科学奖项通常将聚光灯对准获奖者，庆祝他们的发现，而对被冷落的研究人员却关注甚少。
Science prizes usually put the spotlight on winners, celebrating their discoveries but paying little attention to the researchers left out.
中国科学院科学家的研究发现，著名的创新奖项可能会打消同行追求非常规研究的积极性，其中声望最高的奖项负面效应最强。
A study by scientists at the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) has found that prominent innovation awards may discourage colleagues from pursuing unconventional research – with the most prestigious prizes having the strongest negative effect.
这些发现对包括诺贝尔奖在内的科学荣誉的更广泛后果提出了质疑，因为中国快速增长的研究产出尚未带来相应数量的获奖者。与此同时，在科技竞赛中落后的某些国家（如日本和英国）却不断斩获大奖。
The findings raise questions about the wider consequences of scientific honours, including the Nobel Prize, as China’s rapidly growing research output has yet to bring a comparable number of laureates. Meanwhile, some countries falling behind in the tech race, such as Japan and Britain, keep winning.
一位研究科学合作网络、要求保持匿名的北京某教授表示：“人们通常会讨论获奖的‘光环’，但本文关注的是它对同行投下的‘阴影’。”
“People usually talk about the ‘halo’ of winning an award, but this paper looks at the ‘shadow’ it casts on colleagues,” said a Beijing-based professor who studies scientific collaboration networks and spoke on condition of anonymity.
该研究于11月2日在《南开管理评论》网络版发表，研究发现，在同行获得知名奖项后，研究人员的专利中被归类为非常规创新的比例估计下降了3.1%。
Published online in Nankai Business Review on November 2, the study found that the share of researchers’ patents classified as unconventional innovations fell by an estimated 3.1 per cent after a colleague won a prestigious award.
中国科学院科技战略咨询研究院及中国科学院大学的研究员于江及其团队分析了2008年至2023年间1,562家中国上市公司的54,670名研究人员的专利记录。
Researcher Yu Jiang and his team, from the CAS Institutes of Science and Development and the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, analysed patent records for 54,670 researchers at 1,562 Chinese listed companies between 2008 and 2023.
他们利用中国专利奖来考察“离群创新”，即采用与公司既定研究方向有显著差异的技术组合的发明。
They used the China Patent Award to examine “outlier innovation” – inventions using technological combinations that differ substantially from a company’s established research directions.
研究人员运用一种被称为双重差分的统计方法，将同行获奖前后的变化与没有获奖者的公司员工的变化进行了比较。
The researchers compared changes before and after a colleague won an award with those among employees at companies without winners, using a statistical method known as difference-in-differences.
他们确定了三种可能的作用机制：缩小对不熟悉知识的搜寻范围、增加对既定技术的依赖以及削弱研究合作网络。
They identified three possible mechanisms: narrowing searches for unfamiliar knowledge, increasing reliance on established technologies and weakening research collaboration networks.
余及其团队写道：“享有盛誉的获奖成果很容易在组织内部成为‘权威模范’。”
“Prestigious award-winning achievements can easily become ‘authoritative models’ within organisations,” Yu and his team wrote.
此类模范可能会鼓励研究人员遵循公认的方法，而不是尝试不确定的替代方案，而资源将青睐获奖者的预期则可能会打压竞争项目。
Such models can encourage researchers to follow recognised approaches rather than experiment with uncertain alternatives, while expectations that resources will favour winners may discourage rival projects.
据估计，这种负面效应在顶级奖项中最为强烈，在数字经济产业、大公司以及行政级别较高的城市中也更为明显。
The estimated negative effect was strongest for top-tier awards and was more pronounced in digital economy industries, larger companies and cities with higher administrative status.
在过去三年中曾与获奖者进行过合作的研究人员受到的影响也更强。
Researchers who had collaborated with a winner in the previous three years were also more strongly affected.
这种下降在高品质的突破性创新中尤为明显，作者通过区分发明专利和实用新型专利对这一点进行了评估。
The decline was especially apparent in higher-quality outlier innovation, which the authors assessed by distinguishing invention patents from utility-model patents.
余及其团队写道：“这一发现并没有否定荣誉体系本身的激励价值，”他们承认，奖项可能会对获奖者及其同事产生不同的影响。
“This finding does not negate the incentive value of the honours system itself,” Yu and his team wrote, acknowledging that awards could have different effects on winners and their colleagues.
尽管这项中国研究并未调查诺贝尔奖得主，但其研究结果引发了一个问题：世界上最负盛名的科学奖项是否会对与之失之交臂的研究人员产生类似的影响。
Although the Chinese study did not examine Nobel laureates, its findings raise questions about whether the world’s most prestigious science awards could have similar effects on researchers who miss out.
诺贝尔奖得主获得了国际认可、职业声望和合作机会，这可能会为其所在的科学领域吸引更多的研究经费和关注。
Nobel winners gain international recognition, professional prestige and opportunities for collaboration, potentially attracting more research funding and attention to their scientific fields.
当被问及这种效应是否也可能发生在国际科学界时，这位北京的教授表示：“我不确定，但我怀疑这种现象可能很普遍。”
Asked whether such effects might also occur in the international scientific community, the Beijing-based professor said: “I am not sure, but I suspect this phenomenon may be widespread.”“Because the total amount of resources is limited, if some people receive more, others inevitably receive less,” the professor added.
这位教授还说：“由于资源总量有限，如果某些人得到了更多，其他人必然会得到更少。”
Beyond their potential impact on non-winners, Nobel prizes have also faced long-standing questions about how fairly they recognise scientific achievements.
除了对未获奖者潜在的影响之外，诺贝尔奖在如何公平地认可科学成就方面也长期面临质疑。
The Nobel system limits each award to three recipients, even as modern scientific breakthroughs increasingly depend on large international teams. Its selection process has also faced scrutiny over transparency, with nomination and evaluation records kept confidential for 50 years.
诺贝尔奖体系将每个奖项的得奖者限制在最多三人，尽管现代科学突破越来越依赖于大型国际团队。其评选过程也因透明度问题面临审视，提名和评估记录保密长达50年。
Moreover, all recipients of the 2026 Nobel prizes for physics, chemistry and physiology or medicine were men, highlighting the continuing gender imbalance in science’s most prestigious awards.
此外，2026年诺贝尔物理学奖、化学奖以及生理学或医学奖的所有得主均为男性，这凸显了科学界这一最具声望的奖项中持续存在的性别失衡。
Questions about scientific recognition have become particularly relevant to China, whose rapidly expanding research capabilities have yet to translate into a comparable number of Nobel laureates.
关于科学界认可的问题对中国变得尤为重要，中国迅速扩大的研究能力尚未转化为相应数量的诺贝尔奖得主。
China now produces more than three times as much chemistry research output as the United States in the Nature Index, according to a report published by in May, with the CAS leading the field among research institutions.
根据5月发表的一份报告，在《自然指数》中，中国目前产出的化学研究成果是美国的3倍以上，其中中国科学院在研究机构中领跑该领域。
Yet Tu Youyou, who received the 2015 Nobel for physiology or medicine for her work on the antimalarial drug artemisinin, remains the only China-based recipient of a Nobel Prize in the natural sciences.
然而，因对抗疟疾药物青蒿素的研究而获得2015年诺贝尔生理学奖或医学奖的屠呦呦，仍然是中国本土唯一的自然科学类诺贝尔奖得主。
A correspondence article published in Nature last November argued that China needed to encourage more high-risk scientific exploration to narrow its Nobel gap, despite rising research investment and scientific output.
去年11月发表在《自然》杂志上的一篇通信文章认为，尽管研究投资和科研产出不断增加，中国仍需鼓励更多高风险的科学探索，以缩小其诺贝尔奖差距。
However, the disparity does not necessarily suggest bias in the Nobel selection process, as the prizes recognise individual discoveries rather than national research performance, often decades after the original work.
然而，这种差距并不一定表明诺贝尔奖评选过程中存在偏见，因为这些奖项表彰的是个别发现，而不是国家的科研绩效，且往往是在原始工作完成数十年之后。
This year’s Nobel Prize for chemistry, for example, went to France’s Henri B. Kagan and Japan’s Kenso Soai for discoveries in asymmetric organic synthesis dating back decades.
例如，今年的诺贝尔化学奖授予了法国的亨利·B·卡甘和日本的宗井健松，以表彰他们几年前在不对称有机合成领域作出的发现。
The Chinese study also has limitations. It examined innovation through patent records and collaboration patterns rather than directly measuring researchers’ psychological responses, leaving it open whether similar effects occur in basic scientific research.
这项中国研究也存在局限性。它通过专利记录和合作模式来考察创新，而不是直接衡量研究人员的心理反应，这使得基础科学研究中是否会出现类似效应仍不确定。对于科学认可度和资源集中程度的担忧并不局限于国际奖项。
Concerns about the concentration of scientific recognition and resources are not limited to international awards.
《自然》杂志8月发表的一篇评论文章警告称，中国备受瞩目的各类人才计划在推动该国研究蓬勃发展的同时，也拉大了顶尖学者与争夺有限资源的年轻科学家之间的鸿沟。
A commentary published in Nature in August warned that China’s prestigious talent programmes, while helping to drive the country’s research expansion, had also widened the divide between leading academics and younger scientists competing for limited resources.