【英译汉】
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.
In a research paper published in 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 .Their conclusions are at once gloomy and upbeat – over-fishing continues to threaten many species, but a combination of steps can turn things around.
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. They say they hope the study will inspire similar collaborations between scientist whose focus is safely exploiting specific natural resources and those interested mainly in conserving them .``This paper starts to bridge that gap.”
扫描下方二维码，进入“每日一练”免费在线测试
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 over-fishing 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 . 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 a 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.
``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.” The two decided to work together on the issue.
Because the new paper represents the views of both camps, its conclusions are likely to be influential .Getting a strong statement from those communities that there is more to agree on than to disagree on helps build confidence.
【参考译文】
在我们有鱼吃的同时，鱼类又不至于灭绝，两者可以得兼吗?海洋生物学家和渔业管理科学家在经历史无 前例的合作后得出了肯定的答案。
海洋生物学家和渔业管理科学家长期以来都存在着分歧，不过双方在《美国自然科学杂志》上发表的研究论文对地球上咸水鱼及其生活环境提供了一个全球性的评估。他们得出的结论立马是情况变得既黯淡又令人乐观—过度对渔业资源的捕捞会继续威胁到很多的物种，但是综合运用各种手段能使扭转形势。
由于生态学家和渔业管理专家之间的分歧一直都比较尖锐，很多熟悉此项研究的人都认为最重要的因素已经是这样了。他们说他们希望此项研究能够激励那些焦聚与安全开采特殊自然资源以及那些主要对保护自然资源感兴趣的科学家采取类似的合作。
该合作开始于2006年。当时加拿大新斯科舍省哈利法克斯戴豪斯大学的一个叫鲍里斯·沃姆的海洋生物学家和其他的科学家做出了一个令人震惊的预测：如果任当前趋势继续下去，到2048年过渡捕鱼将会破坏以捕获咸水鱼为生的渔民的生意。
生态学家对此项工作大加赞赏，但是在渔业管理科学家之间对此的反应却不同，对于这所谓的危言耸听的报告有的持怀疑态度，有的表示愤怒。其中最著 名的批评家莫过于雷·希尔伯恩了。他是西雅图华盛顿大学水产和渔业科学系教授。正如希尔博尔博士所言，该分歧并不是以一种典型的科学方式结束的，把评论文章
沃姆博士说道：“我们开始讨论并且发现了更多的共同点，超出了我们之前的预计。”希尔伯恩博士回忆到，沃姆博士实际上看起来像一个讲道理的人。两个人决定在这个问题上采取合作。
由于报纸代表了两大正营的观点，它的结论很有可能会很有影响力。从这些群体中得到一个强有力的论点，及合作远大于分歧，这有助于建立信心。
口译： 翻译资格考试二级口译模拟题
笔译： 翻译资格考试二级笔译模拟题
资料来源考试网校老师主讲教材精讲班课程，完整讲义下载进入个人中心>>
