science in china

iseeyou1210

施一公绕毅 最新《science》文章：关于中国科研文化: J: Z6 I4 e) x, w

5 i% S8 J6 s( ^http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/329/5996/1128.pdf
  E9 s1 q, l- N% S& h, Y' |1 ^" H( t8 ]
全文：
( r6 x1 w+ z0 Z/ D# L" W
# O7 r% a6 |+ g- r; uGovernment research funds in China have been growing at an annual rate of
# [0 i9 r6 p# o8 P& @% s. Kmore than 20%, exceeding even the expectations of China's most enthusiastic
% O) C7 z: V& V! gscientists. In theory, this could allow China to make truly outstanding + |4 H) j. `* F- c$ {
progress in science and research, complementing the nation's economic
7 O$ |+ K2 v- y5 dsuccess. In reality, however, rampant problems in research funding—some
% Y3 F% z5 ?5 b. ]/ X9 p8 eattributable to the system and others cultural—are slowing down China's & p' q1 |  ?- b  Z
potential pace of innovation. + x% m9 Z! J0 W& a( d
; A- u/ Z2 ^5 l
Although scientific merit may still be the key to the success of smaller 1 o5 W; n( {+ k- ~# R
research grants, such as those from China's National Natural Science + a& ]# v; k$ M6 T+ l
Foundation, it is much less relevant for the megaproject grants from various( C1 A: T& r& Z+ v8 G) G8 D
government funding agencies, which range from tens to hundreds of millions
# B+ W& `% ~+ Rof Chinese yuan (7 yuan equals approximately 1 U.S. dollar). For the latter,
8 ]4 c+ y+ ^7 dthe key is the application guidelines that are issued each year to specify + g+ [  e# C1 `$ u& |9 l$ O
research areas and projects. Their ostensible purpose is to outline "; X1 q. `5 x6 |1 [- \
national needs." But the guidelines are often so narrowly described that
& H" f' u1 p6 S3 ]! t5 gthey leave little doubt that the "needs" are anything but national; instead,
/ o2 c" \4 e% c" C- Y( k  E0 X, G) tthe intended recipients are obvious. Committees appointed by bureaucrats in
% u- p8 x: }8 I& ?; u8 Y. Cthe funding agencies determine these annual guidelines. For obvious reasons6 F+ L  \4 d2 T. n, n' E
, the chairs of the committees often listen to and usually cooperate with
5 N8 l. q4 |4 [; p% U8 e6 S$ tthe bureaucrats. "Expert opinions" simply reflect a mutual understanding " t1 v2 Z. a( c  e
between a very small group of bureaucrats and their favorite scientists.
- `, b. q* w. E, Y  T1 i+ u4 oThis top-down approach stifles innovation and makes clear to everyone that ) b& G) g1 y3 C; p# C+ }9 m9 R
the connections with bureaucrats and a few powerful scientists are paramount4 ^  b; O/ `7 b3 I5 W/ h
, dictating the entire process of guideline preparation. To obtain major $ J- ~+ r: C3 g7 z3 {2 ~
grants in China, it is an open secret that doing good research is not as
1 N  y' G. k1 J3 Y; Wimportant as schmoozing with powerful bureaucrats and their favorite experts0 B, [  M1 b, n: K% m
- e: \9 d0 T6 m& o/ u) t1 q& O
This problematic funding system is frequently ridiculed by the majority of ) s2 g+ e8 X0 Q4 E
Chinese researchers. And yet it is also, paradoxically, accepted by most of
; M( ^( n- ?' Q7 r: t5 A; Jthem. Some believe that there is no choice but to accept these conventions.
1 O) n% f3 G( h9 [/ _! ^9 W# xThis culture even permeates the minds of those who are new returnees from
% Q* A7 N/ G9 Gabroad; they quickly adapt to the local environment and perpetuate the
! U5 x' M- S/ H9 o* v6 Nunhealthy culture. A significant proportion of researchers in China spend 7 U# G" Y8 {. l- x$ e4 k: V2 P
too much time on building connections and not enough time attending seminars
0 {! H9 v; A0 m8 l, discussing science, doing research, or training students (instead, using
* F6 I6 T, l# e( s! O/ nthem as laborers in their laboratories). Most are too busy to be found in
+ j" I. `/ \6 e6 o6 ltheir own institutions. Some become part of the problem: They use * G6 ?9 D3 Z$ e1 `( Q: _+ B# q1 R
connections to judge grant applicants and undervalue scientific merit.
9 a% `: `$ u: \2 k
$ U; M: a# N# TThere is no need to spell out the ethical code for scientific research and
/ ]& n% g& E! i) Dgrants management, as most of the power brokers in Chinese research were
5 f/ L! Z1 A9 ^7 `0 |, e! \educated in industrialized countries. But overhauling the system will be no 5 |, e' @! X  v; b1 S) h- G7 I
easy task. Those favored by the existing system resist meaningful reform.
- K( d2 j5 B2 v2 C1 b/ T& c4 W1 \! VSome who oppose the unhealthy culture choose to be silent for fear of losing/ `6 s: K- ^9 ?: l  e+ @' b/ e
future grant opportunities. Others who want change take the attitude of ") a2 [! X2 u7 j# s- m- A/ M
wait and see," rather than risk a losing battle.
! X/ |2 Q( I6 W0 E: h4 ^% C& ~3 \* f
Despite the roadblocks, those shaping science policy and those working at
! e9 e* U9 R- ^1 m" Jthe bench clearly recognize the problems with China's current research + {% w) a" ?: v, }  x
culture: It wastes resources, corrupts the spirit, and stymies innovation. 9 g* j3 K1 ^! |8 r( _3 {! \  h
The time for China to build a healthy research culture is now, riding the 7 w0 R& E% D# ~% y! h5 _
momentum of increasing funding and a growing strong will to break away from ) X: q0 u, R9 ]9 i5 d1 T
damaging conventions. A simple but important start would be to distribute
  v% w# y0 [6 e" O3 z: Xall of the new funds based on merit, without regard to connections. Over " S/ _5 }0 [' |
time, this new culture could and should become the major pillar of a system
5 ^/ H+ W! u$ i: k( X4 Nthat nurtures, rather than squanders, the innovative potential of China.