2018年会是科学突破的一年还是挫折的一年？ [英国媒体]

Will 2018 be a year of scientific breakthroughs – or frustrations?

2018年会是科学突破的一年还是挫折的一年？

(Philip Ball  作者：菲利普 · 鲍尔)

 

Quantum computers

量子计算机

This will be the year when we see a quantum computer solve a computational problem that conventional computers can’t，using the rules of quantum mechanics to manipulate data，potentially making them much more powerful than classical devices. Many researchers think that the prototype devices built during the past year will soon be able to achieve “quantum supremacy” – the solution of a task that would take a classical computer an impractical length of time. This doesn’t mean that quantum computers are yet ready to take over the computer industry，but this will be the year that they start to become a genuine commercial proposition.

今年，将是我们看到量子计算机解决了传统计算机无法解决的计算问题的一年，利用量子力学的规则来操纵数据，可能使它们比传统设备更加强大。许多研究人员认为，去年制造的原型设备将很快能够实现"量子优势"——这是一项任务的解决方案，完成这项任务需一台经典计算机需要一段不切实际的时间。当然，这并不意味着量子计算机已经准备好接管计算机行业，但是这一年他们将开始成为一个真正的商业命题。

Quantum internet

量子互联网

Using quantum rules for processing information has more advantages than just speed. These rules make possible some tricks that just aren’t imaginable using classical physics. Information encoded in qubits (units of quantum information) can be encrypted and transmitted from a sender to a receiver in a form that can’t be intercepted and read without that eavesdropping being detectable by the receiver，a method called quantum cryptography. China has developed “quantum-capable” satellites that could ultimately host an international，ultra-secure “quantum internet”. Many experts put that at a decade or so off，but we can expect more trials – and inventions – of quantum network technologies this year.

使用量子规则来处理信息更有优势，不仅仅是速度。这些规则使得一些用经典物理学无法想象的技巧成为可能。用量子位编码的信息(量子信息单位)可以被加密并以一种不能被截获和读取的形式从发送者传送到接收者，而不会被接收者检测到，这种方法叫做量子密码学。中国研制出了"量子"卫星，最终可能拥有一个超安全的国际"量子互联网"。许多专家认为，在十年左右的时间里，我们可以期待更多的量子网络技术的试验和发明。

RNA therapies

RNA 疗法

The announcement last month of a potential new treatment for Huntington’s disease，an inheritable neurodegenerative disease for which there is no known cure，has broad implications. The preliminary tests showed a lowering in the levels of toxic proteins in the brain，suggesting that the method might work for other dementia-related conditions.

上个月亨廷顿氏症的一种新疗法的宣布，具有广泛的意义。亨廷顿氏症是一种遗传性神经退行性疾病，目前尚无治愈方法。初步测试表明，大脑中的毒性蛋白质含量水平有所降低，表明该方法可能对其他与痴呆症有关的疾病有效。

Gene-editing therapies

基因编辑疗法

Diseases with a well defined genetic cause can potentially be cured by replacing the mutant genes with properly functioning，healthy ones. That’s the basis of gene therapies，which have been talked about for years but have so far failed to deliver. The discovery in 2012 of a set of molecular tools，called CRISPR-Cas9，for targeting and editing genes with great accuracy has revitalised interest in attacking such genetic diseases at their root. But is the method safe enough for human use? Clinical trials kicked off last year，particularly in China but also in the US. It should start to become clear this year just how effective and safe these procedures are.

具有明确遗传原因的疾病可以通过用功能正常、健康的基因替换突变基因来治愈。这是基因疗法的基础,基因疗法已经讨论了多年，但到目前为止还没有实现。2012年发现了一套名为CRISPR-Cas9的分子工具，用于精确定位和编辑基因，从而重新激发了人们从根本上防治这类遗传疾病的兴趣。但是这种方法是否足够安全，是否可供人类使用呢？临床试验已于去年开始，尤其是在中国和美国。今年，这些程序的有效性和安全性应该会开始变得清晰起来。

High-speed X-ray movies

高速 X射线拍摄

X-rays are used to figure out the structures of biological molecules，an important element in drug design. A new “X-ray free-electron laser” in Hamburg，inaugurated in September，is the fastest and brightest of these sources of intense X-rays to date，capable of taking high-speed movies of such molecules in action. Two others in Switzerland and South Korea are starting up，too，and another at Stanford in California is getting an ambitious upgrade. As these instruments host their first experiments in 2018，researchers will acquire a new window into the molecular world.

X射线被用来计算出生物分子的结构，生物分子是药物设计中的一个重要元素。9月份在汉堡推出的新"x射线自由电子激光器"是迄今为止最迅速和最亮的的射线源，能够在行动中拍摄分子的高速电影。瑞士和韩国的另外两家公司也正在起步，另一个在加州斯坦福大学进行雄心勃勃的升级。随着这些仪器在2018年进行第一次实验，研究人员将获得一个进入分子世界的新窗口。

A hundred thousand genomes

十万基因组

By the end of 2018 the private company Genomics England，set up by the UK Department of Health，should have completed its goal of reading the genetic information in 100,000 genomes of about 75,000 volunteers. Given so much data，it should be possible to identify gene mutations linked to cancer and to some of the many thousands of known rare diseases – information that could point the way to new therapies and drugs.

到2018年底，由英国卫生部(UK Department of Health)成立的私人公司英格兰基因组公司(Genomics England)已经完成约在7.5万名志愿者，10万个基因组中读取基因信息的目标。鉴于如此多的数据，应该有可能识别与癌症相关的基因突变，以及数千种已知罕见疾病的基因突变——这些信息可能为新的治疗和药物开发指明道路。

Beyond the standard model

超越标准模式

The so-called standard model of particle physics，which accounts for all the known particles and forces in nature，was completed in 2012 with the discovery of the Higgs boson using the Large Hadron Collider (LHC)，the world’s most powerful particle accelerator，at Cern in Switzerland. The trouble is，it can’t be the whole story. What’s now needed is some clue from particle-smashing experiments for how to extend the standard model: some glimpse of particles，forces or effects outside the current paradigm. Researchers were hoping that the LHC might have supplied that already – in particular，many anticipated finding support for the theory called supersymmetry，which some see as the best candidate for the requisite new physics. But so far there’s been zilch. If another year goes by without any chink in the armour appearing，the head-scratching may turn into hair-pulling.

粒子物理学所谓的标准模型，解释了自然界中所有已知的粒子和力，2012年，瑞士欧洲核子研究中心使用的大型强子对撞机(Lhc)发现了希格斯玻色子，这是世界上最强大的粒子加速器。问题是，这不可能是整个故事的全部。现在需要的是从粒子粉碎实验中得到一些线索来扩展标准模型: 在当前范式之外对粒子、力量或效应的一些窥见。研究人员希冀大型强子对撞机也许已经提供了这种物质——特别是，许多人预期会发现对超对称理论的支持，一些人认为这个理论是新物理学的最佳候选。但到目前为止，还没有发现什么。如果再过一年盔甲依然没有出现任何裂痕，搔头就会变成拔毛。

 

Crunch time for dark matter

暗物质的关键时刻

That’s not the only embarrassment for physics. It’s been agreed for decades that the universe must contain large amounts of so-called dark matter – about five times as much as all the matter visible as stars，galaxies and dust. This dark matter appears to exert a gravitational tug while not interacting significantly with ordinary matter or light in other ways. But no one has any idea what it consists of. Experiments have been trying to detect it for years，but all have drawn a blank. The situation is becoming grave enough for some researchers to start taking more seriously suggestions that what looks like dark matter is in fact a consequence of something else – such as a new force that modifies the apparent effects of gravity. This year could prove to be crunch time for dark matter: how long do we persist in believing in something when there’s no direct evidence for it?

对物理学来说，这不是唯一的尴尬。几十年来，人们一致认为，宇宙中一定包含大量所谓的暗物质——大约是所有可见物质如恒星、星系和尘埃的5倍。这种暗物质在与普通物质或光线在其他方面没有显着相互作用的情况下，这种暗物质似乎会产生引力牵引作用。但是没有人知道它由什么组成。多年来，实验一直试图探测它，但是所有的实验都一无所获。以至于一些研究人员开始认真考虑一些建议，即看起来像暗物质的东西实际上是其他东西的结果——比如一种新的力量，可以改变引力的表面效应。今年可能是暗物质研究关键时刻: 如果没有直接证据，我们还坚持多久呢？

Return to the moon

重返月球

In 2018，the moon is the spacefarer’s destination of choice. Among several planned missions，China’s ongoing unmanned lunar exploration programme called Chang’e will enter its fourth phase in June with the launch of a satellite to orbit the moon’s “dark side” (which permanently faces away from the Earth，although it’s not actually in perpetual darkness). That craft will provide a communications link to guide the Long March 5 rocket that should head out to this hidden face of the moon in 2019，carrying a robotic lander and rover vehicle to gather information about the mineral composition of the moon，including water ice in the south polar basin. It’s all the prelude to a planned mission in the 2030s that will take Chinese astronauts to the lunar surface.

 

2018年，月球是航天员的首选目的地。在几个计划中的任务中，中国正在进行的名为“嫦娥”的无人探月按计划将在6月进入第四阶段，届时将发射一颗卫星，围绕月球的"暗面"(永久性地面向地球，尽管实际上并不处于永恒的黑暗中)。该飞行器将提供一个通信链接，以指导长征5号火箭，该火箭将于2019年飞向这个隐藏的月球表面，携带一个机器人登陆器和一个探测器，以收集关于月球矿物组成的信息，包括月球南极盆地的冰态水。这一切都是在本世纪30年代计划完成的任务的前奏，将把中国宇航员带到月球表面。

Voyage to Mercury

水星之旅

Exploration of the solar system won’t all be about the moon. The European Space Agency and the Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency are collaborating on the BepiColombo mission，which will set off in October on a seven-year journey to Mercury，the smallest planet in the solar system and the closest to the Sun. BepiColombo should provide information not just about the planet itself but also about the formation of the entire solar system.

对太阳系的探索并不全是关于月球的。欧洲航天局(European Space Agency)和日本宇宙航空研究开发机构(Japan Aerosspace ProtectionAgency)正在合作完成比皮科伦坡（ BepiColombo ）飞行任务，该飞行任务将于10月启程，进行为期七年的水星之旅，这是太阳系中最小的行星，距离太阳最近。比皮科伦坡任务不仅应该提供关于水星本身的信息，还应该会提供关于整个太阳系形成的信息。

Mapping the brain

绘制大脑地图

It’s sometimes said that understanding outer space is easier than understanding inner space. The human brain is arguably the most complex object in the known universe，and while no one seems to be expecting any major breakthrough in our view of how it works，we can expect to reach next Christmas with a lot more information. Over the last summer the 10bn European Human Brain Project got a reboot to steer it away from what many saw as an over-ambitious plan to simulate a human brain on a computer and towards a more realistic goal of mapping out its structure down to the level of connections between the billions of individual neurons. One vision is to create a kind of Google Brain，comparable to Google Earth，in which the brain structures underpinning such cognitive functions as memory and emotion can be “zoomed” from the large scale revealed by MRI scanning down to the level of individual neurons.

有时候我们会说，理解外太空比理解人类内部空间更容易。人类的大脑可以说是已知宇宙中最复杂的物体，似乎没有人期待我们对大脑如何运作有任何重大突破，但我们可以期待在下一个圣诞节的时候能够得到更多的信息。去年夏天，耗资100亿美元的欧洲人类大脑项目(European Human Brain Project)得到重启，以使其远离许多人认为过于雄心勃勃的计划，即在计算机上模拟人类大脑，并实现一个更为现实的目标，即将其结构划分为数十亿个神经元，研究它们之间的连接水平。其中一个愿景是创造一种如同 Google Earth 的“谷歌大脑”，其中支撑诸如记忆和情绪等认知功能的大脑结构可以实现从核磁共振扫描显示的大规模显示到单个神经元的水平"放大"。


TragicomedyBeholder：
Re the section 'Beyond the standard model'.......
Well expressed! And, I would add, the 'so-called standard model' of particle physics could and should be extended to covering 'so-called particles' and 'so-called matter'. Locke's suggestion of 'thinking matter' again raises its head and relevance to today's physics.
At this stage of proceedings, why not follow Quine in identifying bodies with the portions of space-time that they occupy? So-called particles and bodies, which are such by courtesy only, would thereby emerge each as a sinuous filament of space-time, long perhaps in the time dimension and colourful to the eye. Objects now reconstrued in terms of the space-time which they occupy.
Whatever else one may think, this is surely a moment in physics when a philosopher's curiosity would be not only relevant but potentially also very helpful.
By way of further elucidation here (and apologies in advance for repeating the Wheeler quote and a couple of other things from my comment on another Guardian Science article a couple of weeks ago) but it is highly relevant...
The problem here turns out to be that of human understanding together with its scope and limits. What does it mean to understand something? Does our understanding have limits? Can we, at least in principle, arrive at establishing what those cognitive limits are?
If we take the concept of human understanding in physics to mean what it meant for Galileo and Newton, ie representation in terms of a mechanical model, then physics parted company with human understanding following Newton's discovery of gravity and the very notion of action at a distance. We have had no coherent concept of a physical object since.
Newton, according to the philosopher David Hume, showed the "imperfections of the mechanical philosophy and thereby restored Nature's secrets to that obscurity in which they ever did and ever will remain." Quite a statement… from a man of considerable genius. Worth paying close attention to I would say.
Also highly relevant for state of today’s physics was Dirac’s statement. He pointed out that modern science no longer even tries to present models or pictures of how the world works. What they give us instead, according to Dirac, are ways of looking at the fundamental laws which make their self-consistency obvious. He also pointed out that leading physicists themselves understood this.
Finally, in his 1990 article "Information, physics, quantum”, the late great physicist John Wheeler, another physicist with a philosophical turn of mind, wrote this……….
    “It from bit. Otherwise put, every it — every particle, every field of force, even the space-time continuum itself — derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely — even if in some contexts indirectly — from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no questions, binary choices, bits. It from bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom — a very deep bottom, in most instances — an immaterial source and explanation; that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe.”
Rats can run mazes better than humans but cannot run prime-number mazes. Limitations are placed on our human cognitive faculties by the very fact of their having scope. But this certainly does not mean that physicists should stop trying.
-------------------------------------
TragicomedyBeholder：

回复一下“超越标准模型”的部分。
表达得很好!我还要补充一点，粒子物理学的所谓标准模型可以而且应该延伸到所谓的粒子和物质。洛克关于“思考物质”的建议再次抬头，并与今天的物理学相关。
在这一阶段，为什么不追随奎因，找出他们所占据的时空部分的主体呢? 所谓的粒子和主体，如果仅仅是出于礼貌的话 ，每一个粒子和物体都会成为时空的蜿蜒细丝, 也许在时间维度上很长，在眼睛里也会变得绚丽多彩。物体现在被重新解释为它们所占据的时空。

无论人们怎么想，这无疑是一个物理学的时刻，一个哲学家的好奇心不仅是相关的，而且可能是非常有用的。
通过进一步阐明(并提前道歉，在几周前我对另一篇卫报科学文章的评论中引用了一些其他的东西)，但这是高度相关的……
这里的问题是人类的理解以及它的范围和局限。理解一些东西意味着什么?我们的理解有局限性吗?至少在原则上，我们能得出认知极限是什么吗?

如果我们把人类理解物理学的的概念理解为对伽利略和牛顿的意义，即在力学模型上的表示，那么物理学就会在牛顿发现引力和远距离运动的概念之后，与人类的理解分道扬镳。从那时起，我们就没有一个对物理对象的连贯概念。
根据哲学家大卫·休谟(David Hume)的说法，牛顿展示了“机械哲学的不完美之处， 从而使大自然的秘密恢复到它曾经和将来都将保持的模糊状态。”这是一个相当有天赋的人的声明，我认为值得密切关注。

同样与今天的物理学高度相关的是狄拉克的陈述。他指出现代科学甚至已经不再试图展示世界如何运作的模型或图片了。根据狄拉克的说法，他们给我们的是一种看待基本定律的方式，这使得他们的自我一致性显而易见。他还指出，主流物理学家们自己也明白这一点。
最后，在他1990年的文章《信息，物理学，量子》的文章中，已故的伟大物理学家约翰 · 惠勒，另一位有哲学头脑的物理学家，写道。。。

“It from bit. Otherwise put, every it — every particle, every field of force, even the space-time continuum itself — derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely — even if in some contexts indirectly — from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no questions, binary choices, bits. It from bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom — a very deep bottom, in most instances — an immaterial source and explanation; that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe.”

【译注：这段引用太难，又没有前后文联系，就不翻了。。。看的懂的老爷请自行阅读原文。。】
老鼠能比人类更好地跑迷宫，但不能跑素数迷宫。人类认知能力的局限性在于它们本身具有范围这一事实。当然，这并不意味着物理学家应该停止尝试。

-------------------------------------

secularvalues77 回复TragicomedyBeholder
"Newton, according to the philosopher David Hume, showed the "imperfections of the mechanical philosophy and thereby restored Nature's secrets to that obscurity in which they ever did and ever will remain."
I'm a great admirer of David Hume but I just can't follow this argument.
Is not nature being understood at a more fundamental level as science advances?
Perhaps the word 'understood' is being used by Hume and yourself in a way different from most of the rest of us.
Please explain.
secularvalues77 回复TragicomedyBeholder：

“根据哲学家大卫·休谟(David Hume)的说法，牛顿展示了“机械哲学的不完美之处， 从而使大自然的秘密恢复到他们曾经和将来都将保持的模糊状态。”
——我是大卫·休谟的仰慕者，但我不能遵循这一观点。
科学进步的时候，自然界不是会被理解为更基本的局面吗？
也许“理解”这个词被休谟和你以一种与我们其他人不同方式所用。
请解释一下。

emiliofloris TragicomedyBeholder
You are free to philosophize as much as you like, but in the end you will have to write down some equations and make a prediction. If you can't do that you might just as well work on string theory.

emiliofloris 回复TragicomedyBeholder
你可以随心所欲地进行哲学思考，但最终你将不得不写下一些方程式并做出预测。如果你不能做到这一点，你也可以用弦理论来研究。

Nickenomics
I think we need some kind of multinational agreement on AI.
Terminator and I, Robot are getting more and more feasible.

我想我们需要在人工智能上达成某种跨国协议。
就像终结者和I，机器人变得越来越可行了。

BewilderedMark:
how long do we persist in believing in something when there’s no direct evidence for it?
That's a bloody good question.

BewilderedMark:
"如果没有直接证据，我们还坚持多久呢？"
——这是个非常好的问题。

Jats101 BewilderedMark
Looking at a few other popular human beliefs with no direct evidence, probably a couple of thousand years at least!

Jats101回复BewilderedMark：
看看其他一些流行的人类信仰，没有直接的证据，可能至少有几千年的历史吧！

Olly Rogers
    A hundred thousand genomes
It may interest you to know that, in addition to this, ValiRx are at present working on VAL401, a novel new anti-cancer compound which has recently been found to have a statistically significant rates of Overall Survival when tested on certain lung cancer. Exciting times indeed

”十万基因组“
——补充一点，你可能会对这事感兴趣：ValiRx目前正在研究VAL 401，这是一种新型的抗癌化合物，最近被发现在某些肺癌的测试中具有显着的总体生存率，激动人心的时刻。

scubadoc Olly Rogers
    It's the same old same old. No "breakthroughs", but a slow refinement punctuated by flurries of media incomprehension and the ill-informed enthusiasm of public relations...
    
scubadoc 回复 Olly Rogers：

还是老样子，并没有“突破”，但一种缓慢的完善，不时被媒体的不理解和公众不知情的热情所打断...

barciad
Fuck, I love science. The stuff we can do when we apply ourselves properly. Keep up the good work gals and guys.

操，我爱科学。当我们正确地运用自己时，我们可以做些什么。继续做好工作，姑娘们，兄弟们。

jayvee19
I think we know enough now. Lets just call it a day and all this nonsense can be stopped.

我想我们现在知道的够多了。今天就到此为止吧，这一切都可以停止了。

SirMartin jayvee19
Given the pathetic level of ignorance of many of the worlds leaders it does sometimes seem like we might be advised to wait a few millennia for the non scientists to catch up.

SirMartin回复 jayvee19：
考虑到世界上许多领导人的无知程度之低，有时我们可能会被建议等上几千年才能让非科学家赶上。

Gretsch83
And given our political trajectory, you can bet underfunded, cut-off UK scientists will be at the forefront of none of it.

鉴于我们的政治轨迹，你可以打赌，资金不足的英国科学家将无法走在最前沿。

Hugh Mad Gretsch83
I know. British scientists never made any significant discoveries before the EU.

我知道。在欧盟之前，英国科学家从未有过重大发现。

imperium3 Gretsch83
As it happens they are at the forefront of most of it. Especially biotechnology.

事实上，他们在大多数情况下处于最前沿，特别是生物技术。

Gretsch83 Hugh Mad
I'm sure you feel that's very cutting and clever, but in the years since 1973 practical science research has become largely impossible without international funding and international partners. Leaving the EU will undoubtedly be disastrous for British science.

我敢肯定，你会觉得这是一个非常撕裂但又非常聪明的问题，但自从1973年以来，如果没有国际资金和国际合作伙伴，实际的科学研究基本上是不可能实现的。离开欧盟无疑将对英国的科学造成灾难性的后果。

Guardian Pick
Exciting times indeed. However, I think it is very optimistic to expect answers within the next year on the applicability of gene editing. Clinical trials may have started in various places, but these will have an emphasis on safety rather than efficacy. Moreover, while these trials were already in the planning,the technology has advanced to better and safer Cas9 proteins, making them somewhat outdated before they start
Experience suggests that it will take a decade or more from these first proof-of-principle trials before we get a handle on what realistically can be achieved with the technology. E.g. conventional gene therapy has been trialed in the clinic for more than 20 years, but (with the odd exception such as hereditary immune deficiency) it has only been in the past few years that it is starting to show real clinical benefit in a wide range of conditions.

确实令人兴奋。然而，我认为在未来的一年里，对基因编辑的适应性问题的答案是非常乐观的。临床试验可能已经在不同的地方开始，但这些试验将重点放在安全性上，而不是疗效上。此外，虽然这些试验已经在计划中，但这项技术已经发展到更好更安全的Cas9蛋白，使它们在开始前有些过时。

经验表明，在我们掌握这项技术能达到的实际效果之前，我们将需要10年或更早的时间来证明这一点。例:传统的基因疗法已经在临床试验了20多年了，但是(除了遗传免疫缺陷等奇怪的例外)，在过去的几年中，它才开始在广泛的条件下显示出真正的临床效益。

GedtheRead
I'd like to think that with the LIGO+VIRGO collaboration underway, we'll start to see some unusual black-hole (BH) and/or neutron star (NS) mergers appear. Together with the first multi-spectral astronomical observation of a NS-NS merger established too, we'll get some significant advances in stellar nucleo-synthesis of the heavy elements.

我想认为，随着LIGO+VIRGO合作的展开，我们将开始看到一些不同寻常的黑洞(BH)和/或中子星(NS)合并出现。与第一次对NS-NS 合并的多光谱天文观测结果相结合，我们将在重元素的恒星核合成方面取得一些重大进展。

smowbat GedtheRead
A noticeable result after the first reported detection of gravitational waves by LIGO in February 2016 is the increase in the number of papers with primordial black holes in the title. On the NASA ADS system, I count about 27 such papers per year in the period 2006 - 2015, 45 in 2016 and 94 in 2017. Primordial black holes could still be the dark matter people are desperately looking for. 

2016年2月首次报道了的探测引力波后的一个显着结果是标题中有原始黑洞的论文数量的增加。
在NASA的ADS系统中，我统计了一下，在2006年至2015年期间每年有27篇这样的论文，2016年是45篇，2017年是94篇。原始的黑洞可能仍然是人们拼命寻找的暗物质。

Usignolo
This is all exciting, of course. But I was rather hoping to read something about clean energy breakthroughs, carbon scrubbing, rebooting of coral reefs, that sort of thing.

当然，这一切都是令人兴奋的。但是我更希望能读到一些关于清洁能源的突破，碳净化，珊瑚礁重新启动，诸如此类的事情。

Thomas Hope
Speaking as a neuroscientist, I'm not convinced that the brain can be mapped in quite the way this author describes. Each person's brain is different at the level of individual connections between neurons, so a detailed map at that level could only capture a specific brain. And in any case, we can't identify individual connections except in a dead brain - and even if we did, the whole point of such connections is that they have variable weight - so just knowing that a connection is present doesn't tell you what you need to know about the function of that connection. And you can't test the function in a dead brain.
The people running this project are likely smarter and certainly more eminent than me though, so I could well be wrong. But personally, I am skeptical that this will work.

作为一名神经学家，我不相信大脑能按照作者所描述的方式被描绘出来。每个人的大脑在神经元之间的个别连接程度上是不同的，因此在这个层次上的详细地图只能捕捉到特定的大脑。无论如何，除了死掉的大脑之外，我们无法识别单个的连接--即使我们这样做了，这种连接的全部意义就是它们有可变的权重--所以仅仅是知道一个连接存在并不能告诉你你想知道的关于这种连接的功能。你不能在死掉的大脑里测试这个功能。
不过，负责这个项目的人可能比我更聪明，当然也比我更杰出，所以我很可能错了。但就我个人而言，我对这是否可行持怀疑态度。

TedStewart
In the rarefied field of 'Brexshit Mathematics', Mrs May will finally prove that 'squaring the circle' is possible, by declaring very clearly that nothing has changed, 'circles mean circles' and 'squares mean squares', QED!

在“狗屁退欧数学运算”领域，特蕾莎梅夫人最终证明，“化圆为方”是可能的，因为她清楚的宣称，没有任何东西改变过，“圆就是圆”，“方就是方”——证明完毕！

ianrob2
I largely agree with these choices/predictions. I might have also included battery material technology which is ripe for breakthroughs and needed so badly. But maybe that was on last year's list already.

我基本上同意这些选择/预测。我认为可能还应包括了电池材料技术，这种技术已经成熟，可以取得突破，而且非常需要。但也许这已经是去年的榜单了。

ethelfrida
We are putting more and more effort into medical treatments which will be very expensive and only benefit a few. Meanwhile, patients with treatable conditions are not being treated. Have we got our priorities right?

我们正在把越来越多的精力投入到医疗上，这将是非常昂贵的，而且只会使少数人受益。与此同时，可以治疗的病人没有得到治疗。我们有没有搞清楚什么事情该优先考虑?

Mihai Mortan
I can't believe it's 2018 and we don't have a cure for snoring yet !!!

我真不敢相信这是2018年，我们还没有治愈打鼾的方法！！

Alexia19
Very good article which talks about scientifics breakthrougts...
About RNA therapies and Gene-editing therapies, we can read in most articles like " Gene-editing therapies to fight deafness..'', '' Gene-editing therapies to find eyesight again ", "Gene-editing therapies against leukemia.." ... But unfortunately, theses medecines are not very developped... Indeed, many thousands of gene-editing therapies are in clinical trials and it lasts around 10 years to put a drug on the market..
On the market, patients can meet dangerous side effects... 
Moreover, genome editing poses ethical problems that we cannot ignore..
In many decades, I hope that most of genetic diseases will be cured by RNA therapies and gene-editing therapies..;

关于RNA疗法和基因编辑疗法，我们可以在大多数文章中读到像“基因编辑疗法治疗耳聋…”，“基因编辑疗法重现视力”，“基因编辑治疗白血病“…但不幸的是，这些药物并不是很发达。事实上，成千上万的基因编辑疗法正在临床试验中，而且要花上大约10年的时间才能将一种药物投入市场。
在市场上，病人会遇到危险的副作用……
此外，基因组编辑造成了我们不能忽视的伦理问题。
几十年来，我一直希望通过RNA疗法和基因编辑治疗可以治愈大部分的遗传疾病。

Miogarar
Tinkering with nano computers, genomes and understanding the functioning of the human brain (think of the impossibility of that concept with Trump's brain as an example of the limits of human knowledge) does not impress or concern me.
What would really pique my interest in 2018 would be a rocket powered flying car. Anything less would be a failure and, personally, a disappointment.

摆弄纳米电脑、基因组和理解人类大脑的功能(把特朗普的大脑作为人类知识极限的一个例子来思考这个概念是不可能的)，并没有给我留下深刻的印象。
2018年真正激起我兴趣的是火箭动力飞行车。任何事情都会失败，而于个人而言却是失望。

BewilderedMark
When there's a breakthrough on human organ manufacturing let me know.
I'm going to need a new liver after that Christmas break.

当人类器官制造上有突破的时候，告诉我一声。圣诞节假期过后，我需要一个新的肝脏。     【译注：意思是圣诞节他喝点有点多】

suetonius17
Well, I wouldn't hold my breath for working quantum computers. Still not clear it's practically possible. Might be, might not. Quantum cryptography yes. Gene editing? Well, we've been hearing that for decades, with almost nothing to show, so whether now is the year finally we shall see. Supersymmetry is dead, basically, and there's nothing to replace it. Not looking good for particle physics, it's been at a dead end for decades.

好吧，我不会为量子计算机的研究而屏息的，仍然不清楚这是不是可能，也许可能，也许不可能。至于量子密码学，那是可能的。基因编辑？好吧，几十年来我们一直听说，但几乎什么结果都没有，所以现在是否是最后的一年，我们将拭目以待。基本上，超对称是死翘翘了，但没有什么可以取代它。对于粒子物理学来说，看起来不太好，几十年来一直处于死胡同。

johnbig
Most scientific breakthroughs are by cooperation between scientists and engineers worldwide. I sincerely hope that Brexit will not extract our scientific community from meaniful cooperation with European researchers

大多数科学突破是由世界各地的科学家和工程师合作完成的。我真诚地希望英国脱欧不会让我们的科学界脱离与欧洲研究人员的密切合作。

gitsumomma
It is passing ironic that at the time that our scientific window into how things work is showing signs of entering hyperspace -
we can now begin to investigate phenomenon which until recently seemed completely beyond any understanding
but we are also getting a very clear picture of the limits of our current understanding and the realisation and the possible expectation that we need to find new ways of seeing things that will take us into the next layer of the onion of existence; at which point who knows what vistas will open up...
but as this is happening...
simultaneously to wonder whether our civilisation is going to be able to survive on our own Planet and whether we have the strength and organisation to ensure that the best of our nature can overcome the worst of our nature.

讽刺的是，我们的科学在研究事物如何运作的时候，显示出进入超空间的迹象。
我们现在可以开始调查这种现象，直到最近，这种现象似乎已经完全超出了人们的理解。
但我们也清楚地认识到我们目前的理解和认知的局限性，以及我们需要找到看待事物的新方法，这将把我们带到生存的下一层面;在这一点上，谁也不知道会发生什么……
但随着这一切的发生……
我们想要知道我们的文明是否能够在我们自己的星球上生存下去，我们是否有力量和组织来确保我们的本性能够战胜我们天性中最坏的一面。