Carl Zimmer on the Hidden Life in the Air We Breathe (Ep. 235)
Thank you to listener Ethan Horsfall of Dirac Software for sponsoring this transcript.
感谢 Dirac Software 的听众 Ethan Horsfall 赞助这份文字记录。
Hello, everyone, and welcome back to Conversations with Tyler.
大家好，欢迎回到《与泰勒对话》。
Today, I am speaking with Carl Zimmer.
今天，我正在与卡尔·齐默交谈。
Carl, as far as I know, is the only person who has both a tapeworm and an asteroid named after him.
据我所知，卡尔是唯一一个同时拥有绦虫和以他的名字命名的小行星的人。
The proximate reason for this episode is Carl’s excellent new book.
这一集的直接原因是卡尔的优秀新书。
It’s called Air-Borne: The Hidden History of the Life We Breathe.
这本书的名字叫《空气传播：我们呼吸的生命的隐藏历史》。
Carl is also a longstanding columnist for the New York Times.
卡尔也是《纽约时报》的长期专栏作家。
He teaches writing at Yale, and he has numerous other science books on biology, evolution, heredity, and other topics.
他在耶鲁大学教授写作，还有许多其他有关生物学、进化论、遗传和其他主题的科学书籍。
Carl, welcome.
卡尔，欢迎。
Thanks so much for having me.
非常感谢你邀请我。
I’m interested in issues surrounding the progress of science.
我对围绕科学进步的问题感兴趣。
If we think of the notion of disease being transmitted through the air, it seems that comes to our attention really quite late in time — late 19th century.
如果我们想到疾病通过空气传播的概念，那么我们注意到这一点的时间似乎已经很晚了——19 世纪末。
It’s not truly accepted until later in the 20th century.
直到 20 世纪后期，它才被真正接受。
The idea doesn’t seem that crazy.
这个想法似乎并不那么疯狂。
Why did it take so long?
为什么花了这么长时间？
It’s a great question and one that I was thinking about a lot while working on this book.
这是一个很好的问题，也是我在写这本书时思考了很多的问题。
I think maybe part of the issue is that when we look back at history, especially the history of science, we tend to rewrite it.
我认为问题的一部分可能在于，当我们回顾历史，尤其是科学史时，我们倾向于重写它。
We tend to pretend that things were simpler than they really were.
我们倾向于假装事情比实际情况更简单。
We ignore all the debates and the way that ideas pop up and flourish for a while and then disappear and then come back again.
我们忽略了所有的争论以及想法的出现和繁荣一段时间然后消失然后再次出现的方式。
The idea that something alive could come through the air and make you sick or kill you was, in a way, in the words of one journalist in France in the 1860s, “just too fantastic to imagine.” It really strained the imagination.
用 1860 年代法国一位记者的话说，某种活着的东西可以通过空气让你生病或杀死你，这种想法在某种程度上“太不可思议了”。实在是太考验想象力了。
Even if today, we’re starting to get used to it, it’s a frightening idea because it makes us feel particularly helpless.
即使今天我们开始习惯它，但这也是一个可怕的想法，因为它让我们感到特别无助。
We can wash our hands all day long and keep ourselves safe that way, but you have to breathe.
我们可以整天洗手，这样可以保证自己的安全，但你必须呼吸。
I think that there were a lot of reasons, many different reasons for the scientific community to look away and to say, “No, this isn’t happening,” or, “It isn’t important.”
我认为科学界有很多不同的原因将目光移开并说：“不，这没有发生”，或者“这并不重要”。
Birds fly through the air, bats fly through the air, and we’ve known about little tiny things since the invention of the microscope, which is what?
鸟儿在空中飞翔，蝙蝠在空中飞翔，自从显微镜发明以来，我们就知道了一些微小的东西，这是什么？
Very late 16th century?
16世纪末？
People can’t just put the two together?
人们不能把两者放在一起吗？
They don’t have to have known for sure, but it seems it’s just not much, even if a candidate hypothesis.
他们不必确切地知道，但即使是候选假设，似乎也知道得不多。
Was it really such a big blind spot?
盲点真的这么大吗？
It really was.
确实如此。
Again, things that seem clear to us now were not clear even to the very brightest minds centuries ago.
再说一遍，现在对我们来说似乎很清楚的事情，即使对几个世纪前最聪明的人来说也不清楚。
Now, part of the reason, I think, is that there was, for thousands of years, an idea that the air itself could actually make you sick.
现在，我认为部分原因是数千年来人们一直认为空气本身实际上会使人生病。
In fact, for quite a long time, the standard view was that, if somehow the air became corrupted, it could cause diseases, yellow fever, all sorts of other diseases, and sometimes that would be called miasmas.
事实上，在相当长的一段时间里，标准的观点是，如果空气以某种方式被污染，它可能会导致疾病，黄热病，各种其他疾病，有时被称为瘴气。
Miasma is an ancient Greek word.
瘴气是一个古希腊词。
Hippocrates talked about miasmas and really felt that that explained why you could suddenly get a lot of people sick all at once — all sorts of different people in a particular place — because the air had gone bad.
希波克拉底谈到了瘴气，他确实认为这可以解释为什么你会突然让很多人同时生病——“一个特定的地方有各种各样的不同的人”——因为空气质量变差了。
Then in the 1600s, 1700s, there’s this group of people who say, “We think that there’s this invisible world of microorganisms” — fungi, bacteria, and so on, as they would be later known — that spread disease, not just in us, but in plants and so on.
然后在 1600 年代、1700 年代，有一群人说，“我们认为存在着这个看不见的微生物世界”——“真菌、细菌等，正如后来所知的那样”——它们不仅在我们身上传播疾病，也在植物等中传播疾病。
Experts at the time said, “This is ridiculous.
当时的专家表示：“这太荒谬了。
You don’t have the evidence to prove this,” and so on.
你没有证据证明这一点，”等等。
Once the germ theory of disease really took hold in the late 1800s, a lot of it was a fight between people who were saying, for example, cholera was being caused by miasmas, by bad air — leading doctors at the time in the mid-1800s.
一旦疾病的细菌理论在 1800 年代末真正流行起来，很多事情都是人们之间的争论，例如，霍乱是由瘴气、不良空气引起的——当时 1800 年代中期的主流医生。
The people who were fighting for the germ theory of disease would say, “No, these are being caused by microorganisms.
那些为疾病细菌理论而奋斗的人会说：“不，这些都是由微生物引起的。
In the case of cholera, it’s in the water.
就霍乱而言，它存在于水中。
It’s not in the air.”
它不在空气中。”
There was this gradual revelation: cholera caused by this particular bacteria, Vibrio cholerae in the water.
人们逐渐发现：霍乱是由水中的这种特殊细菌——霍乱弧菌引起的。
Yellow fever not caused by miasma, caused by mosquitoes carrying a virus, and on and on and on and on.
黄热病不是由瘴气引起的，而是由携带病毒的蚊子引起的，等等。
Eventually, some leading public health experts in the early 1900s just said, “All this concern about the air — this is just this obsolete miasma concept.
最终，20 世纪 00 年代初的一些领先的公共卫生专家只是说：“所有这些对空气的担忧 ——这只是过时的瘴气概念。
Just rest easy, just put it aside.
放轻松，把它放在一边。
It doesn’t matter.” Literally, some people put that in print.
没关系。”从字面上看，有些人把它打印出来了。
That was really a very strong consensus.
这确实是一个非常强烈的共识。
Even in the 1930s when some crucial experiments started being done, people were still very much primed to ignore it.
即使在 20 世纪 30 年代，当一些重要的实验开始进行时，人们仍然很容易忽视它。
When are airborne allergies first understood?
空气过敏是从什么时候开始被理解的？
Well, it goes back to a British doctor in the 1860s and ’70s, Blackley, who actually thought that he was sneezing because of pollen being released by grass.
嗯，这可以追溯到 1860 年代和 70 年代的一位英国医生布莱克利，他实际上认为自己打喷嚏是因为草释放的花粉。
He would walk by these hay fields, and he would have this terrible hay fever.
他走过这些干草地时，就会患上可怕的花粉症。
He’d say, “I think there’s something in the air.” So, he would rub the pollen and put it in his nose.
他会说：“我觉得空气中有什么东西。”于是，他就揉搓花粉，然后把它放进鼻子里。
He would start sneezing.
他会开始打喷嚏。
He would say, “Well, this is not a good sign.”
他会说：“好吧，这不是一个好兆头。”
Then he started to wonder, in an incredibly visionary way, “Well, these plants all around me, they’re releasing pollen into the air.
然后他开始以一种令人难以置信的幻想方式想知道：“嗯，我周围的这些植物，它们正在向空气中释放花粉。
Where does it go?” No one could say because pollen grains, as you know, are too small for you to really follow by the naked eye.
它去哪儿了？没有人能说清楚，因为正如您所知，花粉粒太小，肉眼无法真正追踪。
So, he would do these amazing things, like he built himself a kite, and he put a little probe on the kite where pollen grains could stick to.
所以，他会做这些令人惊奇的事情，比如他给自己做了一只风筝，然后在风筝上放了一个小探针，让花粉粒可以粘附在上面。
He flew this kite over 1,000 feet in the air.
他把这只风筝飞到了 1,000 多英尺的高空。
He would bring it down, and sometimes he would find pollen grains on it.
他会把它取下来，有时他会在上面发现花粉粒。
It was really astonishing.
实在是太惊人了。
He would fly it over the ocean when the wind was coming from the sea, and he would still get pollen grains.
当风从海上吹来时，他会把它飞过海洋，他仍然可以获得花粉粒。
He would say, “I think that the winds are carrying these living things for hundreds of miles, thousands of feet in the air.”
他会说：“我认为风正带着这些生物在空中飞行数百英里、数千英尺。”
This was an idea that very few people, at the time, really were appreciating.
当时很少有人真正欣赏这个想法。
Now, people thought, “This is silly.” When he published his results, a lot of people dismissed it.
现在，人们认为：“这太愚蠢了。”当他发表他的研究结果时，很多人对此不以为然。
They were sure that hay fever was an infectious disease caused by bacteria.
他们确信花粉热是一种由细菌引起的传染病。
Or some people thought, “Well, it’s a neurosis.”
或者有些人认为，“嗯，这是一种神经症。”
Literally, it wasn’t until the early 1900s — after Blackley had died — that it became clear that, no, actually, what’s happening is that when you’re exposed to certain things like pollen grains that you inhale, in some cases, it’s your own immune system that is mounting an attack on them and making you feel miserable.
从字面上看，直到 1900 年代初——“布莱克利去世后”——人们才清楚地意识到，不，实际上，发生的情况是，当你接触到某些东西，比如你吸入的花粉粒时，在某些情况下，是你自己的免疫系统对它们发起攻击，让你感到痛苦。
It makes your nose run, and makes you cough, and gives you all the symptoms of an allergy.
它会让你流鼻涕，让你咳嗽，并给你带来所有过敏症状。
Blackley himself never really got to see that he was actually right, but it wasn’t that he was getting sick.
布莱克利本人从未真正意识到自己是对的，但这并不是说他生病了。
It was, in a way, that his own body was mounting this incorrect defense called an allergy.
在某种程度上，他自己的身体正在建立一种称为过敏的不正确防御。
Shouldn’t that be one of the easiest hypotheses to establish?
这不应该是最容易建立的假设之一吗？
The seasons change, right?
季节在变，对吗？
The pollen mostly goes away, your allergy goes away.
花粉大部分消失了，你的过敏也消失了。
Or you clear the field of pollen or you move house, and your allergy changes.
或者你清理了花粉区或者你搬家了，你的过敏症就会发生变化。
Shouldn’t people have figured that out in 800 AD or whenever, just right away, and everyone else accepts it because it’s common sense?
难道人们不应该在公元 800 年或任何时候就立刻明白这一点，并且其他人都接受它，因为这是常识吗？
Are we that stupid?
我们有那么傻吗？
I think great ideas can just sit around for a long time waiting to be discovered.
我认为伟大的想法可以放置很长时间等待被发现。
I don’t think that’s unique to airborne disease.
我认为这并不是空气传播疾病所特有的。
I think that’s really true across the board for a lot of different sciences.
我认为对于许多不同的科学来说这确实是正确的。
Certainly, a lot of historians of science have said, “Charles Darwin, brilliant guy, but really, the evidence was there for a long time.
当然，许多科学史学家都说过，“查尔斯·达尔文，才华横溢的人，但实际上，证据已经存在很长时间了。
Someone else should have figured this out first.”
其他人应该先弄清楚这一点。”
At least there, the church is an opponent, so you might be persecuted.
至少在那里，教会是一个对手，所以你可能会受到迫害。
It’s easier for me to understand that mistake, but even that one broke through.
我更容易理解这个错误，但即使是这个错误也被突破了。
It did break through, yes.
它确实突破了，是的。
I think part of the issue is the structure of science.
我认为部分问题在于科学的结构。
When I’m telling you this story about this British doctor who’s flying kites trying to catch pollen grains, it’s just one guy.
当我告诉你这个关于一位英国医生放风筝试图捕捉花粉粒的故事时，这只是一个人。
It’s just one person who’s really miserable with hay fever, who’s trying to understand it for himself.
这只是一个因花粉热而感到痛苦的人，他试图自己理解这一点。
Science really works by numbers.
科学确实是靠数字发挥作用的。
You actually have to study lots and lots and lots of people, and then, if you’re going to try to tie people’s symptoms to the environment in some way, well you’re actually going to have to track them over months, years, and so on, because the environment is changing all the time.
你实际上必须研究很多很多的人，然后，如果你想尝试以某种方式将人们的症状与环境联系起来，那么你实际上必须跟踪他们数月、数年等等，因为环境一直在变化。
Everybody who suffers from hay fever will tell you, “Well, I don’t know.
每个患有花粉症的人都会告诉你：“嗯，我不知道。
For some reason, this spring it’s not so bad.
出于某种原因，今年春天的情况还不错。
I don’t know why.” That doesn’t mean they don’t have hay fever.
我不知道为什么。”这并不意味着他们没有花粉热。
It just means that the environment that’s causing the hay fever is changing a lot.
这只是意味着引起花粉热的环境正在发生很大变化。
So, there are some basic challenges to really appreciating how what we’re breathing in is affecting us.
因此，要真正了解我们呼吸的物质如何影响我们，需要面临一些基本的挑战。
Why was it so hard, at least at first, for the WHO and CDC to talk about and admit the airborne transmission of COVID-19?
为什么 WHO 和 CDC 谈论并承认 COVID-19 通过空气传播如此困难，至少在一开始是这样？
That, to me, also seems inexplicable.
对我来说，这似乎也令人费解。
That was, in a way, one of the entry points for me into writing this book, because during the pandemic and the outset in 2020, a lot of reporters like myself — we were scrambling to write about this entirely new disease, and we were talking with scientists who themselves were scrambling to make sense of this new virus on the scene.
在某种程度上，这是我写这本书的切入点之一，因为在大流行期间和 2020 年伊始，很多像我这样的记者 ——我们都在争先恐后地报道这种全新的疾病，我们正在与科学家交谈，而他们自己也在争先恐后地了解这种新病毒的现场情况。
There were lots of questions, and it seemed really peculiar that there was this big conflict that broke out about how COVID spread, and that it took quite a while for the World Health Organization and the CDC to really just say out loud, “COVID is airborne.”
有很多问题，而且似乎很奇怪的是，关于新冠病毒如何传播的问题爆发了一场大冲突，世界卫生组织和疾病预防控制中心花了很长时间才真正大声说：“新冠病毒是通过空气传播的。”
Now, that is laid out in documents online.
现在，这已在网上文档中列出。
That is generally accepted that airborne transmission is a really important way that COVID spreads, and it does a really good job that way.
人们普遍认为，空气传播是新冠病毒传播的一种非常重要的方式，而且它在这方面做得非常好。
That led me down this path to try to understand why it is that there was this inertia, and I think it goes way, way back.
这引导我走上这条路，试图理解为什么会有这种惯性，我认为它可以追溯到很久以前。
It goes back to these battles I was talking about over the germ theory of disease and the way that airborne transmission, by the early 1900s, was really being seen as something that was just not significant, not something to worry about.
这可以追溯到我所谈论的关于疾病细菌理论的斗争，以及到 1900 年代初期，空气传播的方式确实被视为无关紧要、无需担心的事情。
Even when strong evidence was being put forward by people who we’ve long forgotten about, people like William Firth Wells and his wife, Mildred Wells, other people were looking at the results and being like, “I don’t know.
即使当我们早已忘记的人，比如威廉·弗斯·威尔斯和他的妻子米尔德里德·威尔斯，提出了强有力的证据时，其他人也在看着结果，然后说：“我不知道。
I’m not going to accept that.” There was a consensus, and then that consensus became established as part of public health policy.
我不会接受这一点。”达成了共识，然后该共识成为公共卫生政策的一部分。
It’s also true that if you acknowledge that a disease is airborne and that you really want to deal with it seriously, it’s going to take a lot to really address it.
确实，如果你承认疾病是通过空气传播的，并且你真的想认真对待它，那么要真正解决它就需要付出很大的努力。
If something is just spreading by dry droplets on surfaces and so on, you can tell people, “Just wash your hands, disinfect surfaces, and you’ll be fine.” But it’s quite something else when indoor air is starting to become rife with these pathogens that we are exhaling into it.
如果某些东西只是通过表面上的干燥液滴等传播，你可以告诉人们，“只要洗手，消毒表面，就没事了。”但当室内空气开始充满我们呼出的病原体时，情况就完全不同了。
The common cold is airborne, measles, many, many other things.
普通感冒、麻疹以及许多其他疾病都是通过空气传播的。
The common cold is a kind of coronavirus, right?
普通感冒是冠状病毒的一种，对吗？
So, even taking their bureaucratic nature into account, I still find it utterly baffling that they would’ve resisted that rather than issuing open statements that would’ve given them an out in either direction.
因此，即使考虑到他们的官僚性质，我仍然觉得完全令人困惑的是，他们会抵制这一点，而不是发表公开声明，让他们在任何一个方向上都有出路。
How do you model them bureaucratically?
你如何以官僚方式为他们建模？
I think public health is just a really challenging line of work just because you want to reduce death and disease by coming up with measures that are going to apply across the board to the public, and that depends on what you understand about the disease you are trying to deal with.
我认为公共卫生是一项非常具有挑战性的工作，因为你想通过提出全面适用于公众的措施来减少死亡和疾病，而这取决于你对你要应对的疾病的了解。
Then, when you’re dealing with diseases where we don’t know that much about it yet, you’re in a very tricky situation.
然后，当你面对我们还不太了解的疾病时，你就会陷入非常棘手的境地。
Do you go extremely cautious and say, “This could spread in any different way, and we have to completely silo ourselves off”?
你是否会极其谨慎地说：“这可能会以任何不同的方式传播，我们必须完全自我封闭”？
Or do you say, “Well, we don’t have clear evidence that it’s airborne, so you don’t have to worry about that”?
或者你会说，“好吧，我们没有明确的证据表明它是通过空气传播的，所以你不必担心”？
Where do you draw the line?
你在哪里划清界限？
Public health policy is a hugely difficult and contentious area.
公共卫生政策是一个非常困难且有争议的领域。
It has been since the start of public health.
自公共卫生开始以来一直如此。
Now, along with that, there’s the scientific question of whether these things are airborne or not.
现在，随之而来的科学问题是这些东西是否在空气中传播。
You mentioned measles, for example.
例如，你提到了麻疹。
It wasn’t until the 1970s that people really agreed that measles are airborne, even though it’s incredibly airborne.
直到 20 世纪 70 年代，人们才真正同意麻疹是通过空气传播的，尽管它通过空气传播的程度令人难以置信。
It’s the most contagious disease that we know of.
这是我们所知道的最具传染性的疾病。
COVID might be in the same ballpark now, but it took a long time for people to amass the evidence, to really persuade the community.
新冠病毒现在可能处于同样的情况，但人们花了很长时间才收集证据，才能真正说服社区。
On methods to make indoor air cleaner
浅谈室内空气净化器的制作方法
What’s the rate of return to further investment in ultraviolet lamps now?
现在进一步投资紫外线灯的回报率是多少？
It could be really quite large.
它可能真的很大。
I haven’t seen economic calculations of that, but as I write in Air-Borne, in the book, the idea that you could safeguard the air with ultraviolet light is not new.
我还没有看到这方面的经济计算，但正如我在《Air-Borne》一书中所写的那样，用紫外线保护空气的想法并不新鲜。
In fact, William and Mildred Wells were demonstrating it in the 1930s.
事实上，William 和 Mildred Wells 在 20 世纪 30 年代就已经证明了这一点。
They actually put ultraviolet lamps up in a couple schools in the Philadelphia area and protected the children there from measles outbreaks.
他们实际上在费城地区的几所学校安装了紫外线灯，保护那里的孩子免受麻疹爆发。
They did all sorts of other experiments to at least show that there was a potential promise there.
他们做了各种其他实验，至少表明那里有潜在的希望。
Ultraviolet lamps could potentially really help in certain places to make it possible to just go about our business and relax because the air around us is being disinfected.
紫外线灯在某些地方可能确实有帮助，让我们可以继续工作并放松，因为我们周围的空气正在被消毒。
There still needs to be more research to figure out how you use these lights to safely protect large volumes of air.
仍然需要更多的研究来弄清楚如何使用这些灯来安全地保护大量空气。
You want to make sure that the ultraviolet radiation isn’t in itself creating any harmful compounds in the air that you might breathe, and that might be a problem.
您需要确保紫外线辐射本身不会在您可能呼吸的空气中产生任何有害化合物，这可能是一个问题。
But these are all things that could be addressed.
但这些都是可以解决的问题。
Ultraviolet light could definitely be a part of a real, serious approach to keeping indoor air safe.
紫外线绝对可以成为保持室内空气安全的真正、认真方法的一部分。
Maybe my worry as an economist is that it ends up being too much like patchwork.
也许作为一名经济学家，我担心它最终会变得太像拼凑而成。
You can take any arbitrarily small area and maybe make it safer.
你可以占据任何任意小的区域，也许可以让它更安全。
I don’t pretend to know the science, but say you could, but unless you have ultraviolet lamps more or less everywhere, you’re just redistributing where people will pick up the disease or the other problem.
我不会假装了解科学，但我说你可以，但除非你或多或少到处都有紫外线灯，否则你只是在重新分配人们感染疾病或其他问题的地方。
Isn’t there a property rights issue that makes ultraviolet lamps unlikely to succeed?
难道不是存在产权问题导致紫外线灯不太可能成功吗？
Property rights in what sense?
产权在什么意义上？
Well, there’re so many different property owners who would have to do it.
嗯，有很多不同的业主必须这样做。
You would need a very clear majority of them.
你需要他们中的绝大多数。
Otherwise, you’re just pushing the problem around like toothpaste in a tube.
否则，你只是把问题推到一边，就像管里的牙膏一样。
Well, it’s certainly not the case that ultraviolet light would be the sole trick to protect us from airborne diseases from new pandemics that travel through the air.
嗯，紫外线肯定不是保护我们免受空气传播疾病和通过空气传播的新流行病侵害的唯一方法。
But building engineers who have looked into this and have developed ideas have been arguing that you could put out standards for how clean your indoor air should be, how free of disease, and then you could meet those standards in a number of different ways.
但研究过这个问题并提出想法的建筑工程师一直认为，你可以制定室内空气清洁程度、疾病预防程度的标准，然后你可以通过多种不同的方式来满足这些标准。
One way would be ventilation, fresh air.
一种方法是通风，新鲜空气。
There’s plenty of life outdoors, but that life is much more dilute than what you get in poorly ventilated indoor places.
户外有很多生命，但这种生命比通风不良的室内地方要稀薄得多。
There are lots of ways to bring fresh air into indoor spaces.
有很多方法可以将新鲜空气带入室内空间。
There are air purification systems, there are filters, and so on.
有空气净化系统，有过滤器等等。
There are lots of different things that can be brought to the table.
有很多不同的东西可以带到桌面上。
This is an area of new research, too.
这也是一个新的研究领域。
The US government has a $150 million project underway to develop cutting-edge new sensors that would basically be able to tell you, “We’re detecting flu virus in this building” in real time.
美国政府正在进行一项耗资 1.5 亿美元的项目，旨在开发尖端的新型传感器，这些传感器基本上能够实时告诉您“我们正在这座建筑物中检测到流感病毒”。
Those kinds of technologies could then be yet another way to make sure that the air we breathe is safe.
这些技术可能是确保我们呼吸的空气安全的另一种方法。
How should we reform ventilation in schools?
学校通风换气该如何改造？
Well, there are actually schools that are already doing this.
嗯，实际上已经有学校在这样做了。
It’s a very patchwork thing, but if you look at places like Denver and Boston, they are using combinations of these technologies.
这是一个非常拼凑的事情，但如果你看看丹佛和波士顿这样的地方，他们正在使用这些技术的组合。
They’re improving the ventilation, they’re putting in filters, they’re sometimes putting air purifiers in individual classrooms.
他们正在改善通风，安装过滤器，有时还在个别教室安装空气净化器。
Also, most importantly, they’re finding ways to see how healthy the air is.
此外，最重要的是，他们正在寻找方法来了解空气的健康程度。
The simplest way to do that, actually, is just to measure the level of carbon dioxide in the air.
实际上，最简单的方法就是测量空气中二氧化碳的含量。
This is something that actually people figured out in the mid-1800s, as I write about in the book.
正如我在书中所写的，这实际上是人们在 1800 年代中期就发现的。
If you are sitting there, and you’re talking to me, and you’re exhaling, you are filling the room you’re in with carbon dioxide, and if you don’t have a window open, it’s just going to keep building up gradually.
如果你坐在那里，和我说话，你呼气，你所在的房间就充满了二氧化碳，如果你没有打开窗户，它就会逐渐积聚。
Amazing they figured that out before they figured out airborne disease because carbon dioxide is truly invisible.
令人惊讶的是，他们在发现空气传播疾病之前就发现了这一点，因为二氧化碳确实是看不见的。
Exactly, exactly, yes.
正是，正是，是的。
It is an amazing history, and you really scratch your head.
这是一段令人惊奇的历史，你真的摸不着头脑。
I think one of the most amazing things about that realization is that it was made by a German hygiene scientist named Max von Pettenkofer.
我认为这一认识最令人惊奇的事情之一是，它是由一位名叫马克斯·冯·佩滕科费尔 (Max von Pettenkofer) 的德国卫生科学家提出的。
Von Pettenkofer, himself, was actually a huge champion of the idea of miasmas.
冯·佩滕科费尔本人实际上是瘴气概念的大力拥护者。
He believed that cholera and typhoid and all these other diseases were caused by gases that came out of the ground.
他相信霍乱和伤寒以及所有其他疾病都是由地下的气体引起的。
He had no tolerance for this idea that you were actually ingesting bacteria.
他无法容忍你实际上摄入了细菌的想法。
He just thought that was ridiculous.
他只是觉得这很荒谬。
He even swallowed a whole tube of cholera once to prove that cholera was not caused by waterborne bacteria.
他甚至曾经吞下一整管霍乱，以证明霍乱不是由水传播的细菌引起的。
He was that serious.
他就是那么严肃。
He didn’t feel very well, but he survived, and he decided that proved his case.
他感觉不太舒服，但他活了下来，他决定这证明了他的情况。
Great discovery about carbon dioxide.
关于二氧化碳的伟大发现。
In fact, it was such a great discovery that, when people talk about the safe level of carbon dioxide in a room — sometimes people put it around 1,000 parts per million — they call it the Pettenkofer number.
事实上，这是一个如此伟大的发现，以至于当人们谈论房间内二氧化碳的安全水平时——“有时人们将其定为百万分之 1,000 左右”——他们称之为佩滕科费尔数。
He lives on, and yet he was also incredibly wrong about a fundamental fact about airborne infection.
他还活着，但他对空气传播感染的基本事实也犯了极其错误的看法。
Science just doesn’t follow a neat path the way we’d like.
科学并没有按照我们想要的方式遵循一条清晰的道路。
In a way, that’s one of the things that makes it so interesting to write about.
在某种程度上，这就是写起来如此有趣的原因之一。
I often hear that when I’m flying on a plane, the air is quite good and well-ventilated.
我经常听说坐飞机时，空气很好，通风良好。
Not boarding, not deboarding, but during the flight.
不是登机，也不是下机，而是在飞行过程中。
Is that true?
这是真的吗？
I’ve talked to a few physicists and air-quality experts and, yes, they generally agree that most planes have really good ventilation systems and filtration systems onboard.
我和一些物理学家和空气质量专家交谈过，是的，他们普遍认为大多数飞机上都配备了非常好的通风系统和过滤系统。
Certainly, if there’s somebody with an airborne disease like COVID on your flight, basic physics is going to dictate that when you’re flying, and that system is actually running, your risk is going to be lower because they’re going to pull pathogens out of the air.
当然，如果你的航班上有人患有像新冠肺炎这样的空气传播疾病，基本物理学将表明，当你飞行时，并且该系统实际上正在运行，你的风险会更低，因为它们会从空气中吸走病原体。
On the other hand, when you’re boarding, those systems aren’t on yet, and lots of people are breathing in a small space, and they don’t even have to cough.
另一方面，当你登机时，这些系统还没有启动，很多人都在一个狭小的空间里呼吸，他们甚至不需要咳嗽。
People can just exhale or talk and they might be releasing tiny droplets that float around and can float through the whole cabin.
人们只要呼气或说话，就可能会释放出微小的水滴，这些水滴会漂浮在整个机舱内。
That’s an issue.
这是一个问题。
Then also, if you were to take one of these carbon dioxide meters on a plane — I own one — if you take one on a plane, you’ll notice when you land, that the carbon dioxide level will go way back up again because they turn the filter system off, and you’re taxiing around on the tarmac and waiting to get out.
另外，如果你在飞机上携带一个这样的二氧化碳测量仪 — 我有一个 — 如果你在飞机上携带一个，你会注意到当你着陆时，二氧化碳水平会再次上升，因为他们关闭了过滤系统，而你正在停机坪上滑行并等待离开。
Certainly, it’s something to bear in mind when you’re taking a plane if you’re going to decide whether to wear a mask or not.
当然，如果您要决定是否戴口罩，在乘坐飞机时需要牢记这一点。
That doesn’t mean that your risk is zero when you’re way up in the air and the system is running full-strength.
这并不意味着当您在空中并且系统全力运行时，您的风险为零。
On masking
关于掩蔽
Did anti-COVID masking work?
抗新冠口罩有效吗？
Yes.
是的。
It worked in the sense that there are a number of studies that show that, in different situations when masking policies would’ve been put in place along with other measures, you would see a reduction in risk.
从某种意义上说，它是有效的，因为有许多研究表明，在不同的情况下，当掩盖政策与其他措施一起实施时，你会看到风险的降低。
Are they randomized controlled trials?
它们是随机对照试验吗？
Do we really know?
我们真的知道吗？
Well, there’s been a debate about randomized controlled trials for something like masks.
嗯，关于口罩之类的随机对照试验一直存在争议。
Certainly, there are some experts who say, “You can only judge this based on randomized controlled trials.” But there are other experts who say, “Well, that’s a bit like saying we need a randomized controlled trial to show that hard hats work.
当然，也有专家表示，“只能根据随机对照试验来判断”。但也有其他专家说：“这有点像说我们需要一项随机对照试验来证明安全帽的作用。
The physics shows you how it works.”
物理学向你展示了它是如何运作的。”
Now, do people need to use these things carefully?
现在，人们需要谨慎使用这些东西吗？
Yes.
是的。
Definitely, but you can study the way that these masks trap particles and so on to show that you’re just going to breathe less virus-laden air.
当然可以，但是您可以研究这些口罩捕获颗粒的方式等，以表明您将呼吸更少的病毒空气。
Also, randomized controlled trials themselves — they can be very effective in many different settings, but they’re not perfect.
此外，随机对照试验本身——它们在许多不同的环境下都非常有效，但并不完美。
If you run a clinical trial with poor study design or if you analyze it incorrectly, it’s not going to be as good as if you were to be taking more careful measures.
如果您进行的临床试验的研究设计不佳或者分析不正确，那么效果就不会像您采取更仔细的措施那样好。
So, I would say, yes, there’s certainly a debate that’s going on in the community, but certainly, in a number of reviews that have been coming out recently, the consensus is that masks do help.
所以，我想说，是的，社区中确实存在一场争论，但当然，在最近发表的一些评论中，共识是口罩确实有帮助。
I would think the strongest argument for masks was simply that a lot of people hated them, and so they would stay home instead.
我认为对口罩最有力的论据很简单，就是很多人讨厌它们，所以他们会呆在家里。
We know that would work, but when people are making analogies to things like hard hats, where it’s very, very obvious physically what’s happening, that’s a sign the argument is quite weak.
我们知道这会起作用，但是当人们对安全帽之类的东西进行类比时，在物理上发生的事情非常非常明显，这表明这个论点相当薄弱。
If I go to a social gathering for two hours, either with a mask or without a mask, and I don’t mean the highest quality medical masks — we know they work — I think it’s highly uncertain whether masks work.
如果我参加两个小时的社交聚会，无论戴口罩还是不戴口罩，我指的并不是最高质量的医用口罩 ——“我们知道它们有效”—— 我认为口罩是否有效是高度不确定的。
I’ve read a good half dozen of those papers.
我读过其中六篇论文。
I didn’t think they were really very good.
我不认为他们真的很好。
I came away agnostic.
我离开时是不可知论的。
Not convinced masks don’t work, but it seemed to me the public health community was far too optimistic about masks and were not really following their own standards of evidence.
不相信口罩不起作用，但在我看来，公共卫生界对口罩过于乐观，并没有真正遵循他们自己的证据标准。
Why is that wrong?
为什么这是错误的？
Well, there are many different aspects to something as seemingly simple as masking.
嗯，像屏蔽这样看似简单的事情有很多不同的方面。
Part of the question is, what kind of masks are we talking about?
部分问题是，我们谈论的是哪种口罩？
The Center for Disease Control, when it decided, “Oh, maybe COVID is spreading through the air, and we need to think really fast of ways to stop it, and we have this shortage of surgical masks and N95 respirators,” they said, “Well, just put on a cloth mask.
疾病控制中心决定，“哦，也许新冠病毒正在通过空气传播，我们需要尽快想办法阻止它，而我们缺少外科口罩和 N95 呼吸器，”他们说，“好吧，戴上布口罩就可以了。”
Maybe that will reduce the risk somewhat.” That was a public health measure based on some small studies from a few years before.
也许这会在一定程度上降低风险。”这是一项基于几年前一些小型研究的公共卫生措施。
But again, there are cloth masks, there are surgical masks, there are N95 masks, there are these masks that are called duckbill masks.
但同样，有布口罩，有外科口罩，有N95口罩，还有这些被称为鸭嘴口罩的口罩。
When you’re asking, “Does masking work?” one of the questions is, what kind of masks are we talking about?
当你问“掩蔽有用吗？”时问题之一是，我们谈论的是哪种口罩？
Then we’re saying, “How are people using those masks?
然后我们会问，“人们如何使用这些口罩？
When people say they’re using the mask, do you see them with their nose hanging out of it?” That’s not going to work.
当人们说他们正在使用口罩时，你是否看到他们的鼻子悬在口罩外面？”那是行不通的。
In the same way that if you say, “Oh, motorcycle helmets will help reduce deaths on the road.” Sometimes you see someone with a helmet on and it’s unstrapped, and you’re like, “Well, that’s not going to work.”
同样，如果您说：“哦，摩托车头盔将有助于减少道路上的死亡人数。”有时你看到有人戴着头盔，但头盔没有带，你会想，“好吧，那是行不通的。”
There are a lot of these questions that go into it.
有很多这样的问题。
You will certainly see some studies that may not inspire you.
您肯定会看到一些可能不会激发您灵感的研究。
But I’ve looked at a lot of these studies and talked to a lot of experts, and I would say, just judging from where we are now, that’s the consensus that I described before.
但我看过很多这样的研究，并与很多专家交谈过，我想说，从我们现在的情况来看，这就是我之前描述的共识。
On the anthrax mailings, aerobiology, and microplastics
关于炭疽邮件、有氧生物学和微塑料
What’s your best theory about the anthrax mailings?
关于炭疽邮件，你最好的理论是什么？
I can only go on all of the investigations that went into this at the time.
我只能继续进行当时的所有调查。
Just to refresh people’s memories, in the wake of 9/11 when these planes crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, there was a real fear about an airborne disease attack because biological weapons, which are basically weaponized airborne diseases — they had been developed in the United States and elsewhere for decades, and so there were these worries that maybe Iraq or terrorist organizations had gotten hold of some of these weapons and were going to use them.
只是为了唤起人们的记忆，在9/11事件之后，当这些飞机撞上世界贸易中心和五角大楼时，人们对空气传播疾病袭击产生了真正的恐惧，因为生物武器，基本上是武器化的空气传播疾病——它们已经在美国和其他地方开发了几十年，所以有人担心伊拉克或恐怖组织可能已经掌握了其中一些武器并打算使用它们。
The first hint that this might have happened was that envelopes started showing up at news offices and elsewhere with powdered anthrax.
可能发生这种情况的第一个迹象是，新闻办公室和其他地方开始出现装有炭疽粉的信封。
People would open it up, and it would go into the air, and they might inhale it.
人们会打开它，它会进入空气中，他们可能会吸入它。
In a number of cases, people died.
在许多情况下，有人死亡。
The first idea was, “Oh, this must be Al-Qaeda.
第一个想法是：“哦，这肯定是基地组织。
It must be a terrorist attack.” This is what we were terrified of.
这一定是恐怖袭击。”这正是我们所害怕的。
All those fears and all that terror, actually, I think, distracted people, and it took quite a while for the FBI and scientists to get a better handle on it.
我认为，所有这些恐惧和恐惧实际上分散了人们的注意力，联邦调查局和科学家花了相当长的时间才更好地处理它。
When they looked at the actual anthrax itself, they said, “This is not something that was made in some Soviet lab.
当他们看到真正的炭疽病本身时，他们说：“这不是某个苏联实验室制造的东西。
This looks like it was just here in the good old USA,” specifically at Fort Detrick, which was the headquarters of this aerobiological germ warfare research since World War II.
这看起来就像是在古老的美国，”特别是在德特里克堡，这里是二战以来空中生物细菌战研究的总部。
There was a person who was identified by the FBI and was going to be arrested, and he committed suicide before he could be arrested.
有一个人被FBI查出身份，准备逮捕，还没来得及逮捕，他就自杀了。
I think that it’s plausible that he was the one.
我认为他就是那个人是合理的。
I certainly haven’t seen compelling evidence of alternate ideas, but unfortunately —
我当然还没有看到替代想法的令人信服的证据，但不幸的是 -
But there’s been no evidence actually linking him to it.
但没有证据表明他确实与此有关。
You would think, “Well, once he’s dead, it would be easy to find all the ties, the connections, things in his home, notes he made, something.” As far as I know, there was nothing.
你可能会想，“好吧，一旦他死了，就很容易找到所有的联系、联系、他家里的东西、他做的笔记等等。”据我所知，什么也没有。
Yes, right.
是的，没错。
There have been people who have questioned zeroing in on him and people who have come to his defense as someone who wouldn’t do something like this.
有人质疑他的攻击目标，也有人为他辩护，认为他不会做这样的事情。
But until there’s more evidence, it’s really hard to make a theory that would be a responsible one to consider.
但在有更多证据之前，很难提出一种值得考虑的负责任的理论。
As you note in your book, the field of what’s called aerobiology — there’s been a lot of military and national security, almost a domination of the field, a lot of funding but also a lot of influence.
正如您在书中指出的那样，所谓的空气生物学领域存在很多军事和国家安全问题，几乎占据了该领域的主导地位，有大量资金，但也有很大影响力。
On net, do you think that has helped or hurt the field relative to the counterfactual of that not being there?
在网上，你认为相对于不存在的反事实而言，这对这个领域有帮助还是有害？
I argue in the book that the way that aerobiology got turned into biological warfare was quite a tragedy because this was a science that, at the time, was just getting off the ground.
我在书中认为，空气生物学变成生物战的方式是一场相当悲剧，因为这门科学在当时刚刚起步。
In fact, the very name aerobiology had been coined in 1937 by a researcher named Fred Meier who was really emerging.
事实上，有氧生物学这个名字是 1937 年由一位真正崭露头角的研究人员 Fred Meier 创造的。
He was going to lead aerobiology into the modern age and going to turn it into what might have been a really remarkable new science.
他将带领空气生物学进入现代，并将其变成一门真正非凡的新科学。
He died in a plane crash.
他死于飞机失事。
That’s what happens when you’re looking for life in the air, unfortunately.
不幸的是，当你在空中寻找生命时，就会发生这种情况。
Shortly afterwards, in World War II, the US military basically started classifying lots of information about how diseases spread through the air, and lots of people came to what was then Camp Detrick to do research that could have been really helpful to understanding airborne disease if it hadn’t been classified.
不久之后，在第二次世界大战中，美国军方基本上开始对大量有关疾病如何通过空气传播的信息进行分类，很多人来到当时的德特里克营进行研究，如果不进行分类，这些研究可能对了解空气传播疾病非常有帮助。
It was classified, and most of it stayed classified for a very long time, and it was almost like a brain drain.
它是保密的，而且大部分都长期保密，几乎就像人才流失一样。
William Firth Wells, who I mentioned before, who really pioneered the idea that you can get sick from the air around you inside of buildings and so on — he had no idea that a lot of his basic ideas and technology had been used by the Army in World War II to develop this biological war machine.
我之前提到过的威廉·弗斯·威尔斯（William Firth Wells）真正开创了这样的想法，即你可能会因建筑物内周围的空气而生病……他不知道他的许多基本想法和技术已被陆军在第二次世界大战中用来开发这种生物战争机器。
He was appalled after the war.
战后他感到震惊。
The way he described its effect on science is, it was the suicide of bacteriology.
他描述其对科学的影响是，这是细菌学的自杀。
In other words, he just thought this was a terrible thing for scientists to do.
换句话说，他只是认为这对科学家来说是一件可怕的事情。
Instead of trying to look in the air and figure out how to protect lives — to develop better and better weapons for killing people, for causing mass starvation, and so on.
与其试图看看空中并弄清楚如何保护生命，不如开发越来越好的武器来杀人、造成大规模饥饿等等。
This was true not just in the United States, but in other countries, especially the Soviet Union, where there was this focus on trying to use aerobiology as a new theater of war.
这不仅在美国如此，在其他国家也是如此，尤其是苏联，那里的重点是尝试将航空生物学用作新的战区。
It even affects our public health, I would argue.
我认为，它甚至会影响我们的公共健康。
Instead of looking at public health as an opportunity to reform the conditions in which we are in order to promote health and well-being, to some extent, public health, especially in the United States, became a fight against an enemy attack.
在某种程度上，公共卫生，特别是在美国，并没有将公共卫生视为改革我们所处条件以促进健康和福祉的机会，而是成为对抗敌人攻击的斗争。
Literally, the same people who were building a lot of our modern public health system were consulting with the army on biological warfare.
从字面上看，建立我们许多现代公共卫生系统的人正在就生物战问题向军队进行咨询。
Some of my friends worry about microplastics in the air.
我的一些朋友担心空气中的微塑料。
Should they worry?
他们应该担心吗？
I think we need to be studying it, absolutely.
我认为我们绝对需要研究它。
There’s no question.
毫无疑问。
In my book, I’m really focused on living things in the air.
在我的书中，我非常关注空气中的生物。
We have put lots of other things into the air.
我们还把很多其他东西抛到了空中。
Microplastics are a new addition to air pollution, but even just good old particulate matter from cars and power plants and so on kills several million people around the world every year.
微塑料是空气污染的新补充，但即使是汽车和发电厂等产生的旧颗粒物，每年也会导致世界各地数百万人死亡。
It’s a major attack on human health.
这是对人类健康的重大攻击。
So yes, microplastics, I think, certainly bear more research, not just in the air, but in our water, everywhere.
所以，是的，我认为，微塑料肯定需要更多的研究，不仅在空气中，而且在我们的水中，无处不在。
On life out there
关于外面的生活
I have some questions about your other books.
我对你的其他书有一些疑问。
How much do you think there’s life on icy moons, typically in oceans?
您认为冰冷的卫星（通常在海洋中）上有多少生命？
In my book, Life’s Edge, I was writing about how far we can push our concepts of life and can we think about life elsewhere.
在我的书《生命的边缘》中，我写的是我们可以将我们的生活概念推向多远，以及我们是否可以在其他地方思考生活。
I certainly think that the icy moons of the outer solar system are the most interesting place to look for life.
我当然认为外太阳系的冰冷卫星是寻找生命最有趣的地方。
Mars — that’s great, that’s fine.
火星 —— 太好了，很好。
I wish them well as they’re digging through the dust and the dirt.
我祝愿他们在灰尘和泥土中挖掘时一切顺利。
But imagine drilling down through the ice and sending a probe into a huge ocean.
但想象一下钻穿冰层并将探测器送入广阔的海洋。
What is that world like?
那个世界是什么样的？
It might have life in it, or at the very least, it might have some really interesting chemistry.
它可能有生命，或者至少，它可能有一些非常有趣的化学反应。
Maybe these are places where life has yet to form.
也许这些是生命尚未形成的地方。
I can’t say whether there’s life there or not, but there’s certainly good reason to think that there might be life there, and if there isn’t, that might be a place to get some clues about how life begins on places like our own planet.
我不能说那里是否有生命，但肯定有充分的理由认为那里可能有生命，如果没有，那可能是一个获得一些线索的地方，了解像我们自己的星球这样的地方生命是如何开始的。
What’s your point estimate for there being life on the icy moons in our solar system?
您对太阳系冰冷卫星上是否存在生命的估计是多少？
I have not done that math.
我还没有做过这个数学计算。
But there’s some bet I could offer you where you would take it, right?
但我可以打赌你会接受它，对吗？
Just intuitively.
只是凭直觉。
If I offer you 100:1 odds, you’ll take the bet, right?
如果我给你 100:1 的赔率，你就会下注，对吗？
1,000:1 odds, yes.
1,000:1 的赔率，是的。
Let me put it this way: I think, on a planet-by-planet, moon-by-moon basis, it’s very unlikely that there’s life out there, but there’re so many planets and moons in even our galaxy that I’m sure that there is life of some form elsewhere.
让我这样说吧：我认为，从每个行星、每个月球的角度来看，那里不太可能存在生命，但即使在我们的银河系中也有如此多的行星和卫星，我确信其他地方也存在某种形式的生命。
Whether it’s right next door in our solar system, I think it’s highly unlikely, but I think it’s likely enough that I would love for us to go check it out.
无论它是否就在我们太阳系的隔壁，我认为这不太可能，但我认为它很可能足以让我们去检查一下。
Even Venus.
甚至金星。
There are actually other people who say, “Well, forget those icy moons.
实际上还有其他人说：“好吧，忘记那些冰冷的卫星吧。
Forget Mars.
忘记火星吧。
What about Venus?” This actually ties into Air-Borne, my book, because you might think, “Venus, that’s crazy.
维纳斯呢？”这实际上与我的书《Air-Born》有关，因为你可能会想，“维纳斯，这太疯狂了。
It’s so hot on the surface of Venus, you can melt lead in that air.”
金星表面非常热，空气中的铅都可以熔化。”
But the fact is that when you get pretty high up in the atmosphere there, there are clouds up there where things aren’t that bad.
但事实是，当你到达大气层相当高的地方时，那里有云，情况并没有那么糟糕。
We have clouds here on Earth that have lots of microbes in them.
地球上的云层里有很多微生物。
They get into the clouds, they hang out there, then they fall back out and more come in.
它们进入云层，在那里闲逛，然后又掉下来，更多的东西进来。
So, there could be this aerial life on Venus.
所以，金星上可能存在这种空中生命。
Maybe life started on the surface of Venus and then rose up into the air, and now it’s staying up there.
也许生命始于金星表面，然后上升到空中，现在就留在那里。
We’re at n=2.
我们的 n=2。
The one ocean we know has life, the one set of clouds we know has life, and you won’t take a 100:1 bet that there’s life somewhere else in the solar system?
我们知道的一片海洋有生命，我们知道的一组云也有生命，你不会以 100:1 的赌注认为太阳系其他地方也有生命吗？
I would think you should take a 10:1 bet on that one.
我认为你应该以 10:1 的比例下注。
No one’s offered me the money yet, so I haven’t really had to put my money where my mouth is.
还没有人给我钱，所以我还没有真正把钱放在嘴边。
Yes, that’s something to think about.
是的，这是值得考虑的事情。
On Lee Cronin
安·李·克罗宁
Is Lee Cronin right or insane?
李·克罗宁是对还是疯了？
Lee Cronin is a chemist in Scotland at University of Glasgow.
李·克罗宁 (Lee Cronin) 是苏格兰格拉斯哥大学的化学家。
He has this idea that you can explain life with a theory that he and others call assembly theory, which is about, basically, how many steps does it take for something to get produced?
他的想法是，你可以用他和其他人称之为组装理论的理论来解释生命，该理论基本上是关于生产某物需要多少步骤？
The things in our bodies, the molecules that make us up — some of them are very small and simple, but some of them are exquisitely big and complex.
我们身体里的东西，构成我们的分子——有些非常小而简单，但有些又大又复杂。
Lee and others argue that life is what is able to assemble things beyond a certain threshold.
李和其他人认为，生命是能够将事物组装到一定阈值之上的东西。
This might be a way to actually identify life on a planet, even if you don’t know what life is made of.
这可能是一种真正识别行星上生命的方法，即使你不知道生命是由什么构成的。
We can’t assume that life is just made of DNA; that’s an unreasonable assumption.
我们不能假设生命只是由 DNA 构成；这是一个不合理的假设。
Life on Earth already blows our minds in many ways — at least mine.
地球上的生命已经在很多方面让我们大吃一惊——至少是我的。
Life on other worlds — maybe that bet is right, and there’s life on Enceladus or some other icy moon.
其他星球上的生命 ——也许这个赌注是对的，土卫二或其他冰冷的卫星上也有生命。
It might be really, really, really strange, but maybe we can recognize it by this assembly index.
这可能真的、真的、真的很奇怪，但也许我们可以通过这个汇编索引来识别它。
Not only could this assembly theory be a way to recognize life, but it might be actually a way, Lee Cronin thinks, to make life.
李·克罗宁认为，这种组装理论不仅可以成为认识生命的一种方式，而且实际上可能是一种创造生命的方式。
In other words, it guides you in basically creating a set of chemical reactions where you’re creating these .
换句话说，它基本上会指导您创建一组化学反应。
.
。
.
。
right now, he’s got these robots that are basically making droplets with different chemicals in them in these vast numbers of combinations.
现在，他拥有这些机器人，这些机器人基本上可以通过大量的组合来制造含有不同化学物质的液滴。
He’s wondering if they will eventually start to take on some of the hallmarks of life.
他想知道它们最终是否会开始呈现出一些生命的特征。
In other words, yes, he is trying to make life.
换句话说，是的，他正在努力创造生活。
He’s actively trying to make life right now.
他现在正在积极地努力创造生活。
A lot of people think he’s crazy.
很多人认为他疯了。
A lot of people think he’s quite brilliant.
很多人都认为他非常聪明。
Some people think he’s both.
有些人认为他两者都是。
COWEN: I like him.
考恩：我喜欢他。
I don’t know if he’s right.
我不知道他说得对不对。
He’s a lot of fun to talk to.
和他聊天很有趣。
Absolutely, yes.
绝对是的。
It’s been really interesting watching assembly theory come to the fore recently.
最近组装理论的兴起真的很有趣。
Some scientists really take badly to it in a very hostile way, but this is often the case.
有些科学家确实以一种非常敌对的方式对待它，但情况往往如此。
It feels like sometimes people are just talking past each other and they’re not really speaking the same language.
感觉有时人们只是在互相交谈，而实际上他们并没有说同一种语言。
Because assembly theory is new and it’s very interdisciplinary, I think it’s going to take a while for the scientific community to really engage with it and decide whether it holds up or not.
因为组装理论是新的，而且是跨学科的，我认为科学界需要一段时间才能真正参与其中并决定它是否成立。
As I argue in Life’s Edge, life is a property of matter.
正如我在《生命边缘》中所说，生命是物质的属性。
Scientists are trying to explain it, and some of them are trying to explain with a theory.
科学家们正在试图解释它，其中一些人试图用理论来解释。
Superconductivity is a property of matter, and there were a bunch of theories that were put forward about it, including by Einstein, and they were wrong.
超导性是物质的一种属性，人们提出了很多关于它的理论，包括爱因斯坦的理论，但它们都是错误的。
It wasn’t until, eventually, some people came up with the right theory that really clicked in and had a powerful explanatory power.
直到最终，一些人提出了真正切合实际并具有强大解释力的正确理论。
We’re not there yet with life.
我们还没有到达生活的彼岸。
Maybe Lee Cronin is going to be like Einstein and he’s wrong, or maybe he will be one of the people who is right.
也许李·克罗宁会像爱因斯坦一样，但他是错的，或者也许他会成为正确的人之一。
On using DNA for decision making
论利用 DNA 进行决策
Over time, how much will DNA information enter our daily lives?
随着时间的推移，会有多少DNA信息进入我们的日常生活？
To give a strange example, imagine that, for a college application, you have to upload some of your DNA.
举一个奇怪的例子，想象一下，对于大学申请，你必须上传一些你的 DNA。
Now to unimaginative people, that will sound impossible, but if you think about the equilibrium rolling itself out slowly — well, at first, students disclose their DNA, and over time, the DNA becomes used for job hiring, for marriage, in many other ways.
对于缺乏想象力的人来说，这听起来不可能，但如果你考虑一下均衡会慢慢地展开——好吧，一开始，学生们会公开他们的 DNA，随着时间的推移，这些 DNA 会被用于工作招聘、婚姻以及许多其他方面。
Is this our future equilibrium, that genetic information will play this very large role, given how many qualities seem to be at least 40 percent to 60 percent inheritable, maybe more?
考虑到有多少品质似乎至少有 40% 到 60% 甚至更多是可遗传的，遗传信息将发挥如此大的作用，这就是我们未来的平衡吗？
The term that a scientist in this field would use would be heritable, not inheritable.
该领域的科学家使用的术语是可遗传的，而不是可遗传的。
Heritability is a slippery thing to think about.
遗传性是一个难以思考的问题。
I write a lot about that in my book, She Has Her Mother’s Laugh, which is about heredity in general.
我在《她有母亲的笑声》一书中写了很多关于这一点的内容，这本书是关于遗传的。
Heritability really is just saying, “Okay, in a certain situation, if I look at different people or different animals or different plants, how much of their variation can I connect with variation in their genome?” That’s it.
遗传性实际上只是说，“好吧，在某种情况下，如果我观察不同的人或不同的动物或不同的植物，我可以将他们的变异有多少与他们基因组的变异联系起来？”就是这样。
Can you then use that variability to make predictions about what’s going to happen in the future?
那么你能利用这种变化来预测未来会发生什么吗？
That is a totally different question in many —
对于许多人来说，这是一个完全不同的问题——
But it’s not totally different.
但这并不是完全不同。
Your whole family’s super smart.
你们全家都超级聪明。
If I knew nothing about you, and I knew about the rest of your family, I’d be more inclined to let you into Yale, and that would’ve been a good decision.
如果我对你一无所知，而且我了解你家人的其他情况，我会更倾向于让你进入耶鲁大学，那将是一个不错的决定。
Again, only on average, but just basic statistics implies that.
同样，这只是平均水平，但只是基本统计数据就表明了这一点。
You’re very kind, but what do you mean by intelligent?
你很善良，但你所说的聪明是什么意思？
I’d like to think I’m pretty good with words and that I can understand scientific concepts.
我想我的文字表达能力很好，并且能够理解科学概念。
I remember in college getting to a certain point with calculus and being like, “I’m done,” and then watching other people sail on.
我记得在大学里，当我在微积分上达到一定程度时，我会说“我已经完成了”，然后看着其他人继续前进。
Look, you’re clearly very smart.
看，你显然非常聪明。
The New York Times recognizes this.
《纽约时报》认识到了这一点。
We all know statistics is valid.
我们都知道统计数据是有效的。
There aren’t any certainties.
没有任何确定性。
It sounds like you’re running away from the science.
听起来你正在逃避科学。
Just endorse the fact you came from a very smart family, and that means it’s quite a bit more likely that you’ll be very smart too.
只要承认你来自一个非常聪明的家庭这一事实，这意味着你很有可能也非常聪明。
Eventually, the world will start using that information, would be the auxiliary hypothesis.
最终，世界将开始使用该信息，这将是辅助假设。
I’m asking you, how much will it?
我就问你，要多少钱？
The question that we started with was about actually uploading DNA.
我们一开始的问题是关于实际上传 DNA。
Then the question becomes, how much of that information about the future can you get out of DNA?
那么问题就变成了，你能从 DNA 中获得多少关于未来的信息？
I think that you just have to be incredibly cautious about jumping to conclusions about it because the genome is a wild and woolly place in there, and the genome exists in environments.
我认为你必须非常谨慎地得出结论，因为基因组是一个野生的、毛茸茸的地方，而且基因组存在于环境中。
Even if you see broad correlations on a population level, as a college admission person, I would certainly not feel confident just scanning someone’s DNA for information in that regard.
即使你在人口层面上看到了广泛的相关性，作为一名大学招生人员，我肯定不会有信心仅仅通过扫描某人的 DNA 来获取这方面的信息。
Oh, that wouldn’t be all you would do, right?
哦，这不是你会做的全部，对吧？
They do plenty of other things now.
他们现在做了很多其他事情。
Over time, say for job hiring, we’ll have the AI evaluate your interview, the AI evaluate your DNA.
随着时间的推移，比如说招聘工作，我们会让人工智能评估你的面试，人工智能评估你的 DNA。
It’ll be highly imperfect, but at some point, institutions will start doing it, if not in this country, somewhere else — China, Singapore, UAE, wherever.
这将是非常不完美的，但在某个时候，机构将会开始这样做，即使不是在这个国家，也会在其他地方——中国、新加坡、阿联酋，无论哪里。
They’re not going to be so shy, right?
他们不会那么害羞，对吧？
I can certainly imagine people wanting to do that stuff regardless of the strength of the approach.
我当然可以想象人们想要做这些事情，无论这种方法的强度如何。
Certainly, even in the early 1900s, we saw people more than willing to use ideas about inherited levels of intelligence to, for example, decide which people should be institutionalized, who should be allowed into the United States or not.
当然，即使在 1900 年代初期，我们也看到人们非常愿意利用关于遗传智力水平的想法来决定，例如，哪些人应该被送进收容机构，哪些人应该被允许进入美国。
For example, Jews were considered largely to be developmentally disabled at one point, especially the Jews from Eastern Europe.
例如，犹太人一度被认为在很大程度上存在发育障碍，尤其是来自东欧的犹太人。
We have seen that people are certainly more than eager to jump from the basic findings of DNA to all sorts of conclusions which often serve their own interests.
我们已经看到，人们当然非常渴望从 DNA 的基本发现跳到通常符合他们自己利益的各种结论。
I think we should be on guard that we not do that again.
我认为我们应该警惕，不要再这样做了。
Will embryo selection ever become completely socially accepted?
胚胎选择会被社会完全接受吗？
Because there are people doing it now, right?
因为现在有人在做，对吗？
It’s not yet a thing, but it’s growing.
它还不是一个东西，但它正在增长。
Certainly, with IVF, people are going to want to select the embryos that have the most likely chance of surviving, so you’re going to take a look for any sort of clear abnormalities.
当然，通过试管受精，人们会想要选择最有可能存活的胚胎，所以你要检查是否有任何明显的异常。
Let’s say that you have a dominant genetic disorder like Huntington’s disease.
假设您患有亨廷顿舞蹈症等显性遗传性疾病。
The technology is there that you could say, “We created these fertilized embryos.
你可以用这项技术说：“我们创造了这些受精胚胎。
Let’s not use the ones that are carrying this marker.”
我们不要使用带有这个标记的那些。”
But you can even go before that.
但你甚至可以在那之前去。
Potentially, you could say, even before fertilization, “We’re going to just take out the sperm or the eggs that have a marker for one of these strongly inherited diseases like Huntington’s disease.” Will people then move on to that future?
你可能会说，甚至在受精之前，“我们就会取出带有亨廷顿病等强遗传性疾病之一标记的精子或卵子。”人们会走向那个未来吗？
I can’t predict whether they will or not, and whether they should or not, I think is a separate issue.
我无法预测他们是否愿意，以及他们是否应该，我认为是一个单独的问题。
But again, I think one of the dangers is that people will convince themselves that the information we have about DNA is going to ensure things about their kids that they can’t be sure about.
但我再次认为，危险之一是人们会说服自己，我们掌握的有关 DNA 的信息将确保他们孩子的一些事情是他们无法确定的。
Then you’re going to have this lifetime of watching your kid not live up to your genetically encoded expectations.
那么你这辈子就会看着你的孩子达不到你基因编码的期望。
That’s one of many dangers I see in going down this road.
这是我在这条路上看到的众多危险之一。
Why do you think the Flynn effect seems to be so especially strong for the Raven’s part of IQ tests?
你认为为什么弗林效应对于智商测试中乌鸦的部分显得如此特别强烈？
This has puzzled me for a long time.
这让我困惑了很长时间。
Do you have a hypothesis?
你有一个假设吗？
I certainly haven’t done my own original research on it.
我当然没有对此进行过自己的原创研究。
I’m a journalist, not a scientist.
我是一名记者，不是科学家。
But you’ve read plenty, right?
但你已经读了很多书了，对吧？
Sure.
当然。
You have a sense of the field.
你对这个领域有感觉。
Yes, absolutely.
是的，绝对是。
I’ve read about it, in part, because it’s just this fascinating thing that there’s been this increase in IQ scores, and it’s certainly not a result of some sort of genetic process.
我读到过这件事，部分原因是因为智商分数的提高是一件令人着迷的事情，而且这肯定不是某种遗传过程的结果。
You cannot explain a rise in IQ scores in so many different countries because somehow people are being born with different kinds of DNA in some sort of evolutionary process.
你无法解释如此多不同国家的智商分数上升，因为不知何故，人们在某种进化过程中出生时就带有不同种类的 DNA。
That is not happening, so what is happening?
那并没有发生，那么发生了什么？
I think that there probably are several different explanations for it.
我认为对此可能有几种不同的解释。
One of them might be that kids grow up in an environment where everyday life is more about the kinds of thinking that you encounter on an IQ test.
其中之一可能是，孩子们成长的环境中，日常生活更多的是关于智商测试中遇到的各种思维。
People are using digital devices, for example.
例如，人们正在使用数字设备。
There could be a way that the kind of life we’re leading just leads to people doing better on IQ tests.
我们现在的生活方式可能会导致人们在智商测试中表现更好。
Certainly, some people do better than others.
当然，有些人比其他人做得更好。
Is there an influence of DNA on that?
DNA对此有影响吗？
Yes, I think the evidence is there that there is.
是的，我认为证据是存在的。
It’s not necessarily a huge account.
这不一定是一个巨大的帐户。
In any case, you can have these different things happening all at once.
无论如何，您可以同时发生这些不同的事情。
It’s something interesting.
这很有趣。
It’s frustrating that it’s really hard to actually take these different hypotheses about the Flynn effect.
令人沮丧的是，实际上很难接受这些关于弗林效应的不同假设。
Maybe it’s something about our health.
也许这与我们的健康有关。
How do you really rigorously test those things?
你如何真正严格地测试这些东西？
I haven’t seen a lot of rigorous tests of the different hypotheses.
我还没有看到对不同假设的很多严格测试。
I’ve just seen people say, “Well, this could explain it,” which is fine, but not totally satisfying.
我刚刚看到人们说，“好吧，这可以解释它”，这很好，但并不完全令人满意。
On non-mainstream views
论非主流观点
If we take the entirety of science, you’ve written on many topics in a very useful way, science policy.
如果我们考虑整个科学，您已经以非常有用的方式撰写了许多主题，即科学政策。
Where do you think your views are furthest from the mainstream or the orthodoxy?
您认为您的观点在哪些方面与主流或正统观念最远？
Where do you have the weirdest take relative to other people you know and respect?
与你认识和尊重的其他人相比，你最奇怪的看法在哪里？
I think we should just do plenty of human challenge trials.
我认为我们应该做大量的人体挑战试验。
That would be an example of something you might say, but what would the answer be for you?
这就是你可能会说的话的一个例子，但对你来说答案是什么？
You mean human challenge trials for influenza and things like that?
你是指针对流感之类的人体挑战试验吗？
Whatever we need to.
无论我们需要什么。
We should have for COVID, right?
我们应该有新冠病毒，对吗？
It would have sped up the vaccine, saved thousands or maybe more lives.
它将加快疫苗的研制速度，挽救数千甚至更多的生命。
Rather than wait for people to be infected, you infect them deliberately and call for volunteers.
你不是等待人们被感染，而是故意感染他们并呼吁志愿者。
You can pay them if you need to.
如果需要，您可以向他们付款。
That would be a view I have that’s somewhat outside the mainstream, though less outside than it used to be.
我的观点在某种程度上脱离了主流，尽管比以前少了一些。
What would two or three of your non-mainstream views be?
您的两三个非主流观点是什么？
The thing is, when I am writing about science itself, in terms of the scientific findings that are coming out every day, and I tell people about them, they’ll say, “What?
问题是，当我写科学本身时，根据每天出现的科学发现，当我告诉人们这些发现时，他们会说，“什么？
That is crazy.” I’ll just be like, “I’m just telling you about what scientists are discovering about our world.” If I describe what whale scientists are discovering about how whales communicate, I’m not going wildly beyond what they’re finding and their theories, but to most people, that’s crazy that whales can hear each other across oceans and can change their songs.
这太疯狂了。”我会说，“我只是告诉你科学家对我们这个世界的发现。”如果我描述鲸鱼科学家关于鲸鱼如何交流的发现，我不会远远超出他们的发现和理论，但对大多数人来说，鲸鱼可以跨越海洋互相听到对方的声音并可以改变它们的歌曲，这太疯狂了。
But that’s mainstream now, right?
但现在这已经是主流了，对吧？
Yes.
是的。
You’re just endorsing the mainstream, and I would agree with that.
你只是支持主流，我同意这一点。
I think whales might be smarter than humans.
我认为鲸鱼可能比人类更聪明。
That’s a non-mainstream view I have.
这是我的非主流观点。
What are your non-mainstream views?
你的非主流观点是什么？
It’s interesting that I’m drawing a blank on that, simply because I am just so dazzled by so much that I learn about in terms of the scientific world.
有趣的是，我对此一片空白，仅仅是因为我对科学世界的了解如此之多，让我眼花缭乱。
The scientific mainstream can be quite mind-blowing to everybody else.
科学主流对其他人来说可能是相当令人兴奋的。
If I just say offhand, “Oh yes, there are billions of microbes in that cloud you see in the sky,” people say, “You’re crazy.” I’ll be like, “I’m not crazy.” So, I am a scientifically mainstream sort of person, I guess, and to everybody else, I seem a little crazy.
如果我只是随口说：“哦，是的，你在天空中看到的云中有数十亿微生物，”人们会说，“你疯了。”我会说：“我没有疯。”所以，我想，我是一个科学主流的人，而对其他人来说，我似乎有点疯狂。
Younger in life, what is it you learned about New Jersey politics?
年轻时，您对新泽西州的政治了解了哪些？
Noting your father was a former New Jersey congressman, Dick Zimmer.
注意到你的父亲是前新泽西州国会议员迪克·齐默。
New Jersey politics has got a rich, long history of corruption and just rough-and-tumble kind of activity.
新泽西州政治有着悠久的腐败历史和混乱的活动。
I was very proud to see my dad stay above that fray.
看到我的父亲置身于这场争斗之外，我感到非常自豪。
I live in Connecticut now, and Connecticut’s got its share of corruption too.
我现在住在康涅狄格州，康涅狄格州也有腐败现象。
Still, New Jersey was really quite a place to see all sorts of scandals in action.
尽管如此，新泽西确实是一个可以看到各种丑闻发生的地方。
So, you learned that a non-corrupt New Jersey politics was possible.
所以，你了解到新泽西州的廉洁政治是可能的。
That’s a non-mainstream view, right?
这是非主流观点吧？
It certainly was my experience growing up with my dad, yes.
这当然是我和父亲一起长大的经历，是的。
His district was what?
他的区是什么？
Near Monmouth County or Delaware River?
靠近蒙茅斯县或特拉华河？
Where did you grow up exactly?
你到底在哪里长大的？
When I was 10, we moved pretty close to the Delaware River in Hunterdon County in New Jersey.
当我 10 岁的时候，我们搬到了新泽西州亨特登县靠近特拉华河的地方。
When my father was elected to Congress, that was his district.
当我父亲当选国会议员时，那是他的选区。
Before my last question, just to endorse Carl’s book again, Air-Borne: The Hidden History of the Life We Breathe.
在我提出最后一个问题之前，我再次赞同卡尔的书《空气传播：我们呼吸的生命的隐藏历史》。
Indeed, I’m a fan of all of Carl’s books.
事实上，我是卡尔所有书籍的粉丝。
I think I’ve read all of them, or very close to all of them.
我想我已经阅读了所有这些内容，或者非常接近它们。
The very last question, what will you do next?
最后一个问题，接下来你会做什么？
What will I do next?
接下来我要做什么？
I’m working on a podcast.
我正在制作播客。
I can’t really talk about it at length right now.
我现在还不能详细谈论它。
There’ll be more details later.
稍后会有更多细节。
I’m entering your world a little bit, and it’s fun and frightening.
我正在一点点进入你的世界，这既有趣又令人恐惧。
Then, it’ll just be a question of thinking about what the next book is.
然后，这只是思考下一本书是什么的问题。
I generally just let those ideas come to me because it’s got to be something that’s going to really be something I can live with for years, so I don’t choose the next book lightly.
我通常只是让这些想法出现在我的脑海中，因为它必须是我可以忍受多年的东西，所以我不会轻易选择下一本书。
It hasn’t come yet.
它还没有来。
Carl Zimmer, thank you very much.
卡尔·齐默，非常感谢你。
Thank you.
谢谢。
Photo Credit: Mistina Hanscom
照片来源：米斯蒂娜·汉斯科姆