| a) it was modern | n) | an ordinary person |
| b) instant | o) | to pave the way into |
| c) subject | p) | inquiry |
| d) to have relation to | q) | splashline |
| e) to signify | r) | to be ready |
| f) to land | s) | to list a few |
| g) practically | t) | insight |
| h) to achieve an aim | u) | to be embraced |
| i) to be inquisitive | v) | to stare |
| j) to be astonished | w) | astounding witness |
| k) penetrating | x) | fate |
| i) inheritance | y) | outliving |
| m) to be inseparably connected | z) | attraction |
8. Translate the following sentences into Russian paying attention to the italicized words:
1. The data obtained cannot be regarded as evidence of the postulated reaction for the system is greatly complicated by other reactions.
2. The procedure is applicable whether the product is pure or contaminated.
3. The reaction of hydrogen with carbon to produce methane is not of great significance at the moment.
4. This demonstration is the more convincing, the greater the variety of adsorbate vapors.
5. Whatever its nature the activity of methacrylate is readily destroyed by hydrogen atom and iodine molecules.
6. There appear to be no exceptions in the data in table 1.
7. His knowledge on the subject is very good.
8. It didn’t take them long to get interested in this branch of science.
9. Whether you understand it or not doesn't matter at the moment.
10. It was of great surprise for us to realize that 10-step reaction did not give the result we expected.
TEXT 2
1. Read the next text connected with science and give answers to the following questions:
1) What to your mind might be a title of the text?
2) How have the relations between science and society changed?
3) What scientific achievements are gaining catastrophic values?
4) Are the dangers really exaggerated?
5) What is the "ivory tower" attitude to scientific achievements?
6) In what case can we escape our own destruction on this planet?
7) What is a "technophobic" point of view on the development of science?
8) Who is there to advocate the interests of mankind?
9) What else besides science needs reforming?
10) What attitude to science and its development is called out of date?
The relations between science and society have changed over the centuries. When modern science was born during the Renaissance, its first epoch was a fight for its life against an authoritarian and representative society. After the fight had been won, science released creative forces leading to the scientific avalanche. The second epoch started in the Age of Enlightenment, in itself partly the result, of the application of scientific thinking to society. It resulted in the destruction of the feudal society and added more momentum to the march of science. The third epoch began with the technological application of science, which has done more to change the quality of human life than any other development in the history of mankind.
Thus far science had displayed only a benevolent aspect. But the forth epoch is marked by increasing fear of the negative aspects of science which are the product of its very success. The dynamic society caused by science is marked by a large number of exponentially increasing variables. Too many of them are now approaching catastrophic values. The atomic bomb, the population explosion, and the deterioration of the human environment are all the products of science, or rather of the malfunctioning of the relations between science and society. We are facing a serious crisis. There are many people, including scientists, who call these fears "doomsday prophesies", and claim the dangers are exaggerated. Are not the bombs in the hands of responsible people? Does not the Earth abound in waste land ready to absorb the population increase? Is pollution really such a serious problem? Admittedly some of the fears may be exaggerated, but no one who has made any serious study of the arms race and the population explosion can fail to be alarmed, lack of concern stems either from ignorance or from the attitude of apres nous le deluge (после нас хоть потоп). Among scientists there, also exists a third variant, often termed the "ivory tower" attitude: a scientist should be a scientist and nothing else. His works aim at the increase of knowledge, and knowledge is a good in itself He should leave to others the task of deciding how to use it. This attitude worked perfectly throughout the whole long era during which science contributed almost exclusively to the progress of mankind. But this is no longer the case. How are we to tackle this crisis? Some have adopted the defeatist view that our scientific technological culture carries within itself the seeds of its own destruction. Man rules the Earth at present but will soon be extinct, like dinosaurs who were once masters of the world. Our crazed technology and outmoded political systems are the instruments of our own destruction. Perhaps a few of us can escape and start a new culture if we get away from the Blue Planet in time and form a space colony. All this may be true, but we must strive instead for other solutions. They don't lie easy to hand. Some think that the development of science and technology should be halted. This "technophobic" view is shortsighted. Science and technology confer such enormous benefits that they must not be halted, but used in a sensible way. We come closer to the truth if we say that it is the rules that govern world politics that must be changed: power politics have now become so dangerous that they must be abolished. Scientists and technologists are accustomed to look with pride at all the "progress curves" that rise exponentially and think it is their agreeable duty to keep them rising or even induce them to rise still faster. But we have now learned that the rise of many of these curves spells disaster, and scientists cannot plead innocence by putting the blame on others by saying: "We, scientists, are simply doing our job, and "others" must take the blame if our findings are used irresponsibly." There are no "others" willing to assume the responsibility. There are many instances in which new discoveries can bring power and wealth to certain groups, but only at the expense of others. Possibly mankind as a whole is paying the price through a decline in security, the deterioration of human environment, and the widening gap between the rich and the poor. In cases such as these, who is there to advocate the interests of mankind? Indeed, there are few who are capable of it, since often only a handful of specialists really understand the consequences of new discoveries.
