Throughout the scientific disciplines in academia, there are two paramount indicators that are used as proxies for the quality of researchers: publishing peer-reviewed journal papers, and winning research funding. Provided the quality of journal/funder meets appropriate standards, a higher volume of both, in general, brings greater prestige. Yet both represent an enormous cost to the public purse. In 2016 the UK Government allocated Research Councils UK (RCUK) a total investment of £26.3 billion (between the 2016/17 and 2020/21 financial years) for research projects and research infrastructure (including for most of the UK’s more than 20 university research departments working on various aspects of metal finishing and surface treatment). Such support of research is unquestionably a good thing, but how do we make it sustainable, when it contains inbuilt drivers that reduce its sustainability? One commonly-used indicator of a successful funded research project is that it leads to further, larger, successful research applications. This ever-increasing demand on the public purse by a researcher with a string of such projects is unsustainable, unless it is so pivotal to increasing tax income that those extra tax revenues would not have occurred if that research had not been funded (a higher bar than researchers usually set themselves when claiming the benefits of their research). Another commonly-used indicator is that the research leads to journal publications – but publishing information in a journal paper gives away Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) to everyone, and when everyone has IPR, no-one has. Without the protection of IPR, no manufacturer will invest the ∼£20–50 M needed to take an idea for hardware innovation through to a consumer product (paying out to conduct research and development, hiring staff, building manufacturing plants, marketing, setting up servicing facilitates etc.; see Table 1). This is because their first products must be sold at a higher price to recoup the debt they must incur for perhaps 10 years before ever making income from a sale, and if they do not have IPR then a competitor can buy their first product, copy it and, because they are not paying off the R&D debt, sell at a much lower price. Premature publishing can prevent new products, new businesses, and new jobs, which would ultimately lead to new tax income to the Treasury. Keeping money flowing in this ‘virtuous circle’ matters, because the vast majority of academic research is funded by the Treasury. Without doubt, research investment brings societal benefit. In 2008, Buxton et al. surveyed the time it takes from the initial innovation to wealth creation through innovation. The report records a one-year study into the economic benefits of the UK’s public and charitable investment in medical research. It found the benefits to be high: a £1.00 investment in public/charitable cardiovascular disease (CVD) research produced a stream of benefits equivalent to earning £0.39 per year in perpetuity. However, it also records that the time lag between research expenditure and eventual health benefits is around 17 years: it infers

中文翻译：

---

从研究到参与再到翻译：文字很便宜。第 1 部分 - 研究资金及其后果

在整个学术界的科学学科中，有两个最重要的指标被用作研究人员质量的代理：发表同行评审的期刊论文和获得研究资金。如果期刊/资助者的质量符合适当的标准，两者的数量越大，通常会带来更大的声望。然而，两者都代表了公共钱包的巨大成本。2016 年，英国政府向英国研究委员会 (RCUK) 拨款 263 亿英镑（在 2016/17 和 2020/21 财政年度之间）用于研究项目和研究基础设施（包括英国 20 多所大学研究中的大部分）从事金属精加工和表面处理各个方面工作的部门）。这种对研究的支持无疑是一件好事，但我们如何使其可持续，当它包含降低其可持续性的内置驱动程序时？一个成功的资助研究项目的一个常用指标是它会导致进一步的、更大的、成功的研究应用。具有一系列此类项目的研究人员对公共钱包的这种不断增长的需求是不可持续的，除非它对增加税收收入如此关键，以至于如果该研究没有得到资助，这些额外的税收就不会发生（更高的门槛）比研究人员通常在声称他们的研究的好处时设定自己）。另一个常用的指标是研究导致期刊发表——但在期刊论文中发表信息会将知识产权 (IPR) 授予每个人，当每个人都拥有知识产权时，就没有人拥有。没有知识产权保护，没有制造商会投资大约 20-5000 万英镑将硬件创新的想法转化为消费产品（支付进行研发、雇用员工、建造制造工厂、营销、建立服务设施等；见表格1）。这是因为他们的第一批产品必须以更高的价格出售，以弥补他们在从销售中获得收入之前必须承担的债务，可能需要 10 年，如果他们没有知识产权，那么竞争对手可以购买他们的第一批产品，复制它而且，因为他们没有偿还研发债务，所以以低得多的价格出售。过早的出版会阻碍新产品、新业务和新工作，这最终会为财政部带来新的税收收入。在这个“良性循环”中保持资金流动很重要，因为绝大多数学术研究都是由财政部资助的。毫无疑问，研究投资会带来社会效益。2008 年，巴克斯顿等人。调查了从最初的创新到通过创新创造财富的时间。该报告记录了一项为期一年的关于英国公共和慈善医疗研究投资的经济效益的研究。它发现收益很高：对公共/慈善心血管疾病 (CVD) 研究的 1.00 英镑投资产生了相当于每年 0.39 英镑永久收益的收益流。然而，它也记录了研究支出和最终的健康益处之间的时间差约为 17 年：它推断 调查了从最初的创新到通过创新创造财富的时间。该报告记录了一项为期一年的关于英国公共和慈善医疗研究投资的经济效益的研究。它发现收益很高：对公共/慈善心血管疾病 (CVD) 研究的 1.00 英镑投资产生的收益流相当于每年永久赚取 0.39 英镑。然而，它也记录了研究支出和最终的健康益处之间的时间差约为 17 年：它推断 调查了从最初的创新到通过创新创造财富的时间。该报告记录了一项为期一年的关于英国公共和慈善医疗研究投资的经济效益的研究。它发现收益很高：对公共/慈善心血管疾病 (CVD) 研究的 1.00 英镑投资产生了相当于每年 0.39 英镑永久收益的收益流。然而，它也记录了研究支出和最终的健康益处之间的时间差约为 17 年：它推断 00 对公共/慈善心血管疾病 (CVD) 研究的投资产生了相当于每年 0.39 英镑永久收益的收益流。然而，它也记录了研究支出和最终的健康益处之间的时间差约为 17 年：它推断 00 对公共/慈善心血管疾病 (CVD) 研究的投资产生了相当于每年 0.39 英镑永久收益的收益流。然而，它也记录了研究支出和最终的健康益处之间的时间差约为 17 年：它推断