Issue 119 research priorities 这个里面好多专业点的词都不会，很不爽啊

zclxUID: 139830

refer to this edition. --- iq28

Undoubtedly, it is the basic and essential criterion to evaluate social changes; especially those occur in economic area,1 that can the lives of majority of social members be improved by these changes. 2 This criterion embraces and embodies not only social efficiency but also human equity, which are both crucial to the survival of any democratic society. However, is this beneficial-to-majority 3 standard still applicable for the setting of research priorities in science, education and other areas? The title statement agrees with this contention. But, I think to which kind of research we distribute more social resources should not be decided merely based on directly visible profits it will bring us.

Today, science 4, whether social science or natural science, is developing in such a complicated and abstruse way 5 that many newly developed science productions cannot 6 be translated into beneficial productivity 7 improvement immediately. Especially in those areas of the fundamental theoretics, it is beyond the intelligence of present-day humankind to evaluate the potential values contained in the some research. As the head of 7.5 the dept of mathematics at my university once said (and I paraphrase): "I am not sure 8 about to what extent 9 will 10 the developments in my research area like the solution of the Ferma Big Proposition contribute to people's everyday lives. However, 11 this kind of research is also valuable. When four 12 British and American universities successfully set up a network for the physics information exchange, who could tell years later it would evolve to the Internet totally changing the world?" This brilliantly illustrates that many researches cannot improve human lives in a short time, yet sometimes they eventually turn out to be milestones in the human history.13

Were to simply put the research bringing direct advantage to people at the first place, it would result in a distorted knowledge structure of which 14 over-emphasized application study based on a powerless basic theory research. Obviously, this kind of structure cannot maintain a sustainable 15 development, because sooner or later the basic theory department will fail 16 to supply sufficient thoughts, notions and inventions from which the application study department can bring final product fit for industrial producing. Further, more and more students are forced to study those application technologies for 16.5 they can enjoy more education resources and subsequently get a better job. This will inevitably lead to a narrow 17 scope of knowledge not only 18 to the student but also to the society as a whole. Finally, oftentimes, some new technology will do harm to a lot of people as well as benefit many others especially people in the future, thus it is no longer efficient and fair to refuse this technology for people who enjoy it are less than those who are hurt by it nowadays.19

However, there is no denying that science developments ought to bring convenience and happiness to the society in general rather than put sorrow and pain on human being. It is 22 unreasonable to spend limited social resources on some totally useless and even destructive technology. What a pity it is that several developed countries invest billions of dollars in weapon research and producing, meanwhile hundreds of thousands of people die in lack of foods and drugs in Africa. Thus, entire negation to the application of the research is unacceptable either.

To sum up, without investments in the 23 rough but potentially beneficial basic theoretic research, our society will suffer the deficiency of fundamental knowledge and not be able to maintain a continuous growth; with out thinking of the application value and the latent harms of that, we will be bogged down in the Sargasso Sea of useless and deleterious inventions and productions. So we need a comprehensive and balanced criterion in which both visible and latent, both present and future benefits and harms are considered in decide the priorities of research.




Issue 119 "When research priorities are being set for science, education, or any other area, the most important question to consider is: How many people lives will be improved if the results are successful?"

Undoubtedly, it is the basic and essential criterion to evaluate social changes especially those occur in economic area that can the majority social members' lives be improved by these changes, because this criterion embraces and embodies not only social efficiency but also human equity, which are both crucial to the survival of any democratic society. However, is this standard still applicable for the setting of research priorities in science, education and other areas? The title statement agrees with this contention. But, I think to which kind of research we distribute more social resources should not be decided merely based on directly visible profits it will bring us.

Today, sciences, whether social sciences or natural sciences, are developing in such a complicated and abstruse way, that many newly developed science productions cannot transform into beneficial productivity immediately. Especially in those areas of the fundamental theoretics, it is beyond the intelligence of present-day humankind to evaluate the potential values contained in the some research. As the head of Mathematics at my university once said (and I paraphrase): "I am not sure either about to what extension can the developments in my research area like the solution of the Fema Big Proposition will contribute to people's everyday lives. However, that is not to say this kind of research is of no value. When four English and American universities successfully set up a network for the physics information exchange, who could tell years later it would evolve to the Internet totally changing the world?" This brilliantly illustrates that many researches cannot improve human lives in a short time, while cursory ignorance to them will lead to the loss of gigantic potential profits.

Were to simply put the research bringing direct advantage to people at first place, it would result in a distorted knowledge structure of over-emphasized application study based on a powerless basic theory research. Obviously, this kind of structure cannot maintain a continuous development, because sooner or later the basic theory department will not be able to supply sufficient thoughts, notions and inventions from which the application study department can bring final product fit for industrial producing. Further, more and more students are forced to study those application technologies for there are not enough education resources in the basic theory department. This will lead to a narrow-located scope of knowledge not to the student but also to the society as a whole. Finally, oftentimes, some new technology will do harm to a lot of people as well as benefit many others especially people in the future, is it still efficient and fair to refuse this technology for nowadays people who enjoy it are less than those who are hurt by it?

However, there is no denying that science developments ought to bring convenience and happiness to the society in general rather than put sorrow and pain on human being. It is not reasonable to spend limited social resources in some totally useless and even destructive technology. What a pity it is that several developed countries invest billions of dollars in weapon research and producing, meanwhile hundreds of thousands of people die in lack of foods and drugs in Africa. Thus, entire negation to the application of the research is unacceptable either.

To sum up, without investments in the painstaking but potentially beneficial basic theoretic research, our society will suffer the deficiency of fundamental knowledge and not be able to maintain a continuous growth. However, with out thinking of the application value and the latent harms of that, we will be bogged down in the Sargasso Sea of useless and deleterious inventions and productions. So we need a comprehensive and balanced criterion in which both visible and latent, both present and future benefits and harms are considered in decide the priorities of research.

[ 本帖最后由 iq28 于 2007-6-24 17:47 编辑 ]

imongUID: 140258

Undoubtedly, it is the basic and essential criterion to evaluate social changes especially those occur in economic area that can the majority social members' lives be improved by these changes（太长了，找不出结构来，读着有点费劲）, because this criterion embraces and embodies not only social efficiency but also human equity, which are both crucial to the survival of any democratic society. （倒，到这里才结束，真的是“太”长了）However, is this （包括前边，我觉得你至少在一个地方要把this standard重复一下）standard still applicable for the setting of research priorities in science, education and other areas? The title statement agrees with this contention. But,（这里倒不妨连起来，while/though the title statement agree with this contention, I ...)  I think to which kind of research （这里似乎有个should不能省略）we distribute more social resources should not be decided merely based on（be decided merely base on怪怪的） directly visible profits（好！） it will（can） bring us.

Today, sciences, whether social sciences or natural sciences（好像没有复数）, are developing in such a complicated and abstruse way,（去掉逗号） that many newly developed science productions cannot transform（不是这个词） into beneficial productivity（beneficial productivity表达不准确） immediately. Especially in those areas of the fundamental theoretics（fundamental theoretics表达有误？）, it is beyond the intelligence of present-day humankind to evaluate the potential values contained in the some research（后半局用词漂亮！）. As the head of Mathematics （加一个什么dept of 之类的）at my university once said (and I paraphrase): "I am not sure either（either?） about to what extension（extension？extent吧？） can the developments in my research area like（如果can后便要接like，那么我认为多大程度上想像还不如用resemble） the solution of the Fema Big（是big吗？） Proposition will contribute（糊涂了，到底你前边的can要接那个动词？如果只是表达像ferma的话你中间少个逗号） to people's everyday lives. However, that is not to say(啰嗦) this kind of research is of no value. 最好加个for example在这里，要不然以为你还再说ferma呢(后来我看明白了这也属于paraphrase的部分，那就没关系了)。When four English (British) and American universities successfully set up a network for the physics information exchange, who could tell years later it would evolve（would evolve改成evolved?） to (into?) the Internet totally changing the world?" This brilliantly illustrates that many researches cannot improve human lives in a short time, while cursory ignorance（ignorance是无知的意思） to them will lead to the loss of gigantic potential profits.结论这么说不妥，应该改成yet they sometimes/eventually turns out to … 因为你主体部分并没有涉及反面驳斥的东西，这么些显然是前后不照应了，虽然还是相关的。对吧

Were （were谁？）to simply put the research bringing direct advantage to people at first place, it would result in a distorted knowledge structure of（单独用of感觉很怪，还是用of which吧，体会一下差异，其实往往就差这么一点点） over-emphasized application study based on a powerless basic theory research. Obviously, this kind of structure cannot maintain a continuous（sustainable） development, because sooner or later the basic theory department（department?） will not be able to(用主动动词，fail之类的) supply sufficient thoughts, notions and inventions from which the application study department can bring final product fit for industrial producing(稍微有点太长了，整理一下，但是没有开头严重). Further, more and more students are forced to study those application（形容词？） technologies for there are not enough education resources in the basic theory department（这个表达法值得推敲）. This will （加一个inevitably）lead to a narrow-located（located?）scope of knowledge not (少了only) to the student but also to the society as a whole. Finally, oftentimes, some new technology will do harm to a lot of people as well as benefit many others especially people in the future, is it still efficient and fair to refuse this technology for nowadays people who enjoy it are less than those who are hurt by it? Finally这里写得不好。不是不能设问，但是你要给答案啊！人家判卷的都是傻子，基本上你不说他什么都不知道。前两段，先说现实情况，然后说如果…的后果，安排上还不错。

However, there is no denying that science developments ought to bring convenience and happiness to the society in general rather than put sorrow and pain on human being. It is not reasonable（直接unreasonable，一般not能省则省） to spend limited social resources in（on?） some totally useless and even destructive technology. What a pity it is that several developed countries invest billions of dollars in weapon research and producing, meanwhile hundreds of thousands of people die in lack of foods(有s?) and drugs in Africa. Thus, entire negation to the application of the research is unacceptable either. 有画蛇添足之嫌，也没有展开说，倒不如不写了。

To sum up, without investments in the painstaking（煞费苦心的？错了吧） but potentially beneficial basic theoretic research, our society will suffer （from）the deficiency of fundamental knowledge and not be able to maintain a continuous(sustainable) growth. However, (可以用分号，… growth; without …) with out(without) thinking of the application value and the latent harms of that, we will be bogged down in the Sargasso Sea（这是什么？不过看上去很帅） of useless and deleterious inventions and productions. So we need a comprehensive and balanced criterion in which both visible and latent, both present and future benefits and harms are considered in decide the priorities of research.
一个字，好！看来自从happyman消失以来，后继有人啊！我认为你balance的地方值得重新考虑，然后用词的一些小地方不要犯错，这回我可是非常仔细的改过全文的（没办法，看见你回了那么多人的文章，不好意思不劳动了）。我当初也是和你写得有点像，所以一定提醒你把小错误统统干掉。千万！

好啦，终于改完了，加精！表明优秀习作和优秀修改，嘻嘻。
我可要写作业去了，而且今天verbal还没看呢。

zclxUID: 139830

感谢IMONG的修改，对我的启发很大，根据你的一些意见，我自己又对文章进行一遍修改，我用数字对修改点做了标著，贴上来大家一起看看可能有共同的提高

BTW：
Were to xxx, xxx would xxx 应该是一个比较漂亮的虚拟倒装句型
Sargasso Sea是老掉牙的专才和通才里的一个词
还有就是基础学科，基础理论和应用学科我还是想不出应该怎么写

Issue 119 "When research priorities are being set for science, education, or any other area, the most important question to consider is: How many people lives will be improved if the results are successful?"

Undoubtedly, it is the basic and essential criterion to evaluate social changes; especially those occur in economic area,1 that can the lives of majority of social members be improved by these changes. 2 This criterion embraces and embodies not only social efficiency but also human equity, which are both crucial to the survival of any democratic society. However, is this beneficial-to-majority 3 standard still applicable for the setting of research priorities in science, education and other areas? The title statement agrees with this contention. But, I think to which kind of research we distribute more social resources should not be decided merely based on directly visible profits it will bring us.

Today, science 4, whether social science or natural science, is developing in such a complicated and abstruse way 5 that many newly developed science productions cannot 6 be translated into beneficial productivity 7 improvement immediately. Especially in those areas of the fundamental theoretics, it is beyond the intelligence of present-day humankind to evaluate the potential values contained in the some research. As the head of 7.5 the dept of mathematics at my university once said (and I paraphrase): "I am not sure 8 about to what extent 9 will 10 the developments in my research area like the solution of the Ferma Big Proposition contribute to people's everyday lives. However, 11 this kind of research is also valuable. When four 12 British and American universities successfully set up a network for the physics information exchange, who could tell years later it would evolve to the Internet totally changing the world?" This brilliantly illustrates that many researches cannot improve human lives in a short time, yet sometimes they eventually turn out to be milestones in the human history.13

Were to simply put the research bringing direct advantage to people at the first place, it would result in a distorted knowledge structure of which 14 over-emphasized application study based on a powerless basic theory research. Obviously, this kind of structure cannot maintain a sustainable 15 development, because sooner or later the basic theory department will fail 16 to supply sufficient thoughts, notions and inventions from which the application study department can bring final product fit for industrial producing. Further, more and more students are forced to study those application technologies for 16.5 they can enjoy more education resources and subsequently get a better job. This will inevitably lead to a narrow 17 scope of knowledge not only 18 to the student but also to the society as a whole. Finally, oftentimes, some new technology will do harm to a lot of people as well as benefit many others especially people in the future, thus it is no longer efficient and fair to refuse this technology for people who enjoy it are less than those who are hurt by it nowadays.19

However, there is no denying that science developments ought to bring convenience and happiness to the society in general rather than put sorrow and pain on human being. It is 22 unreasonable to spend limited social resources on some totally useless and even destructive technology. What a pity it is that several developed countries invest billions of dollars in weapon research and producing, meanwhile hundreds of thousands of people die in lack of foods and drugs in Africa. Thus, entire negation to the application of the research is unacceptable either.

To sum up, without investments in the 23 rough but potentially beneficial basic theoretic research, our society will suffer the deficiency of fundamental knowledge and not be able to maintain a continuous growth; with out thinking of the application value and the latent harms of that, we will be bogged down in the Sargasso Sea of useless and deleterious inventions and productions. So we need a comprehensive and balanced criterion in which both visible and latent, both present and future benefits and harms are considered in decide the priorities of research.