Confronted with a sink suddenly spurting water many homeowners have neither the knowledge nor the materials to make the repair themselves. In choosing a plumber they generally have to rely on some sort of signal of quality. A recommendation from a stranger helps; a recommendation from a sensible neighbour can help even more; prior, direct experience is best of all.

突然遇到水槽漏水，许多屋主自己无法修理，因为他们既没有这方面的知识也没有材料。于是他们决定去找一个水管工，但他们怎样能找到一个好的水管工呢？陌生人的推荐有用，一个明智的邻居的推荐更有用；然而，直接经验才是最好的。

Government regulators can be said to be permanently in need of plumbers. Faced with a rapidly changing market and technological advances—of financial instruments, medical therapies, agricultural methods, software—the regulatory agencies have to make decisions quickly. It might then make sense that, as one would welcome a recommended plumber, regulators might be more willing to trust companies with stronger reputations.
政府管理者可以说永远需要水管工。面对快速变化的市场和日新月异的科技进步——金融工具上的，药物治疗上的，农业方法上的，软件上的——管理机构需要快速地做出决定。正像屋主会欢迎一个被推荐的水管工一样，管理者可能更信任有很有声望的公司，这应该有一定的道理。

Jerry Kim, an assistant professor of business at Columbia University, wanted to test the relationship between reputation and regulatory treatment at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). He looked at 884 New Drug Applications (NDAs) submitted to the FDA for approval between 1990 and 2004. A firm’s reputation, in this case, depended not on its market share or the use of its drugs, but its generation of knowledge and innovation. Mr Kim’s hypothesis was that a firm with a longer track record of contributing to drug development would have its NDAs approved faster than would a developer less well known to the FDA. The more patent citations a firm had, the greater its knowledge reputation.
作为哥伦比亚大学的一名商业助理教授，杰里•金想验证公司的名声和FDA(食品和药品管理局）监管之间存在关系。他查看了从1990年至2004年之间提交给FDA的884例新药申请。在这个案例中，一个公司的名声，不是依靠它的市场份额或它生产的药品有多少人在使用，而是它产生的新知识有多少，创新程度有多大。金教授的假设是：比起管理局不熟悉的公司，一家公司对药物研发的贡献越多，它的新药申请获得通过的速度越快。

The hypothesis proved correct: the higher the firm’s reputation, the more likely that its drugs would speed through the approval process. Other factors influenced FDA approval as well. Drugs targeted at “underserved” illnesses (those that lack good treatments) were approved more quickly, for example, while any drug submitted after a product recall, regardless of whether or not it was related to the recalled drug, was more likely to spend additional time under review. A firm’s political contributions, meanwhile, were a non-factor.
这个假说被证明是正确的：一家公司的名声越高，它制造的药品将能更快获得批准。也有其它因素影响管理局的审批。针对疑难病症（缺少有效治疗手段的疾病）的药物能够更快地通过审批。例如，如果公司进行过药品召回，当它提交新药审批时，不管这种药品是不是和被召回的药品有关，都极有可能花费更长时间来审查。同时，一家公司的政治贡献却却对审批毫无影响。

Mr Kim also found a curious side effect of the drug-approval process. The FDA has a special “priority” rating for those drugs believed to be significantly better than existing treatments. (New drugs, or those first to treat a disease, are more likely to be designated priority.) There was no statistically significant relationship, however, between a firm’s reputation and the likelihood of its application receiving priority status. This suggests that established firms are not more likely to turn out innovative or especially useful drugs than their lesser-known peers. In separate research, Mr Kim found that the approved drugs from high-status firms were more likely to prompt product recalls or warnings. In short, the established firms may be coasting.
金教授也发现了一个有关药品审批的奇怪的副效应。对于那些被认为比现有疗法更有效的药品，FDA会将它纳入优先审批等级中。（新药，或针对某种疾病的首次面世的药品更有可能被归于优先等级。）从统计学上来看，一家公司的名望和它申请获得优先地位没有十分紧密的联系。这暗示说：一家成立已久的公司并不一定比知名度小的企业更具有创新能力，或者说更能开发出有用的药品。在单独的研究中，金教授发现大型公司审批通过的药品更有可能导致产品召回或警告。总之，成立已久的公司可能并没有努力。

Mr Kim draws two lessons from his findings. One is practical: new biotech firms may want to partner with veterans to get their products to market more quickly and establish a strong reputation. The second is to adopt a healthy scepticism about the ability of regulators to protect the public. The biases he found were not the kind easily attributable to underhanded bribery, lobbying, or even more subtle political pressures; rather, they are the result of trying to process a great deal of information quickly. “These people...really are dedicated to serving public interest and they’re trying their best,” says Mr Kim of his talks with FDA researchers. “The problem is, their best is not always good enough.”
金教授从他的发现中得到了两点体会。一点是很实际的：没有一家生物科技公司希望和老资格的企业合作来使他们的产品能更快地推向市场，并以此建立很高的威望。另一点就是对管理者保护公众的能力要持一种合理的怀疑态度。他发现偏见并不能简单地归因于不光明的贿赂，游说，或者说更微妙的政治压力。在一定程度上，这是试图更快地处理大量信息的结果。“这些管理者真的致力于服务公众利益，而且他们已经尽力了，”金教授在和FDA研究者的谈话中说道,"问题是，他们自认为的最好却不总是足够好。”