中文导读 科学家是不是年纪越大越缺乏创造力？此前有研究发现，科学家做出“颠覆性”成果（即推翻已有基础、开辟新方向，而不是在前人基础上一步步推进）的倾向会随职业生涯下降。10月19日发表在《美国国家科学院院刊》（PNAS）上的一项新研究给出了不同角度的答案。研究团队分析了1800年至2022年间约20.6万名科学家发表的1100多万篇论文，这些科学家都有40年以上的研究经历。团队不只看一篇论文对前人工作的冲击有多大，还看这种冲击能否持续、是否会很快被后来的研究取代。结果发现，资深科学家做出颠覆性工作的次数更少，但一旦做出，更可能经得起时间考验。文章大致按“常见看法—概念解释—新方法—研究发现—延伸证据—专家提醒”展开。阅读时可留意 but、instead、however、yet、still 如何引出转折，以及 more likely、believe、do not prove 等表达如何为结论保留分寸；结尾也交代了专家对因果解释和引用指标的保留意见。
正文 Many people believe that scientists do their most original work when they are young , and some earlier research supported this idea . A new study , published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on October 19, adds a twist . It finds that experienced scientists produce bold new ideas less often , but when they do , those ideas are more likely to last .
本段译文 许多人认为，科学家在年轻时做出最具原创性的工作，一些早期研究也支持这一看法。10月19日发表在《美国国家科学院院刊》上的一项新研究，为这一看法增添了一个转折。研究发现，经验丰富的科学家提出大胆新想法的次数较少，但一旦提出，这些想法更有可能经得起时间考验。
But what does “disruptive ” work mean ? A disruptive paper does not simply build on earlier work step by step . Instead , it changes a field so much that later researchers stop citing the older studies it was based on . Scientists often measure this with a tool called the CD index , which looks at later citations .
本段译文 那么，什么是“颠覆性”工作呢？颠覆性论文并不只是在前人工作的基础上一步步推进。相反，它让一个领域发生很大变化，以至于后来的研究者不再引用它所依据的那些较早研究。科学家常用一种叫作CD指数的工具来衡量这一点，它考察的是论文后来被引用的情况。
However , the research team , which includes An Zeng of Beijing Normal University and Nan Deng of the Chinese Academy of Sciences , says this tool tells only half the story . It shows how strongly a paper breaks with the past , but not whether the change survives . Some bold ideas are quickly replaced by newer ones . So the team used its own measure , called persistent disruption . A paper scores high on it if it changes earlier work and is then built on , not pushed aside , by later research
本段译文 不过，研究团队（成员包括北京师范大学的An Zeng和中国科学院的Nan Deng）表示，这个工具只说明了一半问题。它能显示一篇论文与过去决裂得有多彻底，却不能显示这种改变能否保留下来。有些大胆的想法很快就被更新的想法取代。因此，团队使用了自己提出的衡量方法，称为“持续颠覆性”。如果一篇论文改变了前人的工作，随后又被后来的研究继续沿用而不是被推到一边，它在这项指标上的得分就高。
The researchers studied more than 11 million papers published between 1800 and 2022 by about 206,000 scientists , all with more than 40 years of research experience . As these scientists grew older , their chance of publishing a highly disruptive paper went down . But their chance of publishing a persistently disruptive one went up , from about 1% at the start of their careers to about 2.2% after 40 years . Those who did such work had usually published many papers before it .
本段译文 研究人员分析了1800年至2022年间约20.6万名科学家发表的1100多万篇论文，这些科学家都有40年以上的研究经历。随着这些科学家年龄增长，他们发表高度颠覆性论文的几率下降了；但发表持续颠覆性论文的几率却上升了，从职业生涯起步时的约1%升至40年后的约2.2%。做出这类工作的人，通常在此之前已经发表过许多论文。
The team also found that when two papers were equally disruptive , the one by the more senior scientist received more citations , more attention on social media and more research money . Nobel Prize winners showed a similar pattern . They showed strong original thinking early , yet their prize -winning work often came years later . The authors believe experience helps scientists turn bold thinking into ideas that last .
本段译文 团队还发现，当两篇论文的颠覆程度相同时，资历更深的科学家的那一篇会获得更多引用、更多社交媒体关注和更多研究经费。诺贝尔奖得主也呈现出类似的规律：他们很早就展现出很强的原创思维，但获奖成果往往是多年以后才出现的。作者们认为，经验帮助科学家把大胆的思考变成经得起时间考验的想法。
Other experts urge care . Kenneth Huang of the National University of Singapore says the results do not prove that senior scientists are generally more creative , or that age itself causes lasting discoveries . Some researchers also question whether citation patterns can fully measure how new an idea is . Still , Sam Arts of KU Leuven in Belgium says the study challenges the common view that scientists become less creative as they age .
本段译文 其他专家则提醒要谨慎看待。新加坡国立大学的Kenneth Huang表示，这些结果并不能证明资深科学家总体上更有创造力，也不能证明年龄本身会带来持久的发现。还有一些研究者质疑，引用模式能否充分衡量一个想法有多新。尽管如此，比利时鲁汶大学的Sam Arts表示，这项研究对“科学家年纪越大越缺乏创造力”这一普遍看法提出了挑战。
新闻来源