【自然】新生土豪（Young Upstarts）译文

（英文部分选自《自然》20130612刊，2014英语一阅读C）

（1）The US$3-million Fundamental physics prize is indeed an interesting experiment， as Alexander Polyakov said when he accepted this year‘s award in March. And it is far from the only one of its type. As a News Feature article in Nature discusses， a string of lucrative awards for researchers have joined the Nobel Prizes in recent years. Many， like the Fundamental Physics Prize， are funded from the telephone-number-sized bank accounts of Internet entrepreneurs. These benefactors have succeeded in their chosen fields， they say， and they want to use their wealth to draw attention to those who have succeeded in science.

  亚历山大·博雅科夫在今年3月走上“基础物理学奖”领奖台，他认为这个奖金300万的新生奖项十分有趣，像个实验。不过这种实验慢慢增多了。《自然》杂志中一篇题为《新特点》的文章表示，近年来，有越来越多奖金丰厚的奖项，居然能和诺贝尔奖平起平坐。很多诸如“基础物理奖”的赞助商是网络富豪，他们的资产对我们来说都是天文数字。土豪们在自己的领域都有突出成就，所以打算用钞票吸引科学界人才的注意力。

（2）What‘s not to like？Quite a lot， according to a handful of scientists quoted in the News Feature. You cannot buy class， as the old saying goes， and these upstart entrepreneurs cannot buy their prizes the prestige of the Nobels. The new awards are an exercise in self-promotion for those behind them， say scientists. They could distort the achievement-based system of peer-review-led research. They could cement the status quo of peer-reviewed research. They do not fund peer-reviewed research. They perpetuate the myth of the lone genius.

  那何乐而不为呢？《新特点》中引用的科学家表示：槽点太多了。首先，老话说的好，“钱买不来底蕴”，暴发户虽然有钱，但诺奖得主的名声是买不来的。科学界认为，这种行为只是他们想要自我炒作的手段罢了。他们打破了以同行互审，基于成果的研究体系，使得体系现状固化，无法继续发展。而他们又不资助同行互审的科研，只帮那些独立研究的人。

（3）The goals of the prize-givers seem as scattered as the criticism. Some want to shock， others to draw people into science， or to better reward those who have made their careers in research.

  出资者的目的各有不同，也饱受诟病。有些人想要用钱震惊科学界，有的则希望更多的民众对科研感兴趣，还有人单纯就是想奖励认真工作的科学家。

（4）As Nature has pointed out before， there are some legitimate concerns about how science prizes—both new and old—are distributed. The Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences， launched this year， takes an unrepresentative view of what the life sciences include. But the Nobel Foundation‘s limit of three recipients per prize， each of whom must still be living， has long been outgrown by the collaborative nature of modern research—as will be demonstrated by the inevitable row over who is ignored when it comes to acknowledging the discovery of the Higgs boson. 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. Time， rather than intention， has given them legitimacy.

  《自然》之前指出，不论新旧，科学界奖项的颁发总会有法律上的问题。今年新增的“生命科学研究性突破奖”根本不能很好的认识生命科学的内涵。诺奖历史悠久，但也不是白璧无瑕，其对获奖人数的限制，人员的限制都很高：每奖3人，且必须在世才行。此限制在“希格斯波色子”研究的颁奖时被推翻，因为这些条条框框会导致有功之臣被不可避免的排除在外，因而引发争议，也不符合现代科研的合作性质。

【Higgs boson】希格斯玻色子，粒子物理学标准模型预言的一种自旋为零的玻色子（有异议），不带电荷、色荷，极不稳定，生成后会立刻衰变。1964年，英国科学家彼得·希格斯提出了希格斯场的存在，并进而预言了希格斯玻色子的存在。而在希格斯机制中，希格斯场引起自发对称性破缺，并将质量予规范传播子和费米子。希格斯粒子是希格斯场的场量子化激发，它通过自相互作用而获得质量。

（5）As much as some scientists may complain about the new awards， two things seem clear. First， most researchers would accept such a prize if they were offered one. Second， it is surely a good thing that the money and attention come to science rather than go elsewhere， It is fair to criticize and question the mechanism—that is the culture of research， after all—but it is the prize-givers‘ money to do with as they please. It is wise to take such gifts with gratitude and grace.

  随着越来越多的科学家开始抱怨新奖，有两件事渐渐清晰了。一，如果有人出资成奖，有的是人要。二，钱和人们的兴趣都聚集到科研上，这肯定是件好事。有人批判，质疑机制的合理性，这当然没问题，毕竟这是科研的文化，但又不是你掏钱，土豪们乐意，你管的着吗？拿了人家的奖，你就有礼有节的收下就是了。