Dialogues /monologues:
1 、 what does the gravity has to do with the planets staying in orbit around the sun?
has to do with : V. 与……有关
2 、 It may be a case of communicating knowledge, drawing attention to new issues or enteraining on the basis of science subjects — and there is no reason why the same program cannot combine all three.
draw sb attention to sth :令某人注意某事。如:
She draw my attention to the boy who is crying on the road.
3 、 The film opens with an interview with Andrew Wiles, the man who discovered the solution to Fermat's last theorem, which had remained unsolved for centuries.
open with :用……作为开场,以……开头。如:
He opened the conference with a speech of welcome.
4 、 But I still hope I can open screens of any size depending on the distance I want to be from the wall in my living-room.
     The World Wide Lab 
     The 20 th century was the golden age of the laboratory. Answers to the great research questions were sought within sheltered chambers, where small groups of specialized experts scaled down (or up) phenomena in joyful isolation. Call it the era of trickle-down science: knowledge emerged from a confined center of rational enlightenment, then slowly became known to the rest of society. Science was what was made inside the walls where white coats were at work. Outside the laboratories boundaries began the realm of mere experience — not experiment.
Today, all this is changing. Indeed, it would be an understatement to say that soon nothing, absolutely nothing, will be left of this top-down model of scientific influence. 
     First, the laboratory has extended its walls to the whole planet. Instruments are everywhere. Houses, factories, and hospitals have become lab outposts. Think, for instance, of global positioning systems: thanks to satellite networks, geologists and biologists can now take measurements outside their laboratories with the same degree of precision they achieve inside. Meanwhile, a worldwide network of environmental sensors monitors the planet in real time. And research satellites observe it from above, as if the earth were under a microscope. The difference between outdoor science and lab science has slowly eroded. 
     Second, you no longer need a white coat or a Ph.D. to research specific questions. Take the AFM, a French patient advocacy group that focuses on ignored genetic diseases. It has hired researchers, pushed for controversial procedures like genetic therapy, and built an entire industry, producing at once a new social identity and a new research agenda. In the U.S. , the audacity to challenge the experts, to storm the labs, started with AIDS activists and breast cancer groups; not it has spread to interested parties of all sorts, from patients who organize their own clinical trials to environmentalists who do their won fieldwork. A crucial part of doing science is formulating the questions to be solved; it's clear that scientists are no longer alone in this endeavor. 
     Third, there is the question of scale. The size and complexity of scientific phenomena under examination has grown to the point that scaling them down to fit in a laboratory is becoming increasingly difficult. Think of global warming: to be sure, labs are running complex models on huge computers. But how do you simulate a phenomenon that is happening on us, with us, through the action of each of us as much as those of entire oceans and the high atmosphere? If the working hypothesis for global warming is that it's a product of human activity, isn't the only way to test this hypothesis to stop our harmful emissions and see — later and collectively — what has happened? 
     The sharp divide between a scientific inside, where experts are formulating theories, and a political outside, where non-experts are getting by with human values, is evaporating. And the more it does, the more the fate of humans is linked to that of things, the more a scientific statement(“the earth is warming)resembles a political one(“the earth is warming!). The matters of fact of science become matters of concern of politics.