正文翻譯

Two women jointly win Nobel Prize for chemistry for first time in history

歷史上首次兩名女性聯(lián)合獲得諾貝爾化學(xué)獎(jiǎng)

The award increases the number of women who have won a Nobel Prize in this category from five to seven.

該獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)使獲得諾貝爾獎(jiǎng)的女性人數(shù)從5人增加到7人。

Professor Emmanuelle Charpentier and Professor Jennifer Doudna have won the 2020 Nobel Prize in chemistry for their work developing a method for genome editing.

Emmanuelle Charpentier教授和Jennifer Doudna教授因開發(fā)出一種基因組編輯方法而獲得2020年諾貝爾化學(xué)獎(jiǎng)。

"This technology has had a revolutionary impact on the life sciences, is contributing to new cancer therapies and may make the dream of curing inherited diseases come true."

“這項(xiàng)技術(shù)對(duì)生命科學(xué)產(chǎn)生了革命性的影響，正在為新的癌癥療法做出貢獻(xiàn)，并可能使治愈遺傳疾病的夢(mèng)想成為現(xiàn)實(shí)?！?/p>

It is the first time the Nobel Prize for chemistry has been awarded to two women in the same year in its 119-year history.

這是諾貝爾化學(xué)獎(jiǎng)在其119年的歷史上首次在同一年授予兩位女性。

The genome editing technique they developed is based on creating proteins which match the DNA code where a "cut" is going to be made.

他們開發(fā)的基因組編輯技術(shù)是基于創(chuàng)造蛋白質(zhì)來匹配將要進(jìn)行“切割”的DNA代碼。

"There is enormous power in this genetic tool, which affects us all," said Claes Gustafsson, chair of the Nobel Committee for chemistry.

諾貝爾化學(xué)委員會(huì)主席克拉斯·古斯塔夫松(Claes Gustafsson)表示:“這種基因工具具有巨大的力量，它影響著我們所有人?！?/p>

"It has not only revolutionised basic science, but also resulted in innovative crops and will lead to ground-breaking new medical treatments,"

“它不僅徹底改變了基礎(chǔ)科學(xué)，還帶來了創(chuàng)新作物，并將導(dǎo)致突破性的新醫(yī)學(xué)療法，”

The discovery was described as an unexpected result of Professor Charpentier studying the bacteria Streptococcus pyogenes.

這一發(fā)現(xiàn)被描述為Charpentier教授正在研究化膿性鏈球菌的一個(gè)意外結(jié)果。

She discovered a previously unknown molecule, tracrRNA, in the bacteria and found that this molecule was part of an ancient immune system, CRISPR/Cas, that disarms viruses by cleaving their DNA.

她在細(xì)菌中發(fā)現(xiàn)了一種以前不為人知的分子，tracrRNA，并發(fā)現(xiàn)這種分子是一種古老的免疫系統(tǒng)CRISPR/Cas的一部分，它通過分裂病毒的DNA來解除病毒的武裝。

"Charpentier published her discovery in 2011. The same year, she initiated a collaboration with Jennifer Doudna, an experienced biochemist with vast knowledge of RNA," the committee reported.

委員會(huì)報(bào)告稱：Charpentier在2011年發(fā)表了她的發(fā)現(xiàn)。同年，她開始與詹妮弗·杜德納(Jennifer Doudna)合作，杜德納是一位經(jīng)驗(yàn)豐富的生物化學(xué)家，對(duì)RNA有豐富的知識(shí)。

"In an epoch-making experiment, they then reprogrammed the genetic scissors.

在一個(gè)劃時(shí)代的實(shí)驗(yàn)中，他們對(duì)基因剪刀重新編程。

"In their natural form, the scissors recognise DNA from viruses, but Charpentier and Doudna proved that they could be controlled so that they can cut any DNA molecule at a predetermined site.

在它們的自然形態(tài)下，剪刀可以從病毒中識(shí)別DNA，但是Charpentier和Doudna證明了它們是可以被控制的，因此它們可以在一個(gè)預(yù)定的位置切斷任何DNA分子。

"Where the DNA is cut it is then easy to rewrite the code of life," the Nobel committee added.

諾貝爾委員會(huì)補(bǔ)充說:“DNA被切斷的地方就很容易改寫生命密碼。”

Since the scientists discovered these genetic scissors in 2012, the tool has contributed to an enormous range of research, including developing crops that can withstand mould, pests and drought.

自從科學(xué)家在2012年發(fā)現(xiàn)這些基因剪刀后，這一工具對(duì)廣泛的研究做出了貢獻(xiàn)，包括培育能夠抵御霉菌、害蟲和干旱的作物。

評(píng)論翻譯

Gemenid
And damn well they should. Crispr and its derivatives/improvements will incontrovertibly change medicine (and other fields). In fifty years, or fewer, people might see our current “golden age” of medicine as being as ridiculous as blood letting.

他們當(dāng)然應(yīng)該這么做。Crispr及其衍生物/改進(jìn)無疑將改變醫(yī)學(xué)(和其他領(lǐng)域)。在50年或更短的時(shí)間內(nèi)，人們可能會(huì)認(rèn)為我們現(xiàn)在的醫(yī)學(xué)“黃金時(shí)代”和放血一樣可笑。

gurgelblaster
Well, there's one way to stop it: tax the shit out of the rich. Stop them amassing such ridiculous amounts of money, power and resources that they can monopolize the efforts of scientists in that way.

好吧，有一個(gè)方法可以阻止它:向富人征稅。阻止他們積聚如此多的金錢、權(quán)力和資源，以至于他們無法以這種方式壟斷科學(xué)家的努力。

piglet292
Yep. Agreed. But the Governments in power in the relevant countries are totally committed to supporting the rich, and making it ever easier for them to amass money. Taxing them appropriately will never happen. People such as the Sacklers will continue to own companies producing deadly pharmaceuticals and subsequently pocketing the profits. They will pay fuck all in taxes.

是的。我同意。但相關(guān)國家的當(dāng)權(quán)政府完全致力于支持富人，并讓他們更容易積聚財(cái)富。對(duì)他們適當(dāng)征稅永遠(yuǎn)不會(huì)發(fā)生。像Sacklers這樣的人將繼續(xù)擁有生產(chǎn)致命藥品的公司，并將利潤收入囊中。他們會(huì)付所有的稅。

gurgelblaster
So I guess there's only armed revolution left, then?
No, you can do this. We can do this. Educate, Agitate, Organise. Strike, expropriate, occupy, sabotage, work to code, gather and share resources, especially non-fungible, hard-to-steal resources like non-perishable foodstuffs.
There's an awful lot of work to be done, but I don't think letting the bastards get away with it is cutting it.

那么我猜只剩下武裝革命了?
不，你可以的。我們能做到。教育、煽動(dòng)、組織、罷工、征用、占領(lǐng)、破壞、編碼、收集和共享資源，特別是不可替代的、難以偷走的資源，比如不易腐爛的食品。
有很多工作要做，但我不認(rèn)為讓這些混蛋逍遙法外是一種侮辱。

FrodoSkypotter
Most billionaires don’t have a billion in liquid capital, rather is assets that would likely lose value if quickly liquidfied

大多數(shù)億萬富翁并沒有10億美元的流動(dòng)資本，而是那些一旦迅速變現(xiàn)就可能貶值的資產(chǎn)

CupFan1130
You already get taxed on what you make off stocks though. And taxing stocks another way would affect everyone

但你已經(jīng)為股票賺的錢交稅了。以另一種方式對(duì)股票征稅會(huì)影響到每個(gè)人

gurgelblaster
You only get taxed on actual dividends and shit. Leveraging stock to take out low-interest loans to buy more companies which you can leverage to get more loans to buy more stock and so on can be done with essentially no taxes, in many places.
And the problem is amassing power and influence, not liquid cash. In that sense, especially, billionaires are billionaires are billionaires, no matter their liquidity.

你只需要對(duì)實(shí)際股息征稅。利用股票來獲得低息貸款來購買更多的公司你可以通過杠桿來獲得更多的貸款來購買更多的股票等等，在很多地方基本上是不需要繳稅的。問題在于積聚權(quán)力和影響力，而不是流動(dòng)現(xiàn)金。尤其在這個(gè)意義上，億萬富翁就是億萬富翁，不管他們的流動(dòng)性如何。

stoicismandchill
Lmao disliking billionaires is now anti-science?

不喜歡億萬富翁就是反科學(xué)嗎?

OphioukhosUnbound
Please read before responding.
It’s not liking/disliking. It’s the reason given for liking/disliking.
Global warming a scientific basis, but if someone says it’s because there are too many people so their body heat is warming the planet then that is not scientific.
You can like/dislike billionaires. But saying that they are “hoarding resources” is not a scientific. It’s completely contrary to well studied economics.

請(qǐng)看清楚再回答。
這不是喜歡或者不喜歡的問題，這是喜歡或者不喜歡的原因
全球變暖是科學(xué)依據(jù)，但如果有人說這是因?yàn)槿颂嗔?，所以他們的體溫在變暖地球，那是不科學(xué)的。
你可以喜歡或者不喜歡億萬富翁，但說他們?cè)凇岸诜e資源”并不科學(xué)。這與經(jīng)過充分研究的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)完全相反。

Esc_ape_artist
Seriously, I agree - and on top of that we need to find a way to reduce the stranglehold mega-corporations have on lobbying and what amounts to mini-monopolies that raise the barriers to entry to prevent competition, buy out competitors and their products, etc. if they’re too big to fail, they shouldn’t exist.

說真的，我同意——而且最重要的是，我們需要找到一種方法，來減少大公司對(duì)游說的壓制，以及所謂的小型壟斷——通過提高進(jìn)入壁壘來阻止競爭、收購競爭對(duì)手及其產(chǎn)品等等。如果它們大到不能倒閉，它們就不應(yīng)該存在。

Grimferrier
I don’t think you realize how fucking over the top millionaires get with tax evasion by hiring a horde of lawyers to find a loophole which while technically legal, means that you don’t have to pay a cent in taxes. That’s what trump did apparently

我不認(rèn)為你意識(shí)到那些百萬富翁是如何通過雇傭一群律師來尋找漏洞來逃稅的，雖然技術(shù)上是合法的，但這意味著你不用付一分錢的稅。特朗普顯然就是這么做的

AzraelTyrson
Or you have people like me who get into the field with the intention on using the knowledge to mainstream it as much as possible with the full expectation that it'll be monopolized in the near future and just don't care about patent laws/pharma. Thug lifeee.

或者像我這樣的人進(jìn)入這個(gè)領(lǐng)域的目的是利用知識(shí)盡可能多地將其主流化，滿心期待它在不久的將來會(huì)被壟斷而不關(guān)心專利法。

Cersad
Patents last 20 years. I'm wondering if we are going to see generic CRISPR therapies popping up in 2032.
It's a bit of a toss up because biologics are a lot more expensive to manufacture than conventional drug molecules.

專利持續(xù)了20年。我想知道2032年我們是否會(huì)看到普通的CRISPR療法出現(xiàn)。
這有點(diǎn)難搞，因?yàn)樯镏苿┑纳a(chǎn)成本比傳統(tǒng)藥物分子高得多。

Noxyt
I mean, a billion dollars gets you all those advantages without genetic engineering, and they would make more money by selling those advantages to consumers.
The people you're talking about profit more by not keeping it to themselves

我的意思是，即使沒有基因工程，10億美元也能給你帶來這些好處，他們會(huì)通過把這些優(yōu)勢(shì)賣給消費(fèi)者來賺更多的錢。
他們更多的是獲得更大的利潤，而不是把財(cái)富保留給他們自己

Kadak3supreme
Very optimistic comment.
If theres one thing I observed from this pandemic is that while we are making big progress in some areas,there are other areas that need more attention/focus.

非常樂觀評(píng)論。如果說我從這次大流行中看到了什么，那就是盡管我們?cè)谝恍╊I(lǐng)域取得了重大進(jìn)展，但還有一些領(lǐng)域需要得到更多關(guān)注

Calgacus1992
Professor Emmanuelle Charpentier and Professor Jennifer Doudna have won the 2020 Nobel Prize in chemistry for their work developing a method for genome editing.
The award takes the number of women who have ever won the Nobel Prize in chemistry from five to seven.

Emmanuelle Charpentier教授和Jennifer Doudna教授因開發(fā)出一種基因組編輯方法而獲得2020年諾貝爾化學(xué)獎(jiǎng)。
該獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)將獲得諾貝爾化學(xué)獎(jiǎng)的女性人數(shù)從5人增加到7人。

MyosinHeavyChain
Yea no bias at all - they were in a footnote in a Cell 2016 review about CRISPR - they only contributed but were chosen because of Swedish feminist agenda.

沒錯(cuò)，完全沒有偏見——她們出現(xiàn)在Cell 2016關(guān)于CRISPR的評(píng)論的腳注中——她們只是貢獻(xiàn)了一些，但被選中是因?yàn)槿鸬涞呐畽?quán)主義議程。

VichelleMassage
I would say the awarding of the prizes is more a flaw of the Nobel prizes. Science today is done collaboratively and piecemeal by several groups. Yet the Nobels only go to a few people for the simple fact that scientific leaps used to be made mostly by independent individuals.
But yes, the publication bias, reward system, and the overall model of academic science is broken as hell.

我想說，諾貝爾獎(jiǎng)的頒發(fā)更像是諾貝爾獎(jiǎng)的一個(gè)缺陷。今天的科學(xué)是由幾個(gè)小組合作完成的。然而，諾貝爾獎(jiǎng)只頒給了少數(shù)人，因?yàn)橐粋€(gè)簡單的事實(shí):科學(xué)的飛躍過去大多是由獨(dú)立的個(gè)人取得的。但是，確實(shí)，出版偏見、獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)制度和學(xué)術(shù)科學(xué)的整體模式被徹底打破了。

Regular_Panda_919
You speak truth, but won't be popular for it.

你說真話，但不會(huì)因此而受歡迎。

atridir
Creating mosquitoes that breed sterile offspring? It is being used and I’m actually cautiously on board with it.

制造出能繁殖不育后代的蚊子? 它正在被使用，實(shí)際上我對(duì)它持謹(jǐn)慎態(tài)度。

Robot_Basilisk
We must guide this technology and discovery with moral reason.
Impossible. Capitalism and corporatism and oligarchy is too widespread. It will absolutely be used for personal advantage first and foremost, followed by being weaponized against the enemies of the elite. And then, only if we revolt and win, will it be used ethically for the public.

我們必須用道德理性來引導(dǎo)這一技術(shù)和發(fā)現(xiàn)。
不可能的。資本主義、社團(tuán)主義和寡頭政治太普遍了。它絕對(duì)會(huì)首先被用于個(gè)人利益，然后被用作武器來對(duì)付精英的敵人。然后，只有我們反抗并取得勝利，它才會(huì)被合乎道德地用于公眾。

shwilliams4
Too bad they were screwed on the patents.

太糟糕了，他們?cè)趯＠细阍伊恕?/p>

zoedot
Did you mean patents?

你是指專利嗎?

ahmadns9
Why did I read yours differently.

為什么我和你的看法不同呢?

shwilliams4
Yes, the employer tends to reap the rewards of the workers so that when things to turn out great the workers get little to nothing. But maybe this will change?

是的，雇主傾向于收獲工人的回報(bào)，所以當(dāng)事情變得很好的時(shí)候，工人得到的很少。但也許這種情況會(huì)改變?

bpastore
I am 100% all for workers sharing in the spoils of their efforts (worker rights is literally my main field of practice) but when you think about it, why do companies hire scientists and engineers in the first place? Why pay them to conduct research at all?
Few people realize this but the entire patent system exists to encourage investors to put their money into developing science (fun fact: the US Constitution actually had patent protection baked into it before we even drafted the First Amendment). America was born during the enlightenment and patents were seen as the way to get Capitalism to drive scientific progress. All things being equal... it worked.
It is still far from a perfect system -- and it doesn't work well with every form or technology (e.g. software) but, when you think about just how much scientific progress the US has made over the past ~250 years, there's a reason Europe worked hard to copy this system, and it's not likely to go anywhere anytime soon.

我100%支持工人分享他們努力的成果，但是你需要思考一個(gè)問題，為什么公司會(huì)首先雇傭科學(xué)家和工程師呢?為什么要付錢讓他們進(jìn)行研究呢?
很少有人意識(shí)到這一點(diǎn)，但是整個(gè)專利系統(tǒng)的存在是為了鼓勵(lì)投資者把他們的錢投入到發(fā)展科學(xué)中去(有趣的事實(shí)是:在我們起草第一修正案之前，美國憲法實(shí)際上已經(jīng)包含了專利保護(hù))。美國誕生于啟蒙運(yùn)動(dòng)時(shí)期，專利被視為資本主義推動(dòng)科學(xué)進(jìn)步的途徑。一切都是平等的……
這還遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)不是一個(gè)完美的系統(tǒng)—并不是每一種形式或技術(shù)(例如軟件)都能很好地運(yùn)行，但是，當(dāng)你想到美國在過去的250年里取得了多么大的科學(xué)進(jìn)步，歐洲努力復(fù)制這個(gè)系統(tǒng)是有原因的，而且它不太可能在短期內(nèi)被任何地方采用。