【龙腾网】历史上首次两名女性联合获得诺贝尔化学奖

正文翻译

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

历史上首次两名女性联合获得诺贝尔化学奖

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

该奖项使获得诺贝尔奖的女性人数从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教授因开发出一种基因组编辑方法而获得2020年诺贝尔化学奖。

"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."

“这项技术对生命科学产生了革命性的影响，正在为新的癌症疗法做出贡献，并可能使治愈遗传疾病的梦想成为现实。”

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.

这是诺贝尔化学奖在其119年的历史上首次在同一年授予两位女性。

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

他们开发的基因组编辑技术是基于创造蛋白质来匹配将要进行“切割”的DNA代码。

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

诺贝尔化学委员会主席克拉斯·古斯塔夫松(Claes Gustafsson)表示:“这种基因工具具有巨大的力量，它影响着我们所有人。”

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

“它不仅彻底改变了基础科学，还带来了创新作物，并将导致突破性的新医学疗法，”

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

这一发现被描述为Charpentier教授正在研究化脓性链球菌的一个意外结果。

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.

她在细菌中发现了一种以前不为人知的分子，tracrRNA，并发现这种分子是一种古老的免疫系统CRISPR/Cas的一部分，它通过分裂病毒的DNA来解除病毒的武装。

"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.

委员会报告称：Charpentier在2011年发表了她的发现。同年，她开始与詹妮弗·杜德纳(Jennifer Doudna)合作，杜德纳是一位经验丰富的生物化学家，对RNA有丰富的知识。

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

在一个划时代的实验中，他们对基因剪刀重新编程。

"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.

在它们的自然形态下，剪刀可以从病毒中识别DNA，但是Charpentier和Doudna证明了它们是可以被控制的，因此它们可以在一个预定的位置切断任何DNA分子。

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

诺贝尔委员会补充说:“DNA被切断的地方就很容易改写生命密码。”

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.

自从科学家在2012年发现这些基因剪刀后，这一工具对广泛的研究做出了贡献，包括培育能够抵御霉菌、害虫和干旱的作物。

评论翻译

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.

他们当然应该这么做。Crispr及其衍生物/改进无疑将改变医学(和其他领域)。在50年或更短的时间内，人们可能会认为我们现在的医学“黄金时代”和放血一样可笑。

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，有一个方法可以阻止它:向富人征税。阻止他们积聚如此多的金钱、权力和资源，以至于他们无法以这种方式垄断科学家的努力。

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。但相关国家的当权政府完全致力于支持富人，并让他们更容易积聚财富。对他们适当征税永远不会发生。像Sacklers这样的人将继续拥有生产致命药品的公司，并将利润收入囊中。他们会付所有的税。

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.

那么我猜只剩下武装革命了?
不，你可以的。我们能做到。教育、煽动、组织、罢工、征用、占领、破坏、编码、收集和共享资源，特别是不可替代的、难以偷走的资源，比如不易腐烂的食品。
有很多工作要做，但我不认为让这些混蛋逍遥法外是一种侮辱。

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

大多数亿万富翁并没有10亿美元的流动资本，而是那些一旦迅速变现就可能贬值的资产

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

但你已经为股票赚的钱交税了。以另一种方式对股票征税会影响到每个人

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.

你只需要对实际股息征税。利用股票来获得低息贷款来购买更多的公司你可以通过杠杆来获得更多的贷款来购买更多的股票等等，在很多地方基本上是不需要缴税的。问题在于积聚权力和影响力，而不是流动现金。尤其在这个意义上，亿万富翁就是亿万富翁，不管他们的流动性如何。

stoicismandchill
Lmao disliking billionaires is now anti-science?

不喜欢亿万富翁就是反科学吗?

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.

请看清楚再回答。
这不是喜欢或者不喜欢的问题，这是喜欢或者不喜欢的原因
全球变暖是科学依据，但如果有人说这是因为人太多了，所以他们的体温在变暖地球，那是不科学的。
你可以喜欢或者不喜欢亿万富翁，但说他们在“囤积资源”并不科学。这与经过充分研究的经济学完全相反。

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.

说真的，我同意——而且最重要的是，我们需要找到一种方法，来减少大公司对游说的压制，以及所谓的小型垄断——通过提高进入壁垒来阻止竞争、收购竞争对手及其产品等等。如果它们大到不能倒闭，它们就不应该存在。

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

我不认为你意识到那些百万富翁是如何通过雇佣一群律师来寻找漏洞来逃税的，虽然技术上是合法的，但这意味着你不用付一分钱的税。特朗普显然就是这么做的

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.

或者像我这样的人进入这个领域的目的是利用知识尽可能多地将其主流化，满心期待它在不久的将来会被垄断而不关心专利法。

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.

专利持续了20年。我想知道2032年我们是否会看到普通的CRISPR疗法出现。
这有点难搞，因为生物制剂的生产成本比传统药物分子高得多。

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，即使没有基因工程，10亿美元也能给你带来这些好处，他们会通过把这些优势卖给消费者来赚更多的钱。
他们更多的是获得更大的利润，而不是把财富保留给他们自己

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.

非常乐观评论。如果说我从这次大流行中看到了什么，那就是尽管我们在一些领域取得了重大进展，但还有一些领域需要得到更多关注

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教授因开发出一种基因组编辑方法而获得2020年诺贝尔化学奖。
该奖项将获得诺贝尔化学奖的女性人数从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.

没错，完全没有偏见——她们出现在Cell 2016关于CRISPR的评论的脚注中——她们只是贡献了一些，但被选中是因为瑞典的女权主义议程。

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.

我想说，诺贝尔奖的颁发更像是诺贝尔奖的一个缺陷。今天的科学是由几个小组合作完成的。然而，诺贝尔奖只颁给了少数人，因为一个简单的事实:科学的飞跃过去大多是由独立的个人取得的。但是，确实，出版偏见、奖励制度和学术科学的整体模式被彻底打破了。

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

你说真话，但不会因此而受欢迎。

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，实际上我对它持谨慎态度。

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.

我们必须用道德理性来引导这一技术和发现。
不可能的。资本主义、社团主义和寡头政治太普遍了。它绝对会首先被用于个人利益，然后被用作武器来对付精英的敌人。然后，只有我们反抗并取得胜利，它才会被合乎道德地用于公众。

shwilliams4
Too bad they were screwed on the patents.

太糟糕了，他们在专利上搞砸了。

zoedot
Did you mean patents?

你是指专利吗?

ahmadns9
Why did I read yours differently.

为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，雇主倾向于收获工人的回报，所以当事情变得很好的时候，工人得到的很少。但也许这种情况会改变?

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%支持工人分享他们努力的成果，但是你需要思考一个问题，为什么公司会首先雇佣科学家和工程师呢?为什么要付钱让他们进行研究呢?
很少有人意识到这一点，但是整个专利系统的存在是为了鼓励投资者把他们的钱投入到发展科学中去(有趣的事实是:在我们起草第一修正案之前，美国宪法实际上已经包含了专利保护)。美国诞生于启蒙运动时期，专利被视为资本主义推动科学进步的途径。一切都是平等的……
这还远远不是一个完美的系统—并不是每一种形式或技术(例如软件)都能很好地运行，但是，当你想到美国在过去的250年里取得了多么大的科学进步，欧洲努力复制这个系统是有原因的，而且它不太可能在短期内被任何地方采用。