《经济学人》双语：科学领域的创新颠覆性研究为何下降了？

原文标题：
The changing nature of science
Ripe for disruption?
Papers and patents are becoming less challenging of orthodoxy
科学变化的本质
颠覆的时候到了？
论文和专利对正统观念的挑战越来越小

Why that is, is a mystery
原因是个谜

[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.”

约翰·斯坦贝克说：“想法就像兔子，你开始有一对雌雄小兔，处理方法得当，很快你就有了一堆兔子。”

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

科学技术的进步也是如此，现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、论文、专利，最近确实都大量涌现出来了。

[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.

尽管--或可能是由于--高产（现在每年发表的论文和发布的专利都数百万计），然而有证据表明，特定领域的创新力正在下降。

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年发表的一篇题为《自拍时代的科学》的论文警告说，生物学，特别是神经科学领域的激励与信息环境正在发生改变，这已经削弱了高影响力研究的数量。

[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.

明尼苏达大学的迈克尔·帕克和拉塞尔·芬克，以及亚利桑那大学的艾琳·莱希，已经着手研究这种下降是否适用于一般的科学技术领域。

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》杂志上发布了一项研究，他们分析了1945-2010年间发表的4500万篇论文和提交的390万项专利。

[Paragraph 4]
The measurement they use for this work, known as the CD index, quantifies how “consolidating” or “disruptive” each paper or patent is.
他们在这项工作中使用了“CD指数”的衡量标准，量化了每一篇论文或专利的“深化性”或“颠覆性”程度。

A paper is consolidating (a low CD score) if later work citing it also cites the papers that it, itself, cited.
如果后续研究在引用深化型研究时，连同其前置研究一并引用，那么这篇论文就是深化型研究（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.
这类研究和发明--如2005年授予的转基因大豆专利--有助于推动科学沿着现有的研究方向前进。

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，如果后续研究在引用颠覆型研究时，不引用其前置研究，那么这篇论文就是颠覆型研究（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.
一个经典的例子是詹姆斯·沃森和弗朗西斯·克里克于1953年发表的关于DNA双螺旋结构的研究。

High-CD papers disrupt the status quo, fundamentally altering a field’s trajectory or creating a new field altogether.
CD高分论文（颠覆型研究）打破了现状，根本上扭转研究方向，或者开辟出全新的研究领域。

[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.
当然，科学进步既需要深化性又需要颠覆性的研究，但科学现在似乎在以不健康的方式倾向于前者而非后者。

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、莱希和芬克发现，自1945年以来，论文的CD平均分下降了92%-100%（见图表），专利的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?
这些数据下降不仅仅是出版物、引文或着作权变化的人为现象；研究人员对这些变量进行了控制。那么，为什么科学领域的颠覆性降低了？

[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.
一个假设是“易得”理论，即所有容易的研究发现都是从知识树上摘现成的。

If true, this would predict different fields would have different rates of decline in disruption, given that they are at different stages of maturity.
如果这是真的，可以预测为不同领域的颠覆性下降率不同，因为它们处于不同的成熟阶段。

But that is not the case. The decline the researchers found was comparable in all big fields of science and technology.
但事实并非如此。研究人员发现，在所有大的科学和技术领域，这种下降都是类似的。

[Paragraph 7]
Another idea is that the decline in disruptiveness stems from one in the quality of published work.
另一种观点是，颠覆性下降源于出版作品质量的下降。

To test this, the researchers looked at two specific categories: papers in premier publications and Nobel-prizewinning discoveries.
为了验证这一点，研究人员查看了两个特定类别：著名出版物中的论文和诺贝尔奖获奖研究。

“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.
帕克先生说：“如果有一个科学领域的质量下降得少，或者没有下降，那么颠覆性研究就是在这些领域。”但这些领域也有下降的趋势。

[Paragraph 8]
A more likely reason for the change, the researchers argue, is that scientists and inventors are producing work based on narrower foundations.
研究人员认为，另一个可能的原因是，科学家和发明家正在更窄更专业的领域进行研究。

They found that citing older work, citing one’s own work, and citing less diverse work all correlate with less disruption.
他们发现，引用旧作品、引用自己的作品以及引用不太多样化的作品都会减少干扰。

[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.
帕克先生认为有理由保持乐观的心态。尽管研究的平均颠覆性有所下降，但“高度颠覆性”研究的数量保持稳定。

Humanity does not appear to be reaching the end of science.
人类似乎没有达到科学的终点。

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”.
阿尔伯特·迈克尔逊，因对光速不变性的研究而获得1907年诺贝尔物理学奖，这一研究是阿尔伯特·爱因斯坦的狭义相对论的基础。他错了，1894年他说“物理学的大厦已经落成”。

（恭喜读完，本篇英语词汇量766左右）
原文出自：2023年1月7日《The Economist》Science & technology版块。

精读笔记来源于：自由英语之路

本文翻译整理: Irene本文编辑校对: Irene
仅供个人英语学习交流使用。

【补充资料】（来自于网络）
美国明尼苏达大学的Michael Park、Russell J. Funk与亚利桑那大学的Erin Leahey近日在Nature发表文章称：“通过对六个大型数据库中的4500万篇论文和390 万项专利进行分析，我们发现论文和专利越来越难以颠覆既往，也难以引领科技进入新方向。” 研究人员认为，这种颠覆性进展的缺位，反映了科技发展性质的根本性转向。

为了衡量论文、专利的“颠覆性”或“突破性”，研究人员提出了“CD指数(Consolidating/Disruptive index)”。在该评价模式中，所有研究成果被分为两类，一类是深化型研究 (Consolidating)，一类是颠覆型研究 (Disruptive)。深化型研究指那些继承过去研究结论，并沿着已有的研究方向进一步改善、深化的研究成果。后续研究在引用深化型研究时，往往会连同其前置研究一并引用。相比之下，颠覆型研究则推翻了过去的研究结论，或是开辟出全新的研究领域，或是根本上扭转研究方向。后续研究在引用颠覆型研究时，一般不会引用其前置研究。
 
【重点句子】（3 个）
Scientific and technological progress is often viewed in this way. Current ideas build on previous ones.
科学技术的进步也是如此，现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高分论文（颠覆型研究）打破了现状，根本上扭转研究方向，或者开辟出全新的研究领域。

Humanity does not appear to be reaching the end of science.
人类似乎没有达到科学的终点。