“無用”研究大有用處

Almost eight decades ago, the American educationalist Abraham Flexner published an essay entitled The Usefulness of Useless Knowledge. In it, he argued that the most powerful intellectual and technological breakthroughs usually emerged from research that initially appeared “useless”, without much relevance to real life.

近80年前，美國教育家亞伯拉罕•弗萊克斯納(Abraham Flexner)發(fā)表了一篇題為《無用知識的有用性》(The Usefulness of Useless Knowledge)的論文。他認(rèn)為，最強(qiáng)大的知識和技術(shù)突破通常來自于最初看來“無用”、與現(xiàn)實(shí)生活沒太大關(guān)系的研究。

As a result, it was vital, Flexner said, that these “useless” endeavours should be supported, even if they did not produce an immediate payback, because otherwise the next wave of innovation simply would not occur. “Curiosity, which may or may not eventuate in something useful, is probably the outstanding characteristic of modern thinking,” he declared. “It is not new. It goes back to Galileo, Bacon and Sir Isaac Newton, and it must be absolutely unhampered.”

因此，弗萊克斯納說，至關(guān)重要的是，這些“無用的”努力應(yīng)得到支持，即使沒有立刻帶來回報(bào)。這是因?yàn)?，若非如此，下一波?chuàng)新根本不會發(fā)生。“也許會、也許不會最終帶來有用之物的好奇心，很可能是現(xiàn)代思維的突出特點(diǎn)，”他宣稱，“這種好奇心不是新鮮事，可以追溯到伽利略(Galileo)、培根(Bacon)和艾薩克•牛頓爵士(Sir Isaac Newton)的時(shí)代，而且絕對不應(yīng)受到阻礙。”

It is a powerful point to ponder, particularly as Donald Trump’s new administration gets to work. When Flexner wrote those words in 1939, he knew that he was grappling with an epoch-making period: not only had the US just experienced a long depression but Europe was on the brink of war.

這是一個(gè)值得思考的強(qiáng)有力的觀點(diǎn)，尤其是在唐納德•特朗普(Donald Trump)的新政府開始運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)時(shí)。當(dāng)弗萊克斯納在1939年寫這些話時(shí)，他知道他正面對一個(gè)劃時(shí)代的艱難時(shí)期：不僅美國剛剛經(jīng)歷過一段長期蕭條，而且歐洲正處于戰(zhàn)爭邊緣。

All of this understandably made it hard to justify spending money on “frivolous” research. But Flexner was committed to the cause: in 1929, he persuaded a wealthy American family, the Bambergers, to use some of their largesse to fund the Institute for Advanced Study (IAS) at Princeton to support exactly this kind of “undirected” research.

可以理解的是，所有這一切都使得花錢做“無用”研究難以得到支持。但是，弗萊克斯納致力于這項(xiàng)事業(yè)：1929年，他說服富裕的美國班伯格家族(Bambergers)把他們慷慨捐款中的一部分捐給了普林斯頓高等研究院(IAS)，支持這種“沒有導(dǎo)向的”研究。

And it paid off: brilliant Jewish scientists fleeing from Nazi Germany, such as Albert Einstein, congregated at the IAS to explore undirected ideas. And while some of these, such as Einstein’s own work developing his earlier theory of relativity, did not initially seem valuable, many eventually produced powerful applications (albeit after many decades).

此舉獲得了回報(bào)：諸如阿爾伯特•愛因斯坦(Albert Einstein)等逃離納粹德國的才華橫溢的猶太科學(xué)家，聚集在IAS探索沒有導(dǎo)向的想法。盡管其中一些研究——例如愛因斯坦對他早期相對論的研究——最初看來并無價(jià)值，但許多研究最終產(chǎn)生了強(qiáng)大的應(yīng)用價(jià)值(盡管是在幾十年之后)。

“Without Einstein’s theory, our GPS tracking devices would be inaccurate by about seven miles,” writes Robbert Dijkgraaf, the current director of the IAS, in the foreword to a newly released reprint of Flexner’s essay. Concepts such as quantum mechanics or superconductivity also seemed fairly useless at first — but yielded huge dividends at a later date.

“沒有愛因斯坦的理論，我們的全球定位系統(tǒng)(GPS)跟蹤設(shè)備的精度將降低大約7英里，”IAS的現(xiàn)任院長羅伯特•迪克格拉夫(Robbert Dijkgraaf)在最新出版的弗萊克斯納論文重印版的前言中寫道。量子力學(xué)或超導(dǎo)性等概念起初也看似相當(dāng)無用——但在日后卻產(chǎn)生了巨大紅利。

This point might seem familiar. Most books about innovation today stress the importance of blue-sky thinking and serendipity — look, for example, at Obliquity by my colleague John Kay. But the reason why the IAS is re-releasing Flexner’s essay now is that scientists such as Dijkgraaf fear this core principle is increasingly under threat.

這一點(diǎn)似乎讓人感覺很熟悉。如今，大多數(shù)關(guān)于創(chuàng)新的書籍都強(qiáng)調(diào)藍(lán)天思考(blue-sky thinking，指不受現(xiàn)實(shí)條件約束的自由思考——譯者注)和偶然性的重要性，比如我同事約翰•凱(John Kay)的那本《迂回》(Obliquity)。但眼下IAS重新出版弗萊克斯納這篇文章的原因是，迪克格拉夫等科學(xué)家擔(dān)心這條核心原則會越來越受到威脅。

That is partly because the Trump administration has released a projected budget that threatens to slash funding for the arts, science and educational groups. But the squeeze — and concern — pre-dates Trump. Back in 1964, Dijkgraaf points out, the US Federal research and development budget was about 2.1 per cent of GDP. Last year it was around 0.8 per cent, half of which was earmarked for defence spending. Meanwhile the budget for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has tumbled 25 per cent in the past decade.

部分原因在于，特朗普政府已公布了一份預(yù)算計(jì)劃，可能會大幅削減對于藝術(shù)、科學(xué)和教育集團(tuán)的撥款。但是，早在特朗普上臺之前，就有這種擠壓和擔(dān)心。迪克格拉夫指出，在1964年，美國聯(lián)邦研發(fā)預(yù)算約為國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值(GDP)的2.1%。去年，這一比例約為0.8%，其中有半數(shù)用于國防開支。同時(shí)，過去10年美國國立衛(wèi)生研究院(National Institutes of Health,簡稱NIH)的預(yù)算下降了25%。

Some rightwing voices might argue that this is no bad thing; many Republicans believe that research is better funded by business or philanthropists than by government. But one striking fact about the past century is how much American innovation originated in NIH and federal projects; Silicon Valley would never have boomed were it not for the fact that state funding enabled the development of the World Wide Web, for example. Right now there is little evidence that business will plug the gap; on the contrary, business has accounted for just 6 per cent of US spending on basic research in recent years, partly because shareholder pressure makes it hard for businesses to spend money on research that does not produce a swift return.

一些右翼聲音可能會認(rèn)為，這不是壞事;許多共和黨人認(rèn)為，研究最好由企業(yè)或慈善家、而不是政府來資助。但是，過去一個(gè)世紀(jì)的一個(gè)驚人事實(shí)是，美國創(chuàng)新在很大程度上源于NIH和聯(lián)邦項(xiàng)目;例如，若不是國家資助使萬維網(wǎng)(World Wide Web)的研發(fā)成為可能，硅谷永遠(yuǎn)不會興旺發(fā)達(dá)?，F(xiàn)在沒有什么證據(jù)證明企業(yè)將彌補(bǔ)差距;恰恰相反，近年來，企業(yè)僅占美國基礎(chǔ)研究支出的6%，部分原因是股東壓力使得企業(yè)很難把資金花到不會產(chǎn)生快速回報(bào)的研究項(xiàng)目上。

*** ***

Some scientists hope that private sector benefactors could get involved, as they did in Flexner’s day. A few billionaires have indeed jumped in: look, for example, at how the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is supporting medical research. But benefactors often want to tie their money to specific research goals, directing studies into a particular problem or challenge (such as, say, developing a specific vaccine or clean energy). And universities tend to be increasingly wary of boundary-busting research — in today’s academic world scientists are under pressure to specialise in rigid disciplines if they want to win grants and tenure.

有些科學(xué)家希望私營部門的捐助者能夠參與進(jìn)來，就像弗萊克斯納所處時(shí)代那樣。少數(shù)億萬富豪確實(shí)加入了：比如說，看看比爾及梅琳達(dá)•蓋茨基金會(Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation)現(xiàn)在是如何支持醫(yī)學(xué)研究的。但是，捐助者往往希望將資金用于具體的研究目標(biāo)，將研究指向特定問題或挑戰(zhàn)(例如開發(fā)特定疫苗或清潔能源)。大學(xué)往往越來越不敢從事突破邊界的研究——在當(dāng)今學(xué)術(shù)界，如果科學(xué)家想要獲得資助和終身職位，他們就有壓力要專門研究嚴(yán)密學(xué)科。

Hence the reason Flexner’s essay needs to be reread, not just by government officials and business leaders but by scientists and voters as well. Justifying seemingly “useless” research is never easy; in today’s cash-strapped world it is doubly hard. Now, more than ever, civic-minded billionaires need to swim against the tide; and maybe even recruit some modern-day Einsteins to take this fight forward.

因此，弗萊克斯納的文章不僅政府官員和商界領(lǐng)袖有必要重讀，科學(xué)家和選民也有必要重讀。替“無用的”研究辯護(hù)絕非易事;在今天資金緊張的世界中，此事難上加難。現(xiàn)在，熱心公益的億萬富豪比以往任何時(shí)候都更需要反潮流而行;甚至可能需要招募一些現(xiàn)代的愛因斯坦式人物，把這場戰(zhàn)斗推向前進(jìn)。