science in china

iseeyou1210

施一公绕毅 最新《science》文章：关于中国科研文化
8 s. a" f2 O4 B
  A/ S  z2 Q8 m6 a& Z9 G! Ohttp://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/329/5996/1128.pdf2 q  E5 D8 L3 P+ J- _3 G

% f4 W9 S7 w$ c  _, [0 q全文：
; e* O6 H. C! k! Y) a0 f$ C( `  l/ y& K$ Y( g5 J. x8 `! |
Government research funds in China have been growing at an annual rate of
% O0 h$ r& @# a6 i' imore than 20%, exceeding even the expectations of China's most enthusiastic : q& R8 z% B5 `) |) E- w$ R
scientists. In theory, this could allow China to make truly outstanding 9 _6 D; e' W4 Z+ N8 v8 J
progress in science and research, complementing the nation's economic 1 Q2 }# a( L& y0 R, b
success. In reality, however, rampant problems in research funding—some - H2 }2 Q/ [5 w& r% @, l
attributable to the system and others cultural—are slowing down China's $ R( `2 g0 r. _" b8 g3 f0 y6 k
potential pace of innovation.
0 i8 y5 [1 ]) Z1 ~# K4 [: b" s
* G( g8 Z! U! U4 G7 BAlthough scientific merit may still be the key to the success of smaller 2 n5 \: ^. e$ }2 b& a. L# f
research grants, such as those from China's National Natural Science + h! c* j& B: A- N) B1 P
Foundation, it is much less relevant for the megaproject grants from various
7 ]( ^1 Y* o. `" q. B# ~6 pgovernment funding agencies, which range from tens to hundreds of millions * s6 p6 G: A8 J0 H8 J
of Chinese yuan (7 yuan equals approximately 1 U.S. dollar). For the latter,
- I3 [3 f7 V/ p* E/ Hthe key is the application guidelines that are issued each year to specify
. E! I1 L, G9 h; b+ ?. C2 q) b9 }research areas and projects. Their ostensible purpose is to outline "0 g! \( G) t. Y3 R- _
national needs." But the guidelines are often so narrowly described that 5 c7 x" T8 F- X% s# G* e2 _
they leave little doubt that the "needs" are anything but national; instead,
. m! T& t; s* Othe intended recipients are obvious. Committees appointed by bureaucrats in; d, j. f8 t4 ]1 G' x
the funding agencies determine these annual guidelines. For obvious reasons
' ^8 D9 _8 R+ E- x$ h. o( g, the chairs of the committees often listen to and usually cooperate with 0 p% @1 @; a' g1 j
the bureaucrats. "Expert opinions" simply reflect a mutual understanding 1 F  U! C; c; Z9 G& u; n) o
between a very small group of bureaucrats and their favorite scientists.
9 y$ ]. X7 P- E0 D7 {- O+ qThis top-down approach stifles innovation and makes clear to everyone that
  H: w  N4 v4 ?! D1 Vthe connections with bureaucrats and a few powerful scientists are paramount# M% k( Z4 G3 D1 X7 P( E, m% G
, dictating the entire process of guideline preparation. To obtain major
' }/ I9 Z; U* Bgrants in China, it is an open secret that doing good research is not as
/ x* h& r2 {6 K" }4 q8 Gimportant as schmoozing with powerful bureaucrats and their favorite experts- j% U5 D& ]$ D+ ?1 n
9 n& w) N" `9 z1 i
This problematic funding system is frequently ridiculed by the majority of
* \- }# o9 B. ~+ e) B7 S$ W4 y5 |Chinese researchers. And yet it is also, paradoxically, accepted by most of * u  E2 V& c# x! N- }9 p* \" i8 J
them. Some believe that there is no choice but to accept these conventions.
9 w3 F5 E' V) t$ L( U( F, }% H7 u" DThis culture even permeates the minds of those who are new returnees from : t! C& ^$ L( g# o& P0 G
abroad; they quickly adapt to the local environment and perpetuate the
1 X2 F$ {. w9 m) p/ Funhealthy culture. A significant proportion of researchers in China spend 0 `" B& V% u% B* K- J
too much time on building connections and not enough time attending seminars
1 P9 a- H  b9 j, discussing science, doing research, or training students (instead, using 9 e% |' B7 t, a) r
them as laborers in their laboratories). Most are too busy to be found in
  P- v) L7 l. A! q% ?" D- |their own institutions. Some become part of the problem: They use
$ F  P1 Y: b! v* i$ t" g% Oconnections to judge grant applicants and undervalue scientific merit. 3 O7 ~) u2 q8 w: R% D$ v6 |

9 R1 P6 j% u) e) r5 IThere is no need to spell out the ethical code for scientific research and 3 _8 x% b% w/ E; `4 N  J
grants management, as most of the power brokers in Chinese research were
# G3 _* a  o, Q8 O& m# oeducated in industrialized countries. But overhauling the system will be no
  ^* z. q$ k: d; v; a( Deasy task. Those favored by the existing system resist meaningful reform.
" Z) |6 B) U; t6 }. I, @5 }Some who oppose the unhealthy culture choose to be silent for fear of losing
6 \* z! I& j0 |9 L$ `% b4 A, yfuture grant opportunities. Others who want change take the attitude of "
7 _- Z! t7 o; W; Q: Cwait and see," rather than risk a losing battle.
  d; |7 f) r' g  |4 Q! B: X3 Q  c
) f0 Z# |& j5 M% v7 l/ c! O. UDespite the roadblocks, those shaping science policy and those working at 5 p5 w# N: P+ J1 Z+ |+ y- c
the bench clearly recognize the problems with China's current research ' c+ p6 b4 W! i7 {3 _  m+ B; m% k4 T
culture: It wastes resources, corrupts the spirit, and stymies innovation. 6 {/ ^$ ?& x+ ^2 S) e2 H+ }$ a
The time for China to build a healthy research culture is now, riding the " ^/ F- m+ [) a* m+ U
momentum of increasing funding and a growing strong will to break away from ( z: g, d7 o1 M
damaging conventions. A simple but important start would be to distribute * j* x: D3 I' Y& u' v
all of the new funds based on merit, without regard to connections. Over
; E" ~) {$ ]. ^. k7 _8 w) v) K/ Ptime, this new culture could and should become the major pillar of a system
2 G1 h1 X  Z$ D! b6 L% rthat nurtures, rather than squanders, the innovative potential of China.