Meet the 2026 Ig Nobel Prize winners

揭晓 2026 年“搞笑诺贝尔奖”得主

It’s that time of year again, when we learn which lucky scientists are among the winners of the Ig Nobel Prizes. This year, the prizes honor research on designing the perfect splash-free urinal; using mosquito proboscises to “necroprint” tiny nozzles; studying composition rates of buried cotton underwear; and the aerodynamics of a healthy nose-blow, among other highlights.

又到了每年的这个时候，我们迎来了新一届“搞笑诺贝尔奖”（Ig Nobel Prizes）的幸运得主。今年的奖项表彰了多项研究，包括设计完美的防溅小便池、利用蚊子口器进行微型喷嘴的“尸体打印”、研究埋入地下的棉质内衣的分解率，以及健康擤鼻涕的空气动力学等亮点。

Established in 1991, the Ig Nobels are a good-natured parody of the Nobel Prizes; they honor “achievements that first make people laugh and then make them think.” The unapologetically campy awards ceremony features miniature operas, scientific demos, and “24/7 lectures,” whereby experts must explain their work twice: once in 24 seconds and the second in just seven words. Acceptance speeches are limited to 60 seconds. And as the motto implies, the research being honored might seem ridiculous at first glance, but that doesn’t mean it’s devoid of scientific merit.

“搞笑诺贝尔奖”设立于 1991 年，是对诺贝尔奖的一种善意模仿；它旨在表彰那些“先让人发笑，随后引人深思”的成就。这场毫不掩饰其怪诞风格的颁奖典礼包含迷你歌剧、科学演示和“24/7 讲座”——专家必须用两种方式解释他们的工作：先用 24 秒讲一遍，再用仅 7 个词总结一遍。获奖感言则被限制在 60 秒内。正如其座右铭所言，这些获奖研究乍看之下可能很荒谬，但这并不意味着它们缺乏科学价值。

After 35 years in Boston, the annual prize ceremony will take place in Zurich, Switzerland, this year and will continue to be held in a European city for the foreseeable future. The reason: concerns about the safety of international travelers, who are increasingly reluctant to travel to the US to participate. Four of last year’s 10 winners opted to skip the ceremony rather than travel to the US, and the situation has not improved.

在波士顿举办了 35 年后，今年的年度颁奖典礼将在瑞士苏黎世举行，并且在可预见的未来将继续在欧洲城市举办。原因在于：对国际旅行者安全的担忧，他们越来越不愿意前往美国参加活动。去年 10 位获奖者中有 4 位选择放弃出席典礼，而不愿前往美国，且目前情况并未好转。

“During the past year, it has become unsafe for our guests to visit the country,” Marc Abrahams, master of ceremonies and editor of The Annals of Improbable Research magazine, told The Associated Press in March. “We cannot in good conscience ask the new winners, or the international journalists who cover the event, to travel to the US this year.”

“在过去的一年里，我们的嘉宾访问美国已变得不再安全，”《不可思议研究年鉴》（The Annals of Improbable Research）杂志编辑兼颁奖典礼主持人马克·亚伯拉罕（Marc Abrahams）在三月份告诉美联社。“我们无法凭良心要求新的获奖者或报道此活动的国际记者今年前往美国。”

Biomechanics

生物力学

Citation: Matilda Brindle, Catherine Talbot, and Stuart West for devising a more precise definition of kissing—“non-agonistic interactions involving directed, intraspecific, oral-oral contact with some movement of the lips/mouthparts and no food transfer”—in ants, birds, polar bears, and humans.

获奖理由： Matilda Brindle、Catherine Talbot 和 Stuart West 为蚂蚁、鸟类、北极熊和人类的“接吻”制定了一个更精确的定义——即“一种非攻击性的互动，涉及定向的、同物种间的、口对口的接触，伴随嘴唇/口器的运动，且不涉及食物传递”。

You’d think it would be relatively straightforward to define the act of kissing. At least one study defined it as involving “protruded lips and suction movement.” But Brindle et al. argue that this is not a helpful definition from an evolutionary standpoint, since it merely describes the physical movements common to human beings. They prefer a less anthropocentric definition—after all, some form of mouth-to-mouth contact can be seen across the animal kingdom—one that includes oral-oral contact “with some movement of the lips,” but does not include things like mouth-to-mouth feeding behavior or, say, dogs licking their owners’ lips.

你可能认为定义“接吻”这一行为相对简单。至少有一项研究将其定义为涉及“嘴唇突出和吸吮动作”。但 Brindle 等人认为，从进化角度来看，这并不是一个有用的定义，因为它仅仅描述了人类常见的身体动作。他们倾向于一种去人类中心化的定义——毕竟，在动物界中可以看到各种形式的口对口接触——这种定义包括“伴随嘴唇运动”的口对口接触，但不包括口对口喂食行为，或者狗舔主人嘴唇等行为。

Economics

经济学

Citation: Paul Piff, Daniel Stancato, Stéphane Côté, Rodolfo Mendoza-Denton, and Dacher Keltner, for amassing evidence that upper-class people are more likely to snatch from a children’s supply of candy, and engage in other kinds of unethical behavior.

获奖理由： Paul Piff、Daniel Stancato、Stéphane Côté、Rodolfo Mendoza-Denton 和 Dacher Keltner，他们收集了证据表明，上层阶级的人更有可能抢夺儿童的糖果，并从事其他不道德行为。

Does one’s social status have any bearing on a given person’s tendency to engage in unethical behavior? To find out, the authors conducted seven related studies to examine this issue from multiple angles. For example, one field study assessed whether upper-class drivers (as adjudged by the type of car driven) were more or less likely to cut off other vehicles at a busy four-way intersection. Another one looked at whether such drivers were more likely to cut off pedestrians at a crosswalk. Yet another study tested whether subjects in a lab-based setting were more or less likely to help themselves to wrapped candies intended for children in another lab—a test of entitlement.

一个人的社会地位是否与其从事不道德行为的倾向有关？为了找出答案，作者进行了七项相关研究，从多个角度审视这一问题。例如，一项实地研究评估了上层阶级司机（根据所驾驶车辆类型判断）在繁忙的十字路口强行加塞的可能性。另一项研究观察了这些司机在人行横道上是否更有可能阻挡行人。还有一项研究测试了实验室环境下的受试者是否更有可能拿走本应给另一个实验室儿童准备的包装糖果——这是一项关于“权利感”的测试。