Unit7 Supporting Science

die prematurely. Would it not make sense to spend another percent or so to accelerate the cure and save them?

11. If one asked business executives whether a company that might not be around in a year or two should do long-range research, the answer would be a resounding no, and rightly so. However, the converse of this argument is equally true -- a technological company that expects to survive and thrive decades hence is losing money and opportunity if it does not have long-range research programs.

12. The same holds true for governments or societies as a whole. Even the most fiscally conservative politician should realize that supporting science makes money and brings tangible non-monetary benefits. The technological nature of the modern world has moved support for science from a \have\all fundamental research because some of it may take 50 to 100 years to be applied, and by then tax laws and other uncertainties make it unlikely that today's shareholders will be the direct beneficiaries. A government, on the other hand, should consider the longer time scales and make investments accordingly. 13. As a society we are shirking our support for basic science at the very time when our previous support is reaping great returns. In doing so, we jeopardize not only our legacy of scientific achievement, but also the economic prosperity of the near future. It is clear that we can afford to spend more on science. It is also clear that we need to spend more if we want to continue to enjoy a technologically based economy. The missing elements are the will and the vision to bet on the scientific enterprise, vital to the realization of the full potential of the next millennium.

Unit7 Supporting Science。

1. The twilight of the 20th century is an age of enormous technological change. Every day brings new examples of advances in computing, communications, and biotechnology that change the way we live, and the way we look at the world. Economically speaking, technology companies founded in just the last 30 years have created an aggregate capital value of close to a trillion dollars, making technology a major engine driving the U.S. economy. 20世纪末期是一个科技巨变的时代。计算机运用、通信和生物技术领域每天都有新的进步。它们改变了我们的生活方式和观察世界的方式。就经济而言，在过去30年里成立的技术公司创造的资本价值共计约1万亿美元，这使技术成为驱动美国经济的一个主要动力。 2. Given this tremendous success, one might expect that basic science would receive commensurate support. Sadly, this is not the case, and indeed almost the opposite seems to be occurring. Basic research within industry is no longer fashionable-- the great corporate labs of the past few decades have been subject to cuts in funding and corporate breakups. Those that remain are often downsized, or have turned away from the challenge of profound discovery and toward immediate application. This trend does not come only from the boardroom --some science writers go even farther and pronounce basic science dead altogether, an observation given intellectual backing by researchers, who document the decline of unfettered research. 鉴于如此巨大的成功，人们会认为基础科学会得到相应的支持。可悲的是，情况并非如此，事实恰恰相反。行业内部的基础研究不再受到关注。过去几十年中，一些大公司实验室资金的投入遭到消减，或因公司分立而关闭。那些坚持下来的实验室也常常被缩小规模，或者不再钻研更深层次的东西，而有些急功近利。这种趋势不仅体现在会议中，一些科学家甚至断言基础科学已经不复存在，这个论断得到

了一些研究人员的声援，他们有证据表明自由科学正在衰退。 3. Investing time and money into applied research and product development is important, and the challenge of reducing knowledge to practical applications in the form of a product is an intellectually satisfying pursuit and an obvious necessity to industry. I could hardly think otherwise, because I spend a fair amount of my own time in applied research. But technological progress cannot continue without the input of basic research and the conceptual breakthroughs it makes possible. In order to reduce knowledge to practice, one must have the knowledge in the first place. Science is the raw material that applied research and engineering refine into their products.

在应用研究和产品开发方面投入时间和金钱是十分重要的，而且把知识以一种产品形式转化到实际应用中绝非易事，这种挑战可以满足人们心智上的探索，也显然是行业所需要的。我坚信自己的观点，因为我相当一部分时间都花在了应用研究上。但是，如果没有基础研究的投入和它可能带来的概念突破，技术的进步就难以继续下去。先拥有知识是把知识运用到实践中的前提。科学就像是一种材料，应用研究和应用工程将其提炼后加工成产品。

4. While older companies cut back on research, younger companies, born of the current technological revolution, simply ignore it. Apart from a handful of exceptions, the new technological companies in the Silicon Valley mold do not invest in long-range research. Start-up companies cannot afford it, and those well past the start-up stage may have the resources, but are not inclined to use them for basic research. An ironic example is the personal computer revolution, which was based on research done in industrial labs, notably the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center (PARC). Despite this undeniable origin, personal computer companies have not sought to renew the source of their success. Indeed, it is widely accepted in business circles that labs like Xerox PARC are a mistake because Xerox failed to capitalize on its invention of the personal computer.

Xerox researchers invented the laser printer at PARC during the same time period, and the profits from laser printing and other inventions that they did capitalize on have more than repaid their investment in research. Despite this, the Xerox story has given the foes of research a ready rationalization for not funding science. 老公司在减少研究方面的投入，而在当今技术革命中新生的公司根本就不进行研究。除仅有的几个特例，硅谷模式的大部分新型技术公司没有对长期研究进行投资。刚刚起步的公司承担不起这笔开销，成功度过起步期的公司也许有能力进行投资，但却不愿意进行基础研究。一个带有讽刺意味的例子便是个人电脑革命。它是以在工业实验室进行的研究为基础，特别是以施乐帕洛阿图研究所为起点。虽然这样起家，然而，众多的个人电脑公司没有试图为其成功之源注射新的血液。实际上，在商业圈里，人们普遍认为类似施乐帕洛阿图的研究所（的行为）是个失误，因为施乐没能从个人电脑的发明中获得利润。同期，施乐研究人员还发明了激光打印机，但从激光打印机和其他发明所获得的利润超过了对研究的投资，尽管如此，施乐公司的例子还是给了那些不赞成基础研究的人以现成的借口，不去资助科学。 5. At the government level science has not been recognized as the wellspring of the technology miracle, and as a consequence support is cut, or worse, is subjected to a protracted dissection and review to see if it is \funding bodies in the awkward position of second-guessing both the research and the marketplace. Defense-related funds have traditionally supported a wide range of long-term research. For example, the lnternet, surely one of the most dynamic business and social developments of the decade, sprung from ARPANET, a network supported for a quarter century by defense funding before it blossomed into the lnternet as we know it today. A less patient source might have cut the support; where would the Net be today if they had? With the end of the Cold War these defense-related funds have dropped dramatically in many fields, peace has not been good for science.