二笔|2025年实务真题CATTI II EC-1 诺奖机制的局限性Part1(原文及参考译文)

202506 CATTI II EC-1 诺奖机制的局限性（412 words-面包/HG 译文）

本文选自 The Guardian (Oct. 23rd, 2023): Some Nobel winners are great intellects, others are lucky. There’s more toscience than these prizes

Every October sees the award of the “scientific Oscars”: Nobel prizes. The science prizes established in Alfred Nobel’s will are for physics, chemistry and “physiology or medicine”. These three subjects are interpretedbroadly, and their purview has shifted over time. But the prizes nonetheless still exclude huge tracts of science. Famously, mathematics has never been included. The environmental sciences—oceans and ecology—aren’t covered, nor are computer science, robotics and artificial intelligence. These exclusions distort the public perception of which sciences are important.

每年十月，被誉为“科学界奥斯卡”的诺贝尔奖都会如期揭晓。阿尔弗雷德·诺贝尔遗嘱中设立的科学奖项包括物理学奖、化学奖以及“生理学或医学奖”。这三大学科的界定较为宽泛，其涵盖范围也随着时代变迁而调整，但仍有大量科学领域被排除在诺奖体系之外——众所周知，数学从未被纳入评奖范围；海洋学与生态学等环境科学不在其中；计算机科学、机器人学与人工智能也同样未被覆盖。这种学科上的缺失导致公众对重要科学领域的范畴产生偏差。

1.physiology or medicine生理学或医学奖

2. interpreted界定

3. purview权限、职权范围、视野。（涵盖范围）

4. These exclusions distort the public perception of which sciences are important.

这种学科上的缺失（具体化）导致公众对重要科学领域的范畴（抽象化）产生偏差（名词化）。

Outsiders might guess that in science, the choice of winners in each field should be as clear-cut as in sporting contests, unlike the obviously more subjective prizes for literature and peace. But that's not the reality. In the same years the awards trigger controversy and resentment. Since Nobel scientists generally aren’t well-known personalities, and their achievements are often arcane,debate on their worthiness takes place within the specialist community, and only rarely percolateswidely. What the public sees is simply the grandeurof the award announcements each year. Also, the process of awarding the prizes has limitations that clash with the realities of scientific research. It’s easy to agree on what scientific advances are important, but it’s not so easy to apportion credit. An artist’s creations are ephemeral but generally “individual”. If they hadn’t created a particular artwork, nobody else would have done so. But in many cases in science, if one researcher didn’t make a specific advance, then sooner or later (and usually sooner) another researcher would have.

外界人士也许会认为，科学奖项三大领域的评选应当如体育赛事般泾渭分明，而不是像文学奖、和平奖那样明显更具主观色彩。然而，事实恰恰相反，历年的诺贝尔奖总会引发争议和不满。由于诺奖科学家通常并非公众人物，所获成就又往往晦涩难懂，关于获奖者是否实至名归的讨论大多局限于圈内人士，鲜少进入公共视野，公众不过是每年见证一下颁奖典礼的盛况罢了。此外，诺奖的评选机制本身存在局限，与科学研究的现实情况有所脱节。一项科学成果的重要性不难判定，但功劳归属却往往难有定论。艺术家的创作虽转瞬即逝，但通常烙印着“个人”色彩——若非此人创作，世间便永无此物。然而在科学领域，情况则大不相同：许多时候，即便某位研究者未能取得某项特定突破，迟早（而且往往是为时不久）也会有其他研究者实现这一发现。

1. clear-cut轮廓清晰的、明确的、不含糊的,泾渭分明的。比如 a clear-cut distinction（明确的区分）。

2. subjective具主观色彩

3. In the same years历年来（“历年来”暗含“从过去到现在”的延续感，如果原文只是指某几个特定年份，用“这些年来”或“同期”可能更准。）

4. resentment.怨恨、愤懑。（此处降格处理为：不满）

5 aren’t well-known personalities并非公众人物（这里的关键是personalities 不是“个性”，而是“名人”）

6. arcane神秘的、秘传的、只有少数人懂的。（此处为高深or晦涩难懂）

7. within the specialist community圈内人士/“在专业圈内”。

8. percolate 本义是“渗透、慢慢传开”。

and only rarely percolateswidely.鲜少进入公共视野（整句直译：很少广泛渗透。）

9. grandeur宏伟、壮丽、庄严。（盛况）

10. clash with冲突、抵触、不协调（与…有所脱节）

11. ephemeral短暂的；转瞬即逝

12. apportion credit分配功劳、归功于谁。（此处名词化：功劳归属）