science in china

iseeyou1210

施一公绕毅 最新《science》文章：关于中国科研文化
7 e) a6 }8 Y  l0 I7 }0 v! x* U" @5 w) S3 b% ~2 I
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/329/5996/1128.pdf- o7 `; ?  U% A: \3 P
" A( I2 v! h' {
全文：
) x5 r8 o3 b7 V' J" @1 f3 C( C  j- n3 ?
Government research funds in China have been growing at an annual rate of
" d  y1 B" d3 G' k. O" Xmore than 20%, exceeding even the expectations of China's most enthusiastic
  G* e. T! D6 S  K2 _6 qscientists. In theory, this could allow China to make truly outstanding
8 g8 N$ V1 l: p. P/ |progress in science and research, complementing the nation's economic
- ^# c1 H& u) L, |success. In reality, however, rampant problems in research funding—some ! E' q2 r( o3 {2 r
attributable to the system and others cultural—are slowing down China's
$ y. B: k* K& ?8 cpotential pace of innovation. ) z* e1 m( Z0 t  f

) h  s9 r- A7 v/ sAlthough scientific merit may still be the key to the success of smaller
( g9 h/ _/ f' f  r0 gresearch grants, such as those from China's National Natural Science
0 G. o7 w4 d. H$ D2 @& g% IFoundation, it is much less relevant for the megaproject grants from various0 u' I0 g$ e, D# I
government funding agencies, which range from tens to hundreds of millions 1 U. T2 c9 n; R
of Chinese yuan (7 yuan equals approximately 1 U.S. dollar). For the latter,
+ L7 u- \7 ]* A* Othe key is the application guidelines that are issued each year to specify
+ q6 r3 J& B2 D" Cresearch areas and projects. Their ostensible purpose is to outline "* ^4 O9 H) P, W! t' F$ |
national needs." But the guidelines are often so narrowly described that 6 X- t! i3 x1 m$ Y. q6 H* O
they leave little doubt that the "needs" are anything but national; instead,( P1 z. y4 ?/ T- A, I  _% z/ F
the intended recipients are obvious. Committees appointed by bureaucrats in9 B6 n% P% q, D- [0 O( J& @: ~
the funding agencies determine these annual guidelines. For obvious reasons
( x* {0 Z) D/ T/ ?, Z, the chairs of the committees often listen to and usually cooperate with
8 m  t( o0 l5 Q/ |! y8 R! Mthe bureaucrats. "Expert opinions" simply reflect a mutual understanding * v# ^/ Q2 U, \  J
between a very small group of bureaucrats and their favorite scientists. - Z  s" @! A- I6 I2 f
This top-down approach stifles innovation and makes clear to everyone that ' z5 R2 l7 P' u/ ?' f
the connections with bureaucrats and a few powerful scientists are paramount
& M2 X3 J/ _; a! M; d8 S* q& T' F, dictating the entire process of guideline preparation. To obtain major " r! o2 C  ^& _% _( o
grants in China, it is an open secret that doing good research is not as - ?+ |/ B$ e, o2 q  u+ i. k. A: D
important as schmoozing with powerful bureaucrats and their favorite experts
0 u) r, G( E# f! ~
7 M# H5 m) ?; F, H6 P8 b" k+ zThis problematic funding system is frequently ridiculed by the majority of
9 u$ {& M0 k5 ]* kChinese researchers. And yet it is also, paradoxically, accepted by most of
, m1 j. S* S/ L3 g. ~them. Some believe that there is no choice but to accept these conventions. 2 K( ~% K  V4 Q) l
This culture even permeates the minds of those who are new returnees from ( J4 b% f" H. A/ ~! g6 A
abroad; they quickly adapt to the local environment and perpetuate the # w+ _! b4 {1 q3 Z
unhealthy culture. A significant proportion of researchers in China spend
3 l  j; Z8 z! G* T; D+ L, m8 }; R. Itoo much time on building connections and not enough time attending seminars
( D7 m. q" |( D+ o  |  S( F( U% T- X, discussing science, doing research, or training students (instead, using ; z# g' o( O" q* X5 v1 i
them as laborers in their laboratories). Most are too busy to be found in
, ~/ v0 Q* `5 m+ Stheir own institutions. Some become part of the problem: They use 9 g2 q9 }3 _, l7 P9 U$ p2 ?, v2 ]
connections to judge grant applicants and undervalue scientific merit.
& f4 f3 S) m. C3 }$ Y% P6 v6 P8 z. ]
There is no need to spell out the ethical code for scientific research and
0 p! S" {1 n# P* l: `grants management, as most of the power brokers in Chinese research were
0 A8 w* u/ p1 ], ~+ A4 J7 Reducated in industrialized countries. But overhauling the system will be no " ]4 W' J+ V; C* a
easy task. Those favored by the existing system resist meaningful reform. 1 c8 A- l2 L% H* q
Some who oppose the unhealthy culture choose to be silent for fear of losing
: o- P5 P; p$ {6 r0 Hfuture grant opportunities. Others who want change take the attitude of ", H: e6 t% F! ?) T; K. s; c
wait and see," rather than risk a losing battle.
7 m3 |( p1 E7 ~8 p  z  g$ Q* \* h1 I) u3 i- A" C
Despite the roadblocks, those shaping science policy and those working at * `+ u. v5 r( G) M9 q) e1 h
the bench clearly recognize the problems with China's current research
4 |1 p  l7 R( r( u# ~0 eculture: It wastes resources, corrupts the spirit, and stymies innovation. 3 S& _1 s! C6 z% j2 J: \8 E* ]( w+ W
The time for China to build a healthy research culture is now, riding the
1 o# J2 `3 Z3 f, t$ n: e9 T% x3 imomentum of increasing funding and a growing strong will to break away from ( h2 \% Z+ @0 v& R
damaging conventions. A simple but important start would be to distribute   y7 O" ]4 ]6 ~- k
all of the new funds based on merit, without regard to connections. Over 5 e) F- {- O  p: {. u
time, this new culture could and should become the major pillar of a system
) Q; y: J: \) ]) ~: Q8 L9 J  `1 q; jthat nurtures, rather than squanders, the innovative potential of China.