“Scientifically weak work, exposure of work that contains errors, and statements made by scientifically unqualified publicity seekers.”

“科学上薄弱的论文，揭露包含错误的工作和科学上不合格寻求公开宣传那些人所有做的声明。”

Responding to this question, Max Wyss pointed out33:

针对这个问题，Max Wyss指出33∶ 

“The problems plaguing earthquake prediction research on which we should focus, in my opinion, are (a) the improvement, or elimination from journals, of scientifically weak work35-37 , and (b) the exposure of work that contains errors38 ,39 and statements made by scientifically unqualified publicity seekers.” 

“我们需要特别注意的对地震预测研究增添麻烦的主要问题，以我的看法，为 (a)改进、或从刊物上排除，科学上薄弱的论文81 82 83，以及 (b)揭露揭露包含错误的论文84 85和科学上不合格寻求公开宣传那些人所有做的声明。” 

“Unfortunately, human psychology is such that hasty workers and true believers will always mess around with the problem of earthquake prediction that fascinates them. Therefore, we must learn how to conduct rigorous, quantitative prediction research in spite of the distractions generated by unqualified people.” 

“遗憾的是，由于心理学上的原因，草率的工作者和诚心实意的信徒总会搞乱使他们着迷的地震预测的问题。因此，我们必须学会如何进行严格的、定量的预测研究，而不要让那些不合格的人使我们分心。”

“Reputable and qualified scientists in this field are 联合抵制boycotted a 先认得经验priori”

“这个领域中有信誉的和合格的科学家正在联合抵制前人已经取得的经验。”

With a certain degree of anger, Francesco Biagi addressed one of the core problems30:

带一定程度的气愤，Francesco Biagi指出了核心问题之一30∶ 

“In this framework, countries in which research on precursors is still encouraged and funded are very few. Generally this research is prevented so that in Europe any reference to earthquake precursors in a scientific proposal will guarantee that it will not be funded. Therefore, reputable and qualified scientists in this field are boycotted a priori. Is this the right way to conduct science?” 

“在这样的框架之下，仍然鼓励对前兆进行研究和提供经费的国家很少。总的来讲，该项研究被阻止，因此，在欧洲，若一项科学建议书有任何提及地震前兆处，可以担保这样的建议书得不到经费。因此，正是这个领域中有信誉的和合格的科学家正在联合抵制前人已经取得的经验。这是从事科学的正确方式吗？”

Lack of funding

缺乏经费

Max Wyss pointed out32:

Max Wyss指出32∶ 

“As we all agree that we know little about how earthquakes initiate and how to predict them, it follows that we will study the problem and eventually reach a relatively satisfactory solution. The question is, will we do it with the significant financial support and expedience this humanitarian effort deserves, or will we force individual scientists to do it in their non-existent spare time?” 

“由于我们都同意，我们对地震如何产生并且如何预测它们知道的那样少，这导致我们将研究这个问题并最终达到一个相对令人满意的解决方案。问题是，我们是在获得这个人道主义的努力值得得到的重大财政支持和受益条件下这样做，还是在我们强迫个别科学家在他们根本不存在的业余时间里这样做？” 

“There are two types of influences that degrade the quality of research into earthquake prediction. Firstly, there are two emotional factors. Limelight seekers are attracted to this field and others are electrified into hasty work by the idea of coming to the rescue of the populace. But there is a second problem; lack of financial support. A researcher who explores a hypothesis after regular working hours exclusively, is likely to present the 'best' results only, instead of exploring all the possible, but marginal data sets that may exist.” 

“地震预测方面的研究受到降低其质量的两种影响。首先，有两种情感方面的因素。寻求宣传的人被吸引到该领域中，其它一些人受到挽救平民的想法‘触电’投入草率的工作。但是，也有第二方面的问题∶缺乏财政支持。一位研究者，若只能在正常工作之余对一项假说进行探索，他特别可能将仅提交‘最好的’结果，而不是探索全部可能性，但是也可能有处于边际状态的数据组。”

接续后篇∶

——>5.Further funding for earthquake prediction research?

对地震预测研究提供进一步经费支持？

参考文献

1 Wyss, M. Evaluation of proposed earthquake precursors (American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, 1991).

2 Wyss, M. Second round of evaluations of proposed earthquake precursors. Pure Appli. Geophys 149, 3-16 (1997).

3 Wyss, M. & Booth, D.C. The IASPEI prodedure for the evaluation of earthquake precursors. Geophys. J. Int. 131, 423-424 (1997).

4 Geller, R.J. Debate on evaluation of the VAN method: Editor’s introduction. Geophys. Res. Lett. 23, 1291-1294 (1996).

5 Geller, R.J. in A Critical Review of Van (Lighthill, J.H. ed.) 155-238 (World Scientific, London, 1996).