论文部分内容阅读
On December 19， 2013， China’s two leading academic institutions， the Chinese Academy of Sciences （CAS） and the Chinese Academy of Engineering （CAE）， both announced the newest full members of their institutions. The CAS added 53 new members with an average age of 54 years old， while the CAE took in 51 new members who averaged at 56.9 years old.
In China， the title of academician is bestowed on full members of the CAS and the CAE， and is the highest national honor for a scientist. The lifelong title carries a large amount of prestige.
However， in recent years this prestige， and the accompanying power it brings title holders as well as their employers， has become the focus of controversy. In particular， the biennial academician selection has received attention on account of scandals related to it.
Many academicians also hold administrative posts and are granted power to allocate academic resources and evaluate academic works. The academicians of the CAS and the CAE enjoy more rights and benefits than those stipulated under their respective charters.
Reforming the academician election and management system as well as implementing an academician retirement and exit system were included among the decisions made at the Third Plenary Session of the 18th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China（CPC） that convened in November 2013.
Controversial selection
In December 2013， Shi Yigong， the 46-year-old Dean of the Tsinghua University’s School of Life Sciences， was elected a CAS academician.
Shi has been known as a vocal critic of China’s academic system. In 2010， he co- authored an article in the U.S.-based academic journal Science lambasting the academic research atmosphere in China. The other author， Rao Yi， is a Peking University professor and was dean of that university’s School of Life Sciences at the time of writing the article.
Shi and Rao once studied and worked in the United States. Shi， a structural biologist， received his Ph.D. from John Hopkins University. Before returning to China in 2008， he served as a professor at the Department of Molecular Biology at Princeton University.
Rao， 51， was named a research professor at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine in 2006. Before he started his teaching job at Peking University in 2007， Rao had spent 22 years studying and working as a neuroscientist in the United States.
In 2011， both Shi and Rao were recommended as candidates for full membership to the CAS， but both lost out the selection process. Their passing over received public attention， with some questioning what the CAS’ criteria for selecting academicians actually are.
Rao’s name was dropped from the candidate list after the preliminary round of screening. Soon after the shortlist was released， Rao posted an announcement at his microblog， saying that he would never receive a recommendation for CAS membership again.
In a later statement， Rao said that he does not advocate abolishing the academician system because it provides a counter-balance to administrative power. He pointed out that the system helps improve the status of authoritative academic figures， so that there are at least some researchers that bureaucrats will listen to.
In 2013， the academician selection process was publicly scrutinized once more after the confession of corrupt official Zhang Shuguang. When Zhang， former deputy chief engineer of the Ministry of Railways， stood on trial over corruption charges on September 10， 2013， he testified that he took bribes because he needed 23 million yuan（about $3.8 million） to burnish his credentials and solicit votes to win himself an academician title from the CAS. Zhang was nominated as academician in 2007 and 2009， but failed to win the title both times.
The day after Zhang made his testimony，the CAS released a statement saying that it had not received any complaints concerning academicians receiving bribes from Zhang. It added， “If any academician was proven to have taken bribes， the CAS would not tolerate it. We welcome public supervision.”
Chen Jiaer， a CAS academician and former President of Peking University， said that candidates for CAS membership can be recommended by academicians， and also by organizations such as the Ministry of Education and the China Association of Science and Technology.
According to the CAE’s rules on new member selection adopted in December 2012， candidates can be recommended by its academicians， eligible employers or national academic societies.
Both the CAS and the CAE require academicians to understand candidates’ research areas， academic contributions and ethics as well as recommending candidates that meet standards rather than those who have engaged in coveting the favors of already anointed academicians. Every academician can recommend no more than two candidates， and every candidate ought to be nominated by at least three academicians.
While the impartiality of individual academicians may be compromised by such canvassing， that of organizations is very likely to be influ- enced by departmentalism. Chen said that out of departmental interests， some organizations may recommend more candidates than they should， or possibly even candidates not up to standard. In 2003， Gu Haibing， a professor at the Renmin University of China， was commissioned by the government to study the academician system.
Gu found that academicians’ powers over allocating research funding and evaluating research results could be abused， which can result in ineffective use of research funds and academic corruption， and may in turn stifle innovation.
In 2012， the biennial conference of science and engineering academicians co-hosted by the CAS and the CAE was held in Beijing. Reform proposals were put forth at the meeting， such as making the title of academician an honor with no material benefits， keeping the selection process independent and clearly defining the rights and responsibilities of those providing recommendations.
Another complaint about the academician selection process is the high percentage of government officials selected. For instance， in 2009， more than 85 percent of the 48 new CAE members were incumbent officials or corporate executives， most of whom held positions above the rank of department head.
Lei Zhidong， an academician with the CAE， worried that for officials who are candidates for academician titles， it is very difficult to tell whether their achievements should be credited to their team as a whole or their individual efforts.
Some improvements have been made to the academician selection process in response to this. For instance， of the 104 academicians elected to the CAS and the CAE last year， only three were high-ranking government officials or corporate executives.
Reluctant retirement
Last November， 80-year-old CAE member Shen Guofang applied for retirement from his research position at Beijing Forestry University， but his application was turned down.
Although there is a mandatory retirement age for almost everyone else in the country， one does not exist for academicians.
“No government document has specified when academicians should retire， and no employer wants their academicians to retire either，” Shen said.
Some employers do not want them to leave as they can bring benefits to their organizations such as research funds. Because of the tangible and intangible benefits that they can expect from having academicians， some provincial and municipal governments， universities and companies compete to hire academicians by offering them generous pay and perks. On the other hand， some academicians， often lured in by the extra income， do not want to retire either. Official statistics show that most of the 1，557 CAS and CAE members are between 70 and 89 years old. In spite of this， academicians on the whole still seem to lead active careers.
According to an article that appeared in May 2012 in Study Times， a newspaper published by the Party School of the CPC Central Committee， the 783 academicians with the CAE held a total of 5，610 part-time positions， averaging 7.2 per person.
Wang Xuan （1937-2006）， a late academician with both the CAS and CAE， once said that he was no longer creative after the age of 55， and this holds true for many academicians.
Implementing an academician retirement and exit system will encourage academicians to contribute to the progress of science rather than resting on their past laurels， said Ouyang Zhongcan， a CAS academician.
“Academician is only a title， and that title lasts a lifetime. The retirement of academicians we are talking about now is for them to leave from their current professional positions and duties，” said 81-year-old Qin Boyi， a senior academician with the CAE.
Nine years ago， Qin retired from the Academy of Military Medical Sciences. Since then， he has pursued personal interests such as traveling. He is said to be the only academician in the country that has actually retired.
Currently， Qin is a senior academician， a title that the CAE gives to its academicians above 80 years old. According to charters of the CAS and the CAE， a senior academician cannot hold an academic leadership position， and cannot recommend or elect new academicians， but still has other rights and duties relating to the title of academician and still can attend academician meetings.
However， Qin said that the right time to retire should better be decided by academicians themselves. He said that Isaac Newton no longer did research after a certain age， whereas Madame Curie had been conducting research until the last minute of her life.
In China， the title of academician is bestowed on full members of the CAS and the CAE， and is the highest national honor for a scientist. The lifelong title carries a large amount of prestige.
However， in recent years this prestige， and the accompanying power it brings title holders as well as their employers， has become the focus of controversy. In particular， the biennial academician selection has received attention on account of scandals related to it.
Many academicians also hold administrative posts and are granted power to allocate academic resources and evaluate academic works. The academicians of the CAS and the CAE enjoy more rights and benefits than those stipulated under their respective charters.
Reforming the academician election and management system as well as implementing an academician retirement and exit system were included among the decisions made at the Third Plenary Session of the 18th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China（CPC） that convened in November 2013.
Controversial selection
In December 2013， Shi Yigong， the 46-year-old Dean of the Tsinghua University’s School of Life Sciences， was elected a CAS academician.
Shi has been known as a vocal critic of China’s academic system. In 2010， he co- authored an article in the U.S.-based academic journal Science lambasting the academic research atmosphere in China. The other author， Rao Yi， is a Peking University professor and was dean of that university’s School of Life Sciences at the time of writing the article.
Shi and Rao once studied and worked in the United States. Shi， a structural biologist， received his Ph.D. from John Hopkins University. Before returning to China in 2008， he served as a professor at the Department of Molecular Biology at Princeton University.
Rao， 51， was named a research professor at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine in 2006. Before he started his teaching job at Peking University in 2007， Rao had spent 22 years studying and working as a neuroscientist in the United States.
In 2011， both Shi and Rao were recommended as candidates for full membership to the CAS， but both lost out the selection process. Their passing over received public attention， with some questioning what the CAS’ criteria for selecting academicians actually are.
Rao’s name was dropped from the candidate list after the preliminary round of screening. Soon after the shortlist was released， Rao posted an announcement at his microblog， saying that he would never receive a recommendation for CAS membership again.
In a later statement， Rao said that he does not advocate abolishing the academician system because it provides a counter-balance to administrative power. He pointed out that the system helps improve the status of authoritative academic figures， so that there are at least some researchers that bureaucrats will listen to.
In 2013， the academician selection process was publicly scrutinized once more after the confession of corrupt official Zhang Shuguang. When Zhang， former deputy chief engineer of the Ministry of Railways， stood on trial over corruption charges on September 10， 2013， he testified that he took bribes because he needed 23 million yuan（about $3.8 million） to burnish his credentials and solicit votes to win himself an academician title from the CAS. Zhang was nominated as academician in 2007 and 2009， but failed to win the title both times.
The day after Zhang made his testimony，the CAS released a statement saying that it had not received any complaints concerning academicians receiving bribes from Zhang. It added， “If any academician was proven to have taken bribes， the CAS would not tolerate it. We welcome public supervision.”
Chen Jiaer， a CAS academician and former President of Peking University， said that candidates for CAS membership can be recommended by academicians， and also by organizations such as the Ministry of Education and the China Association of Science and Technology.
According to the CAE’s rules on new member selection adopted in December 2012， candidates can be recommended by its academicians， eligible employers or national academic societies.
Both the CAS and the CAE require academicians to understand candidates’ research areas， academic contributions and ethics as well as recommending candidates that meet standards rather than those who have engaged in coveting the favors of already anointed academicians. Every academician can recommend no more than two candidates， and every candidate ought to be nominated by at least three academicians.
While the impartiality of individual academicians may be compromised by such canvassing， that of organizations is very likely to be influ- enced by departmentalism. Chen said that out of departmental interests， some organizations may recommend more candidates than they should， or possibly even candidates not up to standard. In 2003， Gu Haibing， a professor at the Renmin University of China， was commissioned by the government to study the academician system.
Gu found that academicians’ powers over allocating research funding and evaluating research results could be abused， which can result in ineffective use of research funds and academic corruption， and may in turn stifle innovation.
In 2012， the biennial conference of science and engineering academicians co-hosted by the CAS and the CAE was held in Beijing. Reform proposals were put forth at the meeting， such as making the title of academician an honor with no material benefits， keeping the selection process independent and clearly defining the rights and responsibilities of those providing recommendations.
Another complaint about the academician selection process is the high percentage of government officials selected. For instance， in 2009， more than 85 percent of the 48 new CAE members were incumbent officials or corporate executives， most of whom held positions above the rank of department head.
Lei Zhidong， an academician with the CAE， worried that for officials who are candidates for academician titles， it is very difficult to tell whether their achievements should be credited to their team as a whole or their individual efforts.
Some improvements have been made to the academician selection process in response to this. For instance， of the 104 academicians elected to the CAS and the CAE last year， only three were high-ranking government officials or corporate executives.
Reluctant retirement
Last November， 80-year-old CAE member Shen Guofang applied for retirement from his research position at Beijing Forestry University， but his application was turned down.
Although there is a mandatory retirement age for almost everyone else in the country， one does not exist for academicians.
“No government document has specified when academicians should retire， and no employer wants their academicians to retire either，” Shen said.
Some employers do not want them to leave as they can bring benefits to their organizations such as research funds. Because of the tangible and intangible benefits that they can expect from having academicians， some provincial and municipal governments， universities and companies compete to hire academicians by offering them generous pay and perks. On the other hand， some academicians， often lured in by the extra income， do not want to retire either. Official statistics show that most of the 1，557 CAS and CAE members are between 70 and 89 years old. In spite of this， academicians on the whole still seem to lead active careers.
According to an article that appeared in May 2012 in Study Times， a newspaper published by the Party School of the CPC Central Committee， the 783 academicians with the CAE held a total of 5，610 part-time positions， averaging 7.2 per person.
Wang Xuan （1937-2006）， a late academician with both the CAS and CAE， once said that he was no longer creative after the age of 55， and this holds true for many academicians.
Implementing an academician retirement and exit system will encourage academicians to contribute to the progress of science rather than resting on their past laurels， said Ouyang Zhongcan， a CAS academician.
“Academician is only a title， and that title lasts a lifetime. The retirement of academicians we are talking about now is for them to leave from their current professional positions and duties，” said 81-year-old Qin Boyi， a senior academician with the CAE.
Nine years ago， Qin retired from the Academy of Military Medical Sciences. Since then， he has pursued personal interests such as traveling. He is said to be the only academician in the country that has actually retired.
Currently， Qin is a senior academician， a title that the CAE gives to its academicians above 80 years old. According to charters of the CAS and the CAE， a senior academician cannot hold an academic leadership position， and cannot recommend or elect new academicians， but still has other rights and duties relating to the title of academician and still can attend academician meetings.
However， Qin said that the right time to retire should better be decided by academicians themselves. He said that Isaac Newton no longer did research after a certain age， whereas Madame Curie had been conducting research until the last minute of her life.