In February, the Journal of the British Tarantula Society published a paper describing a new species of tarantula, which was discovered in a national park in Sarawak, Malaysia. While the male of the species was an unremarkable brown, the female had eye-catching, electric blue legs.

今年二月，《英國蜘蛛學會期刊》發表一篇論文，描述在馬來西亞砂勞越國家公園發現一個新狼蛛物種。雖然雄狼蛛顏色是平淡無奇的棕色，雌狼蛛卻有引人注目的電光藍色的腿。

New spiders are discovered all the time, and the paper likely would have gone largely unnoticed — were it not for an article in Science magazine that appeared soon afterward.

一直有新蜘蛛被發現，若不是另一篇文章緊接著在《科學》雜誌上刊出，前述論文很可能乏人注意。

The article claimed that the tarantula researchers had received their specimens secondhand from private collectors in Poland and Britain, who had poached them in Malaysia.

《科學》雜誌那篇文章聲稱，狼蛛研究人員從波蘭與英國的私人收藏家那裡取得二手標本，而標本是這些收藏家在馬來西亞盜獵的。

Neither Ray Gabriel nor Danniella Sherwood, the authors of the study, responded to email requests for comment. But Peter Kirk, chairman of the British Tarantula Society and editor of the society’s journal, said the collectors had shown the scientists an import permit from Poland, and they “had no reason to think due process wasn’t followed.”

研究報告的作者是雷．蓋布里爾和丹尼拉．薛伍德，兩人均未回覆要求評論的電子郵件，但英國蜘蛛學會主席兼該學會期刊主編彼得．柯克表示，收藏家有向科學家們展示波蘭的進口許可證，所以他們「沒理由認為有違正當程序」。

“The paper absolutely will not be retracted, because it’s a completely legitimate published paper,” he said.

他說：「這篇論文絕對不會撤回，因為它是一篇完全合法發表的論文。」

The incident has reignited a decades-old debate among scientists and hobbyists alike about research ethics, specimen collection and “biopiracy” — the use of natural resources without obtaining permission from local communities or sharing any benefits with them.

這起事件再次在科學家跟業餘愛好者圈內引發長達數十年、有關研究倫理、標本收集及「生物剽竊」的爭論，而生物剽竊指的是未經當地社區許可，或與其分享任何利益而使用自然資源。

“The majority of responses I’ve seen are people saying, ‘Yes, we need to stop this,’ but there’s also been a fair amount of people basically trying to justify the poaching and smuggling of these tarantulas,” said Ernest Cooper, a conservation consultant in British Columbia.

加拿大卑詩省保育顧問恩斯特．庫柏說：「我看過的大多數人都說『是的，我們需要阻止這種事』，但也有不少人基本上試圖把盜獵與走私這些狼蛛合理化。」

“It’s this very strange, slightly colonial attitude of, ‘We know better than developing countries, so their laws don’t matter.’”

「這是種非常奇怪、略帶殖民主義色彩的態度：『我們知道的比發展中國家多，所以他們的法律不重要』。」

Illegal wildlife trade is dominated by headlines about criminal cartels trafficking in ivory, rhino horn and pangolin scales. But scientists can also be complicit in illegal trade by poaching specimens themselves or by working with those who do.

有關非法野生動物貿易的報導，幾乎全集中在犯罪集團販賣象牙、犀牛角與穿山甲的麟片，但科學家也能透過自己盜獵標本或是跟盜獵者合作而參與非法貿易。

This type of wildlife crime occurs on a much smaller scale, but experts in a variety of fields believe it is a significant issue.

這類有關野生動物的犯罪行為規模雖然小得多，但諸多領域的專家都認為是個重大問題。

“It’s a problem globally, and it happens a lot,” said Sérgio Henriques, chairman of the spider and scorpion group at the International Union for Conservation of Nature.

國際自然保育聯盟蜘蛛與蠍子專家組主席塞吉歐．亨利克斯說：「這是項全球性問題，而且經常發生。」

For Henriques and others, this sort of collection raises deep ethical concerns. “We’re the scientists, the ones who are supposed to know better and who should be leading by example,” he said. “If we can’t follow the rules, why are we demanding that others do?”

對於亨利克斯這些人來說，這類收藏引起了高度道德憂慮。他說：「我們是科學家，理應更明白且以身作則。要是我們自己不遵守規則，又為何要求別人這樣做呢？」

The main exhibition at the Venice Biennale is arguably the most coveted gig in curating. It’s the centerpiece of the international art world’s highest-profile event, and gives the chosen curator instant prestige. But it’s a tricky one to get right.

威尼斯雙年展主題展可以說是最令策展界嚮往的盛事，是這場國際藝術界最受矚目活動的重中之重，能讓中選的策展人立即享有盛名，不過，要把它辦好可不容易。

The show, held every two years, sprawls across two sites — one a columned pavilion in a public park, the Giardini, the other a set of former shipbuilding workshops in the Arsenale — and pulls together work by a huge number of artists. In 2017, there were 120 of them; in 2015, there were 136.

主題展每兩年辦一次，展區廣及兩處，一個是「綠園城堡」公園中立有圓柱的展館，另一個是「軍火庫」一系列造船廠遺址，並集中展示數量龐大的藝術家作品，2017年有120名藝術家參展，2015年更有136名。

This year, the number will be down: There will be just 79 artists or artist partnerships, but each will show at both venues, offering radically different works at the two sites. These are some of the changes introduced by the curator Ralph Rugoff in an exhibition titled “May You Live in Interesting Times,” opening May 11 and running through Nov. 24.

今年參展人數會減少，只會有79個藝術家或藝術家合作團隊，不過這兩種人的作品在兩個展區都會展出，兩地展品的風格差異很大。這就是主題展策展人魯戈夫帶來的一些改變。主題展名為「願你活在有趣的時代」，5月11日開幕，展至11月24日。

For the past 13 years, Rugoff, a 62-year-old New Yorker, has steered the Hayward Gallery, a public institution not far from Tate Modern in London. With a series of thoughtful, but also playful, shows, he has put the Hayward on London’s contemporary-art map.

13年來，現年62歲的紐約客魯戈夫一直領導倫敦海沃德美術館，這是個公立機關，離泰特現代美術館不遠。他辦過一連串思想深刻卻不乏玩心的展覽，使海沃德躋身倫敦當代藝術重鎮之列。

In Venice, his show will compete for attention with 90 others held in national pavilions, as well as with numerous “collateral events,” and face a pitiless lineup of critics. Yet in an interview at his Hayward office in London — a windowless basement room with flat-pack furniture and a single framed poster resting on a ledge — Rugoff appeared characteristically coolheaded.

在威尼斯，魯戈夫的主題展將與另外90個國家館展覽和許多「平行展」爭奪注意力，還要面對許多無情的批評家。不過，魯戈夫在倫敦海沃德他的辦公室接受專訪時，一如既往顯得泰然自若。他的辦公室是無窗的地下室房間，家具自行組裝，壁架上擺著一幅單框海報。

The Venice Biennale “has the potential to be the world’s greatest art exhibition. Each iteration is a different story,” Rugoff said. “Sometimes it rises to the occasion, sometimes not.”

魯戈夫說，威尼斯雙年展「有成為全球最偉大藝術展的潛力，每次登場都是不同的故事，有時能應付當時的挑戰，有時不能」。

“Bigger isn’t always better,” he said. “The exhibition format doesn’t always lend itself to gargantuan scale, in general. Do you want to see movies that are 20 hours long? Compared to a normal exhibition, that’s what a Biennale is like.”

魯戈夫說，「大不見得就是好，一般來說，展覽呈現的方式不盡然適合浩大的規模。你會想看長達20小時的電影嗎？這就是雙年展跟平常展覽的差別」。

Rugoff said he had also avoided giving the exhibition a theme because there were 300 biennials around the world each year with similar themes; all he wanted was for the artists to represent the times we live in. At a time when governments were distorting facts and the internet gave people only the news they wanted to hear, contemporary art was about “simultaneously juggling different perspectives,” he said: It “opens up your brain.”

魯戈夫說，他還得避免給雙年展定下一個主題，因為每年世界各地會舉辦300場雙年展，主題都差不多，他只想讓藝術家呈現我們生活的時代。此際政府扭曲事實，而網路只提供人們他們想要聽到的消息，他說，當代藝術就是「同時掌握並表現不同視角」，能「開拓你的眼界」。

The chosen works will be both “experimental” and “classical,” because “art should give us pleasure as well as provide critical insight,” Rugoff said.

魯戈夫說，入選作品將會既「有實驗性」又「古典」，因為「藝術就該讓我們愉悅，並提供批判性的洞見」。

Exactly a year ago, Facebook’s chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, testified before Congress and apologized for his company’s role in enabling “fake news, foreign interference in elections and hate speech.”

整整一年前，臉書執行長祖克柏去美國國會作證，並為臉書使「假新聞、外國介入選舉和仇恨言論」有機會出現而道歉。

It was a memorable moment amid a broader reckoning that continues to inspire debate over how closely Facebook and other technology giants should be regulated.

這是範圍更廣的反省潮流中一個值得紀念的時刻，這股潮流持續引發人們討論，對臉書等科技巨頭的規範究竟該多嚴格。

As Silicon Valley grapples with its version of becoming too big to fail, Zuckerberg and his industry peers might take lessons from Wall Street, whose leaders have some experience with government scrutiny. (On Wednesday, bank chief executives were being grilled by Congress.)

此際矽谷正努力應付自己版本的「大到不能倒」問題，祖克柏與同業不妨學學華爾街，那兒的領袖對政府監督有些經驗。（幾位銀行執行長4月10日被美國國會找去盤問。）

Although it won’t address all of Big Tech’s problems, a simple rule that bolsters the banking system could do a lot to clean up some of the uglier aspects of social media that Zuckerberg felt compelled to apologize for.

有一條促進銀行體系發展的簡單規則，雖不能解決科技巨擘所有問題，卻能清除社群媒體較醜陋、祖克柏覺得必須為之道歉的一些面向。

The concept is “know your customer” — or KYC, as it’s called on Wall Street — and it’s straightforward: Given concerns about privacy, security and fraud when it comes to money, no bank is allowed to take on a new customer without verifying its existence and vetting its background.

這概念就是「認識你的客戶」，也就是華爾街所謂的KYC，含意簡單明瞭：由於擔心發生金錢方面的隱私、安全和詐騙問題，沒有一家銀行獲准在不查證真偽和審查背景的情況下接納新客戶。

The idea of applying such a rule to social media has been floated before, but it has so far failed to take hold. Now may be the right time.

有人提過把這項規則應用在社群媒體，但到目前都沒實現。也許時候到了。

Consider this: Facebook has said it shut down more than 1.5 billion fake accounts from April through September last year (yes, that’s a “B” in billion). That was up from the 1.3 billion such accounts it eliminated in the six previous months. To put those numbers in context, Facebook has a reported user base of 2.3 billion.

想想看：臉書說，從去年4月到9月，臉書共刪除15億個假帳號（沒錯，是億，不是百萬），比臉書前六個月刪除的13億個要多。把這些數字放到大背景下看，臉書號稱有23億用戶。

What if social media companies had to verify their users the same way banks do? You'd probably feel more confident that you were interacting with real people and were not just a target for malicious bots.

要是社群媒體公司必須像銀行一樣查證用戶真偽，那會如何？你可能會更相信你在跟真人互動，而不只是惡意機器人的攻擊目標。

First, let’s acknowledge the practical considerations. Vetting the vast universe of those on social media would be a gargantuan task.

首先，讓我們坦誠面對實務上的考量。審查多如恆河沙數的社群媒體用戶，會是極其繁重的工作。

When I broached the idea of applying a “know your customer” principle to their business, several senior executives at social media companies recoiled at the prospect, questioning how they would pull off such a huge feat, especially in emerging markets where many people lack credit cards, and even fixed street addresses can be hard to come by.

當我向幾名社群媒體公司高層談到應用「認識你的客戶」原則時，他們不以為然，質疑如何能完成這個壯舉，尤其是在許多人沒有信用卡，甚至連固定住址都難以取得的新興市場。

Then there are the legitimate complaints about Facebook and its ilk already knowing too much about users. Who would want them to know even more? And what would the companies do to protect personal information better than they have in the past?

此外，各界本已合理抱怨臉書這類網站對用戶所知太多。誰還想要這些網站知道更多？這些公司又該怎麼做才能比先前更有效保護個資？