science. As the mathematician Jules Henri Poincare said, "Science is built with facts just like a house built with bricks, but a collection of facts cannot be called science any more than a pile of bricks can be called a house." I can hardly think of any person that can do scientific research in an imaginative and creative way without interests. To compel scholars to focus on certain areas would be to force many to waste their true talents.

But the social influences of the research conducted by someone also should be taken into concerns. May be someone's interests are to clone a real human being or a biochemical weapon with a "fantastic" power. Such interests will cause threats to our society's safety or provoke controversies should they have been pursued enthusiastically by their scientific owner, so that them should be constrained rather than followed.

Yet, only if it has no harms for our society, it should be chased, however eccentric or idiosyncratic it might be. Because the consequence of such a research can hardly be prophesied and that it is "idiosyncratic" and "unusual" avenue of enquiry that lead to the greatest contributions to society. History is laden with unusual and eccentric ideas turned out to be stunning significant--that time and space are relative concepts, that matter consists of discrete particles, that humans evolved from another species, to name a few. Due to that each person has his own interest different from others' and they must cover all the fields, there is no need to worry about the lack of scientists on some field that may be do great contribution to society. All these evidences indicate that it is not only unnecessary but a wasting to restrict scientist in some directions considered to be beneficial to the whole society.

In the other hand, only those who spare no efforts to pursue the interests have the courage and determination to go through(take) the unusual way, a way hard to be understood. And most of the technologies that we find so significant today, weren't such noticing when they just born. For example, the Watt's invention of train has once been mocked a long time because of its speed even lower than the carriage at first. But now, its contribution is imponderable. So that we shouldn't assess a research's contribution to society only by its short-term benefit. (删掉Due to that each person has his own interest different from others' and they must cover all the fields, there is no need to worry about the lack of scientists on some field that may be do great contribution to society.)


In sum, I agree with that scholars and researchers should pursue their interests freely within reasonable limits as determined by peer review, rather than concern firstly about the contributions they may make to society. To pursue one's harmless interests perhaps is the best way to contribute the society.

arksapmis30UID: 2973097

What is （the）most important thing to a scholar or a researcher? Is it the contribution to the large society made by his work, or to pursue their individual interests, however unusual or idiosyncratic those interests may seem? I prefer the later one, to pursue one's own interest, though it may be the most eccentric, except those may haphazard (haphazard不是随机性的意思么?而且是形容词，用be detrimental to吧) the society.

This is no doubt that the interests will give great impetus to a person to accomplish his research. We can see it in our daily life that the individuals who have interests on（in） the research are always thinking more and do more experiments on it than those without do(than those without do这个感觉有点别扭，可以删掉). We human have the instinct to chase our interests, and by doing so it will give us the greatest pleasure that none else can give. Looking backward through our human history, most significant scientific achievements acquired by human attribute to the interests.(这段感觉论述得比较空泛，可以举个实际的例子来支撑下会饱满些。)


Science involves imagination and creative thinking（creativity） as well as the collection of information and performing experiments. Facts by themselves are not science. As the mathematician Jules Henri Poincare said, "Science is built with facts just like a house built with bricks, but a collection of facts cannot be called science any more than a pile of bricks can be called a house." I can hardly think of any person that can do scientific research in an imaginative and creative way without interests. To compel scholars to focus on certain areas would be to force many to waste their true talents.

But the social influences of the research conducted by someone also should be taken into concerns. May be （the end result of）someone's interests are to clone a real human being or a biochemical weapon with a "fantastic" power. Such interests will cause threats to our society's safety or provoke controversies should they have been pursued enthusiastically by their scientific owner, so that them should be constrained rather than followed（话说这句话我看半天没看懂，你想表达的是这些有危害的兴趣都是科学家有强烈渴望去实现的，所以要禁止么？因为我是语感派所以不太会从语法角度来分析，但肯定有语病，我的改法：Interests that will cause certain threats to the social security or provoke controversies are chiefly the objective of impassionate scientists and must be constrained rather than followed.同时我觉得这一段可以和第二段换一下，开头让步，然后展开论述，会更有整体性。）


Yet, only if(when) it has no harms for our society, it should be chased, however eccentric or idiosyncratic it might be. Because the consequence of such a research can hardly be prophesied and that it is "idiosyncratic" and "unusual" avenue of enquiry that lead to the greatest contributions to society. History is laden with unusual and eccentric ideas turned out to be stunning significant--that time and space are relative concepts, that matter consists of discrete particles, that humans evolved from another species, to name a few. Due to that each person has his own interest different from others' and they must cover all the fields, there is no need to worry about the lack of scientists on some field that may be do great contribution to society. All these evidences indicate that it is not only unnecessary but a wasting to restrict scientist in some directions considered to be beneficial to the whole society.(这段关于兴趣促使更多新的领域得到拓展的论述很不错，学习了。)

In(on) the other hand, only those who spare no efforts to pursue the interests have the courage and determination to go through(take) the unusual way, a way hard to be understood. And most of the technologies that we find so significant today, weren't such noticing when they just born. For example, the Watt's invention of train has once been mocked a long time because of its speed even lower than the carriage at first. But now, its contribution is imponderable. So that we shouldn't assess a research's contribution to society only by its short-term benefit. (删掉Due to that each person has his own interest different from others' and they must cover all the fields, there is no need to worry about the lack of scientists on some field that may be do great contribution to society.)


In sum, I agree with that scholars and researchers should pursue their interests freely within reasonable limits as determined by peer review, rather than concern firstly about the contributions they may make to society. To pursue one's harmless interests perhaps is the best way to contribute the society.


多注意些搭配问题和用词问题，文章整体感觉挺不错，论述得很充分。语言再多优化优化就更好了。

shawn_pysUID: 2770388

2# arksapmis30
多谢指点~我的语言功底确实很薄弱，要多下下功夫了。有几个地方还有问题，希望你再指点指点~

What is the most important thing to a scholar or a researcher? Is it the contribution to the large society made by his work, or to pursue their individual interests, however unusual or idiosyncratic those interests may seem? I prefer the later one, to pursue one's own interest, though it may be the most eccentric, except those may be detrimental to the society.

This is no doubt that the interests will give great impetus to a person to accomplish his research. We can see it in our daily life that the individuals who have interests in the research are always thinking more and do more experiments on it (than those without do删掉). We human have the instinct to chase our interests, and by doing so it will give us the greatest pleasure that none else can give. Looking backward through our human history, most significant scientific achievements acquired by human attribute to the interests.For example, Darwin's special interest in human beings and animals have been leading him to discovery the Evolution.


Science involves imagination and creative thinking（creativity）as well as the collection of information and performing experiments. Facts by themselves are not science. As the mathematician Jules Henri Poincare said, "Science is built with facts just like a house built with bricks, but a collection of facts cannot be called science any more than a pile of bricks can be called a house." I can hardly think of any person that can do scientific research in an imaginative and creative way without interests. To compel scholars to focus on certain areas would be to force many to waste their true talents.

However, the social influences of the research conducted by someone also should be taken into concerns.
There are also possibilities that someone's interests are to clone a real human being or to invent a biochemical weapon with a "fantastic" power. Such interests will cause threats to our society's safety or provoke controversies should they have been pursued enthusiastically by their scientific owner (我是想说如果这些兴趣被科学家努力追求的话，就会对社会造成危害，我错了，不该乱用什么将来完成时……不知道这样改行不：Such interests will cause great threats to our society's safety or provoke controversies were they pursued enthusiastically by scientists), so that them should be constrained rather than followed.（同时我觉得这一段可以和第二段换一下，开头让步，然后展开论述，会更有整体性。）(其实这一段放在这里主要是因为考虑到下一段有讨论奇怪的兴趣是否应该被追求，想说稍微进行一下对比，请教一下是不是有这个必要，还是说放开头让步比较好？）


Yet, only if(when) it has no harms for our society, it should be chased, however eccentric or idiosyncratic it might be. Because the consequence of such a research can hardly be prophesied and that it is "idiosyncratic" and "unusual" avenue of enquiry that lead to the greatest contributions to society. History is laden with unusual and eccentric ideas turned out to be stunning significant--that time and space are relative concepts, that matter consists of discrete particles, that humans evolved from another species, to name a few.Due to that each person has his own interest different from others' and they must cover all the fields, there is no need to worry about the lack of scientists on some field that may be do great contribution to society. All these evidences indicate that it is not only unnecessary but a wasting to restrict scientist in some directions considered to be beneficial to the whole society.(这段关于兴趣促使更多新的领域得到拓展的论述很不错，学习了。)

In(on) the other hand(这里我是想表达从另一个角度来看，不过不知道该用啥，由于没有对立面，所以没敢用on the other hand, 可以这么用吗？), only those who spare no efforts to pursue the interests have the courage and determination to go through(take) the unusual way, a way hard to be understood. And most of the technologies that we find so significant today, weren't such noticing when they just born. For example, the Watt's invention of train has once been mocked a long time because of its speed even lower than the carriage at first. But now, its contribution is imponderable. So that we shouldn't assess a research's contribution to society only by its short-term benefit.

In sum, I agree with that scholars and researchers should pursue their interests freely within reasonable limits as determined by peer review, rather than concern firstly about the contributions they may make to society. To pursue one's harmless interests perhaps is the best way to contribute the society.

arksapmis30UID: 2973097

3# shawn_pys

What is the most important thing to a scholar or a researcher? Is it the contribution to the large society made by his work, or to pursue their individual interests, however unusual or idiosyncratic those interests may seem? I prefer the later one, to pursue one's own interest, though it may be the most eccentric, except those may be detrimental to the society.

This is no doubt that the interests will give great impetus to a person to accomplish his research. We can see it in our daily life that the individuals who have interests in the research are always thinking more and do more experiments on it (than those without do删掉). We human have the instinct to chase our interests, and by doing so it will give us the greatest pleasure that none else can give. Looking backward through our human history, most significant scientific achievements acquired by human attribute to the interests.For example, Darwin's special interest in human beings and animals have been leading him to discovery the Evolution.


Science involves imagination and creative thinking（creativity）as well as the collection of information and performing experiments. Facts by themselves are not science. As the mathematician Jules Henri Poincare said, "Science is built with facts just like a house built with bricks, but a collection of facts cannot be called science any more than a pile of bricks can be called a house." I can hardly think of any person that can do scientific research in an imaginative and creative way without interests. To compel scholars to focus on certain areas would be to force many to waste their true talents.

However, the social influences of the research conducted by someone also should be taken into concerns.
There are also possibilities that someone's interests are to clone a real human being or to invent a biochemical weapon with a "fantastic" power. Such interests will cause threats to our society's safety or provoke controversies should they have been pursued enthusiastically by their scientific owner (我是想说如果这些兴趣被科学家努力追求的话，就会对社会造成危害，我错了，不该乱用什么将来完成时……不知道这样改行不：Such interests will cause great threats to our society's safety or provoke controversies were they pursued enthusiastically by scientists), so that them should be constrained rather than followed.（同时我觉得这一段可以和第二段换一下，开头让步，然后展开论述，会更有整体性。）(其实这一段放在这里主要是因为考虑到下一段有讨论奇怪的兴趣是否应该被追求，想说稍微进行一下对比，请教一下是不是有这个必要，还是说放开头让步比较好？）(1，我觉得改成:such interests will cause great threats to our society's safety or provoke controversies if they were pursued entusiastically by scientists就好了。2，我觉得在这里对比不是很必要，开头让步，接下来几段层层递进不断对论述角度进行细化，会显得条理清晰，更有力的支持你的观点，这是我个人的看法，有点自己的习惯成分在里面~呵呵）


Yet, only if(when) it has no harms for our society, it should be chased, however eccentric or idiosyncratic it might be. Because the consequence of such a research can hardly be prophesied and that it is "idiosyncratic" and "unusual" avenue of enquiry that lead to the greatest contributions to society. History is laden with unusual and eccentric ideas turned out to be stunning significant--that time and space are relative concepts, that matter consists of discrete particles, that humans evolved from another species, to name a few.Due to that each person has his own interest different from others' and they must cover all the fields, there is no need to worry about the lack of scientists on some field that may be do great contribution to society. All these evidences indicate that it is not only unnecessary but a wasting to restrict scientist in some directions considered to be beneficial to the whole society.(这段关于兴趣促使更多新的领域得到拓展的论述很不错，学习了。)

In(on) the other hand(这里我是想表达从另一个角度来看，不过不知道该用啥，由于没有对立面，所以没敢用on the other hand, 可以这么用吗？)(on the other hand主要是表转折，不一定要上下文是对立的，这里用这个我觉得完全没问题的~）, only those who spare no efforts to pursue the interests have the courage and determination to go through(take) the unusual way, a way hard to be understood. And most of the technologies that we find so significant today, weren't such noticing when they just born. For example, the Watt's invention of train has once been mocked a long time because of its speed even lower than the carriage at first. But now, its contribution is imponderable. So that we shouldn't assess a research's contribution to society only by its short-term benefit.

In sum, I agree with that scholars and researchers should pursue their interests freely within reasonable limits as determined by peer review, rather than concern firstly about the contributions they may make to society. To pursue one's harmless interests perhaps is the best way to contribute the society.

shawn_pysUID: 2770388

4# arksapmis30
呵呵明白了~多谢多谢~