Question

谁英语好,帮忙翻译英语

The core of the science and technology-push argument is that advances in scientific understanding determine the rate and direction of innovation. Immediately after the success of the Manhattan Project, Bush (1945a, b) articulated a highly influential version of this argument in what became known as the “post-war paradigm,” and later more derisively as the “linear model.” These arguments envisioned a progression of knowledge from basic science to applied research to product development to commercial products.Dosi (1982) later attributed the prominence of this line of reasoning to several “established” aspects of the innovation process: the increasing importance of science in the innovation process, increasing complexity which necessitated a long-term view, apparently strong correlations between R&D and innovative output, and the inherent uncertainty of the innovation process.
A central critique of the technology-push argument is that it ignores prices and other changes in economic conditions that affect the profitability of innovations. Another is that the emphasis on a unidirectional progression within the stages of the innovation process was incompatible with subsequent work that emphasized feedbacks, interactions, and networks (Kline and Rosenberg, 1986;Freeman, 1994; Freeman and Louca, 2001).

Answer 1

科学的核心和技术推动的观点是,科学认识的进步确定速度和方向的创新。成功后立即曼哈顿计划,布什(1945 a,b)铰接一个高度影响力的版本的这个论点在成为了所谓的“战后范式”,后来更戏称为“线性模型。“这些观点设想一个级数的知识从基础科学到应用研究与产品开发商业产品。Dosi(1982)后认为突出这种推论的几个“建立”方面的创新过程:日益增长的重要性,科学创新过程日益复杂,这需要一个长期的观点,显然强大研发和创新产出之间的相关性,以及固有的不确定性的创新过程。
一个中央批判技术推动的观点是,它忽略了价格和其他经济环境变化的影响盈利能力的创新。另一个是强调一个单向级数在阶段的创新过程是不符合后续工作,强调反馈、交互和网络(克莱恩和罗森博格,1986;弗里曼,1994;弗里曼和Louca,2001)。