| 双语新闻 Bilingual News | 双语对照阅读 分级系列阅读 智能辅助阅读 在线英语学习 |
|
| 双语新闻 Bilingual News | 双语对照阅读 分级系列阅读 智能辅助阅读 在线英语学习 |
| [英文] [中文] [双语对照] [双语交替] [] |
| A small group of scientists and others who believe the novel coronavirus that spawned the pandemic could have originated from a lab leak or accident is calling for an inquiry independent of the World Health Organization’s team of independent experts sent to China last month. | 一小群科学家和其他一些人认为，导致大流行的新型冠状病毒可能源于实验室泄漏或事故，他们呼吁进行独立于世界卫生组织上个月派往中国的独立专家小组的调查。 |
| While many scientists involved in researching the origins of the virus continue to assert that the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic almost certainly began in a leap from bats to an intermediate animal to humans, other theories persist and have gained new visibility with the W.H.O.-led team of experts’ visit to China. Officials with the W.H.O. have said in recent interviews that it was “extremely unlikely” but not impossible that the spread of the virus was linked to some lab accident. | 尽管许多研究病毒起源的科学家继续坚持，新冠SARS-CoV-2大流行几乎可以肯定是从蝙蝠转移到中间宿主动物再转移到人类的，但仍存在其他理论，并且它们在世卫组织领导的专家组访问中国后变得更加引人注目。世卫组织的官员在最近的采访中说，这种病毒的传播与实验室事故有关的“可能性极低”，但并非不可能。 |
| The open letter, first reported in The Wall Street Journal and the French publication Le Monde, lists what the signers see as flaws in the joint W.H.O.-China inquiry, and state that it could not adequately address the possibility that the virus leaked from a lab. The letter further posits the type of investigation that would be adequate, including full access to records within China. | 《华尔街日报》(The Wall Street Journal)和法国《世界报》(Le Monde)最先报道了这封公开信，信中列出了署名人认为的世卫组织—中国联合调查中存在的缺陷，并指出该调查未能充分解决病毒从实验室泄漏的可能性。公开信还进一步提出了充分针对此可能性的调查方法，包括对中方数据的全面访问。 |
| The W.H.O. mission, as with everything involving China and the coronavirus, has been political from the start as the international team’s members acknowledged. | 正如世卫组织小组成员所承认的那样，世卫组织的任务——和任何涉及中国与新冠病毒的事情一样——从一开始就具有政治意义。 |
| Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist at Rutgers University and one of the scientists who signed the letter, said it grew out of a series of online discussions among scientists, policy experts and others who came to be known informally as the Paris group. Many of those who signed the letter were based in France and Dr. Ebright, who has been outspoken about the need to investigate a possible laboratory leak, said such discussion had been less vigorous in the United States. | 罗格斯大学(Rutgers University)分子生物学家理查德·埃布赖特(Richard Ebright)是这封信的署名人之一。他说，这封信源于科学家、政策专家和其他一些人的系列网上讨论，这个群体后来被非正式地称为巴黎小组。许多在这封信上署名的人都来自法国。一直公开提出对实验室泄漏的可能性进行调查的埃布赖特说，这种讨论在美国没有那么激烈。 |
| He said that no one in the group thought that the virus had been intentionally created as a weapon, but they were all convinced that an origin in a lab through research or by accidental infection was as likely as a spillover occurring in nature from animals to humans. | 他说，该小组中没有人认为该病毒是人为制造的武器，但他们所有人都相信，病毒通过研究或意外感染在实验室中起源的可能性，与自然界中从动物传播到人类的可能性是相当的。 |
| Dr. Ebright said the letter was released because the Paris group expected to see an interim report from the W.H.O. on Thursday. The letter, he added, “was communicated to high levels of the W. H.O. on Tuesday.” | 埃布赖特说，之所以发表公开信，是因为巴黎小组预计将在周四看到世卫组织的中期报告。他还说，“这封信已于周二传达给了世卫组织的高层。” |
| Asked to respond to the letter, Tarik Jasarevic, a spokesman for the W.H.O., replied in an email that the team of experts that had gone to China “is working on its full report as well as an accompanying summary report, which we understand will be issued simultaneously in a couple of weeks.” | 当被要求对这封信作出回应时，世卫组织发言人塔里克·亚沙雷维奇(Tarik Jasarevic)在一封电子邮件中回答说，前往中国的专家组正在编写完整报告以及随附的摘要报告，据我们了解将在几周内同时发布。” |
| The open letter noted that the W.H.O.’s study was a joint effort by a team of outside experts, selected by the global health organization, who worked along with Chinese scientists, and that the team’s report must be agreed on by all. The letter emphasized that the team was denied access to some records and did not investigate laboratories in China. | 公开信指出，世卫组织的研究是外部专家团队共同努力的结果，这些专家是由全球的卫生组织选择的，与中国科学家共同工作，而且小组的报告必须得到所有小组成员的同意。信中强调，该小组被拒绝访问某些记录，并且没有对中国的实验室进行调查。 |
| Findings by the team, the letter stated, “while potentially useful to a limited extent, represent neither the official position of the W.H.O. nor the result of an unrestricted, independent investigation.” | 信中指出，小组调查结果“尽管可能在有限的程度上有用，但既不代表世卫组织的正式立场，也不代表不受限的独立调查的结果”。 |
| Without naming him, the letter criticized Peter Daszak, an expert in animal diseases and their connection to human health, who is the head of EcoHealth International. The letter linked to articles about Dr. Daszak and said he had previously stated his conviction that a natural origin of the virus was most likely. | 公开信虽未点名，但是批评了国际生态健康组织(EcoHealth International)负责人彼得·达扎克(Peter Daszak)，他是研究动物疾病及其与人类健康之间关系的专家。这封信提到有关达扎克的文章，并表示他先前已经说过，他确信病毒最有可能来自大自然。 |
| Dr. Daszak said the letter’s push to investigate a lab origin for the virus was a position “supported by political agendas.” | 达扎克说，这封公开信要求对病毒的实验室起源进行调查，这是一个“得到了政治议程支持”的立场。 |
| “I strongly urge the global community to wait for the publication of the report from the W. H.O. mission,” he added. | 他还说：“我强烈敦促国际社会等待世卫组织代表团发布的报告。” |
| Filippa Lentzos, a senior lecturer in science and international security, at King’s College London, and one of the signers of the letter, said, “I think in order to get a credible investigation, it has to be more of a global effort in the sense that it should be taken to the U.N. General Assembly where all the nations of the world are represented and can vote on whether or not to give a mandate to the U.N. secretary general, to carry out this kind of investigation.” | 伦敦国王学院(King’s College London)的科学与国际安全高级讲师菲利帕·伦佐斯(Filippa Lentzos)也是该信的署名人之一，他说，“我认为，要进行具有可信度的调查，必须在全球范围内进行更多的努力，应该将此事提交给代表世界各国的联合国大会，它可以投票决定是否授权联合国秘书长进行这种调查。” |
| Dr. David A. Relman, a professor of medicine and microbiology at Stanford University and a member of the intelligence community studies board at the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine, an advisory body to the federal government, said he was “quite supportive” of the open letter. | 斯坦福大学医学与微生物学教授、联邦政府咨询机构国家科学、工程和医学学院(National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine)情报界研究委员会成员戴维·雷尔曼(David A. Relman)博士说，他对公开信“非常支持”。 |
| “I completely agree, based on what we know so far, that the W.H.O. investigation appears to be biased, skewed, and insufficient,” he said in an email. “Most importantly, without full transparency and access to the primary data and records, we cannot understand the basis for any of the comments issued so far on behalf of the investigation or by W.H.O.” | “根据我们迄今所知，我完全同意世卫组织的调查似乎存在偏见、歪曲和不足，”他在一封电子邮件中说。“最重要的是，如果没有充分的透明度和对主要数据和记录的访问权，我们就无法理解以该调查或世卫组织的名义发布的任何评论的依据。” |
| At the same time, scientists working on coronaviruses continue to unearth and report evidence to support the natural evolution and spillover of the virus from animals. | 同时，研究新冠病毒的科学家继续发掘并报告支持该病毒自然进化和从动物身上转移的证据。 |
| Robert F. Garry, a virologist at Tulane University Medical Center, recently posted on the website Virological a report that is not yet peer-reviewed that described new evidence that aspects of the virus that seemed unusual at first had been found in new viruses in Japan, Thailand and Cambodia. He and his co-authors concluded, “These observations are consistent with the natural origin of SARS-CoV-2 and strongly inconsistent with a laboratory origin.” | 杜兰大学医学中心病毒学家罗伯特·F·加里(Robert F. Garry)最近在《病毒学》网站上发表了一份尚未经过同行评议的报告，该报告描述了新的证据，表明在日本、泰国和柬埔寨新发现的病毒中发现了该病毒的某些在最初看似异常的特征。他和他的合著者总结说：“这些观察结果与新冠病毒SARS-CoV-2的自然起源说法是一致的，与实验室起源的说法是强烈矛盾的。” |
| He said that he was familiar with some of the views of the letter signers expressed in previous media appearances or on social media, involving speculation about ways the virus could have come from laboratory work, and that none of those views appeared in the letter. | 他说，他熟悉公开信署名人之前在媒体上或社交媒体上表达的一些观点，其中涉及对病毒可能来自实验室的方式的猜测，而这些观点都没有出现在公开信中。 |
| Dr. Garry said the possible scenarios described in the letter were that “the Wuhan Institute of Biology either had SARS-CoV-2 or something very close to it before the outbreak. And for whatever reason, some grand conspiracy, they just didn’t want to tell anybody about it.” | 加里说，信中描述的可能情况是“武汉生物研究所在感染暴发前要么拥有新冠病毒SARS-CoV-2，要么拥有与之非常接近的东西。出于某种原因，某种重大阴谋，他们只是不想任何人知道。” |
| He said he continued to believe that a lab origin was “next to impossible.” He said, “We need to look in animals.” | 他说，他继续相信实验室起源“几乎是不可能的”。他说：“我们需要从动物身上找答案。” |
| That seems to strike at the heart of the concerns of the Paris group, which is the nature of future research. Dr. Ebright said that everyone in the group was concerned about both wildlife surveillance and laboratory research into viruses as potentially increasing, not lessening the likelihood of future pandemics. | 这似乎正是巴黎小组关心的核心问题，即未来研究的本质。埃布赖特说，小组中的每个人都担忧对野生动物监测和对病毒的实验室研究，有可能增长而非减少未来大流行的概率。 |
| If either collecting samples in the wild or work with those samples in labs were implicated in the origin of the pandemic, he said, the need would be urgent “to assess whether benefits outweigh risks and if not to restrict those activities.” | 他说，如果在野外采集样本或在实验室中处理这些样本与大流行的根源有牵连，那么当务之急是“评估这样做的好处是否大于风险，若非如此，是否应限制这些活动”。 |
OK阅读网 版权所有(C)2017 | 联系我们