美国和欧洲哪个有更多的科学创新？
正文翻译
当然，中国现在是一个伟大的研究和创新国家，没有人否认这一点。不过，现在它们仍然没有达到美国或欧洲（作为一个整体）的水平。
评论翻译
人均专利。
===========
Laura Hancock, I am American.
A2A. Innovation? I don’t think that’s true at all. I see no real evidence that Europeans are weaker at actual innovation. I mean, they invented the car, the steam engine, the computer, the tank, radar, rocket technology, jet engines…
So, I mean, c’mon. The Europeans aren’t lacking in the ability to invent stuff. They’re just as good at it as Americans are. In many ways their track record is probably better.
But there’s a curious thing that happens along the way. Alan Turing, English, invented the computer. But the big name computer brands - Apple, Microsoft? American.
创新？我认为那根本不是真的。我看不到表明欧洲人在实际创新方面较弱的真正的证据。我的意思是，他们发明了汽车，蒸汽机，电脑，坦克，雷达，火箭技术，喷气发动机…
所以，我是说，欧洲人并不缺乏发明东西的能力，他们和美国人一样擅长这一点。在很多方面，他们的记录可能更好。
但一路上发生了一件奇怪的事，英国人艾伦·图灵发明了电脑，但那些大牌电脑品牌——苹果、微软？都是美国人的。
===========
Mark Joseph, Environmental Advisor (2015-present)
China is the world's most prolific publisher of scientific papers.
The USA is second, but adding all European countries (as you have suggested) would make Europe second.
The answer to your specific question is Europe.
中国是世界上发表科学论文最多的国家。
美国位居第二，但加入所有欧洲国家（如你所建议的）的话将使欧洲排名第二。
你具体问题的答案是欧洲。
图
John Stuart, Associate Food Scientist
Depends on how you measure scientific innovation. By papers published? By patents filed? By the number of universities? By subject? By validity or influence of results? By year? Over all time? It’s complicated and there’s no one good metric.
Things get further complicated because scientists tend to collaborate globally, which further muddies the analysis.
From the data I’ve seen, both the US and Europe as a whole do quite well, though China outstrips both in many metrics in recent years. That said, many of the innovations that define modern life were developed here in America as well as in Europe.
这取决于你如何衡量科学创新。发表论文？申请专利？按大学的数量？按课题数？结果的有效性或影响？每年？还是一直以来？这很复杂，没有一个好的指标。
现在事情正变得更加复杂，因为科学家们倾向于全球合作，进一步搅乱了分析。
从我看到的数据来看，尽管中国近年来在许多指标上都超过了这两个国家，但美国和欧洲作为一个整体都做得很好。也就是说，许多定义现代生活的创新都是在美国和欧洲发展起来的。
Depends on how you measure scientific innovation. By papers published? By patents filed? By the number of universities? By subject? By validity or influence of results? By year? Over all time? It’s complicated and there’s no one good metric.
Things get further complicated because scientists tend to collaborate globally, which further muddies the analysis.
From the data I’ve seen, both the US and Europe as a whole do quite well, though China outstrips both in many metrics in recent years. That said, many of the innovations that define modern life were developed here in America as well as in Europe.
这取决于你如何衡量科学创新。发表论文？申请专利？按大学的数量？按课题数？结果的有效性或影响？每年？还是一直以来？这很复杂，没有一个好的指标。
现在事情正变得更加复杂，因为科学家们倾向于全球合作，进一步搅乱了分析。
从我看到的数据来看，尽管中国近年来在许多指标上都超过了这两个国家，但美国和欧洲作为一个整体都做得很好。也就是说，许多定义现代生活的创新都是在美国和欧洲发展起来的。
===========
Mahadevappa K L, former Professor of Biochemistry (Retd.,) at Medical Colleges in Karnataka (1975-2014)
Comparing US and Europe together is not available.
This year, the U.S. is surpassed only by Switzerland, ranked No. 1, and Sweden.
"The United States of America reaches the 3rd position worldwide, in part due to performance increases and the availability of new U.S. innovation data," write the authors of the 2019 GII report that is based on international patent filings and scientific publishing activity.
The U.S. also ranked first in the world in public and private expenditures on research and development, having spent $511 billion in 2017, compared to $452 billion by China. Germany, Japan and South Korea also ranked in the top five, but lagged far behind the first two.
Switzerland leads the ranking for the ninth consecutive year, being praised for the number of patents, information and communications technology imports, intellectual property receipts, foreign direct investment outflows and environmental performance.
无法将美国和欧洲进行比较。
今年，美国被排名第一的瑞士和瑞典超越。
“美国在全球排名第三，绩效提升和新的美国创新数据的可用性，”2019年全球创新指数报告的作者写道，该报告基于国际专利申请和科学出版活动。
美国在公共和私人研发支出方面也位居世界第一，2017年的研发支出为5110亿美元，而中国为4520亿美元。德国、日本和韩国也排在前五名，但远远落后于前两名。
瑞士连续第九年位居榜首，在专利数量、信息和通信技术进口、知识产权收入、外国直接投资外流和环境绩效等方面均获得好评。
Mahadevappa K L, former Professor of Biochemistry (Retd.,) at Medical Colleges in Karnataka (1975-2014)
Comparing US and Europe together is not available.
This year, the U.S. is surpassed only by Switzerland, ranked No. 1, and Sweden.
"The United States of America reaches the 3rd position worldwide, in part due to performance increases and the availability of new U.S. innovation data," write the authors of the 2019 GII report that is based on international patent filings and scientific publishing activity.
The U.S. also ranked first in the world in public and private expenditures on research and development, having spent $511 billion in 2017, compared to $452 billion by China. Germany, Japan and South Korea also ranked in the top five, but lagged far behind the first two.
Switzerland leads the ranking for the ninth consecutive year, being praised for the number of patents, information and communications technology imports, intellectual property receipts, foreign direct investment outflows and environmental performance.
无法将美国和欧洲进行比较。
今年，美国被排名第一的瑞士和瑞典超越。
“美国在全球排名第三，绩效提升和新的美国创新数据的可用性，”2019年全球创新指数报告的作者写道，该报告基于国际专利申请和科学出版活动。
美国在公共和私人研发支出方面也位居世界第一，2017年的研发支出为5110亿美元，而中国为4520亿美元。德国、日本和韩国也排在前五名，但远远落后于前两名。
瑞士连续第九年位居榜首，在专利数量、信息和通信技术进口、知识产权收入、外国直接投资外流和环境绩效等方面均获得好评。
==============
Bernd Hoffmann, Dipl.-Ing. Glass and Ceramics & Glass Design, University of Duisburg-Essen (1991)
European countries!
But the development, application or sale of those innovations is usually done in the USA. European investors are just too conservative thinking.
And please don’t try to bore me with the statistical numbers of scientific publications.
I am talking about quality, not about just quantity!
欧洲国家！
但这些创新的开发、应用或销售通常在美国进行，欧洲投资者的想法过于保守。
请不要试图用科学出版物的统计数字来烦我。
我说的是质量，而不仅仅是数量！
Bernd Hoffmann, Dipl.-Ing. Glass and Ceramics & Glass Design, University of Duisburg-Essen (1991)
European countries!
But the development, application or sale of those innovations is usually done in the USA. European investors are just too conservative thinking.
And please don’t try to bore me with the statistical numbers of scientific publications.
I am talking about quality, not about just quantity!
欧洲国家！
但这些创新的开发、应用或销售通常在美国进行，欧洲投资者的想法过于保守。
请不要试图用科学出版物的统计数字来烦我。
我说的是质量，而不仅仅是数量！
===============
Frank Stratton, former Chief Risk Manager at Large Multinational Corporation (1994-2015)
Depends on your time frx and your metric.
Nobel Prizes might be used as a good metric. They are usually considered, internationally, as the best measure of scientific quality.
Europeans used to dominate NP awards then they came close to destroying themselves in WW2. Since then NP awards have swung dramatically to the US.
UK lses out on Nobel prizes
In the past 30 yrs Americans (4.5% of the world’s population) have won almost 3 times as many Nobel Prizes as the rest of the world combined.
这取决于您的时间范围和指标。
诺贝尔奖可以作为一个很好的衡量标准。在国际上，它们通常被认为是衡量科学质量的最佳标准。
欧洲人曾经在诺贝尔奖上占主导地位，然后在第二次世界大战中差点毁了自己。从那时起，诺贝尔奖戏剧性地转向了美国。
英国失去了诺贝尔奖（链接）。
在过去的30年里，美国人（占世界人口的4.5%）获得的诺贝尔奖几乎是世界其他地区总和的3倍。
Frank Stratton, former Chief Risk Manager at Large Multinational Corporation (1994-2015)
Depends on your time frx and your metric.
Nobel Prizes might be used as a good metric. They are usually considered, internationally, as the best measure of scientific quality.
Europeans used to dominate NP awards then they came close to destroying themselves in WW2. Since then NP awards have swung dramatically to the US.
UK lses out on Nobel prizes
In the past 30 yrs Americans (4.5% of the world’s population) have won almost 3 times as many Nobel Prizes as the rest of the world combined.
这取决于您的时间范围和指标。
诺贝尔奖可以作为一个很好的衡量标准。在国际上，它们通常被认为是衡量科学质量的最佳标准。
欧洲人曾经在诺贝尔奖上占主导地位，然后在第二次世界大战中差点毁了自己。从那时起，诺贝尔奖戏剧性地转向了美国。
英国失去了诺贝尔奖（链接）。
在过去的30年里，美国人（占世界人口的4.5%）获得的诺贝尔奖几乎是世界其他地区总和的3倍。
============
Glyn Williams, is a European
True innovation, the kind that changes the world requires two components.
It requires the genius and imagination to create new technologies, and architect them into something with real utility.
And it also requires the commercial ability to fund this engineering effort and then get it into the hands of end consumers.
I would argue that Europeans are equally good in the first category, but woefully inadequate in the second.
真正的创新，改变世界需要两个组成部分。
它需要天才和想象力来创造新技术，并将它们设计成具有真正实用性的东西。
它还需要商业能力来资助这项工程，然后将其交到最终消费者手中。
我认为欧洲人在第一类中同样优秀，但在第二类中却远远不够。
Glyn Williams, is a European
True innovation, the kind that changes the world requires two components.
It requires the genius and imagination to create new technologies, and architect them into something with real utility.
And it also requires the commercial ability to fund this engineering effort and then get it into the hands of end consumers.
I would argue that Europeans are equally good in the first category, but woefully inadequate in the second.
真正的创新，改变世界需要两个组成部分。
它需要天才和想象力来创造新技术，并将它们设计成具有真正实用性的东西。
它还需要商业能力来资助这项工程，然后将其交到最终消费者手中。
我认为欧洲人在第一类中同样优秀，但在第二类中却远远不够。
If we look at the history of science and technology, we can point to the Industrial Revolution, the steam engine, the digital computer, Radar, jet engines, DNA, and thousands of other developments which can be attributed to European genius.
But then it goes a bit sideways. The European business community is backward looking and risk averse when it comes to technology. Funding innovative projects is incredibly difficult. Simply explaining your idea to a European venture capitalist will require turning your idea into a kindergarten class on electronics and computers. I have spoke to brilliant engineers working on cutting edge tech, and they could not find people who even understood what they were doing.
I have pitched to VCs who understand selling footwear fine, but selling software is voodoo.
如果我们回顾一下科学技术的历史，我们可以指出工业革命、蒸汽机、数字计算机、雷达、喷气机、DNA以及成千上万的其他可以归因于欧洲天才的发展。
但后来有点走歪了。在技术方面，欧洲商业共同体（European business community）是一个向后看和规避风险的组织，资助创新项目是极其困难的。简单地向欧洲风险投资家解释你的想法就需要把你的想法变成一个电子和计算机的幼儿园班。我和从事尖端技术的杰出工程师谈过，他们甚至找不到理解他们在做什么的人。
我曾向风投投手推销过，他们对卖鞋了如指掌，但卖软件就像巫术。
But then it goes a bit sideways. The European business community is backward looking and risk averse when it comes to technology. Funding innovative projects is incredibly difficult. Simply explaining your idea to a European venture capitalist will require turning your idea into a kindergarten class on electronics and computers. I have spoke to brilliant engineers working on cutting edge tech, and they could not find people who even understood what they were doing.
I have pitched to VCs who understand selling footwear fine, but selling software is voodoo.
如果我们回顾一下科学技术的历史，我们可以指出工业革命、蒸汽机、数字计算机、雷达、喷气机、DNA以及成千上万的其他可以归因于欧洲天才的发展。
但后来有点走歪了。在技术方面，欧洲商业共同体（European business community）是一个向后看和规避风险的组织，资助创新项目是极其困难的。简单地向欧洲风险投资家解释你的想法就需要把你的想法变成一个电子和计算机的幼儿园班。我和从事尖端技术的杰出工程师谈过，他们甚至找不到理解他们在做什么的人。
我曾向风投投手推销过，他们对卖鞋了如指掌，但卖软件就像巫术。
If we look at recent times. Both the UK and Silicon Valley kicked off the microcomputer revolution with consumer ready computers. These small companies were similar in size, and similar in engineering talent. In the US we saw Commodore, Apple, Tandy launch consumer computers. In the UK these were matched by the nascent Acorn and Sinclair, and Amstrad. - With Acorn being the first to develop RISC processors. So in terms of engineering competence, there was really no big difference.
But the US companies were the ones who could grow their products into massive international brands. Because they could access funding, and could market their products competently and effectively.
That’s where the difference lies. On some cultural level, we Europeans are comfortable in a lab, but not nearly so comfortable pitching our goods on the world stage.
如果我们看看最近的情况。英国和硅谷都启动了微型计算机革命，推出了面向消费者的计算机。这些小公司规模相似，工程人才也相似。在美国，我们看到Commodore、Apple和Tandy推出了消费类电脑。在英国，与新生的Acorn、Sinclair和Amstrad相匹配的Acorn是第一个开发RISC处理器的公司。所以在工程能力方面，两者其实没有太大区别。
但美国公司可以将其产品发展成为大型国际品牌，因为他们可以获得资金，并且有能力有效地推销他们的产品。
这就是区别所在。在某种文化层面上，我们欧洲人在实验室里很自在，但在世界舞台上推销我们的产品却不那么自在。
But the US companies were the ones who could grow their products into massive international brands. Because they could access funding, and could market their products competently and effectively.
That’s where the difference lies. On some cultural level, we Europeans are comfortable in a lab, but not nearly so comfortable pitching our goods on the world stage.
如果我们看看最近的情况。英国和硅谷都启动了微型计算机革命，推出了面向消费者的计算机。这些小公司规模相似，工程人才也相似。在美国，我们看到Commodore、Apple和Tandy推出了消费类电脑。在英国，与新生的Acorn、Sinclair和Amstrad相匹配的Acorn是第一个开发RISC处理器的公司。所以在工程能力方面，两者其实没有太大区别。
但美国公司可以将其产品发展成为大型国际品牌，因为他们可以获得资金，并且有能力有效地推销他们的产品。
这就是区别所在。在某种文化层面上，我们欧洲人在实验室里很自在，但在世界舞台上推销我们的产品却不那么自在。
========
Staffan Vilcans, More than 30 years of IT experince.
There are several ways to look at it, but World Intellectual Property Indicators - Wikipedia may be a good place to start.
Counting patents per capita.
有几种看待它的方法，但世界知识产权指标-维基百科可能是一个很好的开始。
Staffan Vilcans, More than 30 years of IT experince.
There are several ways to look at it, but World Intellectual Property Indicators - Wikipedia may be a good place to start.
Counting patents per capita.
有几种看待它的方法，但世界知识产权指标-维基百科可能是一个很好的开始。
人均专利。
===========
Laura Hancock, I am American.
A2A. Innovation? I don’t think that’s true at all. I see no real evidence that Europeans are weaker at actual innovation. I mean, they invented the car, the steam engine, the computer, the tank, radar, rocket technology, jet engines…
So, I mean, c’mon. The Europeans aren’t lacking in the ability to invent stuff. They’re just as good at it as Americans are. In many ways their track record is probably better.
But there’s a curious thing that happens along the way. Alan Turing, English, invented the computer. But the big name computer brands - Apple, Microsoft? American.
创新？我认为那根本不是真的。我看不到表明欧洲人在实际创新方面较弱的真正的证据。我的意思是，他们发明了汽车，蒸汽机，电脑，坦克，雷达，火箭技术，喷气发动机…
所以，我是说，欧洲人并不缺乏发明东西的能力，他们和美国人一样擅长这一点。在很多方面，他们的记录可能更好。
但一路上发生了一件奇怪的事，英国人艾伦·图灵发明了电脑，但那些大牌电脑品牌——苹果、微软？都是美国人的。
In terms of the invention of the car, the Germans do turn up a bit more powerful in the automotive sector as compared to the British in the computing one. Karl Benz invented the gasoline-powered car. Perhaps you’ve heard of “Benz” before.
But you know who else you’ve probably heard of? Henry Ford. In fact, a lot of people think he invented the car. (I’ve even encountered some Europeans who think this. Obviously, none of them were German.)
So what gives?
就汽车的发明而言，德国在汽车领域的实力确实比英国在计算机领域强一些。卡尔·本茨发明了汽油动力汽车，也许你以前听说过“奔驰”。
但你知道你还听说过谁吗？亨利·福特。事实上，很多人认为是他发明了汽车。（我甚至遇到过一些这样认为的欧洲人。显然，他们都不是德国人。）
所以，发生了什么？
But you know who else you’ve probably heard of? Henry Ford. In fact, a lot of people think he invented the car. (I’ve even encountered some Europeans who think this. Obviously, none of them were German.)
So what gives?
就汽车的发明而言，德国在汽车领域的实力确实比英国在计算机领域强一些。卡尔·本茨发明了汽油动力汽车，也许你以前听说过“奔驰”。
但你知道你还听说过谁吗？亨利·福特。事实上，很多人认为是他发明了汽车。（我甚至遇到过一些这样认为的欧洲人。显然，他们都不是德国人。）
所以，发生了什么？
The issue isn’t a weakness in European innovation. It’s a comparative weakness in marketing and accessing funding. Basically, Americans are more inclined to gamble monetarily on new technological ventures, and, frankly, nobody markets like an American can market.
The American entrepreneur is the one that seems to get all the attention in the lore because it’s romantic, but it’s really the American marketer that is the driving force behind most everything.
Turing invented the computer; Gates made it possible to take it home and Jobs made it into a phone.
Benz invented the modern car; Ford put the keys in everybody’s hands.
问题的弱点不在于欧洲的创新，而在于在营销和获取资金方面，这是一个相对薄弱的环节。基本上，美国人更倾向于把钱赌在新的科技项目上，坦率地说，没有人能像美国人那样推销市场。
美国企业家似乎因为浪漫而受到所有人的关注，但实际上美国的营销者才是最重要的驱动力。
图灵发明了电脑，盖茨使它有可能被带回家，乔布斯把它做成了一部电话。
奔驰发明了现代汽车，福特把钥匙交给每个人。
The American entrepreneur is the one that seems to get all the attention in the lore because it’s romantic, but it’s really the American marketer that is the driving force behind most everything.
Turing invented the computer; Gates made it possible to take it home and Jobs made it into a phone.
Benz invented the modern car; Ford put the keys in everybody’s hands.
问题的弱点不在于欧洲的创新，而在于在营销和获取资金方面，这是一个相对薄弱的环节。基本上，美国人更倾向于把钱赌在新的科技项目上，坦率地说，没有人能像美国人那样推销市场。
美国企业家似乎因为浪漫而受到所有人的关注，但实际上美国的营销者才是最重要的驱动力。
图灵发明了电脑，盖茨使它有可能被带回家，乔布斯把它做成了一部电话。
奔驰发明了现代汽车，福特把钥匙交给每个人。
It’s not just innovation. It’s propagation. It’s making it accessible to the masses.
Americans are very strong in making things accessible and popular. A lot of the time American innovation is not necessarily making something new, it’s making something better and cheaper and faster.
I present to you, The American Way.
不仅仅是创新，还有传播，它使大众能够接触到它。
美国人非常善于使事情变得容易接近和受欢迎。很多时候，美国的创新不一定是制造新的东西，而是制造更好、更便宜、更快的东西。
这是我向你介绍美国的方式。
Americans are very strong in making things accessible and popular. A lot of the time American innovation is not necessarily making something new, it’s making something better and cheaper and faster.
I present to you, The American Way.
不仅仅是创新，还有传播，它使大众能够接触到它。
美国人非常善于使事情变得容易接近和受欢迎。很多时候，美国的创新不一定是制造新的东西，而是制造更好、更便宜、更快的东西。
这是我向你介绍美国的方式。
==============
Siddharth Dwivedi, Student
Look if you compare the US to a specific European country then always th US will come out on top with more innovations.Like for example if you compare the innovations in US to say Portugal then there is no competition!
However if you take all of Europe then in raw numbers Europe has more scientific innovations.
Looking at the graph below if you compare per capita population innovations then also almost all European countries have more innovations than USA.
Hasta la vista baby !
如果你把美国和一个特定的欧洲国家进行比较，那么美国总是会以更多的创新脱颖而出。比如，如果你把美国的创新与葡萄牙相比，那么就没有竞争了！
然而，如果你比较的是整个欧洲，那么在原始数据上，欧洲拥有更多的科学创新。
看下面的图表，如果你比较的是人均创新，那么几乎所有欧洲国家的创新都比美国多。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Siddharth Dwivedi, Student
Look if you compare the US to a specific European country then always th US will come out on top with more innovations.Like for example if you compare the innovations in US to say Portugal then there is no competition!
However if you take all of Europe then in raw numbers Europe has more scientific innovations.
Looking at the graph below if you compare per capita population innovations then also almost all European countries have more innovations than USA.
Hasta la vista baby !
如果你把美国和一个特定的欧洲国家进行比较，那么美国总是会以更多的创新脱颖而出。比如，如果你把美国的创新与葡萄牙相比，那么就没有竞争了！
然而，如果你比较的是整个欧洲，那么在原始数据上，欧洲拥有更多的科学创新。
看下面的图表，如果你比较的是人均创新，那么几乎所有欧洲国家的创新都比美国多。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
===========
Mark Joseph, Environmental Advisor (2015-present)
China is the world's most prolific publisher of scientific papers.
The USA is second, but adding all European countries (as you have suggested) would make Europe second.
The answer to your specific question is Europe.
中国是世界上发表科学论文最多的国家。
美国位居第二，但加入所有欧洲国家（如你所建议的）的话将使欧洲排名第二。
你具体问题的答案是欧洲。
Julien Carme
I really don’t know who the hell cares about the number of papers written. About as meaningful as the number of lines of code written by a software developper per day.
Tell a mediocre scientist to write 5 papers a year, put enough pressure, and he will. You always find conferences mediocre enough to publish them. And that is how you create an ocean of useless publications.
There are much better metrics, weighting papers by citations and impact factor being a good start.
我真的不知道谁会在乎论文的数量。这和软件开发人员每天编写的代码行数一样没有意义。
告诉一个平庸的科学家一年写5篇论文，只要施加足够的压力，他就能办到。
还有更好的衡量标准，通过引用和影响因子对论文进行加权是一个好的开始。
I really don’t know who the hell cares about the number of papers written. About as meaningful as the number of lines of code written by a software developper per day.
Tell a mediocre scientist to write 5 papers a year, put enough pressure, and he will. You always find conferences mediocre enough to publish them. And that is how you create an ocean of useless publications.
There are much better metrics, weighting papers by citations and impact factor being a good start.
我真的不知道谁会在乎论文的数量。这和软件开发人员每天编写的代码行数一样没有意义。
告诉一个平庸的科学家一年写5篇论文，只要施加足够的压力，他就能办到。
还有更好的衡量标准，通过引用和影响因子对论文进行加权是一个好的开始。
Wasu Koysiripong
Good point, but the question asks about the quantity not the quality.
Quality-wise, China has also made many quality innovations, e.g. the fastest supercomputer, the hottest artificial sun and the most efficient surgical mask making machine. Of course, it is possible that the US or Europe has made more, but it doesn't mean China hasn't made any.
说得好，但问题在于数量而不是质量。
就质量而言，中国还进行了许多创新，例如最快的超级计算机、温度最高的人造太阳和最高效的外科口罩制造机。当然，美国或欧洲有可能取得了更多的进展，但这并不意味着中国没有取得任何进展。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Good point, but the question asks about the quantity not the quality.
Quality-wise, China has also made many quality innovations, e.g. the fastest supercomputer, the hottest artificial sun and the most efficient surgical mask making machine. Of course, it is possible that the US or Europe has made more, but it doesn't mean China hasn't made any.
说得好，但问题在于数量而不是质量。
就质量而言，中国还进行了许多创新，例如最快的超级计算机、温度最高的人造太阳和最高效的外科口罩制造机。当然，美国或欧洲有可能取得了更多的进展，但这并不意味着中国没有取得任何进展。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Julien Carme
Sure, noone denies that. China is now a great research and innovation nation. They are still not at US or Europe (as a whole) level, though. For now.
当然，中国现在是一个伟大的研究和创新国家，没有人否认这一点。不过，现在它们仍然没有达到美国或欧洲（作为一个整体）的水平。
Sure, noone denies that. China is now a great research and innovation nation. They are still not at US or Europe (as a whole) level, though. For now.
当然，中国现在是一个伟大的研究和创新国家，没有人否认这一点。不过，现在它们仍然没有达到美国或欧洲（作为一个整体）的水平。
Hongsheng Han
the numbers of publishement of papers may not show a real position of the china in science field, but it is a sign to show the china put more and more attention on research. through iteration, the quality of papers will be improved gradually, similar as technology.
there are a lot of researchers in China crying for reform of research centers /universities to make it more suitable for researchers to work. believe the central government also heard about this request, there will be changes gradually. we envy the way how the US, UK, Germany, Japan, etc who do better than us, and try to learn the way they operate and improve ours to suit the fast speed of changes and competitions.
发表论文的数量可能不能反映中国在科学领域的真实地位，但它表明中国越来越重视研究。通过迭代，中国的论文的质量将逐步提高，就像技术一样。
中国有很多研究人员呼吁改革研究中心/大学，使其更适合研究人员工作。相信中央政府也听到了这个要求，会逐渐有变化的。我们羡慕美国、英国、德国、日本等比我们做得更好的国家，努力学习它们的运作方式并改进我们的运作方式，以适应快速的变化和竞争。
the numbers of publishement of papers may not show a real position of the china in science field, but it is a sign to show the china put more and more attention on research. through iteration, the quality of papers will be improved gradually, similar as technology.
there are a lot of researchers in China crying for reform of research centers /universities to make it more suitable for researchers to work. believe the central government also heard about this request, there will be changes gradually. we envy the way how the US, UK, Germany, Japan, etc who do better than us, and try to learn the way they operate and improve ours to suit the fast speed of changes and competitions.
发表论文的数量可能不能反映中国在科学领域的真实地位，但它表明中国越来越重视研究。通过迭代，中国的论文的质量将逐步提高，就像技术一样。
中国有很多研究人员呼吁改革研究中心/大学，使其更适合研究人员工作。相信中央政府也听到了这个要求，会逐渐有变化的。我们羡慕美国、英国、德国、日本等比我们做得更好的国家，努力学习它们的运作方式并改进我们的运作方式，以适应快速的变化和竞争。
Turbo Neo (ធីបូ)
Seriously though many of thoes publications are students studying for PhD. They are trying to pump out as much research as they can. Citing and referencing. It’s so hard to find one that is very good and not just bull crap research. Most of the time it’s quantity over quality.
说真的，尽管这些论文中有很多是攻读博士学位的学生发表的，但他们正试图尽可能多地进行研究，引用和参考。你很难找到一个非常好的，不仅仅是胡说八道的研究。大多数情况下，这意味着数量大于质量。
Seriously though many of thoes publications are students studying for PhD. They are trying to pump out as much research as they can. Citing and referencing. It’s so hard to find one that is very good and not just bull crap research. Most of the time it’s quantity over quality.
说真的，尽管这些论文中有很多是攻读博士学位的学生发表的，但他们正试图尽可能多地进行研究，引用和参考。你很难找到一个非常好的，不仅仅是胡说八道的研究。大多数情况下，这意味着数量大于质量。
Matthew Carter
Scientific publications is probably one of the lesser ways to measure the scientific innovations of a country. It is more of a subjective point because every major country is very close together in technology and development that no matter what is stated it is pointless.
科学出版物可能是衡量一个国家科学创新程度较低的方法之一。这更像是一个主观的观点，因为每个主要国家在技术和发展方面都非常接近，无论说什么都是毫无意义的。
Scientific publications is probably one of the lesser ways to measure the scientific innovations of a country. It is more of a subjective point because every major country is very close together in technology and development that no matter what is stated it is pointless.
科学出版物可能是衡量一个国家科学创新程度较低的方法之一。这更像是一个主观的观点，因为每个主要国家在技术和发展方面都非常接近，无论说什么都是毫无意义的。
图
很赞 0
收藏