Issue 23

"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."

這個題目分析起來是說學術目的的。作為一個scholar / researcher，應該考慮的是自己感興趣的領域所在而不是考慮他們的研究成果是否對整個大社會大環境有貢獻。這個題目第一眼看起來似乎是有理的，但是想到很多時候很多科學家的成果實際是無意義的。美國不是有一個搞笑諾貝爾獎嗎？就是獎勵類似的研究的。雖然也是科學成果但是根本就沒有實際操作的價值或者對人類或者對社會根本就沒有意義的。

但是這個contribution在某些時候也可以引申到名利方面。從這個方面來講，這個題目是可以成立的。

對這個題目進行進一步的分析，可以看出來題目里面有一個比較，非常明顯的比較，由more帶出來的，所以我們可以說這個speaker的觀點是很明顯地表明了自己是支持哪個方面的。

Should academic scholars and researchers be free to pursue whatever avenues of inquiry and research that interest them, no matter how unusual or idiosyncratic, as the speaker asserts? Or should they strive instead to focus on those areas that are most likely to benefit society?

拿問句來起頭，來質疑。脫離出了一般的解釋題目的開頭。雖然不是很特別，但是還是讓人感覺比較的attractive。l strongly agree with the speaker, for three reasons. 非常直白的陳述自己的觀點，同意speaker的觀點。

First of all，典型的連接詞，開始陳述觀點了。Who is to decide which areas of academic inquiry are worthwhile? 又是一個問句，但是這個問句的作用和開篇的問句不同了，是引出來自己論證的第一個方面。Scholars cannot be left to decide. 自問自答。

?????? Given a choice they will pursue their own idiosyncratic areas of interest, and it is highly unlikely that all scholars could reach a fully informed consensus as to what research areas would be most worthwhile. Nor can these decisions be left to regulators and legislators, who would bring to bear their own quirky notions about what would be worthwhile, and whose susceptibility to influence renders them untrustworthy in any event.

兩個否定句非常干凈利索地說出看法，沒人有能力來決定什么是應該worth researching的。

Secondly, by human nature we are motivated to pursue those activities in which we excel. To compel scholars to focus only on certain areas would be to force many to waste their true talents. For example, imagine relegating today‘s preeminent astrophysicist Stephen Hawking —— 霍金我想就不用介紹了吧 —— to research the effectiveness of affirmative-action legislation in reducing workplace discrimination. Admittedly, this example borders on hyperbole（夸張法）.Yet the aggregate effect of realistic cases would be to waste the intellectual talents of our world‘s scholars and researchers. Moreover, lacking genuine interest or motivation, a scholar would be unlikely to contribute meaningfully to his or her "assigned" field of study.

這個部分舉例說明了，如果把學者或者科學家局限于某個特定的領域內的話會也會局限其施展自己的talents，是資源的浪費。而缺少動力或者興趣，人也無法完全發揮自己的talents，用辨證的方法說出interest和contribution二者的關系。

Thirdly, it is "idiosyncratic" and "unusual" avenues of inquiry that lead to the greatest contributions to society. Avenues of intellectual and scientific inquiry that break no new ground amount to wasted time, talent, and other resources. History is laden with unusual claims by scholars and researchers that turned out stunningly significant——that the sun lies at the center of our universe, that time and space are relative concepts, that matter consists of discrete particles, that humans evolved from other life forms, to name a few. One current area of unusual research is terraforming —— creating biological life and habitable atmospheres where none existed before. This unusual research area does not immediately address society‘s pressing social problems. Yet in the longer term it might be necessary to colonize other planets in order to ensure the survival of the human race; and after all, what could be a more significant contribution to society than preventing its extinction?

（來源：網絡）