请英语牛人们帮我看一下自己翻的一篇文章 顺便给点小建议 谢谢啦

楼主:夏奈尔NO5 时间:2007-12-03 23:27:00 点击:384 回复:10
脱水 打赏 看楼主 设置

字体:

边距:

背景:

还原:

Until a few years ago, “agricultural technology” was a topic guaranteed to empty the lecture hall. Today the press is filled with stories of the new agriculture—genetically engineered plants, robot farms and cattle bred by computer. The public is fascinated by frontier biotechnological research and the promise of a filled cornucopia future. But for those concerned with the Third World, at least two major questions about agricultural research have not been answered.
   Will agricultural innovations make any real difference in the ability of poorer countries to provide themselves with food? And who will benefit from agricultural research? In the Third World, where two out of three people still live by farming, food shortages and malnutrition are common. If research and service programs for large-scale farming are given priority and small farmers and landless workers ignored, social and economic problems can only worsen.
   Neither question has an obvious answer. At the technical level, biologists argue that gene-splitting will lead to major improvements in crop yields. A known gene with a desirable quality can be inserted into a rice plant and the time, tedium and errors of the old breeding techniques avoided. But the new system may still require years, maybe decades, of chromosome plotting before a project such as increasing drought tolerance of plants can be successfully tackled.
   Nonetheless, frontier research using DNA technologies has already created improved animal vaccines, diagnostic tools and growth promotants. Among those important to the Third World is a vaccine to combat the tse-tse fly virus, which decimates cattle in much of eastern Africa. Improved vaccines for aftosa (hoof-and-mouth disease), malaria and other tropical animal diseases are also on the horizon.
   The promise of great benefits has focused attention on the cost and control of technologies. Many Third World countries are concerned about an apparent shift in control of agricultural innovations from the public to the private sector. Until about 1970, university and government scientists in Europe and the United States led a highly efficient farm production research enterprise. After the technological breakthroughs in computers and biology during the 1960s and 1970s, prospects for commercial innovations increased dramatically and entirely new industries appeared.
   The U.S. Office of Technology Assessment recently counted 92 firms in the United States and another 50 in Europe and Japan—including most of the top pharmaceutical and chemical companies—actively engaged in the agricultural biotechnology industry. Major poultry and animal breeders already control the basic pool of genes for improved animal production; it is only a question of time before they enter the gene manipulation business.
   Pharmaceutical companies bought major seed companies in the 1970s and are also investing in biotechnology, searching for new sources of therapeutical substances or commercially interesting production processes. Chemical and fertilizer companies are putting resources into biotechnology to cover developments that would take away their historic markets. Such developments might include engineered plants that fix their own nitrogen or have built-in pesticides.
   The issue of who controls agricultural technology was sharply put in the November 1985 meetings of the Food and Agriculture organization. Mexico led a coalition of developing countries in opposing extension of patent protection laws to seeds and genetic stock. Cases were cited in which seeds of plants found in the wild in a developing country had been taken elsewhere and given patent protection. The country of origin then had to pay to gain access to its native stock. Developing countries also expressed fear that their national development priorities would be subject to foreign commercial control.
   Unfortunately, the development of new products and technology for Third World agriculture is already on two tracks. This “duality” between programs mainly for large-scale commercial and small-scale agriculture has sparked fierce debate advocates of peasant-based strategies and “appropriate technology” have faced off against “green revolution” scientists and boosters of high-tech agriculture.
   There is a trade-off between the blank check to commercial farmers and attention to the problems of small-scale farmers and landless peasants. Failure to include the rural poor in the priority mix means ever deeper poverty for most of them, accelerated migration into urban slum sand polarization of governments and political options.
   Researchers can favor Third World small farmers (and consumers) by favoring the subsistence-type crops upon which these people most depend. While it was still oil-wealthy, Mexico intensified programs to provide improved varieties of basic food crops—maize and beans—to the campesinos. Most frontier agricultural research for the Third World, however, is conducted by institutes coordinated and financed through a World Bank-led Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research.
   The modification of energy-conversion technologies represents perhaps the greatest unexploited potential for the rural Third World. If harnessed, latent energy in biomass, wind and solar energy sources could quintuple energy available to Third World villages. Research teams could develop simply designed, low-cost equipment as the United Nation’s has done for water pumps and other essential technology.
   Special effort is needed if small farms and landless rural people are to gain priority in research and services. The U.N. FAO and some international agencies have recognized the need, but if results are to reach the farmers, Third World governments must deliberately choose to assist politically impotent rural poor.
  
  
  
  译文:
  许多年前,农业技术一直是人们不会在报告大厅听到的话题。而如今,媒体正对基因工程植物,机器人农场,电脑饲养牲口这些新农业竞相报道。公众正被前沿生物技术研究以其充满“钱途”的美好的未来所吸引。然而在第三世界的农业研究领域却存在着至少两个尚未解决的主要问题。
  第一,农业创新是否能提高贫穷国家食物供给的能力?第二,谁将从农业研究中获益?在第三世界国家里,三分之二人口仍然依靠农业生存,食物短缺和营养不良十分普遍。如果总是大规模农业研究和服务项目得到优先考虑,而小农场主和无土地工人不被重视的话,那么社会和经济问题只会变得更加严重。
  至今没有一个问题有一个明确的解决方法。在技术层面上,生物学家认为,基因突变将在农作物产量上产生重大突破。一个已知的质量优良的基因可以运用到水稻种植中去,并且可以节约旧饲养技术的时间,使得饲养变得不那么沉闷,避免饲养错误。但是也许新体系的实施仍然需要好几年,也可能是几十年,项目实施前的染色体绘制,比如植物的长期忍受力的增长问题才能得到成功解决。
  无论如何,使用DNA技术的边缘技术已经改进了动物疫苗,诊断工具和 其中,抵抗禽流感(致使大部分亚洲东部地区牲口死亡的一种病菌)的疫苗的创造对第三世界最重要。
  治疗口蹄疫,疟疾和其他热带地区的动物疾病的改良疫苗也逐渐被发明出来了。
  巨大潜在利益已经使人们开始重视技术成本和控制。很多第三世界的国家正关注着农业改革控制从公共到个人的显著改变。一直到1970年,欧洲和美国的大学和政府科学家领导了一场高效率的农业产业研究计划。在20世纪6,70年代之间,自计算机和生物领域的突破之后,商业改革的前景发生了戏剧化的变化,同时,一个完整的新工业也开始出现了。
  美国的技术评估办公室最近挑选了92个美国及50个欧洲和日本的公司,包括大多数顶级药学和化工公司,积极参与农业化生物工业领域。主要家禽和动物饲养已经控制了基因的基本物资 ,以增加动物产量。在动物饲养进入基因控制行业之前,唯一的问题便是时间问题。
  20世纪70年代制药公司买了主要的种子公司,并且也正在生物科学领域进行投资,正在寻找治疗物质的新资源或者贸易的利润生产过程。化学和肥料公司正将资源投向生物科技领域,以代替可能带走以前市场的发展。这种发展包括一些工程植物,它们能固定自身的氮气,或者能够自我杀虫。
  1985年11月的食品与农业组织会议上,与会人员激烈地讨论了谁控制农业技术这一问题。墨西哥认为应该成立一个发展中国家联盟以反对关于种子和基因存储专利保护法的日趋扩大。.他们引用了一些事例,比如发展中国家的野外植物种子在其他地方也能找到,应给予专利保护。原产国不得不为获得产品本地存储的机会而付出代价。同时,发展中国家也对国家优先发展产品将附属于国外商业控制而感到担忧。
  不幸的是,第三世界农业的新产品新技术的发展已经呈现出两种发展趋势。这种大型商业和小规模的农业项目间的两重性发展已经引发了激烈的辩论,主张农民为基础的战略和"适当的技术" ,呈现在了反对绿色革命的科学家们和高科技农业的推动者们面前。
  商业农场主的空白支票和对小规模农民和无土地庄稼人问题的关注之间有一个贸易。没有将农村贫困人口优先组合对大多数农村贫困人口来说将意味着更大的贫穷,加快了农村人口向城市贫民窟流动,使得政府和政策执行呈现两极分化。
  研究者们能够通过改进第三世界国家的小型农民(也包括消费者)赖以生存的农作物的生存形式来帮助他们。虽然是石油富国,墨西哥仍然扩大项目,以提供改良品种的基本粮食作物-玉米和豆类-第三世界最前沿的的农业研究却是由研究组织合作完成的,并且是由世界银行为牵头的国际农业研究协商组织资助
  能量转换技术的修改也许代表着第三世界城市的巨大开发潜能。如果可以的话,生物质能,风能,太阳能中存在的潜在能量能够提供给第三世界5倍的能源。研究小组能发明出设计简单,成本低廉的设备,就像联合国生产的水泵和其他的基本技术。
  如果小型农场和无土地的农民以后能获得优先的研究和服务的话,我们还需要做一些特别的努力。联合国粮农组织以及其它的一些国际机构已经认识到了这一需要,但是要想让农民真正最终受益,第三世界国家政府必须有意识的选择在政治上帮助能力缺乏的农村贫困。
  

打赏

0 点赞

主帖获得的天涯分:0
举报 | | 楼主 | 埋红包
楼主发言:1次 发图:0张 | 添加到话题 |
作者:FrankYM 时间:2007-12-04 00:00:02
  第一句的翻译值得商榷:
  
  Until a few years ago, “agricultural technology” was a topic guaranteed to empty the lecture hall.
  
  主要是对empty的理解,empty做动词,应该是“使成为空的,使人全部走掉”的意思。
  直译如下:
  
  直到几年以前,“农业技术”还是个能使报告厅中的听众全部走掉的话题。
  
  或意译,
  
  直到几年以前,“农业技术”在报告厅中还是个没有人愿意听的话题。
楼主夏奈尔NO5 时间:2007-12-04 00:07:44
  同意!!谢谢楼上的先~
  呵呵 其实刚开始我也是这么翻的:即 ,“农业技术”在报告厅中还是个没有人愿意听的话题。
  
  
  后来我同学说没有不愿意的意思在里面,哎,我头脑一乱就改掉了,,
  
  
作者:FrankYM 时间:2007-12-04 00:44:13
  cornucopia是“丰产的”之意,所以cornucopia future译为 充满“钱途”的美好的未来,似乎引申过度。
  
  另外,给楼主提个建议。以后再发此类篇幅较长的翻译,最好用是一段英文、一段中文交替的格式。否则校对起来很不方便。
楼主夏奈尔NO5 时间:2007-12-04 10:11:12
  噢,好的~ 我重发一遍,呵呵.tks~!
楼主夏奈尔NO5 时间:2007-12-04 10:19:18
  Until a few years ago, “agricultural technology” was a topic guaranteed to empty the lecture hall. Today the press is filled with stories of the new agriculture—genetically engineered plants, robot farms and cattle bred by computer. The public is fascinated by frontier biotechnological research and the promise of a filled cornucopia future. But for those concerned with the Third World, at least two major questions about agricultural research have not been answered.
  许多年前,农业技术一直是人们不会在报告大厅听到的话题。而如今,媒体正对基因工程植物,机器人农场,电脑饲养牲口这些新农业竞相报道。公众正被前沿生物技术研究以其充满“钱途”的美好的未来所吸引。然而在第三世界的农业研究领域却存在着至少两个尚未解决的主要问题。
  
楼主夏奈尔NO5 时间:2007-12-04 10:20:48
  Will agricultural innovations make any real difference in the ability of poorer countries to provide themselves with food? And who will benefit from agricultural research? In the Third World, where two out of three people still live by farming, food shortages and malnutrition are common. If research and service programs for large-scale farming are given priority and small farmers and landless workers ignored, social and economic problems can only worsen.
  
  第一,农业创新是否能提高贫穷国家食物供给的能力?第二,谁将从农业研究中获益?在第三世界国家里,三分之二人口仍然依靠农业生存,食物短缺和营养不良十分普遍。如果总是大规模农业研究和服务项目得到优先考虑,而小农场主和无土地工人不被重视的话,那么社会和经济问题只会变得更加严重。
  
   Neither question has an obvious answer. At the technical level, biologists argue that gene-splitting will lead to major improvements in crop yields. A known gene with a desirable quality can be inserted into a rice plant and the time, tedium and errors of the old breeding techniques avoided. But the new system may still require years, maybe decades, of chromosome plotting before a project such as increasing drought tolerance of plants can be successfully tackled.
  至今没有一个问题有一个明确的解决方法。在技术层面上,生物学家认为,基因突变将在农作物产量上产生重大突破。一个已知的质量优良的基因可以运用到水稻种植中去,并且可以节约旧饲养技术的时间,使得饲养变得不那么沉闷,避免饲养错误。但是也许新体系的实施仍然需要好几年,也可能是几十年,项目实施前的染色体绘制,比如植物的长期忍受力的增长问题才能得到成功解决。
  
  
  
  
  
楼主夏奈尔NO5 时间:2007-12-04 10:23:08
  Nonetheless, frontier research using DNA technologies has already created improved animal vaccines, diagnostic tools and growth promotants. Among those important to the Third World is a vaccine to combat the tse-tse fly virus, which decimates cattle in much of eastern Africa. Improved vaccines for aftosa (hoof-and-mouth disease), malaria and other tropical animal diseases are also on the horizon.
  无论如何,使用DNA技术的边缘技术已经改进了动物疫苗,诊断工具和 其中,抵抗禽流感(致使大部分亚洲东部地区牲口死亡的一种病菌)的疫苗的创造对第三世界最重要。治疗口蹄疫,疟疾和其他热带地区的动物疾病的改良疫苗也逐渐被发明出来了
  
  The promise of great benefits has focused attention on the cost and control of technologies. Many Third World countries are concerned about an apparent shift in control of agricultural innovations from the public to the private sector. Until about 1970, university and government scientists in Europe and the United States led a highly efficient farm production research enterprise. After the technological breakthroughs in computers and biology during the 1960s and 1970s, prospects for commercial innovations increased dramatically and entirely new industries appeared.
  
  巨大潜在利益已经使人们开始重视技术成本和控制。很多第三世界的国家正关注着农业改革控制从公共到个人的显著改变。一直到1970年,欧洲和美国的大学和政府科学家领导了一场高效率的农业产业研究计划。在20世纪6,70年代之间,自计算机和生物领域的突破之后,商业改革的前景发生了戏剧化的变化,同时,一个完整的新工业也开始出现了。
  
  The U.S. Office of Technology Assessment recently counted 92 firms in the United States and another 50 in Europe and Japan—including most of the top pharmaceutical and chemical companies—actively engaged in the agricultural biotechnology industry. Major poultry and animal breeders already control the basic pool of genes for improved animal production; it is only a question of time before they enter the gene manipulation business
  美国的技术评估办公室最近挑选了92个美国及50个欧洲和日本的公司,包括大多数顶级药学和化工公司,积极参与农业化生物工业领域。主要家禽和动物饲养已经控制了基因的基本物资 ,以增加动物产量。在动物饲养进入基因控制行业之前,唯一的问题便是时间问题。
  
  
  
楼主夏奈尔NO5 时间:2007-12-04 10:27:55
  Pharmaceutical companies bought major seed companies in the 1970s and are also investing in biotechnology, searching for new sources of therapeutical substances or commercially interesting production processes. Chemical and fertilizer companies are putting resources into biotechnology to cover developments that would take away their historic markets. Such developments might include engineered plants that fix their own nitrogen or have built-in pesticides.
  20世纪70年代制药公司买了主要的种子公司,并且也正在生物科学领域进行投资,正在寻找治疗物质的新资源或者贸易的利润生产过程。化学和肥料公司正将资源投向生物科技领域,以代替可能带走以前市场的发展。这种发展包括一些工程植物,它们能固定自身的氮气,或者能够自我杀虫。
  The issue of who controls agricultural technology was sharply put in the November 1985 meetings of the Food and Agriculture organization. Mexico led a coalition of developing countries in opposing extension of patent protection laws to seeds and genetic stock. Cases were cited in which seeds of plants found in the wild in a developing country had been taken elsewhere and given patent protection. The country of origin then had to pay to gain access to its native stock. Developing countries also expressed fear that their national development priorities would be subject to foreign commercial control.
  1985年11月的食品与农业组织会议上,与会人员激烈地讨论了谁控制农业技术这一问题。墨西哥认为应该成立一个发展中国家联盟以反对关于种子和基因存储专利保护法的日趋扩大。.他们引用了一些事例,比如发展中国家的野外植物种子在其他地方也能找到,应给予专利保护。原产国不得不为获得产品本地存储的机会而付出代价。同时,发展中国家也对国家优先发展产品将附属于国外商业控制而感到担忧。
   Unfortunately, the development of new products and technology for Third World agriculture is already on two tracks. This “duality” between programs mainly for large-scale commercial and small-scale agriculture has sparked fierce debate advocates of peasant-based strategies and “appropriate technology” have faced off against “green revolution” scientists and boosters of high-tech agriculture.
  不幸的是,第三世界农业的新产品新技术的发展已经呈现出两种发展趋势。这种大型商业和小规模的农业项目间的两重性发展已经引发了激烈的辩论,主张农民为基础的战略和"适当的技术" ,呈现在了反对绿色革命的科学家们和高科技农业的推动者们面前。
  
  
楼主夏奈尔NO5 时间:2007-12-04 10:29:23
   There is a trade-off between the blank check to commercial farmers and attention to the problems of small-scale farmers and landless peasants. Failure to include the rural poor in the priority mix means ever deeper poverty for most of them, accelerated migration into urban slum sand polarization of governments and political options.
  商业农场主的空白支票和对小规模农民和无土地庄稼人问题的关注之间有一个贸易。没有将农村贫困人口优先组合对大多数农村贫困人口来说将意味着更大的贫穷,加快了农村人口向城市贫民窟流动,使得政府和政策执行呈现两极分化。
  Researchers can favor Third World small farmers (and consumers) by favoring the subsistence-type crops upon which these people most depend. While it was still oil-wealthy, Mexico intensified programs to provide improved varieties of basic food crops—maize and beans—to the campesinos. Most frontier agricultural research for the Third World, however, is conducted by institutes coordinated and financed through a World Bank-led Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research.
  研究者们能够通过改进第三世界国家的小型农民(也包括消费者)赖以生存的农作物的生存形式来帮助他们。虽然是石油富国,墨西哥仍然扩大项目,以提供改良品种的基本粮食作物-玉米和豆类-第三世界最前沿的的农业研究却是由研究组织合作完成的,并且是由世界银行为牵头的国际农业研究协商组织资助
  
楼主夏奈尔NO5 时间:2007-12-04 10:30:58
  The modification of energy-conversion technologies represents perhaps the greatest unexploited potential for the rural Third World. If harnessed, latent energy in biomass, wind and solar energy sources could quintuple energy available to Third World villages. Research teams could develop simply designed, low-cost equipment as the United Nation’s has done for water pumps and other essential technology.
  能量转换技术的修改也许代表着第三世界城市的巨大开发潜能。如果可以的话,生物质能,风能,太阳能中存在的潜在能量能够提供给第三世界5倍的能源。研究小组能发明出设计简单,成本低廉的设备,就像联合国生产的水泵和其他的基本技术。
   Special effort is needed if small farms and landless rural people are to gain priority in research and services. The U.N. FAO and some international agencies have recognized the need, but if results are to reach the farmers, Third World governments must deliberately choose to assist politically impotent rural poor.
  如果小型农场和无土地的农民以后能获得优先的研究和服务的话,我们还需要做一些特别的努力。联合国粮农组织以及其它的一些国际机构已经认识到了这一需要,但是要想让农民真正最终受益,第三世界国家政府必须有意识的选择在政治上帮助能力缺乏的农村贫困。
  
  
  

相关推荐

换一换

      本版热帖

        发表回复

        请遵守天涯社区公约言论规则,不得违反国家法律法规