DOC《2011 11笔译实务 英译汉》

2011 11笔译实务 英译汉

第一篇 Study Finds Hope in Saving Saltwater Fish 研究发现希望拯救盐水鱼 Can we have our fish and eat it too? An unusual collaboration of marine ecologists and fisheries management scientists says the answer may be yes.

我们可以吃鱼好吗?一个不寻常的合作海洋生态学家和渔业管理科学家称,答案可能是是的. In a research paper in Friday'

s issue of the journal Science, the two groups, long at odds with each other, offer a global assessment of the world'

s saltwater fish and their environments. 在一篇研究论文在星期五出版的科学杂志上的两个组,长别扭,互相提供一个全球评估世界的盐水鱼类和它们的环境. Their conclusions are at once gloomy ― overfishing continues to threaten many species ― and upbeat: a combination of steps can turn things around. But because antagonism between ecologists and fisheries management experts has been intense, many familiar with the study say the most important factor is that it was done at all. 他们的结论是在阴暗的-一旦过度捕捞继续威胁许多物种――乐观:结合步骤可以把身边的事物.但由于对立和渔业生态学家管理专家一直强烈,许多熟悉这项研究说最重要的因素是,它被做. They say they hope the study will inspire similar collaborations between scientists whose focus is safely exploiting specific natural resources and those interested mainly in conserving them. 他们说他们希望这份研究能够激发类似的合作的焦点是科学家之间具体的安全开采自然资源和保护他们感兴趣的主要是在. We need to merge those two communities, said Steve Murawski, chief fisheries scientist for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. This paper starts to bridge that gap. 我们需要合并这两个社区 Murawski史蒂夫说,首席渔业科学家,因为美国国家海洋和大气管理局.本文开始桥的差距. The collaboration began in

2006 when Boris Worm, a marine ecologist at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, and other scientists made an alarming prediction: if current trends continue, by

2048 overfishing will have destroyed most commercially important populations of saltwater fish. Ecologists applauded the work. But among fisheries management scientists, reactions ranged from skepticism to fury over what many called an alarmist report. 的合作始于2006年,当鲍里斯虫,海洋生态学家舍戴尔豪士大学驶往哈里法克斯,新斯科舍,和其他科学家们有了一个惊人的预测:如果目前趋势继续下去,到2048年几乎摧毁了过度捕捞将盐水的重要商业价值的鱼类数量.生态学家鼓掌的工作.但在渔业管理科学家的反应各不相同,有的论者在许多叫做忿怒发布危言耸听的报告. Among the most prominent critics was Ray Hilborn, a professor of aquatic and fishery sciences at the University of Washington in Seattle. Yet the disagreement did not play out in typical scientific fashion with, as Dr. Hilborn put it, researchers firing critical papers back and forth. Instead, he and Dr. Worm found themselves debating the issue on National Public Radio. 其中最著名评论家们Hilborn是雷教授、水产渔业科学在西雅图华盛顿大学的.但分歧没有发挥出的典型的科学时尚,Hilborn博士说: 研究人员关键论文射击来回摆动.相反地,他发现自己和博士虫辩论这事在美国国家公共电台. We started talking and found more common ground than we had expected, Dr. Worm said. Dr. Hilborn recalled thinking that Dr. Worm actually seemed like a reasonable person. 我们开始说话了,发现更多的共同点比我们预计的还要早, 虫博士说.博士Hilborn召回认为博士蠕虫 似乎真的很像一个讲道理的人. The two decided to work together on the issue. They sought and received financing and began organizing workshops at the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, an organization sponsored by the National Science Foundation and based at the University of California, Santa Barbara. 这两个决定一起工作有关问题.他们寻求和接受资金和开始在国家中心工作坊生态分析和合成,该组织由美国国家科学基金会和建立在加州大学圣芭芭拉. At first, Dr. Hilborn said in an interview, the fisheries management people would go to lunch and the marine ecologists would go to lunch ― separately. But soon they were collecting and sharing data and recruiting more colleagues to analyze it. 首先,Hilborn博士在接受一次采访时表示, 渔业管理人们会去吃午饭,海洋生态学家就去吃午饭呢, ――另行规定.但很快,他们收集和共享数据和招募更多的同事来分析它. Dr. Hilborn said he and Dr. Worm now understood why the ecologists and the management scientists disagreed so sharply in the first place. For one thing, he said, as long as a fish species was sustaining itself, management scientists were relatively untroubled if its abundance fell to only