24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

天使托

专家顾问 (职业作家)

T.Shen

专家经验: +57
BioEPI: 17
应助: 95 (初中生)
贵宾: 0.263
金币: 16382.3
散金: 593
红花: 74
沙发: 9
帖子: 3648
在线: 288.2小时
虫号: 441757
注册: 2007-10-27
专业: 微生物生理与生物化学
管辖: 微生物

[交流] 《华盛顿邮报》：年轻科学家，去中国吧！ Go to China, young scientist 已有16人参与

华盛顿邮报》：年轻科学家，去中国吧！
中国将来或许会成为急需经费的美国科研人员的更好选择

美国《华盛顿邮报》网站5月21日发表题为《年轻科学家，去中国吧！》文章，以下为主要内容：

20年前，美国的大多数分子科学博士生毕业后会在全美各地的大学建立自己的实验室。这些实验室促进了创新，让美国在全球保持着竞争优势。可如今，我的朋友中虽然许多人想在毕业后自己去创办实验室，但能做到的为数不多。有些人进入了工业、咨询业或者法律行业。还有一些人从事的工作与科学完全不沾边。

由于政府减少了对科技领域的资金支持，美国那些想成为科学家的人其实不可能都如愿以偿。所以最近我的一个朋友拿到分子生物学博士学位后向我咨询职业规划的事情时，我的回答很简单。我对她说，去中国吧。

美国科学家出国寻求发展曾是普遍现象。他们通常会去欧洲，因为那里的专业知识更强、资金更充裕。接着冷战爆发了，美国决策者受到触动，并采取了行动，进而产生了令人难以置信的结果。政府对科技领域的投资让从医药到微处理器的方方面面出现了彻底的变革。据美国科学促进会会长艾伦·莱什纳说，自二战结束以来，美国半数以上的经济增长是拜科技所赐。不过如今，许多科学家，特别是年轻科学家面临着经费短缺的严峻局面。

美国国家卫生研究院院长弗朗西斯·柯林斯本月对国会参议员说，该研究院所接到的每6个拨款申请中，“5个要四处乞讨”。这种经费困难的情形是否会迫使美国科学家开始把目光投向其他国家的就业机会？果真如此，他们并不缺少选择。

全球科学格局与我10年前读研究生时相比有着天壤之别。尖端科技的契机正出现在美国以外的许多国家。中国就是引人注目的一个。但是还有其他许多国家。印度、巴西和新加坡建立了世界一流的科研机构。沙特阿拉伯正大张旗鼓地为阿卜杜拉国王科学技术大学招募科研人员。那里的资金支持有100亿美元之多，比麻省理工学院的经费还多。有了这样一大笔钱，美国科学家不用再忍受波士顿无尽的寒冬。这些新兴强国都在如饥似渴地寻找优秀科学家，它们试图挖走我们的科学家。

我在中国从事了近两年的分子生物研究工作。我在农业生物技术国家重点实验室和北京大学工作过。中国人对待科学非常认真。在过去十年里，政府在科研方面的支出每年增加20%。即便在2008至2009年金融危机期间，中国对科研的投入依然很大。中国现在每年的科研经费达1000亿美元。英国皇家学会估计，到2013年，中国科研人员在国际科学杂志上发表的学术论文会比美国科学家的多。-------这个我表示怀疑。

中国的一些实验室非常尖端，汇集了在东西方受过训练的中国科研人员。这种鼓励创新的环境加上科研人员的勤奋努力，一定会带来重大科技突破。中国的大学都积极地聘请外国科研人员，启动经费会很充足。中国将来或许会成为急需经费的美国科研人员的更好选择。

如果我们流失一些科学人才，对美国来说会怎样？吸收了美国人的聪明才智，可能会使中国这样的国家迅速在空间技术或新型武器研发方面超越美国。我们自己的经济成功和安全过去靠的是外籍科学家，譬如爱因斯坦、“氢弹之父”特勒和布劳恩等。布劳恩主持进行了土星5号运载火箭的研发，从而帮助美国跑赢登月竞赛。如果我们的科学家决定去俄罗斯或中国搞科研，那我们还会像以前一样有竞争力吗7

美国有才能的科研人员常常有怀才不遇之感，因为他们拿不到科研经费。接到的申请堆积如山，但研究机构不得不拒绝其中的90%以上。不幸的是，由于预算削减导致科研经费有限，这种情况很可能会进一步恶化。因此，我开始鼓励我的朋友们广开思路大胆规划自己的前途。我告诉他们，去中国吧，去新加坡、巴西或中东也行。如果美国无法为科研人才提供经费，那么，去能让你如愿以偿的国家吧。

----------自科学网

Go to China, young scientist

twenty years ago, most molecular-science PhD graduates in the United States went on to start up their own labs at universities across the country. These labs drive innovation and keep the United States globally competitive. Today, however, only a handful of my friends will go on to run their own labs, though more would like to. Some go into industry or consulting or law. Others leave science altogether.

As public funding for science and technology shrinks, it just isn’t possible for people who want to become scientists in America to actually become scientists. So when a friend of mine who recently received her PhD in molecular biology asked for some career advice, the answer was easy. Go to China, I told her.
At one time it was common for American scientists to go abroad. Usually, they went to Europe because of better expertise and better funding. Then the Cold War came along and jolted American policymakers into action, producing stunning results. Public investments in science and technology revolutionized everything from medicine to microprocessors. According to Alan Leshner, chief executive of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, more than 50 percent of U.S. economic growth since World War II has come from science and technology. But today, many scientists, particularly young scientists, face a public funding situation that is dire.

Dr. Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, told senators this month that for every six grant applications the agency receives, “five of them are going to go begging.” Will this tough funding environment force American scientists to start looking for jobs in other countries? If they do, there won’t be any shortage of options.

The global science landscape is radically different from what it was when I started graduate school 10 years ago. Opportunities for cutting-edge science are sprouting in many other countries. China stands out. But there are plenty of others. India, Brazil and Singapore built world-class research institutes. Saudi Arabia aggressively recruits researchers for its King Abdullah University of Science and Technology. With a staggering $10?billion endowment there — larger than MIT’s — American scientists no longer need to suffer through Boston’s endless winters. Not to be outdone, Abu Dhabi opened the Masdar Institute of Science and Technology in 2009. These emerging powers have a voracious appetite for good scientists. So they’re trying to poach ours.

I spent nearly two years doing molecular biology research in China. I have worked at the National Laboratory for Agrobiotechnology and at Peking University in Beijing. The Chinese are serious about science. Government spending on research and development has increased 20 percent each year over the past decade. Even in the midst of the financial crisis of 2008-09, China continued to bet big on science and technology. China now spends $100?billion annually on research and development. The Royal Society, Britain’s national science academy, estimates that by 2013, Chinese scientists will author more articles in international science journals than American scientists do.

Chinese labs are cutting-edge intellectual melting pots of Chinese scientists trained in the East and in the West. This environment of creativity and hard work will produce big breakthroughs. Chinese universities aggressively recruit foreign scientists. The start-up packages can be generous and in some cases comparable to what a young faculty member receives in this country. In the future, China might be a better option for U.S. scientists desperate to fund their research.

What does it mean for the United States if we lose some of our scientific talent? The infusion of American ingenuity could be the missing catalyst for a country such as China to leapfrog America in space technology or the development of new weapons. Our own economic success and security depended on foreign talent such as Albert Einstein, Edward Teller (who developed the hydrogen bomb), and Werner von Braun (who led the development of the Saturn V booster rocket that helped the United States win the race to the moon). Would we have been as competitive if they had decided instead to work in Russia or China?

Talented scientists in this country often fall through the cracks because they can’t get funding. Agencies are deluged with applications and often have to reject as many as 90 percent of the proposals they receive. Unfortunately, the situation is likely to deteriorate further as budget cuts limit the resources available for research. So I’ve started encouraging my friends to think more creatively about their careers. Go to China, I tell them. Or Singapore or Brazil or the Middle East. If the United States can’t fund its scientific talent, find a country that will.

Matthew Stremlau, a graduate of Haverford College and Harvard University, is a postdoctoral fellow at the Broad Institute, which is affiliated with Harvard and MIT.

回复此楼