Do you ever find yourself referencing a study in conversation that you didn't actually read?
你是否有这样的经历：当你和别人谈论某项研究时，其实你并没有真正读过其中的内容？
I was having coffee with a friend of mine the other day,
前几天我和一个朋友喝咖啡，
and I said, "You know, I read a new study that says coffee reduces the risk of depression in women."
我说：“我最近读了一项研究，声称咖啡可以减少女性患抑郁症的风险。”
But really, what I read was a tweet.
实际上，我所说的“读了”是一条推特。
That said -- "A new study says drinking coffee may decrease depression risk in women."
推文说--“一项新的研究表面，喝咖啡可减少女性患抑郁症的风险。”
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 from a "Live Science" article,
该博客由是一位特邀博主翻译出来的研究成果，该成果来自《生命科学》的一篇文章，
which got its original information from the Harvard School of Public Health news site,
这篇文章的原始内容来自于哈佛大学公共卫生学院的新闻页面，
which cited the actual study abstract, which summarized the actual study published in an academic journal.
该页面引用了一篇论文的摘要，这个摘要总结的是发表在某学术期刊上的真实研究成果。
It's like the six degrees of separation, but with research.
这就好像那个“六度空间理论”，只是换成了科学研究。
So, when I said I read a study, what I actually read was 59 characters that summarized 10 years of research.
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。
So, when I said I read a study, I was reading fractions of the study
所以，当我说读到一项科学研究，我只看到了这项研究的一小部分，
that were put together by four different writers that were not the author, before it got to me.
它来自于四位不同的作者，却不是该研究的真正作者写的，这就是最终我能看到的研究。
That doesn't seem right. But accessing original research is difficult,
这是不对的。但是，想要看到原始的研究内容没那么容易，
because academics aren't regularly engaging with popular media.
因为，学术论文通常不与大众媒体建立联系。
And you might be asking yourself, why aren't academics engaging with popular media?
可能你会问，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 than the media pundits. Right?
好像学术论文的信息源比媒体权威更靠谱啊。对吧？
In a country with over 4,100 colleges and universities, it feels like this should be the norm.
在一个拥有超过4100所大学和学院的国家，好像这应该很正常。
But it's not. So, how did we get here?
然而事实并非如此。是怎么回事呢？
To understand why scholars aren't engaging with popular media, you first have to understand how universities work.
要想明白为什么学者们不与大众媒体建立联系，首先你得知道大学是怎么运作的。
Now, in the last six years, I've taught at seven different colleges and universities in four different states.
在过去的六年里，我在七所不同的大学都担任过教员，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。
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, the research and publication process works the same way.
在所有不同的大学机构里，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, they write a paper about their findings.
等研究完成以后，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 are checking it for accuracy and credibility.
就是由同领域其他的专家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 back to universities and public libraries through journal and database subscriptions.
盈利公司就会转卖该内容，以期刊或订阅资料库的形式卖回给大学和公共图书馆。
So, that's the system. Research, write, peer-review, publish, repeat. My friends and I call it feeding the monster.
这就是整个系统的运行过程。研究、撰写、同行审稿、发表，再不断重复这个过程。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 but privately distributed.
首先，大部分研究都由公共经费出资，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, 29 percent of that goes to public research universities.
据国家科学基金会称，其中29%给了公立大学研究。
So, if you're quick at math, that's 17.4 billion dollars. Tax dollars.
如果你数学不错，会算出那是174亿。纳税人的钱。
And just five corporations are responsible for distributing most publicly funded research.
只有五家公司负责发行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. And I bet you can see the irony here.
真是一桩大买卖啊。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, it's like we're paying for it twice.
可之后我们还得付费才能看到研究结果，等于我们出了两次钱。

And the other major problem is that most academics don't have a whole lot of incentive
另外，还有一个主要的问题是，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 around the number of times scholars publish.
大学的终身职位和晋升机制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. The current academic ecosystem.
所以，这就是现状。这就是当下的学术生态系统。
But I don't think it has to be this way. We can make some simple changes to flip the script.
但我觉得不一定非要这样。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. Universities can begin to challenge the status quo
首先，我们来谈谈信息的获取。大学可以这样开始挑战现状：
by rewarding scholars for publishing not just in these subscription-based journals but in open-access journals as well as on popular media.
学者可以获得奖励，如果把文章不仅发表在订阅式期刊上，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 in many disciplines,
如今，在多个学科中，开放浏览运动开始初见成效，
and fortunately, some other big players have started to notice.
而且有幸也引起了几个巨头的关注。
Google Scholar has made open-access research searchable and easier to find.
“谷歌学术”已经提供开放的学术搜索，很好搜索也很容易找到。
Congress, last year, introduced a bill that suggests that
去年，国会提出了一个提案，建议那些
academic research projects with over 100 million or more in funding should develop an open-access policy.
获得了超过一亿美元资金支持的学术研究项目，应该建立开放获取的政策。
And this year, NASA opened up its entire research library to the public. So, you can see this idea is beginning to catch on.
而且今年，NASA也把他们的整个研究图书馆对公众开放。所以，你看这个想法正在开始实现。
But access isn't just about being able to get your hands on a document or a study.
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。
It's also about making sure that that document or study is easily understood.
它也要确保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 that I illustrated earlier.
我不希望诠释又是一个像我开头说的那种“六度空间理论”。
Instead, what if scholars were able to take the research
相反，如果学者本人能够把他们自己做的研究
that they're doing and translate it on popular media and be able to engage with the public?
在大众媒体上诠释，并能与公众进行互动，会怎么样？
If scholars did this, the degrees of separation between the public and research would shrink by a lot.
如果学者们这样做，那么大众和学术研究之间的距离就会缩小很多。
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 and that we shift the venue
我只是建议把研究成果开放给公众，转化获取方式，
and focus on using plain language so that the public who's paying for the research can also consume it.
注意运用通俗的语言，这样，那些为研究出资的公众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 are being used to fund research, they can begin to redefine universities' identities
通过让公众了解他们纳的税如何被用于研究，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 or the degrees they grant but on the research that's being produced there.
让大学的定位不仅仅是建立在一个足球队上，也不是他们授予的学位上，而是建立在研究结果上。
And when there's a healthy relationship between the public and scholars, it encourages public participation in research.
当学者和公众之间建立起一种健康的关系，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 helped local police redesign their sensitivity trainings
如果一个社会学科学家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 and then wrote about it in a local newspaper?
来商讨如何教导那些面临危机的学生，然后在当地报纸上发表一篇报告呢？
Because a functioning democracy requires that the public be well-educated and well-informed.
因为真正的民主需要公众接收良好的教育并获知信息。
Instead of research happening behind paywalls and bureaucracy, wouldn't it be better if it was unfolding right in front of us?
与其让研究成果藏在付费系统和官僚系统的后面，让它直白的展现在我们面前不是更好吗？
Now, as a PhD student, I realize I'm critiquing the club I want to join.
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。
Which is a dangerous thing to do, since I'm going to be on the academic job market in a couple of years.
这么干挺危险的，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 is to publish in the echo chambers of for-profit journals that never reach the public,
但如果当今的学术研究现状仍然是在盈利期刊发表论文，而从不面向公众，
you better believe my answer is going to be "nope."
你知道我的答案肯定是“不行”。
I believe in inclusive, democratic research that works in the community and talks with the public.
我相信，民主的科学研究是为了大众服务的，是能和民众互动的。
I want to work in research and in an academic culture where the public is not only seen as a valuable audience,
我更愿意在这样的文化里做研究，公众不仅仅只是观众，
but a constituent, a participant. And in some cases even the expert.
而应该是参与者。在某些情况下，甚至是专家。
And this isn't just about giving you guys access to information.
而且，这不只是关乎向公众开放信息。
It's about shifting academic culture from publishing to practice and from talking to doing.
而是要把学术文化从发表论文变成实际应用，从理论变成实践。
And you should know that this idea, this hope -- it doesn't just belong to me.
你应该知道的是，这个观点和希望--并不只属于我一个人。
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 who also advocate for including more people in the conversation.
图书管理员和社区成员，他们也呼吁更多的人参与进来。
I hope you join our conversation, too. Thank you.
我希望你也能参与进来。谢谢。