请把下列的翻译成中文：
 The eugenics movement, however, consists of more than study. It includes public action in the way of legislation, administration, and the influencing of human conduct.
 
 
Indeed, western literature is filled with images of scientists meddling with nature, with disastrous results. Scientists are portrayed as a soulless group, unconcerned with ethical issues.
  And where is there a movie sympathetic to science? Scientists are perceived as middle-aged, emotionally impaired, and dangerous males. 
--------------------
  Technology is not science yet, reliable scientific knowledge is value-free and has no moral or ethical value. Science tells us how the world is. That we are not at the centre of the universe is neither good nor bad, nor is the possibility that genes can influence our intelligence or our behaviour. 
-----------------
  Dangers and ethical issues come into play when scientific research is done in practice, for example in experiments involving humans and other animals or when science is applied to technology, or in issues related to safety. There is thus an important distinction between science and technology: between knowledge and understanding on the one hand, and the application of that knowledge to making something, or using it in some practical way, on the other.
  Technology is much older than science and, unaided by any science, it gave rise to early crafts such as agriculture and metalworking. I would argue that science made virtually no contribution to technology until the nineteenth century—even the great triumphs of engineering such as the steam engine and Renaissance cathedrals were built with imaginative trial and error, virtually without any impact of science.
  It was imaginative trial and error. It is technology that carries with it ethical issues, from motorcars to polluting the environment, and the weapons of war. But are scientists for the applications of science? In a recent issue of the journal Science the 1995 Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Sir Joseph Rotblat, proposes a Hippocratic oath for scientists. He is strongly opposed to the idea that science is neutral and that scientists are not to be blamed for its misapplication. Therefore he proposes an oath, or pledge, initiated by the Pugwash Group in the United States.
  "I promise to work for a better world, where science and technology are used in socially responsible ways. I will not use my education for any purpose intended to harm human beings or the environment. Throughout my career, I will consider the ethical implications of my work before I take action. While the demands placed upon me might be great, I sign this declaration because I recognise that individual responsibility is the first step on the path to peace."
  Social obligation of scientists 
• The social obligations that scientists have, as distinct from those responsibilities they share with all citizens (such as supporting a democratic society and taking care of the rights of others), come from them having access to specialized knowledge of how the world works that is not easily accessible to others.
  Whatever new technology is introduced, it is not for scientists to make moral or ethical decisions about its use, as they have no special rights or skills in this regard. There is grave danger in asking scientists to be more socially responsible if they would also be given the right and authority to make such decisions on their own.
  Moreover, scientists rarely have power in relation to applications of science; this rests on those with the money - industry and government. The way scientific knowledge is used raises ethical issues for everyone involved, not just scientists.                                
  Genetics and cloning
  
• Mary Shelley would be both proud and shocked. Her creation of a scientist creating and meddling with human life has become the most potent symbol of modern science. But shocked because her brilliant fantasy has become so distorted that even those who are normally quite sensible lose all sense when the idea of cloning humans appears before them.
  The image of Frankenstein has been turned by the media into genetic pornography, whose real aim is to titillate, excite, and frighten. The bio-moralists are triumphant with the aid of genetic pornography to titillate and frighten, purveyed by the media.
  The media are aware of this and often report what I regard as genetic pornography—reports dressed up to titillate and frighten. 
• Newspapers print sensational and unjustified headlines, such as the “Frankenstein foods” idiocy surrounding genetically modified organisms in the United Kingdom.
  "The real antithesis of science seems to be not theology but politics. Whereas science is a sphere of knowledge and understanding, politics is a sphere of opinion."
  It is amusing to watch moralists swing from denying that genes have an important effect on intelligence or behavior to saying that a cloned individual’s behavior will be entirely determined by the individual’s genetic make-up.
  Genetically modified foods have raised extensive public concerns and there seems no alternative but to rely on regulatory bodies to assess their safety as they do with other foods, and similar considerations apply to the release of genetically modified organisms. Genetic engineering requires considerable scientific and technical knowledge and even more important money, which scientists in general do not have.
  Are there areas of research that are so socially sensitive that they should be avoided, even proscribed? One possible area is the genetic basis of intelligence, and particularly the possible link between race and intelligence. Are there, as the literary critic George Steiner has argued, “certain orders of truth which would infect the marrow of politics and would poison beyond all cure the already tense relations between social classes and these communities”? In short, are there doors in front of current research that should be marked “Too dangerous to open”?
  One should not abandon the possibility of using a scientific idea to do good because one could use the same idea to do bad. There is no knowledge that is not susceptible to manipulation for evil purposes.
  I can do terrible damage to someone with my glasses used as a weapon. Once one begins to censor the acquisition of reliable scientific knowledge, one is on the most slippery of slippery slopes.
  To those who doubt whether the public or politicians are capable of making the “correct” decisions about science and its applications, I commend the advice of Thomas Jefferson: “I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves, and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise that control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their direction.”
  I realize the dangers, but I cherish the openness of scientific investigation too much to put up such a notice. I stand by the distinction between knowledge of the world and how it is used.
 我了解科学研究的危险所在，但我更珍视科学研究的公开性，不赞成张贴此类标签。我赞同将认识世界的科学知识与运用这种知识区别开来的做法。
 GMF Helpful or Harmful? Genetically modified (GM) foods are foods derived from genetically modified organisms. Genetically modified organisms have had specific changes introduced into their DNA by genetic engineering techniques.
  Growth of GM crops The first commercially grown genetically modified whole food crop was a tomato (called Flavr Savr), which was modified to ripen without softening.
 
The term GM foods or GMOs (genetically-modified organisms) is most commonly used to refer to crop plants created for human or animal consumption using the latest molecular biology techniques. These plants have been modified in the laboratory to enhance deshed traits such as increased resistance to herbicides or improved nutritional content. The enhancement of desired traits has traditionally been undertaken through breeding, but conventional plant breeding methods can be veiy time consuming and are often not veiy accurate. Genetic engineering, on the other hand, can create plants with the exact desired trait veiy rapidly and with great accuracy. For example, plant geneticists can isolate a gene responsible for drought tolerance and insert that gene into a different plant.
  What are some of the advantages of GM foods? The world population has topped 6 billion people and is predicted to double in the next 50 years. Ensuring an adequate food supply for this booming population is going to be a major challenge in the years to come. GM foods promise to meet this need in a number of ways:
  
• Pest resistance 
  
• Herbicide tolerance  
• Disease resistance 
• Cold tolerance  
• Drought tolerance/salinity tolerance 
• Nutrition  
• Pharmaceuticals 
• Phvtoremediation
  
• phytoremediation [faɪtəʊr'mi:dɪeɪʃn] n. 植物修复 

• salinity [sə'lɪnətɪ] n. 盐分，盐度 
• herbicide ['hɜ:bɪsaɪd] n. 灭草剂 
• pesticide [ˈpestɪsaɪd] n. 杀虫剂，农药
  What are some of the criticisms against GM foods? Environmental activists, religious organizations, public interest groups, professional associations and other scientists and government officials have all raised concerns about GM foods, and criticized agribusiness for pursuing profit without concern for potential hazards, and the government for failing to exercise adequate regulatory oversight. It seems that everyone has a strong opinion about GM foods. Even the Vatican19 and the Prince of Wales"0 have expressed their opinions. Most concerns about GM foods fall into three categories: environmental hazards, human health risks, and economic concerns. Environmental hazards 
• Unintended i harm to other organisms 
• Reduced effectiveness of pesticides 
• Gene transfer to non-target species
 More productive and have a larger yield Offer more nutritional value and better flavor Eliminate allergy-causing properties in some foods Inbuilt resistance to pests, weeds and disease More capable of thriving in regions with poor soil or adverse climates 
• More environment friendly 
• More resistant and stay ripe for longer 
• Feed growing world populations 
• Safe 
• The meddling with nature argument made against GM foods doesn't hold water
 Change a few genes, change the whole picture 
• No evaluate the risks 
• Many GM companies don't label their foods as being GM foods 
• End food diversity 
• Newer, stronger chemicals 
• Ecological problems 
• The claim of ending world hunger with GM food is a false claim 
• Harvested grain germs are incapable of developing 
• Improve organic agricultural practices
 Should a scientist be responsible for the results of his or her work?
 Should cloning of human beings be banned?