評論
打印
The US$3-million Fundamental Physics Prize is indeed an interesting experiment,
美國三百萬美元的基礎物理學獎的確是一項令人覺得有趣的試驗，
as Alexander Polyakov said when he accepted this year's award in March.
正如今年三月Alexander Polyakov領取本年度的基礎物理學獎所說。
And it is far from the only one of its type.
而且這種類型的獎項可不止只有基礎物理學獎。
As a News Feature article in Nature discusses, a string of lucrative awards for researchers have joined the Nobel Prizes in recent years.
正如《自然》雜志的一篇新聞專題文章論述，近年來，一系列給研究者設立的利益豐厚的獎項能與諾貝爾獎相媲美。
Many, like the Fundamental Physics Prize, are funded from the telephone-number-sized bank accounts of Internet entrepreneurs.
許多獎項，比如基礎物理學獎，其資金來自于互聯網企業家們如電話號碼長度般的巨額銀行存款。
These benefactors have succeeded in their chosen fields, they say,
這些捐助者在他們各自的領域很成功，他們說，
and they want to use their wealth to draw attention to those who have succeeded in science.
而且他們想用他們的財富讓人們注意到那些科學領域的有所成功的人。
What's not to like?
這項獎項有什么不讓人喜歡的嗎？
Quite a lot, according to a handful of scientists quoted in the News Feature.
根據新聞專題文章中的幾位科學家的說法，有太多讓人不喜歡的地方了。
You cannot buy class, as the old saying goes, and these upstart entrepreneurs cannot buy their prizes the prestige of the Nobels.
俗話說：有錢買不到等級。而且這些暴發的企業家們不能買到和諾貝爾獎一樣的聲望。
The new awards are an exercise in self-promotion for those behind them, say scientists.
科學家說這些新的獎項是它們的幕后人進行自我推銷的操練。
They could distort the achievement-based system of peer-review-led research.
他們可能會扭曲以同行評審為導向的基于學術成就的研究體系。
They could cement the status quo of peer-reviewed research.
他們可能會使同行評審研究的現狀凝固不前。
They do not fund peer-reviewed research. They perpetuate the myth of the lone genius.
它們不資助同行評審研究。它們會讓寂寞天才的神話不朽。
The goals of the prize-givers seem as scattered as the criticism.
獎項提供者的目標似乎如他們所受的批評一樣散亂。
Some want to shock, others to draw people into science, or to better reward those who have made their careers in research.
有些人是想要制造震驚，另一些人想要吸引人們關注科學，或者想更好地獎勵那些以科研為己任的人。
As Nature has pointed out before, there are some legitimate concerns about how science prizes—both new and old—are distributed.
正如《自然》雜志此前指出的，人們關心科學獎項---無論新老---是怎樣分配的，這種擔心是合理的。
The Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences, launched this year, takes an unrepresentative view of what the life sciences include.
今年發起的生命科學突破獎，對于生命科學所應包含內容采用了一個很不具代表性的觀點。
But the Nobel Foundation's limit of three recipients per prize,
但是，現代研究所具有的團隊合作性質，
each of whom must still be living, has long been outgrown by the collaborative nature of modern research
早已使得諾貝爾基金對于每個獎項的獲獎者不得超過三人，且每位獲獎者必須在世的限制不再適用
as will be demonstrated by the inevitable row over who is ignored when it comes to acknowledging the discovery of the Higgs boson.
正如在對希格斯玻色子的發現者進行認定時，忽略誰都會不可避免產生爭執。
The Nobels were, of course, themselves set up by a very rich individual who had decided what he wanted to do with his own money.
當然，諾貝爾獎本身就是當時一位有錢人設立的，在設立前他早就決定該如何處置他自己的錢。
Time, rather than intention, has given them legitimacy.
時間，而非獎項設立的意圖，賦予了諾貝爾獎的合理性。
As much as some scientists may complain about the new awards, two things seem clear.
雖然一些科學家可能會對這些新獎項有所抱怨，但有兩件事情似乎要清楚。
First, most researchers would accept such a prize if they were offered one.
首先，如果被授予這一獎項，絕大多數研究者都會接受。
Second, it is surely a good thing that the money and attention come to science rather than go elsewhere.
第二，把金錢和注意力傾注到科學而不是其它的地方當然是一件好事。
It is fair to criticize and question the mechanism —that is the culture of research, after all
對這一機制批評和質疑都是合理的，畢竟，這就是研究的文化，
but it is the prize-givers' money to do with as they please.
但這些錢是獎項設立者出的，隨他們高興去花這些錢。
It is wise to take such gifts with gratitude and grace.
帶著感激和感恩接受這些禮物是明智的。
