close

Enter

Log in using OpenID

英語の社説

embedDownload
英語 以下の問題 1~問題 3 を全て解答しなさい.なお,問題ごとに異なる解答用紙を使
用すること. 問題1 次の英文を読んで以下の問1〜問4に答えなさい. Science has become a much more collaborative enterprise than it was in the past. The
average number of authors for articles in the New England Journal of Medicine, for
example, has risen from slightly more than one in 1925 to more than six today. In some
areas, such as high-energy physics or genome sequencing, the number of authors can
rise into the hundreds.
①
This increased collaboration has produced many new
opportunities for researchers to work with colleagues at different stages in their careers,
in different disciplines, or even in widely separated locations. It has also increased the
possibility for differences to arise over questions of authorship.
In many fields, the earlier a name appears in the list of authors, the greater the
implied contribution, but
②
conventions differ greatly among disciplines and among
research groups. Sometimes the scientist with the greatest name recognition is listed
first, whereas in other fields the research leader’s name is always last. In some
disciplines supervisors’ names rarely appear on papers, while in others the professor’s
name appears on almost every paper that comes out of the lab. Some research groups
and journals avoid these decisions by simply listing authors alphabetically.
③
Frank and open discussion of the division of credit within research groups—as early
in the research process as possible and preferably at the very beginning, especially for
research leading to a published paper—can prevent later difficulties. The best practice is
for authorship criteria to be explicit among all collaborators. In addition, collaborators
should be familiar with the conventions in a particular field to understand their rights
and obligations. Group meetings provide an occasion to discuss ethical and policy
issues in research.
(中略) Several considerations must be weighed in determining the proper division of credit
between a student or research assistant and a senior scientist, and a range of practices
are acceptable. If a senior researcher has defined and put a project into motion and a
junior researcher is invited to join in, major credit may go to the senior researcher, even
if at the moment of discovery the senior researcher is not present. By the same token,
when a student or research assistant is making an intellectual contribution to a research
project, that contribution deserves to be recognized. Senior scientists are well aware of
the importance of credit in science and are expected to give junior researchers credit
where warranted. In such cases, junior researchers may be listed as coauthors or even
senior authors, depending on the work, traditions within the field, and arrangements
within the team.
Occasionally a name is included in a list of authors even though that person had little
or nothing to do with the content of a paper. Such ④"honorary authors" dilute the credit
due the people who actually did the work, inflate the credentials of those so "honored,"
and make the proper attribution of credit more difficult. Several scientific journals now
state that a person should be listed as the author of a paper only if that person made a
direct and substantial contribution to the paper. Some journals require all named authors
to sign the letter that accompanies submission of the original article and all subsequent
revisions to ensure that no author is named without consent and that all authors agree
with the final version.
【出典:Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, National Academy of
Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine, “On being a
scientist: Responsible conduction in research” 2nd ed. (1995)より抜粋して一部改変】
問1 下線部①を日本語に訳しなさい. 問2 下線部②に関して,本文中で紹介されている conventions の複数の例の中
から 3 つ挙げて日本語で答えなさい. 問3 下線部③を日本語に訳しなさい. 問4 下線部④の honorary authors とはどのような authors であり,どのような
影響をもたらすと考えられるか,本文に即して日本語で説明しなさい. 問題2
下の文章は「徒然草」
(兼好法師 作)161 段および 117 段の現代語意訳
である.それぞれの段について全ての問に答えなさい.
161 段
①
桜の花の盛りは,冬至より百五十日目とも,春分より七日目ともいわれるが,
立春より七十五日目で,おおよそ間違いない.
117 段
友人にするのに不適当な人が七通りある.一つは高貴な人.二つは若い人.②三
つは病気をせず身体の強い人.四つは酒を好む人.五つは荒っぽくて勇ましい
武人.六つは嘘つき.七つは欲深い人.
望ましい友人には三通りある.③一つは物をくれる友人.二つは医者.三つは知
恵ある友人.
問1
161 段下線部①を全て英語に訳しなさい.
問2
117 段,下線部②のような人はなぜ友人として不適当なのであろうか?
また,下線部③のような友人はなぜ望ましい友人なのだろうか?
を下線部②,③それぞれにつき 30 語程度の英語で述べなさい.
自分の解釈
問題3
以下の文章は英文,日本文とも 2010 年 2 月 4 日朝日新聞社説から取っ
たものである.英文を参考にして,
(1)
(2)の全ての日本文を英訳しなさい.
The transport ministry has announced plans to abolish tolls on some expressways from
around June. While it is good news to users, the policy raises a host of problems. Since the
ministry has not properly addressed the issue, we feel we cannot support the policy.
(1)これはドライバーには朗報であり,対象地域の観光施設などにもプラス
だ.しかし,政策には光と影の両面がある.さまざまな世論調査で,高速無料
化に対する反対の声が多いのも,マイナスの影響を心配すればこそだろう.
(2)高速料金を無料にしてきた欧米の国々では,環境対策から有料化の流れ
が強まっていることを考えてほしい.
【出典:2010 年 2 月 4 日朝日新聞社説「高速無料化」,The Asahi Shimbun, Feb. 4,
2010, "Lifting expressway tolls" より抜粋(一部改変)
】
Author
Document
Category
Uncategorized
Views
28
File Size
166 KB
Tags
1/--pages
Report inappropriate content