7 Supporting Science
绝世美人儿
530次浏览
2020年08月01日 14:02
最佳经验
本文由作者推荐
毁笔顺-拮抗
1. The twilight of the 20th century is an age of enormous technological change. Every day brings new examples of advances in computing, communications, and biotechnology that change the way we live, and the way we look at the world. Economically speaking, technology companies founded in just the last 30 years have created an aggregate capital value of close to a trillion dollars, making technology a major engine driving the U.S. economy.
20世纪末期是一个科技巨变的时代。计算机运用、通信和生物技术领域每天都有新的进步。它们改变了我们的生活方式和观察世界的方式。就经济而言，在过去30年里成立的技术公司创造的资本价值共计约1万亿美元，这使技术成为驱动美国经济的一个主要动力。
2. Given this tremendous success, one might expect that basic science would receive commensurate support. Sadly, this is not the case, and indeed almost the opposite seems to be occurring. Basic research within industry is no longer fashionable-- the great corporate labs of the past few decades have been subject to cuts in funding and corporate breakups. Those that remain are often downsized, or have turned away from the challenge of profound discovery and toward immediate application. This trend does not come only from the boardroom --some science writers go even farther and pronounce basic science dead altogether, an observation given intellectual backing by researchers, who document the decline of unfettered research.
鉴于如此巨大的成功，人们会认为基础科学会得到相应的支持。可悲的是，情况并非如此，事实恰恰相反。行业内部的基础研究不再受到关注。过去几十年中，一些大公司实验室资金的投入遭到消减，或因公司分立而关闭。那些坚持下来的实验室也常常被缩小规模，或者不再钻研更深层次的东西，而有些急功近利。这种趋势不仅体现在会议中，一些科学家甚至断言基础科学已经不复存在，这个论断得到了一些研究人员的声援，他们有证据表明自由科学正在衰退。
3. Investing time and money into applied research and product development is important, and the challenge of reducing knowledge to practical applications in the form of a product is an intellectually satisfying pursuit and an obvious necessity to industry. I could hardly think otherwise, because I spend a fair amount of my own time in applied research. But technological progress cannot continue without the input of basic research and the conceptual breakthroughs it makes possible. In order to reduce knowledge to practice, one must have the knowledge in the first place. Science is the raw material that applied research and engineering refine into their products.
在应用研究和产品开发方面投入时间和金钱是十分重要的，而且把知识以一种产品形式转化到实际应用中绝非易事，这种
挑战可以满足人们心智上的探索，也显然是行业所需要的。我坚信自己的观点，因为我相当一部分时间都花在了应用研究上。但是，如果没有基础研究的投入和它可能带来的概念突破，技术的进步就难以继续下去。先拥有知识是把知识运用到实践中的前提。科学就像是一种材料，应用研究和应用工程将其提炼后加工成产品。
4. While older companies cut back on research, younger companies, born of the current technological revolution, simply ignore it. Apart from a handful of exceptions, the new technological companies in the Silicon Valley mold do not invest in long-range research. Start-up companies cannot afford it, and those well past the start-up stage may have the resources, but are not inclined to use them for basic research. An ironic example is the personal computer revolution, which was based on research done in industrial labs, notably the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center (PARC). Despite this undeniable origin, personal computer companies have not sought to renew the source of their success. Indeed, it is widely accepted in business circles that labs like Xerox PARC are a mistake because Xerox failed to capitalize on its invention of the personal computer. Xerox researchers invented the laser printer at PARC during the same time period, and the profits from laser printing and other inventions that they did capitalize on have more than repaid their investment in research. Despite this, the Xerox story has given the foes of research a ready rationalization for not funding science.
老公司在减少研究方面的投入，而在当今技术革命中新生的公司根本就不进行研究。除仅有的几个特例，硅谷模式的大部分新型技术公司没有对长期研究进行投资。刚刚起步的公司承担不起这笔开销，成功度过起步期的公司也许有能力进行投资，但却不愿意进行基础研究。一个带有讽刺意味的例子便是个人电脑革命。它是以在工业实验室进行的研究为基础，特别是以施乐帕洛阿图研究所为起点。虽然这样起家，然而，众多的个人电脑公司没有试图为其成功之源注射新的血液。实际上，在商业圈里，人们普遍认为类似施乐帕洛阿图的研究所（的行为）是个失误，因为施乐没能从个人电脑的发明中获得利润。同期，施乐研究人员还发明了激光打印机，但从激光打印机和其他发明所获得的利润超过了对研究的投资，尽管如此，施乐公司的例子还是给了那些不赞成基础研究的人以现成的借口，不去资助科学。
5. At the government level science has not been recognized as the wellspring of the technology miracle, and as a consequence support is cut, or worse, is subjected to a protracted dissection and review to see if it is "relevant" to short-term economic goals. This puts government funding bodies in the awkward
position of second-guessing both the research and the marketplace. Defense-related funds have traditionally supported a wide range of long-term research. For example, the lnternet, surely one of the most dynamic business and social developments of the decade, sprung from ARPANET, a network supported for a quarter century by defense funding before it blossomed into the lnternet as we know it today. A less patient source might have cut the support; where would the Net be today if they had? With the end of the Cold War these defense-related funds have dropped dramatically in many fields, peace has not been good for science.
政府不认为科学史创造技术奇迹的源泉，因此，对它的资助也在减少。更糟的是，科学要接受长期的分析和审查，以确定它是否与短期的经济目标“有关”。这使政府的投资机构处于对研究本身及其市场前景进行先投入后效益评估这一尴尬处境中。与防御相关的基金一直被用来支持各种长期研究项目。比如说，因特网是这10年中商业和社会方面发展最快的行业之一，它的前身是美国国防部计算机网，在发展我们今天熟知的国际互联网之前，得到的来自防御基金的资助长达25年。如果没有如此耐心的支持，今天的网络会在哪里呢？随着冷战的结束，在许多领域里这些与防御相关的资助大大减少。和平没能为科学带来好处。
6. Scientific research is by nature an uncertain undertaking. Like any exploratory process, it is not possible to predict what one will find or what its eventual utility might be. That is the whole point of research -- investigating what we do not know. In other walks of life we have come to grips with the notion of stochastic phenomena that are not individually predictable, but can be tackled as a group. Mutual fund managers do not expect every investment to have the same return, nor do actuaries expect every person to live precisely to the life expectancy. The whole point of a mutual fund or an insurance company, is to create a portfolio of unpredictable entities that in the aggregate yield to statistical prediction. Given a sufficiently large portfolio of research projects, and enough time to bring them to fruition, the track record is clear: Science is a tremendous, and very predictable investment.
科学研究本质上是一项把握性不高的事业。与任何探险过程一样，没人能预测会发生什么，最终的效用是什么。但这也正是研究的意义----去考察我们所不知道的。在其他行业里，人们所应对的是必然性，虽然个体不能预测，但其集合体是可以预测的，这样才能对偶然的现象进行预测。互利基金经理并不期望每次投资都会带来相同的回报，精算师也不期望每个人都会长命到老。互利基金或保险公司的目的在于，将单独不可预测的个体进行整合，分析，从而可以进行统计
预测。若研究项目足够之多，并投入充足的时间保证它们的完成，跟踪记录会清晰表明：科学实际上是一项巨大的可预测的投资
7. Yet this is not how science is viewed by those who fund it in government or industry. The projects are subjected to a scrutiny wholly inappropriate to their nature. The most reliable way to get research funds is to predict the research results up front, to guarantee low risk of failure, and to present a clear and certain path from results to great commercial utility. The trouble is that a research proposal that meets those criteria, and meets the additional burden of being readily understandable by a congressman or funding official, is almost certainly not worth doing -- at least as basic research. It is rare for ambitious basic research to make it through the gauntlet of second-guessing. Well-intentioned conservatism can eviscerate the very essence of what science is about. This is particularly true of the trend toward "relevant" research aimed at near-term application. Applied work can be very valuable, but all too often what the process selects is timid research -- an awkward hybrid that is neither good science nor good product development.
但是，政府和行业的投资人对科学的看法却不是这样。他们要对项目进行严格审查，这完全不符合科学的本性。（他们认为）得到研究基金最可靠的方法就是正面预测研究结果，确保低风险投资，从研究结果到巨大商业实用性的过程样该是明确和可靠的。但问题在于，如果一个研究项目的提议能符合这些标准，同时能让议员或投资官员轻而易举地明白，那么，至少作为基础研究，它是不值得一做的。本可以有所建树的基础研究项目往往禁不住层层审查。那心怀好意的保守主义挖空了科学的本质。对于目标是短期应用的相关研究，这个趋势更为明显。应用是非常有价值的，但这个过程选择的总是毫无创新的研究，这种研究是非此非彼的混合物，既不是有用的科学，也不是有用的产品开发。
8. There is no useless research. Many discoveries reach their full potential, given enough time. In some cases this potential is a direct commercial reward; in others the rewards are intellectual: New vistas are opened and new avenues for inquiry inspired, and no matter how "pure" an area of research, the odds are that it will eventually contribute to our understanding of other aspects of science -- or even to everyday life -- in ways that even the researcher cannot always predict. The British mathematician G.W. Hardy opined that his work in number theory and complex analysis would be forever useless, yet today complex analysis is central to modern engineering, and number theory is the basis of coding theory and cryptography.
每项研究都是有意义的。付出足够的时间，许多科学发明就可以充分发挥潜能。有
些潜能是直接的经济回报；有些是智力的回报：为我们呈现了新的远景，催生了探索的新途径。无论研究领域多么的“纯理论性”，它很可能会以一种研究人员本身都无法预计的方式来帮助我们理解科学的其他侧面，甚至日常的生活。英国数学家认为人们将永远用不上他在数字理论和复解析领域的工作成果，然而今天复解析是现代工程科学的核心部分，而数字理论是译码理论和密码术的基础。
9. My favorite example of unexpected utility is dinosaur paleontology. What could be more useless than studying these extinct giants? Recent work on the mysterious extinction of the dinosaurs has built a credible case that their demise was caused by the impact of an asteroid or comet. Although this explanation remains controversy among experts in the field, the inquiry has sparked the realization that a future impact by a near-earth asteroid could kill millions of people, destroy civilization, or even drive our species to extinction. Active research is now focused on this threat and on technological means to avoid it. It is thus entirely possible that the "useless" study of dinosaurs might some day, decades or even centuries from now, lead to saving the human race.
谈到意想不到的效用，我总是喜欢拿恐龙古生物学做例子。有什么比研究这些已灭绝的庞然大物更“无意义”呢？但是近期对恐龙神秘灭亡的研究让人深信，它是由于小行星和彗星与地球的撞击造成的。虽然这种解释在该领域里颇有争议，但这项研究让人们猛然意识到，接近地球的小行星在未来的撞击可能会夺去数百万的生命，毁坏文明，甚至导致我们人类的灭绝。目前研究工作已积极开展，重点是研究这种威胁本身和寻求避免灾难的技术方法。因此，可能在不久的某一天，或是几十年后，甚至几个世纪后，这种对恐龙“无意义的”研究会挽救人类。
10. Meanwhile, the entire cost of funding dinosaur paleontology, from its inception in 1841 to the present, is less than the production cost of the film Jurassic Park. Paradoxes like this abound. Defense spending at some level is surely needed in this dangerous world, but consider that cancer kills a half million Americans every year-- more than were killed in both world wars combined. If a foreign enemy inflicted those casualties, we would be up in arms. Nevertheless, research spending is only about 1 to 2 percent of what is spent on the defense budget. Can such priorities really be correct? Consider further that dramatic advances in genetics and cancer research suggest that cures for cancer and many other diseases are within our grasp -- perhaps within the next decade at the current rate of research advances. Yet in that intervening time 5 million people will die prematurely. Would it not make sense to spend another percent or so to acc
elerate the cure and save them?
此外，恐龙古生物研究从1841年初始阶段到现在得到的全部资助，还不及影片“侏罗纪公园”的拍摄成本。这种对比举不胜举。在这个危险的世界里，用在防御的开销是非常必要的，但是想想每年癌症都要夺去50万美国人的生命，这比两次世界大战的死亡人数还要多。如果国外敌人给我们造成伤亡，我们会以武力回击。但是，用于研究的费用仅仅是国防预算的1%到2%。这样的投资倾斜真的合适吗？进一步想想，以目前的科研发展的速度计算，很可能在未来10年中，对基因和癌症研究的巨大进步就可以让人们掌握治疗癌症和其他疾病的方法。然而，在这10年里，500万人会过早离开人世。为加快寻找治疗方法的速度进而挽救他们的生命，难道这不值得再增加一点对科学的资助吗？
11. If one asked business executives whether a company that might not be around in a year or two should do long-range research, the answer would be a resounding no, and rightly so. However, the converse of this argument is equally true -- a technological company that expects to survive and thrive decades hence is losing money and opportunity if it does not have long-range research programs.
一个刚刚发展起来的公司应不应该规划长期研究？公司的主管对这个问题的回答肯定是“不应该”。这个观点无可厚非。但反过来说也同样成立，一个技术公司，想生存下来并在几十年中发展壮大，却不规划长期的研究项目，它肯定会亏本和失去机会。
12. The same holds true for governments or societies as a whole. Even the most fiscally conservative politician should realize that supporting science makes money and brings tangible non-monetary benefits. The technological nature of the modern world has moved support for science from a "want to have" squarely into the "need to have" column. One cannot expect corporate shareholders to support all fundamental research because some of it may take 50 to 100 years to be applied, and by then tax laws and other uncertainties make it unlikely that today's shareholders will be the direct beneficiaries. A government, on the other hand, should consider the longer time scales and make investments accordingly.
总的说来，政府或社会也是如此。无论在财政投资上多么谨小慎微，一个政治家也应该认识到，支持科学不仅可以带来物质利益，还可以带来一些除金钱之外的实际的好处。当代社会的技术本质把对科学的支持从一种愿望转变成了一种需要。不要期望企业的股东会支持所有的基础研究，因为有些项目需要50到100年才能得到应用。到那时，税法和其他不确定性有可能使今天的股东不会成为直接受益人。但是，政府应该做长远打算，并且进行相应的投资。
13. As a society
we are shirking our support for basic science at the very time when our previous support is reaping great returns. In doing so, we jeopardize not only our legacy of scientific achievement, but also the economic prosperity of the near future. It is clear that we can afford to spend more on science. It is also clear that we need to spend more if we want to continue to enjoy a technologically based economy. The missing elements are the will and the vision to bet on the scientific enterprise, vital to the realization of the full potential of the next millennium.
当我们以前对基础科学的投入在取得收获的同时，我们整个社会却在推卸对它的支持。这样做，危害的不仅是我们所继承下来的前人的科学成就，更会损害未来的经济繁荣。很明显，我们有能力更多地关注科学。很明显，如果我们想继续享用以技术为本的经济，我们需要更多地对科学进行投入。我们缺少的是对科学这一风险事业进行投入的胆识。这对于实现下个千年的蓝图是至关重要的。