【英譯漢】

Can we have our fish and eat it, too? An unusual collaboration of marine ecologists and fisheries management scientists says the answer may be yes.

In a research paper published in the journal science, the two groups, long at odds with each other, offer a global assessment of the world’s saltwater fish and their environments .Their conclusions are at once gloomy and upbeat – over-fishing continues to threaten many species, but a combination of steps can turn things around.

Because antagonism between ecologists and fisheries management experts has been intense, many familiar with the study say the most important factor is that it was done at all. They say they hope the study will inspire similar collaborations between scientist whose focus is safely exploiting specific natural resources and those interested mainly in conserving them .``This paper starts to bridge that gap.”

The collaboration began in 2006 when Boris Worm, a marine ecologist at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, and other scientists made an alarming prediction: if current trends continue, by 2048 over-fishing will have destroyed most commercially important populations of saltwater fish.

Ecologists applauded the work. But among fisheries management scientists, reactions ranged from skepticism to fury over what many called an alarmist report . Among the most prominent critics was Ray Hilborn , a professor of aquatic and fishery sciences at the university of Washington in Seattle .Yet the disagreement did not play out in a typical scientific fashion with ,as Dr. Hilborn put it ,``researchers firing critical papers back and forth .”Instead, he and Dr .worm found themselves debating the issue on National Public Radio.

``We started talking and found more common ground than we had expected,” Dr .Worm said .Dr .Hilborn recalled thinking that Dr .worm`` actually seemed like a reasonable person.” The two decided to work together on the issue.

Because the new paper represents the views of both camps, its conclusions are likely to be influential .Getting a strong statement from those communities that there is more to agree on than to disagree on helps build confidence.

【參考譯文】

在我們有魚吃的同時，魚類又不至于滅絕，兩者可以得兼嗎?海洋生物學家和漁業管理科學家在經歷史無前例的合作后得出了肯定的答案。

海洋生物學家和漁業管理科學家長期以來都存在著分歧，不過雙方在《美國自然科學雜志》上發表的研究論文對地球上咸水魚及其生活環境提供了一個全球性的評估。他們得出的結論立馬是情況變得既黯淡又令人樂觀—過度對漁業資源的捕撈會繼續威脅到很多的物種，但是綜合運用各種手段能使扭轉形勢。

由于生態學家和漁業管理老師之間的分歧一直都比較尖銳，很多熟悉此項研究的人都認為最重要的因素已經是這樣了。他們說他們希望此項研究能夠激勵那些焦聚與安全開采特殊自然資源以及那些主要對保護自然資源感興趣的科學家采取類似的合作。

該合作開始于2006年。當時加拿大新斯科舍省哈利法克斯戴豪斯大學的一個叫鮑里斯·沃姆的海洋生物學家和其他的科學家做出了一個令人震驚的預測：如果任當前趨勢繼續下去，到2048年過渡捕魚將會破壞以捕獲咸水魚為生的漁民的生意。

生態學家對此項工作大加贊賞，但是在漁業管理科學家之間對此的反應卻不同，對于這所謂的危言聳聽的報告有的持懷疑態度，有的表示憤怒。其中最著名的批評家莫過于雷·希爾伯恩了。他是西雅圖華盛頓大學水產和漁業科學系教授。正如希爾博爾博士所言，該分歧并不是以一種典型的科學方式結束的，把評論文章

沃姆博士說道：“我們開始討論并且發現了更多的共同點，超出了我們之前的預計。”希爾伯恩博士回憶到，沃姆博士實際上看起來像一個講道理的人。兩個人決定在這個問題上采取合作。

由于報紙代表了兩大正營的觀點，它的結論很有可能會很有影響力。從這些群體中得到一個強有力的論點，及合作遠大于分歧，這有助于建立信心。