Educational Notes

a. What does a scientist get instead of big money?

Ans: A scientist may not earn big money, but they receive respect, intellectual satisfaction, and the opportunity to make contributions to the betterment of humanity.

b. What was the problem that the nuclear powers had faced?

Ans: The nuclear powers faced the problem of monitoring each other’s compliance with the test ban treaty. They needed a reliable system to detect and verify nuclear explosions.

c. In which area did Keilis Borok’s theoretical knowledge have a direct application?

Ans: Keilis Borok’s theoretical knowledge of earthquake prediction and wave propagation was applied directly to detecting underground nuclear tests.

d. What was the important decision that the politicians took before Geneva Summit?

Ans: The politicians decided to involve scientists in resolving the problem of nuclear test detection before the Geneva Summit, showing trust in scientific expertise to solve a major geopolitical issue.

e. What are the natural and man-made disasters as mentioned by the author?

Ans: Natural disasters include earthquakes and tsunamis, while man-made disasters include nuclear wars, environmental pollution, and climate change.

a. The professional addressed as ‘you’ in the sentence “If you are clever, why are you so poor?” refers to a…

Ans: iii. scientist.
Justification: The essay directly talks about scientists, highlighting that although they are clever, they are often not rich. This question challenges the assumption that intelligence must result in wealth.

b. The writer says, “I found myself in Geneva.” What does it express?

Ans: It expresses the unexpected opportunity and honor the writer received to be part of a significant international political-scientific event related to nuclear disarmament. It shows the importance of science in world affairs.

c. Are the following statements true? Why or why not?

• Money is more powerful than intellectual resources: False. The essay shows that intellectual resources are vital for long-term human survival, especially in preventing disasters.
• Intellectual resources help survival of the mankind: True. The essay provides real-life examples of how science aids in solving global crises.
• Basic research is a way of stalling disasters: True. The author argues that scientific research can help predict and prevent both natural and man-made disasters.

d. How does the essayist justify that scientific research is the humankind’s survival?

Ans: The essayist explains how scientific research has solved major issues, like detecting underground nuclear tests and predicting earthquakes. He emphasizes that science provides tools to protect humanity from future disasters, ensuring survival.

e. What can be the purpose of the essayist of using quotations in the essay?

Ans: The quotations add credibility, emotion, and broader perspective. They show how different voices—from laymen to statesmen—view science and emphasize its importance in real-world problems and decisions.

f. Discuss and illustrate the writer’s stand that scientists are the most practical people in the world.

Ans: The writer argues that scientists deal with real-world issues through practical methods. Though seen as theoretical, their research leads to life-saving applications like earthquake prediction and nuclear test monitoring. Their practicality lies in using logic and evidence to create solutions for humanity.

a. Everyone lives under the fear of annihilation by nuclear weapons. Explain this statement.

Ans: This statement highlights global anxiety due to the existence of nuclear weapons, which can cause massive destruction. Even during peace, the possibility of nuclear war creates fear, reminding us how easily one wrong decision can destroy life on Earth.

b. The essayist says ‘While there is science, there is hope of survival and wellbeing for all of us.’ Explain it.

Ans: The essayist believes that science holds the power to predict and prevent disasters, cure diseases, and ensure a better future. As long as humanity continues investing in scientific knowledge, we can find ways to survive and improve our quality of life.

c. Is science a blessing or a curse? Write an essay on it.

Ans:

Science: A Blessing or a Curse

Science, when used wisely, is undeniably a blessing. It has transformed the world in unimaginable ways. From electricity and medical advancements to internet communication and space exploration, science has improved the quality of human life. Diseases that once wiped out millions are now treatable, and technologies that seemed impossible have become part of daily living. Scientific discoveries not only help solve problems but also save lives and bring comfort, efficiency, and progress to human civilization.

However, science can also be a curse when misused. The same scientific knowledge that cures diseases has also created weapons of mass destruction. The development of nuclear bombs, chemical weapons, and destructive technologies shows the dark side of scientific advancement. Environmental damage caused by industrialization, climate change, and the misuse of natural resources also raises serious concerns. In these cases, science becomes a threat to human existence rather than a source of hope. The fear of nuclear annihilation is a real example of how science, if not guided by ethics, can lead to irreversible consequences.

Ultimately, science itself is neutral—it is neither a blessing nor a curse. Its impact depends entirely on how humans use it. As Vladimir Keilis-Borok suggests, science is humankind’s hope for survival, but it must be guided by responsibility, morality, and the aim of improving life for all. With wise leadership and global cooperation, science will continue to be a powerful blessing for generations to come.