24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

当前只显示满足指定条件的回帖，点击这里查看本话题的所有回帖

heyuhit

木虫 (著名写手)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 2024.7
帖子: 1337
在线: 45.6小时
虫号: 798292
注册: 2009-06-24
性别: GG
专业: 金属材料表面科学与工程

[交流] 炮轰科研经费分配体制｛转载｝已有8人参与

转载。谁把原文链接来看看？

中国学者炮轰科研经费分配体制

两位学者的文章刊登在《科学》周刊上。

两名分别来自中国北大和清华的教授最近联合撰文发表在最新一期的英文《科学》杂志（Science）上，对目前中国科研基金分配体制提出批评。

清华大学生命科学学院院长施一公和北京大学生命科学学院院长饶毅在文章中说，中国政府投入的研究经费以每年超过20%的比例增加，但是科研体制和科研文化的严重问题却减缓了中国的创新能力。

文章指出，来自中国政府部门的的巨型项目，经费从几千万到几亿元人民币，但是申请过程与科学优劣并无多大关系，更关键的是“与个别官员和少数强势科学家搞好关系”。

文章称这些官员和科学家主宰了经费申请指南制定的全过程，批评这种自上而下的方式压抑了创新，培养了搞关系的科研文化。

文章还透露这种潜规则文化渗透到那些刚从海外回国学者的意识中，相当比率的研究人员花了过多精力拉关系，却没有足够时间参加学术会议和作研究或培养学生。

这两名学者也意识到要改变这样的体制所面临的阻力，称“现行体制的既得利益者拒绝真正意义的改革”，另外还有部分人害怕失去未来获得基金的机会，因此选择了沉默。

文章最后呼吁科学政策制定者和一线科学家清楚意识到中国目前科研文化中的问题，不再浪费中国的创新潜力。

著名的《科学》杂志由美国科学促进会主办。该协会建于1848年，是世界上最大的非营利科学组织，成员由超过12万科学家和机构组成。

回复此楼

» 猜你喜欢

AI 太可怕了，写基金时，提出想法，直接生成的文字比自己想得深远，还有科学性已经有6人回复
有院领导为了换新车，用横向课题经费买了俩车已经有9人回复
酰胺脱乙酰基已经有13人回复
博士延得我，科研能力直往上蹿已经有8人回复
同年申请2项不同项目，第1个项目里不写第2个项目的信息，可以吗已经有4人回复
有时候真觉得大城市人没有县城人甚至个体户幸福已经有10人回复
天津大学招2026.09的博士生，欢迎大家推荐交流（博导是本人）已经有5人回复
遇见不省心的家人很难过已经有22人回复

1楼 2010-09-06 18:45:22

已阅回复此楼关注TA 给TA发消息送TA红花 TA的回帖

dydydydydy

银虫 (小有名气)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 404.6
散金: 44
帖子: 253
在线: 179小时
虫号: 1059700
注册: 2010-07-18
专业: 资源循环科学

★
小木虫(金币+0.5):给个红包，谢谢回帖交流

China’s Research Culture
GOVERNMENT RESEARCH FUNDS IN CHINA HAVE BEEN GROWING AT AN ANNUAL RATE OF MORE
than 20%, exceeding even the expectations of China’s most enthusiastic scientists. In
theory, this could allow China to make truly outstanding progress in science and research,
complementing the nation’s economic success. In reality, however, rampant problems in
research funding—some attributable to the system and others cultural—are slowing down
China’s potential pace of innovation.
Although scientific merit may still be the key to the success of smaller research
grants, such as those from China’s National Natural Science Foundation, it is much less
relevant for the megaproject grants from various government funding agencies, which
range from tens to hundreds of millions of Chinese yuan (7 yuan equals approximately
1 U.S. dollar). For the latter, the key is the application guidelines that are issued each year
to specify research areas and projects. Their ostensible purpose is to
outline “national needs.” But the guidelines are often so narrowly
described that they leave little doubt that the “needs” are anything
but national; instead, the intended recipients are obvious. Committees
appointed by bureaucrats in the funding agencies determine
these annual guidelines. For obvious reasons, the chairs of the committees
often listen to and usually cooperate with the bureaucrats.
“Expert opinions” simply refl ect a mutual understanding between
a very small group of bureaucrats and their favorite scientists. This
top-down approach stifl es innovation and makes clear to everyone
that the connections with bureaucrats and a few powerful scientists
are paramount, dictating the entire process of guideline preparation.
To obtain major grants in China, it is an open secret that doing good
research is not as important as schmoozing with powerful bureaucrats
and their favorite experts.
This problematic funding system is frequently ridiculed by the majority of Chinese
researchers. And yet it is also, paradoxically, accepted by most of them. Some believe that
there is no choice but to accept these conventions. This culture even permeates the minds
of those who are new returnees from abroad; they quickly adapt to the local environment
and perpetuate the unhealthy culture. A signifi cant proportion of researchers in China
spend too much time on building connections and not enough time attending seminars,
discussing science, doing research, or training students (instead, using them as laborers
in their labora tories). Most are too busy to be found in their own institutions. Some become
part of the problem: They use connections to judge grant applicants and undervalue
scientifi c merit.
There is no need to spell out the ethical code for scientifi c research and grants management,
as most of the power brokers in Chinese research were educated in industrialized
countries. But overhauling the system will be no easy task. Those favored by the existing
system resist meaningful reform. Some who oppose the unhealthy culture choose to be silent
for fear of losing future grant opportunities. Others who want change take the attitude of
“wait and see,” rather than risk a losing battle.
Despite the roadblocks, those shaping science policy and those working at the bench
clearly recognize the problems with China’s current research culture: It wastes resources,
corrupts the spirit, and stymies innovation. The time for China to build a healthy research
culture is now, riding the momentum of increasing funding and a growing strong will to
break away from damaging conventions. A simple but important start would be to distribute
all of the new funds based on merit, without regard to connections. Over time, this new culture
could and should become the major pillar of a system that nurtures, rather than squanders,
the innovative potential of China.