Most contradictory opinions were also expressed on this topic.

在这一话题上也表示出最有矛盾冲突的看法。

Without funding no progress

没有经费支持就不会有进展

Max Wyss pointed out33:

Max Wyss指出33∶ 

“Currently, funding for earthquake prediction research in most Western countries is puny because it is considered a 'hot potato' by most funding agencies and many peer reviewers.” 

“目前，在大部分西方国家里对地震预测的研究的经费支持微不足道，因为大部分资助机构和许多自视清高的审查员把地震预测研究考虑是一个烫嘴的‘热土豆’。”

Max Wyss further stated31:

Max Wyss进一步指出31∶ 

“The contributions to the debate about earthquake prediction research in Nature so far, clearly show that we have hardly scratched the surface of the problem of how earthquake ruptures initiate and how to predict them. This arises from the difficulty of the problem and the lack of a vigorous program to study these questions.” 

“到目前为止，对《自然》杂志这次关于地震预测的辩论所投的稿，清楚起表明我们仅对地震破裂是怎样开始的，以及如何预测它们仅接触到问题的皮毛。这是由问题的困难，以及缺乏对这些问题进行研究的认真计划所造成的。” 

“As Andrew Michael has said, funding for earthquake prediction research is a small fraction of the seismology program, in the U.S., and seismology is poorly funded compared to disciplines like astronomy.” 

“如Andrew Michael所说的那样，对地震预测研究提供的经费在美国仅占整个地震学项目计划经费的微小部分，而且，与对天文学这样的学科的经费相比，对地震学的经费支持很差。”

Andrew Michael explained76:

Andrew Michael说明76∶ 

“... the use of precursors, could lead to the prediction of either individual events or the behaviour of the population depending on how large an area the precursors cover. Given that years of effort have led to no widely accepted precursors, perhaps there are no valid earthquake precursors.” 

“……采用前兆，可以导致预测个别的地震事件，或预测地震群体的行为，取决于这些前兆覆盖多大的区域。考虑到这么多年的努力没有导致任何普遍接受的前兆，有效的地震前兆或许就根本不存在。” 

“Or have our efforts been too weak to find them? Although Ian Main asserts that the effort to find precursors has been enormous, it has used only a few per cent of the US earthquake research budget. This limited effort has allowed a wide variety of dense instrumentation to be installed in very few areas, and these areas have not yet experienced a large event12 ,13 . Although the level of effort must be considered against other seismological and societal goals, it is impossible to rule out the existence of precursors on the basis of a lack of observations.” 

“或者我们寻找它们的努力太弱？尽管Ian Main断言为寻找前兆所做出的努力是巨大的，它仅花费了美国地震研究预算的百分之几。这样有限的努力使广泛种类密集的仪器仅安装在很少几个区域，而且这些区域还没有经历一次大地震86 87。尽管所做出的努力的水平必须相对于其它地震学的和社会目标一并考虑，在不充分的观察基础上无法否定前兆有可能存在。”

“Without progress no funding”

“没有进展就不给予经费支持”

Robert Geller stated11:

Robert Geller宣称11∶ 

“Governments in many countries have awarded lavish funding for work on earthquake prediction18. Such funding frequently greatly exceeds what is available through normal peer-reviewed channels for even highly meritorious work. It is regrettable that this disparity sometimes induces reputable scientists to label their work as 'earthquake prediction research' to get a share of such funding.” 

“许多国家的政府对地震预测的工作已滥用经费8。这样的经费往往大大超过通过正常审查渠道给予即便最有成绩的工作而能有的经费水平。遗憾的是，正是这种差异有时诱使有信誉的科学家给其工作贴上‘地震预测研究’的标签以分得这种经费的一部分。” 

“In view of the bleak prospects, there is no obvious need for specialized organizations and research programmes for prediction. Researchers in this area should seek funding through normal peer-reviewed channels (such as the NSF in the USA), in competition with all other research in earthquake science. This would probably lead to an almost complete phasing out of prediction research, not because of censorship but rather owing to the poor quality of most present work in this field. Of course meritorious prediction proposals (if any exist) should be funded.” 

“考虑到这种黯淡的前景，设立专门机构从事地震预测研究计划并没有明显的需要。该领域中的研究者应当通过正常的审查渠道〔例如NSF—美国国家科学基金〕寻求经费。这可能导致完全清除搞地震预测研究，不是因为审查制度本身，而是由于该领域中目前工作的质量太差。当然，应当对有成绩的预测建议书〔如果有任何存在的话〕提供经费。”

Robert J. Geller further stated25:

Robert J. Geller进一步宣称25∶ 

“However, extensive prediction efforts in several countries in several eras have all failed. Further allocation of public funds appears unwarranted unless there are specific and compelling grounds for thinking that a proposed new prediction programme will be successful.” 

“然而，几个国家里地震预测方面的广泛努力在几个时代里均失败了。进一步将公共资金分配给这个方面看来缺乏正当理想，除非有引人注目的基础得以认为提议中的一个新的预测计划将是成功的。” 

“Owing to some unknown difference, the seismologists in Japan failed when their 对手counterparts in the US, would have succeeded if only they had had comparable funding.

The goals and methods of the programme were completely unrealistic.

Needless to say, I think (2) is correct. Nature's Tokyo correspondent appears to share my views7 .” 

“由于某种不知的差异，日本的地震学家失败了，而他们在美国的对手若有可比较的经费就能够成功。这样一个计划的目标和方面完全不现实。

不用说，我认为(2)是正确的。《自然》杂志的东京特派记者看来与我的看法一致88。”

接续后篇∶

——>6.Argument on “case studies” and the significance of precursors

关于对“地震案例研究”和前兆意义的争论

参考文献

1 Bakun, W.H. & Lindh, A.G. The Parkfield, California, earthquake prediction experiment. Science 229, 619-624 1985).

2 Roeloffs, E.A. & Langbein, J. The earthquake prediction experiment at Parkfield, California. Rev. Geophys. 32, 315-336 (1994).

3 Swinbanks, D. Without a way to measure their success, Japanese projects are very hard to stop. Nature, 357, 619 (1992).