英语一 text3neocomimi原文
minimotorYoung upstarts
Lucrative prizes emulating the Nobels bring welcome money and publicity for science.
When a theoretical physicist who has worked on quantum field and string theory calls attention to an “interesting experiment”, the experiment derves notice. This is particularly true when that experiment is an attempt to deliver a little Hollywood glamour to physics, with an Oscars-style ceremony and gigantic cash prizes.
rockroll
realize用法艺术类留学中介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 on. discuss, a string of lucrative awards for rearchers 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 entre
奥普拉 温弗瑞
preneurs. The benefactors have succeeded in their chon fields, they say, and they want to u their wealth to draw attention to tho who have succeeded in science.
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 the upstart entrepreneurs cannot buy their prizes the prestige of the Nobels. The new awards are an exerci in lf-promotion for tho behind them, say scientists. They could distort the meritocracy of peer-review-led rearch. They could cement the status quo of peer-reviewed rearch. They do not fund peer-reviewed rearch. They perpetuate the myth of the lone genius.
The goals of the prize-givers em as scattered as the criticism. Some want to shock, others to draw people into science, or to better reward tho who have made their careers in rearch. Several want to show that leading scientists can attain the lifestyles of financiers and footballers.
韩汉互译
美女与野兽歌曲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, la
unched this year, takes an unreprentative 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 rearch — 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 cour, themlves t 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.
winny>flamingoAs much as some scientists may grumble about the new awards, the financial doping that they bring to rearch and the wisdom of the goals behind them, two things em clear. First, most rearchers 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 elwhere. It is fair to criticize and question the mechanism — that is the culture of rearch, after all — but it is the prize-givers’ money to do with as they plea. It is wi to accept such gifts with gratitude and grace.
