【10.09.03 科学】中国科研文化
本帖最后由 realgen 于 2010-9-11 21:33 编辑【原文标题】China’s Research Culture
【中文标题】中国科研文化
【登载媒体】Science科学
【来源地址】http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/329/5996/1128
【PDF地址】http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/329/5996/1128.pdf
【译 者】realgen & realgen的朋友们 随星 岸上鱼 rabbitwzz 快乐/fw沙洲
【翻译方式】人工
【声 明】本翻译供Anti-CNN使用，未经AC或译者许可，不得转载。
【译者摘要】 清华大学生命科学学院院长和北京大学生命科学学院院长联手在世界顶尖（Top2）科技期刊《Science》（即《科学》）上发表editoral（述评），抨击中国科研文化的种种弊端，一针见血。
【译 文】
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. 中国国家研究基金长期以来一直以超过20%的年增长率增加,甚至超出了中国最热情的科学家的预料.理论上，这足以使得中国在科学研究方面取得突出进步，从而满足国民经济良好发展的需求。然而，实际上，研究基金中存在的许多恶劣问题正在减缓中国改革创新的潜在步伐，这些问题一部分归咎于体制，一部分归咎于文化。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 reflect a mutual understanding between a very small group of bureaucrats and their favorite scientists. This top-down approach stifles 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. 虽然科学价值仍旧是小型研究获得资助的关键，例如来自中国国家自然科学基金的资助，但其与来自各种政府基金部门资助的重大项目没有太大关系，这些资助金额从数千万到数亿元人民币不等（7元人民币约合1美元）。对后者来说，其关键是每年都发行的明确说明研究领域及研究项目的应用指南。应用指南表面上的目的是概述“国家需求”，但是这些指南通常很精细地描述，以至于可以毫无疑问地看出这些“需求”绝不是国家的，而预期的接受者是显而易见的。由基金部门官员指派的委员们决定这些年度指南。出于显然的理由，这些委员会的主席通常听从政府机构的官员并与其合作。“专家意见”仅仅反映了一小部分官员及他们喜欢的科学家达成的共同理解。这种自上向下方法扼杀了创新，并且让每个人明白：和官员及一些有权力的科学家搞好关系是最重要的，这决定着制定指南的整个过程。在中国，为了获得较大的资助，做好研究还不如跟有势力的官员及他们喜欢的专家们闲聊重要，这已经成为了一个公开的秘密。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 significant 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 laboratories). 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 scientific merit. 这种问题丛生的基金制度经常受到大部分中国研究人员的嘲讽，但荒谬的是，这种制度却被他们中的大多数人所接受。许多人认为他们除了接受这些惯例之外没有其它的选择。这种文化甚至渗透到刚归国研究人员的思想里，他们很快适应本地的环境并且保持这种不健康的文化。在中国有很大比例的研究人员花太多时间来搞关系，而没有足够的时间来参加研讨会，讨论科学，做研究，或者是培养学生（相反，却把学生当作实验室的劳动力）。大多数研究者太忙而几乎不会出现在他们自己的机构里。一些人成为这个问题的参与者：他们用关系来判断是否给予申请人基金资助，而课题的科学价值反而显得并不那么重要。
There is no need to spell out the ethical code for scientific 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. 没有必要在科学研究和资金管理方面强调道德准则，因为中国科研领域的大部分当权者都是在发达国家接受的教育。但是彻底改变整个制度并不是个轻松的任务。那些受到现有制度优待的人反对有意义的改革，而一些反对现在不健康的文化的人却选择了保持沉默，因为他们害怕会失去将来的资助机会。其他一些希望改变的人宁可抱着作壁上观的态度，也不愿去冒险改变。
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.尽管障碍重重,科技政策制定者以及相关负责人士清楚地意识到中国现今科研文化领域存在的这样一个问题：当前的科研文化不仅浪费资源、腐化精神、而且阻碍创新。现在中国已经到了建立健康科研文化，驾驭科研基金流向，不断坚定摆脱破坏性传统的信念三者齐头并进的时刻。一个简单却重要的开端将是根据价值来分配所有的新的科研基金,而不考虑关系因素。一段时间内,新的文化能够并将成为孕育而并非阻碍中国创新潜力的体制的主要支柱。 翻译辛苦了
Q49) 实验室的劳动力表示赞同 嗯，了解！有些很有道理！ A simple but important start would be to distribute all of the new funds based on merit, without regard to connections.
realgen 发表于 2010-9-11 11:26 http://bbs.m4.cn/images/common/back.gif
唉，Merit的标准，究竟掌握在谁手里可以算是simple的？
页:
[1]