就在20年前，苏联解体前夕，俄罗斯还是一个科学领域的超级大国，它所开展的科学研究，超过了中国、印度和巴西的总和。自那以后，俄罗斯不仅被科研发展速度震撼世界的中国甩在身后，也赶不上印度和巴西。
受英国《金融时报》之托，把全球1.05万份研究性期刊编入索引的汤森路透(Thomson Reuters)，对“金砖四国”自1981年以来的科研成果进行了分析，从而揭示了世界科学领域的巨大变化。
数字不仅显示出中国科学研究“令人惊叹”的发展，也反映出巴西在这一领域的发展势头非常迅猛，印度的发展要缓慢得多，而俄罗斯则在相对衰落。
英国皇家学会(Royal Society)科学政策主管詹姆斯•威尔斯顿(James Wilsdon)表示，三大因素在推动中国科研的发展。首先是政府的巨额投资。政府拨款金额的增长远远超过了通胀水平，覆盖从学校到研究生科研的整个系统。
其次是知识从基础科学到商业应用的有组织流动。第三是有效而灵活地利用侨居北美和欧洲的大量科技人才的专业知识，吸引职业生涯中的科学家回国，允许他们部分时间在西方工作，部分时间在中国工作。
只有受到一定认可的同行评审期刊的论文才会纳入统计，但“（中国的）科研质量仍良莠不齐”，汤森路透研究评估主管乔纳森•亚当斯(Jonathan Adams)表示。不过，他补充说，中国的科研质量正逐步提高。“他们具有一些相当良好的激励机制，未来将产生高质量的研究。”
与中国一样，印度也有很多人移居海外——在国外居住的许多具有科学教育背景的印度人正在归国，但他们多数投身商业，很少从事研究。“印度高科技公司与本土基础研究机构之间的联系非常匮乏，”威尔斯顿表示，“即便是本领域最优秀的院校——印度理工学院(IITs)，也很难招到顶尖的教职人员。”
与此相关的一个现象是，在国际大学素质比较中，印度的表现较为逊色。由高等教育咨询公司QS编制的“2009年亚洲大学排行榜”显示，印度最好的印度理工学院孟买分校排在第30位。而中国最好的大学排在第10名，香港的排名则更靠前。
QS信息部主管本•索特(Ben Sowter)表示，印度学术界的部分问题，可能在于大学院校都惯于做官样文章。另一个问题是，最优秀的院校疲于处理国内众多的就读与执教申请，以致于无法形成作为世界级大学必备素质的国际视野。印度人力资源部部长已加紧与美英大学建立联系，这应该有助于改变现状。
中国、印度和俄罗斯具备优势的研究领域往往是物理、化学和工程，而巴西则在医疗卫生、生命科学、农业和环境方面比较突出。
2008年俄罗斯发表的研究论文比巴西和印度都少。“问题在于，苏联解体后，俄罗斯大幅削减了研发经费。”亚当斯表示。
“尽管科研新秀大批外流，但国内还是有一个庞大的人才库。任由(俄罗斯)人才继续外流，不符合世界其它地区的利益。我们需要更多的共同投资安排，以帮助俄罗斯科研恢复原有的速度。”
译者/何黎
http://www.ftchinese.com/story/001031019
Just 20 years ago, on the eve of the Soviet Union's disintegration, Russia was a scientific superpower, carrying out more research than China, India and Brazil combined. Since then it has been left behind not only by the world-beating growth of Chinese science but also by India and Brazil.
Huge changes in the world's scientific landscape are revealed in an analysis of the output of the four Bric countries since 1981, carried out for the FT by Thomson Reuters, which indexes papers from 10,500 research journals worldwide.
The figures show not only the “awe-inspiring” expansion of Chinese science but also a very powerful performance by Brazil, much slower growth in India and relative decline in Russia.
According to James Wilsdon, science policy director at the Royal Society in London, three main factors are driving Chinese research. First is the government's enormous investment, with funding increases far above the rate of inflation, at all levels of the system from schools to postgraduate research.
Second is the organised flow of knowledge from basic science to commercial applications. Third is the efficient and flexible way in which China is tapping the expertise of its extensive scientific diaspora in north America and Europe, tempting back mid-career scientists with deals that allow them to spend part of the year working in the west and part in China.
Although the statistics measure papers in peer- reviewed journals that pass a threshold of respectability, “the quality [in China] is still rather mixed”, says Jonathan Adams, research evaluation director at Thomson Reuters. But it is improving, he adds: “They have some pretty good incentives to produce higher quality research in future.”
Like China, India has a large diaspora – and many scientifically trained NRIs (non-resident Indians) are returning, but they go mainly into business rather research. “In India there is a very poor connection between high-tech companies and the local research base,” says Mr Wilsdon. “Even the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs), the highest level institutions in the system, find it difficult to recruit top faculty.”
A symptom of this is the poor performance of India in international comparisons of university standards. The 2009 Asian University Rankings, prepared by the higher education consultancy QS, shows the top Indian institution to be IIT Bombay at number 30; 10 universities in China and Hong Kong are higher.
Part of India's academic problem may be the way red tape ties up its universities, says Ben Sowter, head of the QS intelligence unit. Another issue is that the best institutions are so overwhelmed with applications from would-be students and faculty within India that they do not cultivate the international outlook essential for world-class universities. This looks set to change as India's human resource minister has stepped up efforts to build links with US and UK institutions.
In contrast to China, India and Russia, whose research strengths tend to be in the physical sciences, chemistry and engineering, Brazil stands out in health, life sciences, agriculture and environmental research.
Russia produced fewer research papers than Brazil or India in 2008. “The issue is the huge reduction in funding for research and development in Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union,” says Mr Adams.
“Although there has been an exodus of many of the rising stars of research, there is still a great pool of talent there. It is not in the interests of the rest of the world for the exodus to continue, and we need more co-funding arrangements to help Russian research get back up to speed.”
没有评论:
发表评论