应《网络安全法》要求，自2017年10月1日起，未进行实名认证将不得使用互联网跟帖服务。为保障您的帐号能够正常使用，请尽快对帐号进行手机号验证，感谢您的理解与支持！

24小时热门版块排行榜    

小木虫论坛-学术科研互动平台 » 科研生活区 » English Cafe » Opinion » [activity] Do you agree that the government should support?
283/3返回列表上一页123
查看: 3124  |  回复: 27
只看楼主 @他人 存档 新回复提醒 (忽略) 收藏    在APP中查看
本帖产生 4 个 ESEPI ，点击这里进行查看

zyjzw

至尊木虫 (职业作家)
★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★
00waterh: 金币+20, ESEPI+1, mark it first, i will post tomorrow. 2014-03-06 14:32:28
00waterh: 回帖置顶 2014-03-06 15:41:23
00waterh: 金币+10, bonus, for you good article and support~ 2014-03-07 22:45:54
I agree with upstairs, ok, let's get to the point--
    Undoubtedly, the gov should support the scientific research. However, our gov funding system hasn’t being satisfied by most researchers. Fund set up by Chinese gov at all levels should benefit the majority instead of a tiny minority to declare the project success.
   It’s hard to tell whether a project is useful or not for gov, I think, near-term commercialization project must be more useful than the “blue-sky” ideas? I’m not sure. It depends if it can benefit people in the long run.
  Most scientists and researchers hate to deal with gov departments, but they have no choice, they need the gov funding to carry on their work. We all know what a research project would be with dearth of financial resources. Major health concern like cardiovascular disease and tumor in medical field will easily get attention of the gov. The excessive competition in science do no good to the next generation of scientists. Bribe and academic plagiarism still exist in scientific community and may never ever eliminate, what we can do is only to make this field relatively pure.
   Strategies must be adopted to impede the situation. Communication plays a key role here. On one hand, it’s imperative for the scientific community to learn to talk with the non-scientists in an understandable way. What’s more, the research scientists should learn to work with the gov. through a reasonable platform collaboratively and effectively. On the other hand, for controlling the unnecessary investment to the projects, more experts who understand both fields r badly needed in gov departments. The gov should provide unique insight into the current state of scien education and R&D.
   My perspective only, looking forward to ur feedbacks.
赞一下(2人) 回复此楼
另一个江湖，别样的沧桑...
21楼2014-03-06 14:29:21
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

Lopemann

荣誉版主 (职业作家)

聽真那自由在奏鳴
★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★
Lopemann: 回帖置顶 2014-03-06 18:20:58
00waterh: 金币+30, ESEPI+1, wow, come on,i love you guys.by the way, we China welcome those scientists who have lost their job in Austria 2014-03-07 08:51:05
Yes nowadays there is a great surplus of research students and researchers, and most of the work cannot be transformed into the actual product. Someone might say some day these work might be base stone for major discoveries in science. I’m in no position to claim this statement is right or wrong, at least in my eyes, it’s not how science works.

I personally agree that most scientific researches might be redundant in terms of the transformation rate of them into daily application, but financial support from government is still necessary I reckon.

Whether the government supports scientific researches or not is also a reflection whether the government believes in science itself. If the government is leaving us the impression that “we don’t trust you science people”, then disaster for the nation is coming as well, for sure. Australia is an illustrative example, forgive me but Australia repels me, seriously.

The current Prime Minister doesn’t trust science. Then do you know what happened?

Education budget is cut, research funding and funding grant rate are dropping, and scientists working for government organizations are losing their jobs. Then the current survey released by ABS suggests that fewer students are choosing science electives in secondary school. What to expect then?

Apart from that, Australia is losing its target to cut gas emission by 5% because it’s said to be too hard to achieve the target. Funny is our Prime Minister actually appointed a guy who is even not convinced that CO2 is the major cause of warming to tackle with gas emission issues. Another funny story to share is that rubbish dumping is approved in the Great Barrier Reef. I can only type HEHE to have my opinion acrossed.

Can you imagine that I’m mumbling all the way till the end of the article?

[ Last edited by Lopemann on 2014-3-6 at 19:54 ]
赞一下(2人) 回复此楼
现实世界的理想主义卧底 Gypsy in memory
22楼2014-03-06 18:20:46
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

伤心无意

木虫 (小有名气)
★ ★
Lopemann: 金币+2, Good. 2014-03-06 19:55:13
Science is essencial for modern society as it supports new inventions and technology. Even some researches in the past which seemed useless proved to be improtant nowadays. So as far as I can see, science drives the society forward, no matter it is useful or not.
赞一下 回复此楼
23楼2014-03-06 18:36:59
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

zyjzw

至尊木虫 (职业作家)
引用回帖:
22楼: Originally posted by Lopemann at 2014-03-06 18:20:46
Yes nowadays there is a great surplus of research students and researchers, and most of the work cannot be transformed into the actual product. Someone might say some day these work might be base sto ...

mumbling what?
回复此楼
另一个江湖，别样的沧桑...
24楼2014-03-06 19:48:59
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

Lopemann

荣誉版主 (职业作家)

聽真那自由在奏鳴
引用回帖:
24楼: Originally posted by zyjzw at 2014-03-06 19:48:59
mumbling what?...

I was cursing Tony Abbott.
赞一下 回复此楼
现实世界的理想主义卧底 Gypsy in memory
25楼2014-03-06 19:51:51
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

00waterh

木虫 (知名作家)
★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★
00waterh: 回帖置顶 2014-03-07 13:51:24
Lopemann: 金币+30, Nice to see your work! 2014-03-07 20:47:48
Lopemann: ESEPI+1, Yes I support it. 2014-03-07 20:48:16
i do agree that the Gov should support the research even there is no practical use.

it's reasonable that Gov prefer supporting the researches which can bring the large benefits immediately, for we know such support usually would see its function at a short term,also would fulfill the Gov's will knowing their support is worth of it. as a result, researchers are demanded to specify the economic value of their projects(by which how much money can it bring to the society) when they apply for the fund. last year, five fund applications of our lab were hand in to the decision-maker, only one was past just for it has more practical use.

there i truly hope the Gov can think over and over about how to define 'practical'? and forget my offensive to inquiry that does 'no practical use' means no use? as some worms have mentioned above that most of time there is really hard to find a way to see whether some researches have the practical use or not. so at least it seems to me that the practical use people called is by the short sight.if researchers haven't taken a long time to monitor the various index of forest, how can we know forest is of great importance to the weather change. if so,should we cut down the fund for such kinda research just for it's labeled with no practical use?

the Gov should support the research if the research is meaningful for us. not just for us, but also for descendants. i personally don't want to see more rivers are polluted for the project is having practical use.and the PM 2.5 is higher than yesterday just because some 'no practical use' researches have been killed. if some researches would make more people afford their house,but low down the life quality of whole creature in this world. will you support it?

i have my idea there.

[ Last edited by 00waterh on 2014-3-7 at 20:51 ]
赞一下 回复此楼
26楼2014-03-07 13:47:11
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

615780236

禁虫 (知名作家)
本帖内容被屏蔽
27楼2014-03-07 23:33:02
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

Antar18

铜虫 (初入文坛)
★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★
Lopemann: 回帖置顶 2014-03-08 13:44:06
00waterh: 金币+20, persuasive examples, thanks for your good opinion. 2014-03-08 17:46:07
00waterh: ESEPI+1, i agree with your idea 2014-03-08 17:46:38
I think the government should give support to the research with no practical use.
The research with no practical use is defined by most people as that which cannot be directly converted into econimic interests, be directly applied to industry, or directly serve us in our daily life. While it should be noticed that the so called not practical research is not useful and profitable at present not permanently. In the history of human evolution, there were so many great research outputs which looked like useless at first but were finally proved to be core technique of subsequent monumental research works that changed our life. Without the support of number theory, the information safety technology would have not got so perfect to prevent secret from being stolen in wars and bussiness competitions. If Shannon had not discovered the information theory, the communication technology would have not get so developed and we would have not accessed to so large amount of information through the Internet and would have not used our smart phones to communicate with others. Computer would have not been invented without computability theory. Weather forcast would have not been born without the development of partial differential equation theory.  From the examples listed above, we can conclude that the value of some research works was hidden when they were carried out. It took hundreds of years or even longer time to discover their vaule. So the government should not be so impatient and short-sighted that some research works are not supported simply becasue they are not so practical. Please remember that every research is useful and meaningful. We say some of them are not practical, it is because that we have not found out how to use them.
赞一下(2人) 回复此楼
Stayfoolish,stayhungry.
28楼2014-03-08 13:37:40
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
相关版块跳转 我要订阅楼主 00waterh 的主题更新
283/3返回列表上一页123
普通表情 龙 兔 虎 猫 高级回复 (可上传附件)
信息提示
关闭
请填处理意见
关闭