Exercise III. Read the following text and comment on it to show how far you agree or disagree with the author.

There are exactly as many ways of approaching the scientif­ic world as there are individuals in science; it is only because the results are expressed in the same language, are subject to the same control, that science seems to be more uniform than, say, original literature. In effect, in the end, it is more uniform; but if we could follow the process of a scientific thought through many minds, as it actually happens and not as it is convention­ally expressed after the event, we should see every conceivable variety of mental texture.

These varieties seemed to me to fall into two main types, perhaps this was a shape I imposed for myself and corresponds to nothing real; but they are types observed often enough be­fore in human affairs and I still believe that they are not en­tirely artificial. Applying them to scientific thinking, I should call the first the problem-solving type; minds which choose out of all the world round them a certain piece of experience and drive through it to an explanation. The probing, analytical, pragmatic minds, which at their best can reach the heights of Rutherford and Darwin. In everyday affairs it is probably the commoner type of mind, and so the performances of its high­est exponents seem familiar and easy to most of us, they are of the same nature as our own: which means that we underesti­mate them unduly, on the principle that what is not mysteri­ous cannot be profoundly admirable.

The second type, the abstracting mind. Gets perhaps more than its share of admiration, just because it is difficult for most of us to argue with, speaking as it does a different mental lan­guage from their own. These minds do not drive through a por­tion of experience; they wait for experience to make itself into shapes in their minds, they assimilate, correlate, find resem­blances in different things, differences in similar things. At their best, in Faraday, Einstein, they are great generalizes; at their worst they are infinitely fantastic and removed from all reality.

Exercise IV. Characterize any scientist, or scholar you know according to the types suggested by the author in the text given above. Use the following vocabulary:

a capacity for (detailed) scientific analysis / criticism; to have a scrupulous / tidy / analytical mind; to be out of one's reach; to have insight / imagination / drive, etc.; to envy somebody for the precision / rapidity / elegance of one's experiments; one's subtle / fertile mind; to be quickly / bright / slow, etc.; to be full of facts / speculations / ideas, etc.; to overflow with a sort of scientific wit; to be getting the name of a promising young scientist / scholar; to be a born scientist / scholar; to rush into work; to tackle / to solve the problem; to strike / to keep up to a useful line of one's own; there came a sudden flash of an idea; long routines; spurred by the success; to develop / to use a method of...; to have all the techniques / to lack the tech­nique; to generalize, etc.

Exercise V. Here is a difficult question for you to answer: Why do men take up science? Before considering it read the following meditations of C. P. Snow on this subject. How far do you agree with the author? Make use of the vocabulary given below:

One can do science because one believes that practically and effectively it benefits the world. A great many scientists have had this as their chief conscious reason. One can do science because it represents the truth. One selected one's data — set one's puzzle for oneself, as it were — and in the end solved the puz­zle by showing how they fitted other data of the same kind. It is rather as though one was avidly interested in all the country­side between this town and the next: one goes in for science for an answer, and is given a road between the two. One can also do science because one enjoys it. Many people like unravelling puzzles. Scientific puzzles are very good ones, with reasonable prizes. So that either without examining the functions of sci­ence, being indifferent to them or taking them for granted, a number of men go in for research as they would for law; living by it, obeying its rules, and thoroughly enjoying the problem-solving process. This is a perfectly valid pleasure, among them you can find some of the most effective of scientists. Nowadays I should allow more for accident; many men become scientists because it happens to be convenient and they may as well do it as anything else. But the real urgent drives remain.

Use the vocabulary:

to do science; to benefit the world / one'snation (to be a benefit for the world/ nation); to represent the truth; to like unravelling / solving puzzles; to go in for/to takeup research; to enjoy a problem-solving process; to be devoted to science; to be a devoted scientist; to gain enjoyment from research; to enjoy science;to examine the functions of science; to take something for granted; to have abelief in scientific values; one's dedicated search for scientific truth, etc.

Exercise VI. Read and discuss the text:

SCIENCE IN RUSSIA

The Russians made a great contribution to world science. Peter I founded the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences as early as 1724. It is there that the great scientist Lomonosov worked in the fields of physics, chemistry, astronomy and the foundation of the Russian literary language. The peoples of our country produced many geniuses such as D.I. Mendeleyev who gave the world the Periodic Table of Elements, mathematicians like N.I. Lobachevsky who is known all over the world as “Copernicus of Geometry” and many others.

The peoples of Russia are rightly proud of scientists like A.S. Popov, who invented the radio, A.N. Lodygin, who produced the electric lamp, K.E. Tsiolkovsky, who was the founder of the modern theory of space rockets. Among the peominent scientists we must also mention the names of I.I. Mechnikov, N.N. Zinin, S.V. Lebedev, I.Z. Kondakov, Academician I.P. Pavlov and many others whose names are known far and wide.

Our scientists and inventors have enriched science and technology with many outstanding achievements which enable them to solve the most complex problems. Many inventions have not only brought fame to our science, but also rank among the greatest achievements of mankind.

The development of the theory of chain reactions is linked with the name of the Russian scientist N.N. Semyonov, a Nobel Prize winner, N.D. Zelynsky’s works formed the basis for the synthesizing of a large number of new chemical compounds.

Space research has opened a new era of scientific knowledge. It is in our country that the first artificial satellite for the research in outer space was launched. It was created by the Academician S.P. Korolev, and it was Yury Gagarin who accomplished the first space flight.

Academicians I.V. Koorchatov and G.N. Flerov made a great contribution to the development of the theory of the construction of the atom. It was in our country that the first atomic power station in the world was built and the first atom-powered ice-breaker was launched. Our scientists, engineers and workers have done a lot in order to ensure that the energy of the atom should bring people well-being and prosperity instead of terror and death.

Exercise VII. Побеседуйте по-английски с коллегой о проводимых вами исследо­ваниях. Используйте следующие вопросы и утверждения:

What methods do you apply in your research? And why?

What are you going to prove in your research?

How can you formulate your hypothesis?

How do you plan your experiments?

How often do you record data during the experiment? (every hour, every two hours, etc).

What instruments and equipment do you use in your investigation? And why?

What views and data can your experiments (or research) prove or refute?

What illustrations are you preparing to demonstrate the results of your investi­gation?

What conclusions will you make if the results of your research are posi­tive/negative?

What are the merits and demerits of the investigation that you have already car­ried out?

How will you continue your investigation? And why?

The hypothesis fits experimental data.

The research probes in the various aspects of the subject.

We experimented with the new materials.

We hope to find the answer to this problem.

The work was subjected to criticism.

Out of his work came a substantial knowledge.

The theory and the results are too extensive to be given here.

The experimental results were analyzed with the help of high-speed computing machines.

I am afraid I don't know for certain if there are any direct (adequate, reliable) data regarding ... I believe some information is available though I don't know what it is...

Yes, as far as we know there are some very interesting and, I dare say, very encouraging data about..., though at the moment I am not quite prepared to speak about them in detail.

Well, there must be rather adequate data at present since studies of the prob­lem have been in progress for several years now (have long been under way)...

What is the problem you are investigating now (interested in)?

What does it deal with?

What is the core of the problem?

Is it sufficiently studied?

Does it involve certain difficulties?

What aspects does it include?

What kind of problem does it refer to?

Does the problem require a great deal of investigation?

Has it been discussed for a long time or is it a newly raised problem?

Is there a lot of information on this problem?

What foreign literature have you read on the problem?

Will it take much time to clear up all the aspects of the problem?

НАУЧНАЯ КОНФЕРЕНЦИЯ

Exercise I. Read the following polylogue:

Professor Platonov is in Dr. Coleridge's study (Manchester Computer research Centre) ready to discuss recent developments in CAD/CAN (+Computer Aided De­sign/Computer Aided Manufacture) and related fields with Dr.Nakamoto and Dr. Dupont

Coleridge: Dear Dr. Platonov, Nakamoto, from the Japanese Osaka.

Platonov: Pleased to meet you, Dr. Nakamoto.

Nakamoto: How do you do, Dr. Platonov? We've read many of your recent articles in Japan.

P.: I am glad that the results of our joint work can be used by our col­leagues.

C: And this is Dr. Dupont whom I needn't to introduce to you.

P.: How are you, Dr. Dupont? It's such a long time since we met in Paris.

Dupont: I'm happy to see you here, in Manchester; and I should say that significant advances have been achieved by Dr. Coleridge's de­partment, and we must be lucky to participate in their annual session.

N.: I say, Dr. Coleridge, the wealth of your library of computer pro­grammes is really impressive. It seems to me you must have been very active in this field for some years already.

C: Yes. This has been possible to a large degree because of our com­putation research facility at Mel­ville. It was formed about ten years ago to help make better use of our computer capabilities.

P.: What is the main concern of your group?

C: CAD/CAM is our main concern.

D.: And what about you, Dr. Platonov? What research are you doing now?

P.: We have a very interesting re­search programme to fulfil. It is mainly concerned with introducing computer science achievements into production. We do it in collabora­tion with research centres at several of our machine-building enterprises.

D.: Does Professor Romanov work in this field, too?

P.: Oh, yes, and he has produced a large number of publications of late. D.: I know him very well. He was my supervisor when I worked on a part of my thesis (dissertation) in Moscow.

N.: One of his papers was published in Japan and provoked much discus­sion.

P.: This was the one concerned with miniaturization of electronic de­vices?

N.: Yes. I, for myself, am now en­gaged in studying several problems in the field of microelectronics.

C: What are your interests in this field?

N.: I am interested in all sorts of problems concerned with the miniaturization and microminiaturi­zation. We have a special research group in Osaka. C: What about the facilities? N.: A very powerful firm has sup­plied us with an excellent centre. D.: And what about the staff? N.: It's staffed by very competent and enthusiastic people. I mean both the leading researchers and the lab personnel.

C: I can't boast the same. Though the staff is excellent, sometimes material problems arise.

P.: Still your results don't show much of it, Professor. C: Glad to hear that.

Exercise II. Use the following phrases in speech: