原文標(biāo)題：
The changing nature of science
Ripe for disruption?
Papers and patents are becoming less challenging of orthodoxy
科學(xué)變化的本質(zhì)
顛覆的時(shí)候到了？
論文和專利對(duì)正統(tǒng)觀念的挑戰(zhàn)越來越小

Why that is, is a mystery
原因是個(gè)謎

[Paragraph 1]
“IDEAS ARE like rabbits,” John Steinbeck said. “You get a couple and learn how to handle them, and pretty soon you have a dozen.”

約翰·斯坦貝克說：“想法就像兔子，你開始有一對(duì)雌雄小兔，處理方法得當(dāng)，很快你就有了一堆兔子?！?br>

Scientific and technological progress is often viewed in this way. Current ideas build on previous ones.

科學(xué)技術(shù)的進(jìn)步也是如此，現(xiàn)在的想法建立在之前的想法之上。

And ideas, along with papers and patents, have indeed proliferated in the recent past.
想法、論文、專利，最近確實(shí)都大量涌現(xiàn)出來了。

[Paragraph 2]
Yet despite—or perhaps because of—this productivity (papers published and patents issued each year now number in the millions), it has been documented that innovation within specific fields has been in decline.

盡管--或可能是由于--高產(chǎn)（現(xiàn)在每年發(fā)表的論文和發(fā)布的專利都數(shù)百萬計(jì)），然而有證據(jù)表明，特定領(lǐng)域的創(chuàng)新力正在下降。

For example, a paper titled “Science in the age of selfies”, published in 2016, warned of a shifting incentive-and-information landscape in biology, particularly neuroscience, that has diluted the number of high-impact discoveries.
例如，2016年發(fā)表的一篇題為《自拍時(shí)代的科學(xué)》的論文警告說，生物學(xué)，特別是神經(jīng)科學(xué)領(lǐng)域的激勵(lì)與信息環(huán)境正在發(fā)生改變，這已經(jīng)削弱了高影響力研究的數(shù)量。

[Paragraph 3]
Michael Park and Russell Funk of the University of Minnesota, and Erin Leahey of the University of Arizona, have set out to determine whether this decline holds for science and technology in general.

明尼蘇達(dá)大學(xué)的邁克爾·帕克和拉塞爾·芬克，以及亞利桑那大學(xué)的艾琳·萊希，已經(jīng)著手研究這種下降是否適用于一般的科學(xué)技術(shù)領(lǐng)域。

In a study published this week in Nature they analyse 45m papers and 3.9m patents published and filed between 1945 and 2010.
本周《自然》雜志上發(fā)布了一項(xiàng)研究，他們分析了1945-2010年間發(fā)表的4500萬篇論文和提交的390萬項(xiàng)專利。

[Paragraph 4]
The measurement they use for this work, known as the CD index, quantifies how “consolidating” or “disruptive” each paper or patent is.
他們?cè)谶@項(xiàng)工作中使用了“CD指數(shù)”的衡量標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，量化了每一篇論文或?qū)＠摹吧罨浴被颉邦嵏残浴背潭取?br>
A paper is consolidating (a low CD score) if later work citing it also cites the papers that it, itself, cited.
如果后續(xù)研究在引用深化型研究時(shí)，連同其前置研究一并引用，那么這篇論文就是深化型研究（CD低分）。

Discoveries and inventions of this sort—like a patent awarded in 2005 for genetically modified soyabeans—serve to propel science forward along its existing trajectory.
這類研究和發(fā)明--如2005年授予的轉(zhuǎn)基因大豆專利--有助于推動(dòng)科學(xué)沿著現(xiàn)有的研究方向前進(jìn)。

By contrast, a paper is disruptive (a high CD score) if it is cited by later work in the absence of citations of its predecessors.
相比之下，如果后續(xù)研究在引用顛覆型研究時(shí)，不引用其前置研究，那么這篇論文就是顛覆型研究（CD高分）。

A classic example of that was the study published in 1953 by James Watson and Francis Crick on the double-helical structure of DNA.
一個(gè)經(jīng)典的例子是詹姆斯·沃森和弗朗西斯·克里克于1953年發(fā)表的關(guān)于DNA雙螺旋結(jié)構(gòu)的研究。

High-CD papers disrupt the status quo, fundamentally altering a field’s trajectory or creating a new field altogether.
CD高分論文（顛覆型研究）打破了現(xiàn)狀，根本上扭轉(zhuǎn)研究方向，或者開辟出全新的研究領(lǐng)域。

[Paragraph 5]
Both consolidating and disruptive work are needed for scientific progress, of course, but science now seems to favour the former over the latter in a potentially unhealthy way.
當(dāng)然，科學(xué)進(jìn)步既需要深化性又需要顛覆性的研究，但科學(xué)現(xiàn)在似乎在以不健康的方式傾向于前者而非后者。

Mr Park and Drs Leahey and Funk found that the average CD score for papers has fallen by between 92% and 100% since 1945 (see chart), and for patents between 79% and 92%.
帕克、萊希和芬克發(fā)現(xiàn)，自1945年以來，論文的CD平均分下降了92%-100%（見圖表），專利的CD平均分下降了79%-92%。

These declines are not mere artefacts of changing publication, citation or authorship practices; the researchers controlled for that. Why, then, has science become less disruptive?
這些數(shù)據(jù)下降不僅僅是出版物、引文或著作權(quán)變化的人為現(xiàn)象；研究人員對(duì)這些變量進(jìn)行了控制。那么，為什么科學(xué)領(lǐng)域的顛覆性降低了？

[Paragraph 6]
One hypothesis is the low-hanging-fruit theory—that all the easy findings have been plucked from the branches of the tree of knowledge.
一個(gè)假設(shè)是“易得”理論，即所有容易的研究發(fā)現(xiàn)都是從知識(shí)樹上摘現(xiàn)成的。

If true, this would predict different fields would have different rates of decline in disruption, given that they are at different stages of maturity.
如果這是真的，可以預(yù)測(cè)為不同領(lǐng)域的顛覆性下降率不同，因?yàn)樗鼈兲幱诓煌某墒祀A段。

But that is not the case. The decline the researchers found was comparable in all big fields of science and technology.
但事實(shí)并非如此。研究人員發(fā)現(xiàn)，在所有大的科學(xué)和技術(shù)領(lǐng)域，這種下降都是類似的。

[Paragraph 7]
Another idea is that the decline in disruptiveness stems from one in the quality of published work.
另一種觀點(diǎn)是，顛覆性下降源于出版作品質(zhì)量的下降。

To test this, the researchers looked at two specific categories: papers in premier publications and Nobel-prizewinning discoveries.
為了驗(yàn)證這一點(diǎn)，研究人員查看了兩個(gè)特定類別：著名出版物中的論文和諾貝爾獎(jiǎng)獲獎(jiǎng)研究。

“If there were a pocket of science where the quality might have declined less, or hasn’t declined,” said Mr Park, “it would be in those places.” But the downward trend persisted there, too.
帕克先生說：“如果有一個(gè)科學(xué)領(lǐng)域的質(zhì)量下降得少，或者沒有下降，那么顛覆性研究就是在這些領(lǐng)域。”但這些領(lǐng)域也有下降的趨勢(shì)。

[Paragraph 8]
A more likely reason for the change, the researchers argue, is that scientists and inventors are producing work based on narrower foundations.
研究人員認(rèn)為，另一個(gè)可能的原因是，科學(xué)家和發(fā)明家正在更窄更專業(yè)的領(lǐng)域進(jìn)行研究。

They found that citing older work, citing one’s own work, and citing less diverse work all correlate with less disruption.
他們發(fā)現(xiàn)，引用舊作品、引用自己的作品以及引用不太多樣化的作品都會(huì)減少干擾。

[Paragraph 9]
Mr Park maintains there is room for optimism. Though the average disruptiveness of discoveries has declined, the number of “highly disruptive” ones has remained constant.
帕克先生認(rèn)為有理由保持樂觀的心態(tài)。盡管研究的平均顛覆性有所下降，但“高度顛覆性”研究的數(shù)量保持穩(wěn)定。

Humanity does not appear to be reaching the end of science.
人類似乎沒有達(dá)到科學(xué)的終點(diǎn)。

Albert Michelson, winner of the 1907 Nobel prize in physics for his work on the immutability of the speed of light, which underlay Albert Einstein’s special theory of relativity, is as wrong now as he was in 1894, when he said that it was “probable that most of the grand underlying principles have been firmly established”.
阿爾伯特·邁克爾遜，因?qū)馑俨蛔冃缘难芯慷@得1907年諾貝爾物理學(xué)獎(jiǎng)，這一研究是阿爾伯特·愛因斯坦的狹義相對(duì)論的基礎(chǔ)。他錯(cuò)了，1894年他說“物理學(xué)的大廈已經(jīng)落成”。

（恭喜讀完，本篇英語詞匯量766左右）
原文出自：2023年1月7日《The Economist》Science & technology版塊。

精讀筆記來源于：自由英語之路

本文翻譯整理: Irene本文編輯校對(duì): Irene
僅供個(gè)人英語學(xué)習(xí)交流使用。

【補(bǔ)充資料】（來自于網(wǎng)絡(luò)）
美國(guó)明尼蘇達(dá)大學(xué)的Michael Park、Russell J. Funk與亞利桑那大學(xué)的Erin Leahey近日在Nature發(fā)表文章稱：“通過對(duì)六個(gè)大型數(shù)據(jù)庫(kù)中的4500萬篇論文和390 萬項(xiàng)專利進(jìn)行分析，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)論文和專利越來越難以顛覆既往，也難以引領(lǐng)科技進(jìn)入新方向。”?研究人員認(rèn)為，這種顛覆性進(jìn)展的缺位，反映了科技發(fā)展性質(zhì)的根本性轉(zhuǎn)向。

為了衡量論文、專利的“顛覆性”或“突破性”，研究人員提出了“CD指數(shù)(Consolidating/Disruptive index)”。在該評(píng)價(jià)模式中，所有研究成果被分為兩類，一類是深化型研究 (Consolidating)，一類是顛覆型研究 (Disruptive)。深化型研究指那些繼承過去研究結(jié)論，并沿著已有的研究方向進(jìn)一步改善、深化的研究成果。后續(xù)研究在引用深化型研究時(shí)，往往會(huì)連同其前置研究一并引用。相比之下，顛覆型研究則推翻了過去的研究結(jié)論，或是開辟出全新的研究領(lǐng)域，或是根本上扭轉(zhuǎn)研究方向。后續(xù)研究在引用顛覆型研究時(shí)，一般不會(huì)引用其前置研究。
?
【重點(diǎn)句子】（3 個(gè)）
Scientific and technological progress is often viewed in this way. Current ideas build on previous ones.
科學(xué)技術(shù)的進(jìn)步也是如此，現(xiàn)在的想法建立在之前的想法之上。

High-CD papers disrupt the status quo, fundamentally altering a field’s trajectory or creating a new field altogether.
CD高分論文（顛覆型研究）打破了現(xiàn)狀，根本上扭轉(zhuǎn)研究方向，或者開辟出全新的研究領(lǐng)域。

Humanity does not appear to be reaching the end of science.
人類似乎沒有達(dá)到科學(xué)的終點(diǎn)。