, C3 B4 l5 J; `+ _# c; O全文： % n5 h: h# Q* y- L* {$ R : L7 k- e$ Y h, k1 Y6 a) XGovernment research funds in China have been growing at an annual rate of # B) R3 c+ x0 a' H' Zmore than 20%, exceeding even the expectations of China's most enthusiastic ) U( k: a8 L8 m' h5 T1 C$ }& a
scientists. In theory, this could allow China to make truly outstanding , R- g; O2 R( S6 Q3 U$ Mprogress in science and research, complementing the nation's economic 1 ^, f3 U9 C: u6 d5 P2 l) B
success. In reality, however, rampant problems in research funding—some ! v* x( z% q- \0 A
attributable to the system and others cultural—are slowing down China's # c2 ^5 V3 x+ J$ z' U' g% wpotential pace of innovation. 1 d& [; e- }( p( y/ u! j0 q1 s P) f' v* U
Although scientific merit may still be the key to the success of smaller & T' |7 ~0 ^$ F Eresearch grants, such as those from China's National Natural Science # G: k7 q9 w1 N" C+ R6 BFoundation, it is much less relevant for the megaproject grants from various 5 g4 z6 m, e4 }7 Ggovernment funding agencies, which range from tens to hundreds of millions ! m; {5 l$ L% j: Lof Chinese yuan (7 yuan equals approximately 1 U.S. dollar). For the latter, ' ^! P$ S5 k" Hthe key is the application guidelines that are issued each year to specify , `9 |( J* q \5 `1 N: r
research areas and projects. Their ostensible purpose is to outline "" A7 j, c: @9 {# ^
national needs." But the guidelines are often so narrowly described that 6 R1 q0 ?5 O# B0 I8 W5 u2 l6 }
they leave little doubt that the "needs" are anything but national; instead,( c2 n4 N# E* I( H$ _' @
the intended recipients are obvious. Committees appointed by bureaucrats in' N, b* S* g, v4 d' E0 N7 f
the funding agencies determine these annual guidelines. For obvious reasons . _5 \# O. a* H7 {1 h2 {' S, the chairs of the committees often listen to and usually cooperate with # `: [" z- z- H7 g% H; Fthe bureaucrats. "Expert opinions" simply reflect a mutual understanding ' t/ i4 |( @* M Ubetween a very small group of bureaucrats and their favorite scientists. 0 y n0 {# H# n# }. DThis top-down approach stifles innovation and makes clear to everyone that ( J0 u- I# c2 D8 c; R9 ~/ o% e2 nthe connections with bureaucrats and a few powerful scientists are paramount4 z( k$ Y. [8 t0 ~8 z7 v- S
, dictating the entire process of guideline preparation. To obtain major & E7 a2 }% j6 i+ v$ z* ~1 |grants in China, it is an open secret that doing good research is not as ( d1 k7 m( _% v; Fimportant as schmoozing with powerful bureaucrats and their favorite experts ) u( F# n0 i: j( K; @, L4 \ $ Z% m6 q* M, EThis problematic funding system is frequently ridiculed by the majority of ; n1 {. P! C7 j" ]
Chinese researchers. And yet it is also, paradoxically, accepted by most of + f4 }( X+ Z: E; v, B" j5 P2 {them. Some believe that there is no choice but to accept these conventions. 4 l: r$ H* p! p- | NThis culture even permeates the minds of those who are new returnees from 0 Y& q- E# V6 o8 Q M- u ?abroad; they quickly adapt to the local environment and perpetuate the . R: H( J5 c: R1 B
unhealthy culture. A significant proportion of researchers in China spend - d0 ?6 Y& y9 u/ L: wtoo much time on building connections and not enough time attending seminars; i" @9 \5 }. S! m1 E. S9 O
, discussing science, doing research, or training students (instead, using $ U" [; ~- ^& A1 |0 i$ D! ?
them as laborers in their laboratories). Most are too busy to be found in 5 L1 _* K* B1 q8 J# mtheir own institutions. Some become part of the problem: They use 2 C. w: e7 C0 F6 e' _7 Dconnections to judge grant applicants and undervalue scientific merit. ` n4 i% j! z6 ?- `% ~- g# E0 ?" A4 U8 `
There is no need to spell out the ethical code for scientific research and & {( U& y: p; l% D( S- d. mgrants management, as most of the power brokers in Chinese research were ; Z8 q1 o; ]) a' g' meducated in industrialized countries. But overhauling the system will be no 2 Q( q |, m- M6 l7 yeasy task. Those favored by the existing system resist meaningful reform. : s. l, {- a3 Y. j1 A( y9 Y! p
Some who oppose the unhealthy culture choose to be silent for fear of losing . B. i! H: Y# d! S8 mfuture grant opportunities. Others who want change take the attitude of "5 E7 S5 P9 v6 ^, `1 Z% p4 m
wait and see," rather than risk a losing battle. % p4 c$ m+ a: D0 Y5 K6 d( D8 A" G8 U$ |
Despite the roadblocks, those shaping science policy and those working at + _* R7 l$ F* Z( K* r3 B
the bench clearly recognize the problems with China's current research 3 K! m; M+ [$ Q1 F0 d
culture: It wastes resources, corrupts the spirit, and stymies innovation. 5 l) R3 _% z# W k
The time for China to build a healthy research culture is now, riding the : C6 e+ b7 Y. y/ G
momentum of increasing funding and a growing strong will to break away from % |4 V4 w" q( z, [9 l qdamaging conventions. A simple but important start would be to distribute 8 R; }9 P$ c' E
all of the new funds based on merit, without regard to connections. Over V* F2 v* T! f7 `% x) w2 {( |time, this new culture could and should become the major pillar of a system / _- n( d# K; ]0 Cthat nurtures, rather than squanders, the innovative potential of China.