The differences in relative growth of various areas of scientific research have several causes. Some of these causes are completely reasonable results of social needs. Others are reasonable consequences of particular advances in science being to some extent self-accelerating. Some， however， are less reasonable processes of different growth in which preconception of the form scientific theory ought to take， by persons in authority， act to alter the growth pattern of different areas. This is a new problem probably not yet unavoidable； but it is a frightening trend. This trend began during the Second World War， when several governments came to the conclusion that the specific demands that a government wants to make of its scientific establishment cannot generally be foreseen in detail. It can be predicted， however， that from time to time questions will arise which will require specific scientific answers. It is therefore generally valuable to treat the scientific establishment as a resource or machine to be kept in functional order. This seems mostly effectively done by supporting a certain amount of research not related to immediate goals but of possible consequence in the future.
This kind of support， like all government support， requires decisions about the appropriate recipients of funds. Decisions based on utility as opposed to lack of utility are straightforward. But a decision among projects none of which has immediate utility is more difficult. The goal of the supporting agencies is the praisable one of supporting "good " as opposed to "bad" science， but a valid determination is difficult to make. Generally， the idea of good science tends to become confused with the capacity of the field in question to generate an elegant theory. However， the world is so made that elegant systems are in principle unable to deal with some of the world's more fascinating and delightful aspects. New forms of thought as well as new subjects for thought must arise in the future as they have in the past， giving rise to new standards of elegance.
preconception / 5pri：kEn5sepFEn / n. 1预想2偏见
[例] His vision， unobstructed by ideological preconception， was continually reformed by experience？ （Doris Kearns Goodwin）
theory / 5WiEri / n. 1理论， 学说， 原理2意见3推测
[例] There were several theories about the way in which the fire started.
[同义] attitude， conception， explanation， hypothesis， idea；inference
[反义] practice / 5prAktis / n.1 实行， 实际2惯例， 习惯3练习， 实习4开业
[派生] theoretical / WiE5retikEl / adj. 理论的
establishment / is5tAbliFmEnt / n. 1确立， 制定， 设施2公司；军事组织
[例] These two hotels are both excellent establishments.
[同义] creation， foundation ，business， company
[派生] establish / is5tAbliF / vt. 建立， 设立， 安置， 使定居， 使人民接受， 确定v. 建立
detail / 5di：teil， di5teil / n. 细节， 详情 vt. 详述， 细说
[例] Give me all the details of the accident — tell me what happened in detail.
[同义] assign ，commission， delegate ，division， dwell on， elaborate， fraction
[派生] detailed / 5di：teild / adj. 详细的， 逐条的
[固定搭配] in detail 精细地，明细地注意细节地；彻底地，吹毛求疵地；
resource / ri5sC：s / n. 1资源， 财力2办法， 智谋
[例] Religion is her only resource. 宗教是她唯一的安慰。
[同义] ability， device ， ingenuity
[派生] resourceful / ri5sC：sful / adj. 资源丰富的， 足智多谋的
utility / ju：5tiliti / n. 效用， 有用
[例] utility furniture 实用家具
[同义] usefulness ， benefit
[派生] utilize / ju：5tIlaIz / vt. 利用
straightforward / streit5fC：wEd / adj. 1正直的， 坦率的2简单的， 易懂的， 直接了当的 adv. 坦率地
[例] We took a straightforward route to the beach.
[派生] straightforwards / streit5fC：wEdz / adv. 笔直地， 率直地
oppose / E5pEuz / vt. 反对， 使对立， 使对抗， 抗争 vi. 反对
[例] Many residents are opposed to the plan of building the motorway.
[同义] conflict with ，contradict ，counteract， dispute， fight ，hinder， refute [反义] agree / E5^ri： / vi. 同意， 赞成……的意见， 与……一致， 承认， 适合 vt. 同意
[派生] opposed / E5pEuzd / adj. 反对的， 敌对的
[固定搭配] oppose M to N 把M与N相对照或相比； oppose oneself to 反对
elegant / 5eli^Ent / adj. 文雅的， 端庄的， 雅致的， <口>上品的， 第一流的
[例] an elegant woman 高雅的女人
[同义] cultured， fine ，polished ，refined， superior
[反义] inelegant / in5eli^Ent / adj. 不雅的
[派生] elegance / 5elI^Ens / n. 高雅， 典雅， 优雅， 雅致