In a long-term exchange with young researchers, zhang hong, a researcher at the institute of biophysics of the chinese academy of sciences and a member of the chinese academy of sciences, has captured a powerful force that is quietly changing the scientific ecology. – resource-based scientific research, with a build-up of funds, manpower and scale, with papers for titles and more resources for titles, creates a cycle that makes originality increasingly unpopular。
This has given rise to a disturbing reality: while scientific research is expanding, original research in the life sciences in china is becoming increasingly scarce. Young people are becoming more anxious, having to “grow their thighs” for resources, and more and more difficult to study. “resource-based research” created by financial and human resources has spread, squeezing the real search from 0 to 1 and destroying the soil of the scientific culture。
Zhang hong
We'll clean up lee chi minamata
I am an ordinary researcher, without a post, but with young people more often, so i hear them more. Two of the recent concerns of young people have been the destruction of the scientific ecology by resource-based research and the issue of evaluation。
Resource-based research is destroying our scientific culture
With regard to resource-based research, the scope of my discussion is limited to the life sciences, because different disciplines are different. We can see that our country has been investing more and more in scientific research over the years, especially in the life sciences, but we really think in silence how many original discoveries have been made in china
Now zero to one is rarely found. China has done well in the area of 1 to 100, so there are many cns articles in china, and i think there are hundreds of them this year. China’s scientific research is flourishing, and we should never underestimate the scientific value of 1 to 100, but the country needs to promote zero to one original discovery, so it needs a zero to one original discovery soil. Over the years, our soil or scientific culture has become increasingly detrimental to original discovery。
Check the chinese articles. How many are accumulated resources? I refer to resources as financial, human. There are articles that spend tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, on money and manpower. I do not deny that these things may have some value, but at this stage china is, after all, a developing country that spends so much on producing these articles at a very low value。
This resource has accumulated articles that have not only wasted money, but have, in fact, squeezed the scientific soil, the scientific culture and the funding of research for truly original work. These big projects are close to billions and billions, and i do not think that the life sciences of china are now at a stage where they can come up and do such things. Of course, it is undeniable that large projects such as the genome have made a significant contribution to humanity. In china, however, many people did not intend to do so because a project would revolutionize the life sciences。
After spending billions and billions of dollars, there has been no rigorous scientific evaluation and assessment. There are people who will soon be able to take control of tens of millions of funds upon their return, and there are people who are constantly working in the laboratory and whose funding is very limited. And those that build on money can write. I asked the editors of some magazines, who said that the articles were issued because the magazines liked to be distributed, but they should not be used as evaluation criteria. They actually make good sense。
The problem in my country is precisely because it is difficult for a large peer or cross-peer review to understand the meaning and impact of scientific findings. A vicious circle is created if it is based on articles alone: when resources are accumulated, good articles can be published; when good articles are published, many honours can be obtained; and when it is given, more resources can be obtained。
This is not only a drain on young people's scientific resources, but also an incentive for many young people to imitate their so-called success paths. Young people would feel that they also need to find resources and hold their thighs, so the word “legging” has been in place for years。
I'm a doctor who has been away from the country for a long time, and when i first returned home, i didn't know any seniors in the country, and i'm on my own. Now that many young people were returning home with different ideas, they knew who they were going to hug, what projects they were getting, what projects they were involved in and how to get the money. This change in scientific culture is actually terrible. Because every step, even if slower, ensures that it is moving forward. But if there is a problem with scientific culture and soil, it is a problem that affects generations and even generations. That is why i believe that our original scientific culture and the cultivation of scientific soil are now zero to one。
Resource-based research is now becoming more biased. I recently taught students at the agricultural university of china and offered several recent awards. In 2006, andrew phil and craig melo won a no for discovering rna interference, and last year victor ambrose and gary rufkun won a no for micro-nucleic acid, all researching animals that are modeled on luminous nematodes, not resource-based research. Their point of departure is not to publish big articles and get more money, but to be driven by curiosity or by adherence to science。
In may, i spoke to victor ambrose about the original science of my country, saying that it was very difficult to get the support of the fund for making a trophie in my country because my country was always concerned about what benefits could be achieved? Will it cure a disease tomorrow? Will it increase yields? We always expect something revolutionary, but without solid soil and foundations, it is difficult to achieve。
Technology can bend over, but i don't think scientific culture and the spirit of science can bend over, which must be on the ground. It is important to have 1 to 100, but it is the original scientific discoveries of 0 to 1 that really determine whether or not our country can win the competition in science and technology. When we focus on 1 to 100, we need good scientific soil, scientific spirituality and scientific culture to nurture these processes from 0 to 1. The resource section has developed a collection of articles, but what is their value? I do not deny the role played by some programmes in promoting scientific research in my country. I just feel that my country should not now advocate a lot of major plans in the field of life sciences that are completely technical and separate from the development of young people and the pursuit of zero to one original discovery。
Resource-based research and manpower build-up, and laboratories are growing, and even a large pi has several laboratories, always more than anyone. I have only one laboratory, which, despite my hard work at the office before 7:20 a day, has been reading articles and thinking, but i still feel that my energy is becoming more and more limited, so the laboratory is shrinking, with only about 20 people。
My country's research, which is built up by human resources and resources, is philatelic research — the publication of articles, which has produced a great deal of rubbish. Some of our scientific findings were previously non-repeatable because of falsification or selective publication of data; it is not possible to repeat them now, because tens of thousands of clusters are measured and tens of thousands of samples analysed, and how can other researchers reproduce them? I really don't know what the meaning of this is. While it has been argued that impact factors cannot be judged alone, the system as a whole is in fact dominated by impact factors and by the level of publication of magazines。
The problem of resource-based research is growing, as it is becoming increasingly popular. This wrong direction has left a lot of people still. I think there is a need for an atmosphere and a culture of scientific research that enables young people to step down and explore in the laboratory. Many young people now have a clear demand for resources and are clearly following the path of resource-based research. Because young people see those who have resources, those who write articles, even if some of them prove wrong a few years later, they get a lot, and that is a vicious circle. So i began by saying that our original science is now going from 0 to 1, not from 0 to 1, and that the culture of science, the spirit of science and the culture of science and the soil of science are being nurtured without a curve。
It seemed like you were able to settle down and do research because of your quest for science itself. But now, when a scientist sees so many things, it becomes increasingly unfair and many people are frustrated, a phenomenon that deserves attention. Resource-based scientific research has accumulated some philatelic articles with money and manpower, which have had a negative demonstration effect on the entire scientific culture, scientific evaluation system and scientific talent。
02 introduction of a senior marine scientist, how many young people need to tighten their belts
On the other hand, while some of the senior scientists who have returned from abroad have been instrumental in upgrading our scientific culture, many young people have been brought in. The north institute and the shanghai organic chemical institute center for biological and chemical cross-research are known to all. But many have come back with a lot of resources, which is quite negative. Very few dare to speak out about this phenomenon。
Resources-based research by senior scientists returning from abroad will pose growing problems. Countries need senior scientists who return from abroad, their understanding of science, the building of scientific culture and the development of scientific talent. But now a lot of people have come back without doing so. How much time do they have in the lab when they get a lot of resources? Some believe that china is rich and repeats the path of resource-based research. And i always thought that they had a point, that they came back on their own and that universities or institutions were willing to pay. It was a matter for both sides, and it had nothing to do with anyone else. This is a classic self-serving idea. It should be borne in mind that money is the money of taxpayers, that research culture is the scientific culture of china, and that the future of chinese science is the training of young people。
Does china need to spend so much money to get these people back to china to waste? There are dozens of people in their own laboratories, but they cannot be seen in them, and some of them are out in the rain every day, taking advantage of the vast resources of young people. This is indeed a matter of vigilance, and many young people are complaining。
These senior scientists are actually negative if they are not able to clean themselves up and contribute to the development of china's scientific culture and soil. Aren't we all going home to build a healthy science culture? So one time i was particularly surprised that i told someone that a famous senior scientist was going home. The first thing she told me was for everyone to think about: how many young people had to tighten their belts and had no money to do research。
Some experts say that some of the old units in the country, including the central college, operate as shopkeepers and are reluctant to recruit better men than themselves. At this point, i totally disagree with that assertion. Because we old units do not have the resources, many new units do. And how many times the united states salary and much more resources than in the united states have been required by some to come back, but what is the value of coming back? So it's unprovoked。
There is a need for a relatively uniform set of standards and mechanisms throughout the country, which cannot be done individually by agencies, with almost unlimited resources for those imported abroad. These new units seem to feel empowered, rich and able to give as much as they want, which is in fact resource-driven. These rich and resourceful people must think that this is the money of the state, the money of the taxpayers, which is useful for building science and culture, for raising young people, and for promoting china’s original science. Otherwise, the entire scientific ecology will be destroyed. Why are young people increasingly complaining about emerging institutions in the country? These institutions need to reflect on themselves and not always feel right and wrong. I believe that people in other scientific institutions will collapse if they know the number of their salaries and the resources they receive。
We need senior scientists coming back from abroad, but the goal is to let them lead and build a healthy scientific culture. This is where they should be, not come to china, waste their resources and do whatever they want. In fact, a lot of people come to china to do resource-oriented research because they can't focus on the lab. I think that what a man does and what he advocates cannot be contradicted。
That is a point that many young people are extremely concerned and outraged at. Senior scientists at sea really need to put aside their mentalities, not to think they're here to save chinese research, but to know what is good for china’s scientific and cultural health. Don't think you're coming back and the unit's willing to pay so much money. It's between the two subjects. No. They have to ask themselves, is this money playing a positive role in chinese science and culture? Is it good for young people? Is it good for china to explore originality rather than resource-based research? Those issues required their own reflection and could not stop at several times higher wages than in the united states。
New and emerging institutions certainly need to bring in senior scientists, some of whom have played a leading role in research and the development of young people in china. But it is true that a considerable number of senior scientists constantly change units and pull resources. This is also the focus of resource-based research. Our country certainly needs them back, but when they do, they must know where their true worth lies. The country is really not rich enough to let them waste it, and in fact, many young pis have really little funding for research。
What kind of evaluation system do we need
The root cause of these problems is the issue of evaluation orientation, since resource-based research is the easiest to write, and good articles are the ladder of access to more resources and honour, a vicious circle。
Twenty years ago, it was possible to say that we did not have enough of our high-level junior colleagues, but now we do not have the problem. The board's review has also led to a number of problems, such as the jetsing review, which is often carried out by people in several fields, including plants, ecology, information, cells and biochemicals. In order to be fair and just, what is the assessment of bringing together people of little relevance? Many agencies are pursuing apparent fairness and are in fact truly destroying fair and just evaluation systems。
Our evaluation system cannot read only high-citation and magazines, but must go back to the review of small peers, which is fundamental to solving the problem. For example, the review of the foundation's b base centre, which would have been a good project, brought together the various disciplines and found dozens of judges. The cell phone was confiscated at the time of the visit, it was not allowed to go to the bathroom at the same time, to eat at the meeting, and the judges were unable to discuss it, which seemed very fair and just. But is it really fair? What do i say? I feel the need to move back to peer review without formal, superficial fairness. Peer reviews may be problematic and need to be corrected, but in this context, the core, the root, cannot be lost。
Unhappy scientific culture is weakening the original growth environment
I'm always worried about the culture of science, and i'm just so restless. This is, in fact, extremely irresponsible to states. I therefore believe that those who defraud state resources should be punished by law. I went to some places to take part in the review, and many of the projects were blown out of the air, as if they were embedded in the blown-out blueprints. Many are for numbers, and to get that money, they can only be compiled. In fact, many people know the problem, but they don't know where to proceed with reform, because there is a real misperception of interests。
Small circles and small groups exist everywhere, and an impartial scientific assessment remains whether scientific judgement can be upheld. We began by complaining about the small groups, the warlords, the schoolhouses that were formed in the country, and we always hoped that the senior scientists who had returned abroad would change that culture of science, but have they changed? I think more small groups have been formed。
A new body emerges, and if different voices are not accepted with tolerance, they will soon be held in small circles. It is also a circle culture, although it was once a circle, and now more circles have been created and the circle culture itself has not changed。
Because they cannot objectively evaluate the work of others. Many people always think that their unit and those who have a relationship around it do better than others, and always look within that range. So i don't think that there are many real strategic scientists in the life sciences who can't reach out to the whole country and the far future. Nor do they know where they come from and feel that they know everything and can be judged. When a person feels that he or she knows everything and can be evaluated, he or she has left the essence of science. How can a man know everything about every discipline in the life sciences that is now so detailed
Scientific work would not succeed if it left the essence of scientific evaluation. My country needs a group of scientists who dare to insist on science and speak the truth. But science and many fields and industries are different, because those who really do science are in laboratories and the media are rarely aware of it. And the so-called cyber-red scientists who are active out there all day long must not be at the forefront of research or thinking about deep scientific issues because they need to maintain the net-red effect. It is indeed a paradox that this group has a strong voice in the development of scientific culture and scientific evaluation. But the problem is that the red scientists don't really know how to evaluate them. Many people always feel that the more resources they control, the more authority they have in science. It was very simple to destroy a person by giving him resources and honour, and he must be hallucinating: slowly thinking that he was important because he was human. I have seen many examples of these people, who are truly sad because they cannot hear the real voice and the real assessment。
I pay special tribute to our older scientists, who are truly our role models. When a country is so poor, they can give up their possessions and engage in scientific research for the benefit of the country, as a matter of honour. And now that many people are constantly saving their own personal resources, confined to their own little circle, how can they be a good scientist? How can we set an example for young people? We need some real role models, not cyber-red scientists。
Finally, it is emphasized that i do not object to large scientific projects, but rather to scientific projects that are piled up with money and manpower for the purposes of writing and that have little scientific value. To pursue new theories, new systems and new terms on the surface, but it is actually a false prosperity that boasts. This could harm people and lead to the wrong direction for those who make science and technology policies。
Maybe my voice won't matter. But i feel like i still need some sound out. The impact on our scientific culture is ultimately assessed by history, not by traffic。
