“一切真理开始时总是在少数人手里，总是受到大多数人的压力。这是一个规律。”

为我国2070年开始的诺贝尔科学奖“井喷”清除障碍、铺平道路！

Donald W. Braben：杀死同行评议，拯救人类文明！

俺真的是个小老太监！

人家英国教授布拉本 Braben，才是真正的男子汉！！

唐纳德·布拉本（Donald W. Braben）教授的核心观点：

1970年代开始的“同行评审”扼杀了人类21世纪的繁荣。

杀死同行评议，拯救人类文明！

一、唐纳德·布拉本（Donald W. Braben）教授简介

   唐纳德·布拉本（Donald W. Braben）教授，英国伦敦大学学院地球科学系的荣誉教授。目前在“泰晤士高等教育 Times Higher Education (THE)”工作。

   1935-05-29生于英国利物浦，Born: May 29, 1935 (age 84) · Liverpool, England。

   2008: Scientific Freedom written by Donald Braben was first published in 2008. 

   2014: Promoting the Planck Club: How Defiant Youth, Irreverent Researchers and Liberated Universities Can Foster Prosperity Indefinitely written by Donald Braben was first published on March 24, 2014.

网页：

   UCL HomeThe Centre for Planetary Sciences at UCL / BirkbeckPeopleProf. Donald Braben

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/planetary-sciences/people/dwbra04

Prof Donald W Braben

Honorary Professor

VP: Research

Provost and Vice Provost Offices

Joined UCL

1st Sep 2006

Contact

Email

d.braben@ucl.ac.uk

二、相关的公开报道（正在进一步的搜集）

（1）2008-04-17，杀死同行评议，拯救人类文明

Kill peer review, save civilisation

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/kill-peer-review-save-civilisation/401457.article?storyCode=401457&site=cn

    扼杀高新颖的工作并使领先的研究人员“几乎不可能”做出不可预测的发现的“灾难性”科学资助体系正威胁着我们文明的未来。

    The future of our civilisation is under threat from a "disastrous" system of science funding that stifles radical work and makes it "nearly impossible" for leading researchers to make unpredictable discoveries.

    布拉本教授认为，1970年代对研究建议的审查的引入导致了缺乏重大科学发现。他说，最激进的想法不太可能获得资助，因为在被证实之前很难打动同行。 “大约在1970年之前，科学家们相对自由地随心所欲地做事，但是新的规则几乎使不可能的继任者（对于20世纪的伟大科学家）做出发现来促进21世纪的经济增长和繁荣。”

    Professor Braben argues that the introduction in the 1970s of the review of research proposals has led to a dearth of big scientific discoveries. The most radical ideas, he says, are unlikely to get funded because it is difficult to impress peers before they have been proven. "Before about 1970, scientists were relatively free to do as they pleased but new rules have made it nearly impossible for would-be successors (to the great scientists of the 20th century) to make discoveries that will boost economic growth and prosperity in the 21st century," said Professor Braben.

（2）2017-04-20，诺贝尔奖获得者谴责“缺乏想象力”的研究资金模型

Nobel laureates condemn ‘unimaginative’ research funding models

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/nobel-laureates-condemn-unimaginative-research-funding-models

    理查德·罗伯茨爵士（Sir Richard Roberts）是1993年诺贝尔生理学或医学奖得主。他声称决策者更愿意将钱分配给他们知道会取得成果的研究，因为他们“主要是希望再次当选（拿到资助）”，而不是资助那些“对国家好的”研究。

    Sir Richard Roberts, joint winner of the 1993 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine, claimed that policymakers prefer to assign money to research that they know will get results because they are “mainly interested in getting re-elected” as opposed to funding what’s “good for the country”.

    哈佛大学贝尔德科学教授Herschbach教授表示，继续以这种方式资助研究将“抑制年轻科学家的成长”，因为他们将“没有自由跟随研究项目的发展方向”。

    Professor Herschbach, Baird professor of science at Harvard University, said continuing to fund research in this manner would “inhibit development of young scientists” because they won’t “have the freedom to follow where their research project leads”.

   因此，理查德爵士说，创新很有可能会枯竭，或者美国和英国等领先的研究国家将落后于中国等新兴国家。（傻注：好消息！）

   Consequently, Sir Richard said, there is a “good chance” that innovation will dry up, or that leading research nations such as the US and the UK will slip behind emerging nations such as China.

（3）Braben, Donald，We must ensure that fortune favours this century’s 500. Times Higher Education，2017, 2302: 26-27

（4）Braben, D. (1989). Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Physics World, 2(1), 19–21. doi:10.1088/2058-7058/2/1/25 

（5）Braben, D. W. (2008). Comment: Set scientists free. New Scientist, 197(2644), 18. doi:10.1016/s0262-4079(08)60461-3 

（6）2009-01-20，Donald Braben on Scientific Freedom

https://duncan.hull.name/2009/01/20/donald-braben-on-scientific-freedom/

References:

Peter Augsdorfer (2008). Book review: Scientific freedom ChemBioChem 9 (17), 2889-2890. DOI:10.1002/cbic.200800670 “The real value of the book is that it shows that unconstrained funding can really work and it tells us how.”

Tim Birkhead (2008). In praise of fishing trips: The tyranny of ‘the hypothesis’ has made science too timid Times Higher Education 2008-07-31

Donald Braben (1994) To Be A Scientist: The spirit of adventure in science and technology, Oxford University Press, isbn:0198522908

Donald Braben (2007). UK Science must not roll over and play dead Times Higher Education 2007-12-07

Donald Braben (2008). Scientific Freedom: The Elixir of Civilisation, Wiley, isbn:0470226544

Donald Braben (2008). Why peer review thwarts innovation New Scientist 2644, 2008-02-23,

Donald Braben (2008). Shoot for the blue skies: The Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) constrains academics Times Higher Education 2008-12-22

Zoe Corbyn (2008). Kill peer-review, save civilisation. Times Higher Education 2008-04-17

Tom Feilden (2008). Searching for Einsteins: Is Science stagnating? BBC blogs (and Radio 4 Today programme) 2008-12-11

Krebs and Braben (2009). Don Braben and John Krebs discuss is funding for scientists is under threat Today programme 2009-02-27

Mark Gilbert (2009). Being judged is hard, not being judged is worse Times Higher Education 2009-01-15

Douglas Kell (2009). Scientific Freedom at the UK Research Councils BBSRC blogs 2009-01-05

KFC (2009). How Google’s PageRank predicts Nobel Prize winners arxivblog.com, the physics arXiv blog 2009-01-21

Michael Nielsen (2008). Three myths about peer review michaelnielsen.org 2009-01-08

三、再次回到真正的大专家

   1957：“历史上新的正确的东西，在开始的时候常常得不到多数人承认，只能在斗争中曲折地发展。正确的东西，好的东西，人们一开始常常不承认它们是香花，反而把它们看作毒草。哥白尼关于太阳系的学说，达尔文的进化论，都曾经被看作是错误的东西，都曾经经历艰苦的斗争。我们历史上也有过许多这样的事例。”“不是由于有意压抑，只是由于鉴别不清，也会妨碍新生事物的成长。因此，对于科学上、艺术上的是非，应当保持慎重的态度，提倡自由讨论，不要轻率地作结论。”

   1962：“历史上常常有这样的事实，起初，真理不是在多数人手里，而是在少数人手里。”

   1964：“一切真理开始时总是在少数人手里，总是受到大多数人的压力。这是一个规律。”

郑重推荐：

[1] 武夷山，2010-07-06，如何激励开创性研究？ 精选

http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-1557-341495.html

[2] 武夷山，2010-10-02，经济长波是客观规律吗? 精选

http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-1557-368968.html

相关链接：

[1] 2020-01-19，俺不迷信“国际评审”（“同行评议”的局限性）

http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-107667-1214882.html

[2] 2020-01-16，[困惑] “原创探索”到底评不评？怎么评？ 

http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-107667-1214495.html

[3] 2017-06-18，Zenas 公理：2017年继续领跑世界！

http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-107667-1061527.html

[4] 2020-01-07，Zenas 公理：2018年诺贝尔奖得主本庶佑 Tasuku Honjo 的表述

http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-107667-1213230.html

[5] 2019-12-18，Zenas 公理：2017年《Nature》主编的表述

http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-107667-1210560.html

[6] 2019-12-21，爱因斯坦“奇迹年”的直接原因：没有“同行评议”

http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-107667-1210941.html

[7] 2020-01-08，1970年以后人类数学、物理学的停滞不前：“同行评议”的直接作用？

http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-107667-1213380.html

[8] 2019-12-02，[随笔] 科技“同行评议”引发美国《大停滞》？

http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-107667-1208480.html

为拯救人类文明，热烈推荐：

[1] Enago英论阁，2020-01-08，申请科研项目如乐透中签？不如随机筛选？

http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-681387-1213386.html

http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-107667-1213495.html

    国家要保障最“具有创造知识可能性”的项目得到发展机会。

感谢您的指教！

感谢您指正以上任何错误！

感谢您提供更多的相关资料！