science in china

iseeyou1210

施一公绕毅 最新《science》文章：关于中国科研文化  l* W1 |: G0 R* U

' H5 b: i4 N! ?; v  @# x  G; N+ ahttp://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/329/5996/1128.pdf5 U9 Y$ s5 I' d' f

; K: m9 `: a+ e% @  u) K, e全文：" ?* q: p3 q0 q4 w1 H& Z

1 ~& c. |! i8 GGovernment research funds in China have been growing at an annual rate of
1 f% g( \4 b: e  z7 T; dmore than 20%, exceeding even the expectations of China's most enthusiastic ; B1 ?! C7 B# \
scientists. In theory, this could allow China to make truly outstanding
* `7 H: ~8 }! h5 {7 ^progress in science and research, complementing the nation's economic
7 H; w: Q( ^" G7 D& A9 W! Dsuccess. In reality, however, rampant problems in research funding—some " g; M' U1 ]; k( d! ]$ ~( g" _  I4 w
attributable to the system and others cultural—are slowing down China's
1 z, e' N( M5 R6 K! y1 b9 @( Upotential pace of innovation.
& ?# V# O4 \# z) `1 H
& t. y8 W+ p) `3 C9 N, u# l% V8 BAlthough scientific merit may still be the key to the success of smaller
$ F+ n8 `% `# v8 f# u1 Q/ F5 z" rresearch grants, such as those from China's National Natural Science : h& X( v  O' H* f0 D% G
Foundation, it is much less relevant for the megaproject grants from various
8 m, ?5 u( E) T. x7 Ogovernment funding agencies, which range from tens to hundreds of millions 4 G* [+ l& U" U& W' M
of Chinese yuan (7 yuan equals approximately 1 U.S. dollar). For the latter,
" k' A) K! u: q$ g+ z6 @# Qthe key is the application guidelines that are issued each year to specify
7 W1 R) e) w& u6 g/ ~9 z3 Jresearch areas and projects. Their ostensible purpose is to outline "
& G0 q* G; |: [2 Y0 ]national needs." But the guidelines are often so narrowly described that # r) ^5 g6 w$ Y# I; O
they leave little doubt that the "needs" are anything but national; instead,/ u# m0 M  F! K) _. y4 s
the intended recipients are obvious. Committees appointed by bureaucrats in( i( Y% g% B9 ?4 M
the funding agencies determine these annual guidelines. For obvious reasons
3 ]8 q% _2 v0 G. M" W( j, the chairs of the committees often listen to and usually cooperate with
5 N% t+ T  Q. E" y0 y# J2 G! lthe bureaucrats. "Expert opinions" simply reflect a mutual understanding
7 }- ?6 X8 a0 J6 C! Z# Nbetween a very small group of bureaucrats and their favorite scientists. 8 T2 ^: ~+ w, n2 Z* a2 @
This top-down approach stifles innovation and makes clear to everyone that
' D* e! b0 n/ c9 M  Wthe connections with bureaucrats and a few powerful scientists are paramount
/ W+ m4 P' Q6 \4 R; X; \, dictating the entire process of guideline preparation. To obtain major
% ^# t" _/ g5 ~grants in China, it is an open secret that doing good research is not as
' F6 p* {# Z* Nimportant as schmoozing with powerful bureaucrats and their favorite experts0 _4 t+ k' f% L/ B. s; [
4 [9 [% y+ k% L$ }
This problematic funding system is frequently ridiculed by the majority of
) ]' B$ u) ~, U% d8 bChinese researchers. And yet it is also, paradoxically, accepted by most of
, j8 \7 }$ z1 w' Xthem. Some believe that there is no choice but to accept these conventions.
2 R0 y( e4 p; PThis culture even permeates the minds of those who are new returnees from
0 r# Z7 t( r4 Qabroad; they quickly adapt to the local environment and perpetuate the
) w( z5 \8 N. G4 T  uunhealthy culture. A significant proportion of researchers in China spend
7 W$ V! \; [9 {- A  |9 ^$ Xtoo much time on building connections and not enough time attending seminars
* Z) J1 H  f4 b/ Q$ A1 [1 }) C, discussing science, doing research, or training students (instead, using
: k# h, c$ ]; `( P4 H/ b1 V! \them as laborers in their laboratories). Most are too busy to be found in ' r" W' V) l9 T" V3 w
their own institutions. Some become part of the problem: They use
! n2 o2 e  s2 |7 @connections to judge grant applicants and undervalue scientific merit. ' J6 s  K# Q# j! a/ F( L$ [+ M4 _+ v

! D' S/ W3 O* A6 L. wThere is no need to spell out the ethical code for scientific research and ' l  `! |$ [. c% ~5 |% K
grants management, as most of the power brokers in Chinese research were
, A$ c+ Q! a  k5 x6 Qeducated in industrialized countries. But overhauling the system will be no : z& a' O  s" e. [( L
easy task. Those favored by the existing system resist meaningful reform.
/ Z1 e1 ]5 I" T% ESome who oppose the unhealthy culture choose to be silent for fear of losing
  a% d$ |7 v: F0 @9 ]future grant opportunities. Others who want change take the attitude of "7 [4 {% K2 [/ R, l
wait and see," rather than risk a losing battle. & p/ `+ r9 `2 K# P9 G

1 ^7 U* G+ q& Z; ?Despite the roadblocks, those shaping science policy and those working at $ u3 s2 h3 C" W; h; n
the bench clearly recognize the problems with China's current research
) u0 P4 V  n9 r/ M) p) o9 {culture: It wastes resources, corrupts the spirit, and stymies innovation.
# r. i8 R3 w: C+ N7 W7 }3 v. MThe time for China to build a healthy research culture is now, riding the
& ?0 I6 W+ g; s" Z2 a) d8 Z6 Z+ cmomentum of increasing funding and a growing strong will to break away from
. G2 o' Y" S, Q; B3 X& ~9 Tdamaging conventions. A simple but important start would be to distribute
9 t8 a1 q8 D2 _1 tall of the new funds based on merit, without regard to connections. Over
4 B  Y( `. G3 Btime, this new culture could and should become the major pillar of a system
/ a  q: V9 `; B5 D8 l6 L, V+ Cthat nurtures, rather than squanders, the innovative potential of China.