Academic research is publicly funded -- why isn't it publicly available? | Erica Stone

翻译人员: Yan Gao 校对人员: Yolanda Zhang

Do you ever find yourself referencing a study in conversation

你是否有这样的经历： 当你和别人谈论某项研究时，

that you didn't actually read?

其实你并没有真正读过其中的内容？

(Laughter)

（笑声）

I was having coffee with a friend of mine the other day,

前几天我和一个朋友喝咖啡，

我说：“我最近读了一项研究，

and I said, "You know, I read a new study

声称咖啡可以减少 女性患抑郁症的风险。”

that says coffee reduces the risk of depression in women."

But really, what I read was a tweet.

实际上，我所说的“读了” 是一条推特。

(Laughter)

（笑声）

That said --

推文说——

(Laughter)

（笑声）

"A new study says drinking coffee may decrease depression risk in women."

“一项新的研究表面，喝咖啡可 减少女性患抑郁症的风险。”

(Laughter)

（笑声）

And that tweet had a link to the "New York Times" blog,

这条推特附了链接， 连到《纽约时报》的博客，

where a guest blogger translated the study findings

该博客由是一位特邀博主 翻译出来的研究成果，

from a "Live Science" article,

该成果来自《生命科学》的一篇文章，

which got its original information

这篇文章的原始内容来自于

from the Harvard School of Public Health news site,

哈佛大学公共卫生学院的新闻页面，

which cited the actual study abstract,

该页面引用了一篇论文的摘要，

which summarized the actual study published in an academic journal.

这个摘要总结的是发表在 某学术期刊上的真实研究成果。

(Laughter)

（笑声）

It's like the six degrees of separation,

这就好像那个“六度空间理论”，

but with research.

只是换成了科学研究。

(Laughter)

（笑声）

So, when I said I read a study,

所以，当我说读到了一项科学研究，

我实际看到的，只是概括了 近10年的研究成果的59个字母。

what I actually read was 59 characters that summarized 10 years of research.

(Laughter)

（笑声）

So, when I said I read a study,

所以，当我说读到一项科学研究，

I was reading fractions of the study

我只看到了这项研究的一小部分，

that were put together by four different writers

它来自于四位不同的作者，

that were not the author,

却不是该研究的真正作者写的，

before it got to me.

这就是最终我能看到的研究。

That doesn't seem right.

这是不对的。

But accessing original research is difficult,

但是，想要看到原始的 研究内容没那么容易，

因为，学术论文通常 不与大众媒体建立联系。

because academics aren't regularly engaging with popular media.

And you might be asking yourself,

可能你会问，

why aren't academics engaging with popular media?

为什么学术论文 不与大众媒体挂钩呢？

It seems like they'd be a more legitimate source of information

好像学术论文的信息源

than the media pundits.

比媒体权威更靠谱啊。

Right?

对吧？

(Laughter)

（笑声）

在一个拥有超过4100所 大学和学院的国家，

In a country with over 4,100 colleges and universities,

it feels like this should be the norm.

好像这应该很正常。

But it's not.

然而事实并非如此。

So, how did we get here?

是怎么回事呢？

To understand why scholars aren't engaging with popular media,

要想明白为什么学者们 不与大众媒体建立联系，

you first have to understand how universities work.

首先你得知道大学是怎么运作的。

Now, in the last six years,

在过去的六年里，

I've taught at seven different colleges and universities

我在七所不同的大学都担任过教员，

in four different states.

它们位于四个不同的州。

I'm a bit of an adjunct extraordinaire.

我能算半个跨领域专家吧。

(Laughter)

（笑声）

And at the same time, I'm pursuing my PhD.

任教的同时，我也在 攻读我的博士学位。

In all of these different institutions,

在所有不同的大学机构里，

the research and publication process works the same way.

研究和发表论文的流程 几乎是一样的。

First, scholars produce research in their fields.

首先，学者们在自己的 研究领域做科研。

To fund their research, they apply for public and private grants

他们会向公共部门或私人机构 申请研究经费，

and after the research is finished,

等研究完成以后，

they write a paper about their findings.

他们会把研究成果写成论文。

Then they submit that paper to relevant academic journals.

然后论文被提交给相关学术期刊。

Then it goes through a process called peer review,

接着会有一个环节，叫做同行审稿。

which essentially means that other experts

就是由同领域其他的专家

are checking it for accuracy and credibility.

来检验研究报告的准确性和可信度。

And then, once it's published,

然后，论文一旦发表了，

for-profit companies resell that information

盈利公司就会转卖该内容，

以期刊或订阅资料库的形式

back to universities and public libraries

卖回给大学和公共图书馆。

through journal and database subscriptions.

So, that's the system.

这就是整个系统的运行过程。

Research, write, peer-review, publish, repeat.

研究、撰写、同行审稿、 发表，再不断重复这个过程。

My friends and I call it feeding the monster.

我和我朋友都认为 这就像是“养怪兽”。

And you can see how this might create some problems.

你能看出这会造成一些问题。

The first problem is that most academic research is publicly funded

首先，大部分研究都由公共经费出资，

but privately distributed.

但是成果却由私人售卖。

Every year, the federal government spends 60 billion dollars on research.

每年，联邦政府花费 600亿美元支持科研。

According to the National Science Foundation,

据国家科学基金会称，

29 percent of that goes to public research universities.

其中29%给了公立大学研究。

So, if you're quick at math, that's 17.4 billion dollars.

如果你数学不错，会算出那是174亿。

Tax dollars.

纳税人的钱。

And just five corporations are responsible

只有五家公司负责发行

for distributing most publicly funded research.

公共经费资助的大多数研究成果。

In 2014, just one of those companies made 1.5 billion dollars in profit.

在2014年，其中一家公司盈利15亿。

It's a big business.

真是一桩大买卖啊。

And I bet you can see the irony here.

我知道你一定看出了其讽刺之处。

If the public is funding academics' research,

如果公众给学术研究提供经费，

but then we have to pay again to access the results,

可之后我们还得付费 才能看到研究结果，

it's like we're paying for it twice.

等于我们出了两次钱。

And the other major problem

另外，还有一个主要的问题是，

is that most academics don't have a whole lot of incentive

大部分学者都没有动机

to publish outside of these prestigious subscription-based journals.

把文章发表到那些订阅式的 著名期刊以外的地方。

Universities build their tenure and promotion systems

大学的终身职位和晋升机制

around the number of times scholars publish.

取决于学者发表的文章数量。

So, books and journal articles are kind of like a form of currency for scholars.

所以，出书和期刊对学者来说 就像一种货币形式。

Publishing articles helps you get tenure and more research grants down the road.

发表论文帮你得到终身职位， 以及更多的研究经费。

But academics are not rewarded for publishing with popular media.

但是，如果在大众媒体发表论文， 学者们什么也得不到。

So, this is the status quo.

所以，这就是现状。

这就是当下的学术生态系统。

The current academic ecosystem.

But I don't think it has to be this way.

但我觉得不一定非要这样。

We can make some simple changes to flip the script.

我们可以做些简单改变 来翻转这个局面。

So, first, let's start by discussing access.

首先，我们来谈谈信息的获取。

Universities can begin to challenge the status quo

大学可以这样开始挑战现状：

学者可以获得奖励，如果把文章

by rewarding scholars for publishing

not just in these subscription-based journals

不仅发表在订阅式期刊上，

but in open-access journals as well as on popular media.

也发表在对公众开放的期刊 和大众媒体上。

Now, the open-access movement is starting to make some progress

如今，在多个学科中，开放浏览运动

in many disciplines,

开始初见成效，

而且有幸也引起了几个巨头的关注。

and fortunately, some other big players have started to notice.

Google Scholar has made open-access research

“谷歌学术”已经提供开放的学术搜索，

searchable and easier to find.

很好搜索也很容易找到。

Congress, last year, introduced a bill

去年，国会提出了一个提案，

that suggests that academic research projects

建议那些获得了超过 一亿美元资金支持的

with over 100 million or more in funding

学术研究项目，

should develop an open-access policy.

应该建立开放获取的政策。

And this year, NASA opened up its entire research library to the public.

而且今年，NASA 也把他们的 整个研究图书馆对公众开放。

So, you can see this idea is beginning to catch on.

所以，你看这个想法正在开始实现。

But access isn't just about being able

但是，开放获取不仅仅是

能让你获得某个文档或者研究内容。

to get your hands on a document or a study.

它也要确保

It's also about making sure

that that document or study is easily understood.

这个文档或者研究内容 能很容易被你理解。

So, let's talk about translation.

所以，我们再来谈谈诠释。

I don't envision this translation to look like the six degrees of separation

我不希望诠释又是一个 像我开头说的那种

that I illustrated earlier.

“六度空间理论”。

Instead, what if scholars were able to take the research that they're doing

相反，如果学者本人能够 把他们自己做的研究

and translate it on popular media

在大众媒体上诠释，

and be able to engage with the public?

并能与公众进行互动，会怎么样？

If scholars did this,

如果学者们这样做，

the degrees of separation between the public and research

那么大众和学术研究之间的距离

would shrink by a lot.

就会缩小很多。

So, you see, I'm not suggesting a dumbing-down of the research.

所以你看，我不提倡降低研究标准。

I'm just suggesting that we give the public access to that research

我只是建议把研究成果开放给公众，

and that we shift the venue and focus on using plain language

转化获取方式，注意运用通俗的语言，

so that the public who's paying for the research

这样，那些为研究出资的公众

can also consume it.

也可以了解这些成果。

And there are some other benefits to this approach.

这种方法还有其他一些好处。

By showing the public how their tax dollars

通过让公众了解他们纳的税

are being used to fund research,

如何被用于研究，

they can begin to redefine universities' identities

他们可以重新对大学进行定位，

so that universities' identities are not just based on a football team

让大学的定位不仅仅是 建立在一个足球队上，

or the degrees they grant

也不是他们授予的学位上，

but on the research that's being produced there.

而是建立在研究结果上。

And when there's a healthy relationship between the public and scholars,

当学者和公众之间建立起 一种健康的关系，

it encourages public participation in research.

就会鼓励公众参与到研究中。

Can you imagine what that might look like?

你能想象这会产生什么样的变化吗？

What if social scientists

如果一个社会学科学家

helped local police redesign their sensitivity trainings

能帮助警察重新设计敏感性训练，

and then collaboratively wrote a manual to model future trainings?

然后一起写个手册来 为未来的训练做示范？

Or what if our education professors consulted with our local public schools

或者，如果教育学教授能为 地方公立学校提供咨询，

to decide how we're going to intervene with our at-risk students

来商讨如何教导那些面临危机的学生，

and then wrote about it in a local newspaper?

然后在当地报纸上发表一篇报告呢？

Because a functioning democracy

因为真正的民主

requires that the public be well-educated and well-informed.

需要公众接收良好的 教育并获知信息。

Instead of research happening behind paywalls and bureaucracy,

与其让研究成果藏在 付费系统和官僚系统的后面，

wouldn't it be better if it was unfolding right in front of us?

让它直白的展现在我们面前 不是更好吗？

Now, as a PhD student,

作为一名博士生，

我知道我在批评一个 我自己想要加入的群体。

I realize I'm critiquing the club I want to join.

（笑声）

(Laughter)

Which is a dangerous thing to do,

这么干挺危险的，

since I'm going to be on the academic job market in a couple of years.

因为过两年我就要 在这个圈子里找工作。

But if the status quo in academic research

但如果当今的学术研究现状

is to publish in the echo chambers of for-profit journals

仍然是在盈利期刊发表论文，

that never reach the public,

而从不面向公众，

你知道我的答案肯定是“不行”。

you better believe my answer is going to be "nope."

I believe in inclusive, democratic research

我相信，民主的科学研究

that works in the community and talks with the public.

是为了大众服务的， 是能和民众互动的，

I want to work in research and in an academic culture

我更愿意在这样的文化里做研究，

where the public is not only seen as a valuable audience,

公众不仅仅只是观众，

but a constituent, a participant.

而应该是参与者。

在某些情况下，甚至是专家。

And in some cases even the expert.

And this isn't just about

而且，这不只是关乎

giving you guys access to information.

向公众开放信息。

It's about shifting academic culture from publishing to practice

而是要把学术文化 从发表论文变成实际应用，

and from talking to doing.

从理论变成实践。

And you should know that this idea, this hope --

你应该知道的是， 这个观点和希望——

并不只属于我一个人。

it doesn't just belong to me.

I'm standing on the shoulders of many scholars, teachers,

我是站在许多人的肩膀上， 包括学者、教师、

librarians and community members

图书管理员和社区成员，

who also advocate for including more people in the conversation.

他们也呼吁更多的人参与进来。

I hope you join our conversation, too.

我希望你也能参与进来。

Thank you.

谢谢。

(Applause)

（掌声）