science in china

iseeyou1210

施一公绕毅 最新《science》文章：关于中国科研文化
  M$ d+ X; M: v! T& h: ]8 u3 W& c! g* V; ]3 K$ q
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/329/5996/1128.pdf
' X* Z. K; \: s. E
6 h! v3 _) d+ {2 k全文：
" m: H: G# A+ h) @
# b  b9 H7 [& N9 \5 o; GGovernment research funds in China have been growing at an annual rate of . E" ?  z7 O$ j- n/ o
more than 20%, exceeding even the expectations of China's most enthusiastic
/ H: v% h" K: j) i( Q  X1 T) Mscientists. In theory, this could allow China to make truly outstanding
! k$ L) `( C( n0 |4 x: Kprogress in science and research, complementing the nation's economic 8 F1 n7 D- y4 D& s, z* V
success. In reality, however, rampant problems in research funding—some ( r: b0 h" z/ j2 E1 U1 R
attributable to the system and others cultural—are slowing down China's 6 E! L% K, S, J' I7 ]( J* n
potential pace of innovation. 9 ~$ W" V* s. n' t! J
0 q6 c) |. p) q: ^" e
Although scientific merit may still be the key to the success of smaller 2 F) a' m' H) a; a. _
research grants, such as those from China's National Natural Science
7 e! Z) O$ p- {! S, g. xFoundation, it is much less relevant for the megaproject grants from various
+ X6 R- t$ }: P) O( Rgovernment funding agencies, which range from tens to hundreds of millions + C! y5 r+ M0 T
of Chinese yuan (7 yuan equals approximately 1 U.S. dollar). For the latter,
7 K1 U" }/ f* ~the key is the application guidelines that are issued each year to specify 0 a9 ~  ~5 }& c4 }) N: G" {( }
research areas and projects. Their ostensible purpose is to outline "
+ Q% m7 }5 C, d, E/ N3 Snational needs." But the guidelines are often so narrowly described that - |' n- M7 s+ x6 O' m- N
they leave little doubt that the "needs" are anything but national; instead,
/ Y9 s0 v( J6 ^9 }' I; Ithe intended recipients are obvious. Committees appointed by bureaucrats in- H7 A0 v4 Q4 p
the funding agencies determine these annual guidelines. For obvious reasons
: V# X4 r; p- Z( ?4 G, the chairs of the committees often listen to and usually cooperate with
1 k% l2 ~0 q  g+ X) lthe bureaucrats. "Expert opinions" simply reflect a mutual understanding
  p. H; a3 R: t1 w5 ybetween a very small group of bureaucrats and their favorite scientists. 0 d! t% |$ e' Y/ ]& |
This top-down approach stifles innovation and makes clear to everyone that
# Y! T% U' C+ F( A' `the connections with bureaucrats and a few powerful scientists are paramount+ N' w% J5 l2 T
, dictating the entire process of guideline preparation. To obtain major
  p, C$ m8 c2 U$ ~( vgrants in China, it is an open secret that doing good research is not as / u- n7 D9 Q$ p/ d
important as schmoozing with powerful bureaucrats and their favorite experts
; w. {8 p& l* R
" D7 \/ o% l" x/ N3 PThis problematic funding system is frequently ridiculed by the majority of
3 v0 b0 D% p: l$ dChinese researchers. And yet it is also, paradoxically, accepted by most of
& r8 `0 Q) r9 xthem. Some believe that there is no choice but to accept these conventions.
3 m) ~& y" \; f# f- c! r# M& oThis culture even permeates the minds of those who are new returnees from
8 q: `2 G  s; J1 T) {" oabroad; they quickly adapt to the local environment and perpetuate the
2 \: o" a! x- L2 [% |unhealthy culture. A significant proportion of researchers in China spend
3 {8 V. @% o$ q4 j( {* D' p6 Xtoo much time on building connections and not enough time attending seminars
/ {6 w8 Y- x: N; U- W- c, discussing science, doing research, or training students (instead, using 3 G) o5 A0 c0 _2 r* }( M. x
them as laborers in their laboratories). Most are too busy to be found in 8 ^) \% S8 O. D3 B1 x, V
their own institutions. Some become part of the problem: They use 3 w: h; `/ f& A. I' p
connections to judge grant applicants and undervalue scientific merit.
4 M- e1 ?- A* F" x4 y8 Q# e7 [5 X3 Y8 ^; K% Q1 K5 G, ]
There is no need to spell out the ethical code for scientific research and
5 S! |! z  W1 l- Igrants management, as most of the power brokers in Chinese research were - O6 J5 e% U; m7 r. Q+ c' O8 i
educated in industrialized countries. But overhauling the system will be no 3 G1 s% g  {6 _1 G! T! s
easy task. Those favored by the existing system resist meaningful reform. + I% ^! L0 M( Q
Some who oppose the unhealthy culture choose to be silent for fear of losing7 P1 Q" C: {# k) u, N2 H- |  Y4 C! K0 k
future grant opportunities. Others who want change take the attitude of "* r! W* f4 l# s& g+ L; T
wait and see," rather than risk a losing battle. * L/ k5 s+ I9 |. C/ n

. T4 Q( z. P9 ?Despite the roadblocks, those shaping science policy and those working at ! K$ T! B4 W# C5 p2 V. S
the bench clearly recognize the problems with China's current research 4 k% Y9 E9 `4 |& S$ k$ y$ A
culture: It wastes resources, corrupts the spirit, and stymies innovation. # m) H8 W* _) p! I
The time for China to build a healthy research culture is now, riding the
$ V4 v& A+ }% Y# h" lmomentum of increasing funding and a growing strong will to break away from ! g" R1 {9 M1 J0 f" F/ u3 t
damaging conventions. A simple but important start would be to distribute $ t. X1 x6 t, F9 M
all of the new funds based on merit, without regard to connections. Over + W0 S, a% W: H* h
time, this new culture could and should become the major pillar of a system % G$ b" Y: S! N: @- b+ ?
that nurtures, rather than squanders, the innovative potential of China.