楼主: inankai
4366 7

[学术治理与讨论] 复旦在读博士王传超应Nature之邀撰写评论——Give youth a chance [推广有奖]

  • 3关注
  • 24粉丝

贵宾

已卖:21份资源

学科带头人

56%

还不是VIP/贵宾

-

威望
1
论坛币
139383 个
通用积分
4.2681
学术水平
433 点
热心指数
474 点
信用等级
414 点
经验
95349 点
帖子
1528
精华
0
在线时间
2376 小时
注册时间
2010-10-10
最后登录
2016-5-14

初级热心勋章 初级信用勋章

楼主
inankai 发表于 2015-5-3 18:36:55 |AI写论文

+2 论坛币
k人 参与回答

经管之家送您一份

应届毕业生专属福利!

求职就业群
赵安豆老师微信:zhaoandou666

经管之家联合CDA

送您一个全额奖学金名额~ !

感谢您参与论坛问题回答

经管之家送您两个论坛币!

+2 论坛币

[转载]Nature Perspective: Give Youth a Chance

题记:王传超 复旦大学在读博士,人类学专业,2012年吴瑞获奖获得者。本文是他应Nature杂志之邀撰写的评论。文章点评了国内的科研制度,很值得思考。

Give Youth A Chance

Chuan-Chao Wang

Given the decades of continued growth inspending on research and development and huge investments in buildings and equipment, it is no wonder that Chinese scientists, officials and the general public are expecting great advances in science and technology. Yet the reality is that an increasing number of young researchers, including graduate students and postdoctorates, are choosing to escape from research — a situation that has become a topic of heated national debate.

Many recruitment notices for senior research positions require a candidate to have a good publication record,impact factor and citation metrics. Young scientists strive to have a paper published in Cell, Nature or Science — elite, peer-reviewed journals known collectively in China as CNS. A paper in a CNS journal is an unwritten requirement for a better salary or a promotion — especially in China’s top universities and institutes. A CNS paper could change a young researcher’s academic career — or even his or her life.


Focusing evaluation on such inflexible terms leads us, as scientists at the beginning of our careers, to adopt utilitarian ratherthan academic motives. Rather than follow our natural curiosity for research, we choose small, straight forward projects so that wecan obtain results quickly. We need a flow of publications to ensure continued financial support. But every researcher also wants the opportunity to make a CNS splash.


HOWTO RETAIN TALENTED SCIENTISTS

The irony is that although investment inscience is rising in China across the disciplines, there are few funds or fellowships for newly graduated PhDs. The largest is the Young Research Fund,which represents about 20% of the budget of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC). However, each project receives only 240,000 yuan(US$38,000) over three years. The second option is a grant from the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation, in which a successful applicant can secure50,000–80,000 yuan for two years’ work. Neither amount is sufficient to purchase the necessary laboratory reagents and consumables to conduct research.For this reason,many young researchers apply for overseas postdoctoral positions,giving some of their best years of research to other countries — and often staying there.


As a consequence — and in contrast to most Western countries — research projects in China rely on graduate students ratherthan postdocs. Exacerbating this trend, many Chinese universities and institute shire as faculty only those candidates who have overseas research experience.China is, in effect, outsourcing the training of its young researchers. But the reality is that most scientists who graduate with a PhD from a Chinese university will not receive overseas offers; their choice is to stay at home and find work in a domestic laboratory and be paid a low salary with little hope of promotion, or give up their academic career entirely to seek alternative employment.


Thirty years ago, Ray Wu, a molecularbiologist at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, initiated the China–United States Biology and Biochemistry Examinations and Applications (CUSBEA)programme, which allowed for the first time large numbers of young graduates from China to pursue PhDs at leading universities in the United States. Many CUSBEA students have since become leading biologists in the United States as well as in China. Following Wu’s death in 2008, the Ray Wu Memorial Fund established a prize in his honour to inspire and reward PhD students who wish to further their education at universities in China, Hong Kong, Taiwan orSingapore. Unlike China’s typical evaluation system, the Ray Wu Prize — anaward of US$3,000 plus the opportunity to apply for up to $5,000 to attendinter national conferences — does not focus on a student’s history of journal publications, overseas experience or examination results.


Instead, the prizewinners, of which there could be ten or more each year, are determined by peer review by a selection committee consisting of eminent Chinese biologists who assess each candidate’scapacity for creative ideas, independent thinking and dedication to his or her field of interest. Applicants submit a statement describing why they chose to study science, the academic projects they would like to pursue at university,and their intended future career. They also have a face-to-face interview with the committee. In the years, or even decades, after the prizes have been awarded, the committee remains available for advice as the researchers develop their scientific careers.


The Ray Wu Prize is a comprehensive and impartial evaluation process that also offers advice and support. Moreover, it is starting to be recognized by Chinese universities and institutes as a factorin faculty appointments. In 2014, a scientist who was awarded the Ray Wu Prize was appointed as assistant professor (tenure-track) at Shanghai Tech University, despite not having overseas research experience.


For decades, the minds of Chinese studentshave been shaped by passive rote education. But scientific progress requires not recitation of known concepts, but new ideas. The capacity to break the mould and truly innovate — the features that the Ray Wu Prize emphasizes — are crucial for the Chinese scientific community to deliver the results that the government and the people expect from their investment. The potential of new graduates cannot be fully reflected by publication metrics or overseas experience and as a consequence, China is currently losing their contribution.China must invest more in its promising young scientists, and in more effectiveways of measuring their achievements.


附原文链接:http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v520/n7549_supp/full/520S36a.html


本文引用地址:http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-655618-886581.html 此文来自科学网吴瑞纪念基金会博客,转载请注明出处。
二维码

扫码加我 拉你入群

请注明:姓名-公司-职位

以便审核进群资格,未注明则拒绝

关键词:Chance Nature YOUTH Give CHAN 博士 复旦

已有 1 人评分经验 收起 理由
jerker + 60 精彩帖子

总评分: 经验 + 60   查看全部评分

沙发
lisong-1227 学生认证  发表于 2015-5-3 18:48:56

藤椅
教授孤独 发表于 2015-5-3 18:56:59
真实牛人啊

板凳
寒意,在流浪 学生认证  发表于 2015-5-3 19:08:40
这个人确实非常牛逼,膜拜啊 文理兼通 实在佩服

报纸
miseschen 发表于 2015-5-3 19:08:40
人类学还是生物学啊??

地板
寒意,在流浪 学生认证  发表于 2015-5-3 19:09:52
miseschen 发表于 2015-5-3 19:08
人类学还是生物学啊??
侧重生物学,和人类学不太沾边。人类学纯文科的东西。。。。。

7
征夷大将军 学生认证  发表于 2015-5-3 19:39:02

批评科研制度请不要批评成炫耀贴  精选


亮生博客上转了一篇他学弟在Nature上发表的软文《Perspective: Give youth a chance》。之所以称之为“软文”,这因为文章的前半部分写的洋洋洒洒、才华横溢、痛贬时弊,并且是一阵见血:请给年轻人点儿机会。讲得好,鼓掌。亮生做了评价,说了大家想说又基本上不敢说,公开场合还得表示自己从来没有类似想法,私下里还得打电话说亮生你傻啊?是吧?但是文章的后半部分就变味了,变成了吴瑞奖的广告,以及一位吴瑞奖获得者的心路历程。因此看完原文,我看到的结论是:第一,我国现行的、针对年轻学生和学者的科研制度有待改善;第二,改善的方法是争取获得吴瑞奖,因为吴瑞奖不看NCS;第三,获得吴瑞奖就可以得到很好的工作,例如被上海科技大学聘为助理教授。抱歉,可能我比较笨,或是文章写的太有才华,以至于我没有能力来理解更深层次的问题。但问题是写了半篇吴瑞奖,你让我没有这想法也比较难。

好,我的问题是,第一,吴瑞奖看不看NCS?文章中提到“In 2014, a scientist who was awarded the Ray Wu Prize was appointed as assistant professor (tenure-track) at Shanghai Tech University, despite not having overseas research experience.”那么,“a scientist”究竟是谁?很不幸的是,这位科学家恰好是我的好友(博文),是咱科大校友惠老师的得意门生、咱华工的校友,2011年中国十大科技进展中的“将小鼠成纤维细胞成功转化为功能性肝细胞样细胞”的研究是惠老师的经典之作,而第一作者就是我这位好友。这篇论文发表在Nature上,做的非常好。另外,我这位好友还发表了一篇Cell Stem Cell。所以我的问题是:国内的年轻学者有一篇Nature, 一篇CSC,在哪个大学或者研究所找不到教职?如果没有拿到吴瑞奖,是不是上海科大就不给助理教授?难道上海科大的评审委员会看不懂论文只看得懂奖状?此外,兄弟我毕业那会儿还没有吴瑞奖,那按这篇文章的说法,我就应该没有机会才对?所以吴瑞奖跟拿不拿教职是两码事,没有一毛钱关系。并且,我这位好友有Nature,所以也不能证明吴瑞奖不看CNS。也就是说,文章对吴瑞奖的推销是既误导也失败的。

第二,吴瑞奖不是改变我国针对年轻人发展的科研制度的唯一解决方案,甚至不能算得上可选方案之一。凡奖励必有偏好,例如吴瑞奖鼓励青年学者从事科学研究,希望青年学者解决科学问题,而不关注技术或方法学;希望青年学者在已有的科研范式里做微创新,而对非常新、有可能失败的领域持保守态度。这件事我以前写信抗议过,当然现在想来也无所谓了。道理很简单:能拿到吴瑞奖的,一般也会迅速被其他人才项目所奖励,或者早已获得其他人才项目的资助。所以,不管你发什么奖,其实对科研制度没有影响。

第三,针对年轻人的科研制度的完善,依赖于两个方面。其中一个方面是咱自己要做的好,工作努力、态度积极,搞好自己的学术研究,并且还得时不时想办法吼两嗓子,得让另一方面听到年轻人的想法。对吧,会哭的娃儿才能吃到奶,而且吼一吼也挺锻炼嗓音。这几年国内其实也一直在改善,例如青年基金明确要求不要看发表,而要看创新性;至少在咱生信领域,年轻学者获得越来越多的机会;咱学院引进人才,管你哪儿来的,评审委员会坐下来听你讲,读你的论文,你有留学经历当然很好,但那也最多就加个三毛钱的印象分,不会占太多便宜。还有引进人才也看学科发展的需求,并非纯数NCS等等。我相信很多大学和研究机构也是如此,即使不如此也是正在改变。所以,亮生博文里提到的“老大”们,并不必须要被妖魔化成保守古板的老学究,很多时候是因为第一,不了解年轻人的生存状况;第二,年轻人也不敢讲或者不愿讲。咱的建议是,最起码私下里还是可以讲讲。当然喽,比方说兄弟我从事的生信和蛋白质组这俩领域,这几年越来越重视并关注青年学者的发展和交流,越来越多的问题可以公开讨论并且很快就会落实并改进。所以说呢,假如您这领域连私下吐槽也不行,要不转咱生信或蛋白质组得了,只要是就事论事,啥都可以说的。

结论:第一,批评要落到实处,不能太飘忽;第二,我国在发展中,所以要以发展的眼光来看待问题;第三,能在Nature上发表获奖感言,这我也是醉了。佩服!



本文引用地址:http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-404304-886471.html  此文来自科学网薛宇博客,转载请注明出处。

8
wobushita 发表于 2015-5-4 09:12:36
厉害!

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 我要注册

本版微信群
加好友,备注ddjd
拉您入交流群
GMT+8, 2026-1-7 23:05