Federal funding of basic research: the red tape mill

Federal regulations and concerns about accountability for public funds have added greatly to the administrative burden associated with federal support of research at universities. Much of the added burden is viewed as unnecessary and counterproductive by the scientists and administrators who must bear the load. They feel that funds and effort intended for research are being diverted and wasted. The various types of costs are reviewed, including some thoughts as to their origin and estimates of their magnitude. Topics covered include project versus programmatic support, the indirect cost game, accountability, federal regulations, and the bureaucratic syndrome. There are no simple solutions, but several promising initiatives have been taken and more should be forthcoming.     

事业单位经济责任审计评价

通过近几年的工作实践,结合一些审计案例,分析科研、教学单位应把握的经济责任审计评价的重点,提出在审计工作中应遵循真实性、与时俱进和谨慎性的原则,应持科学、严谨的工作态度,以防范审计风险。     

地方高校农林专业教学、科研基地建设的研究与实践

本文对地方高校农林专业教学、科研基地建设的现状及存在的问题进行了总结与分析,提出了教学、科研与生产三结合、形式多样化的基地建设对策.     

基于应用服务的高校信息资源建设研究

信息技术的发展为信息资源的获取提供了强大的支撑,如何使高校的信息资源建设更有序、更有针对性是高校信息资源建设与管理人员一直在探索的问题,高校信息资源建设必须要有明确的目标,以服务为基础,以保障为动力,通过有效组织、科学管理来为高校的教学科研服务。     

关于欠发达地区高校文库建设的思考——以江西师范大学文库为个案

高校文库在弘扬高校学术传统、推动高校教学科研、铸造师生良好品质等方面有着特殊作用,近年来高校文库建设日益受到高校重视。江西师大文库与其他著名高校文库相比,发展还显滞后,具体表现在收藏不尽人意、管理制度缺乏等方面。江西师大文库要想摆脱落后局面,获得可持续发展,必须做足宣传来丰富收藏,制定规章来规范管理。     

世界高水平涉农大学科研现状的信息计量分析

为探讨世界高水平涉农大学的科研现状,以农业科学为例,利用文献计量学方法深入剖析了U.S.News世界大学排名中农业科学领域前4位高校即瓦赫宁根大学、加州大学戴维斯分校、康奈尔大学、中国农业大学的科研优势。研究发现:从高被引论文的作者角度来看,4所学校均形成了一定规模的高水平科研创新团队,汇集了一定数量的学科领军人物;从论文署名人数维度来分析,4所学校总体上的科研合作团队规模在逐年扩大,单独发表论文的学者比例逐年下降;从国际合作的机构分布情况来观察,4所学校都将国际合作作为促进本校科研发展的重要举措;4所学校都获得了不同渠道的基金项目资助,其中政府资助成为主体,同时科研项目资助也呈现出社会化和多元化的趋势。本研究旨在为我国高校科研管理部门的重点学科发展决策提供情报线索,对其创建世界一流大学和一流学科的路径规划提供参考。     

Pajaro Dunes: the search for consensus

Executives of five major universities and several biotechnology firms which sponsor university research issued a statement of principles at the conclusion of a conference called to consider the ramifications of university-industry collaboration. The conferees agreed that such collaboration must not promote secrecy that will retard scientific progress, interfere with the choice of faculty and student research projects, divert faculty and university resources from their primary obligations to teaching and research, or impair the university's credibility. They considered alternative approaches to contract disclosure, control of patents, and conflict of interest problems, but left resolution of the issues to individual universities.     

高校科研合作网络及演化研究——以京津冀地区211及省部共建高校为例

[目的/意义]京津冀协同发展是党中央作出的重大战略决策,科研合作是京津冀协同创新发展的重要方面。[方法/过程]笔者基于CNKI检索京津冀地区211及省部共建的26所高校在2008年—2017年发表的合著论文数,运用定量分析、社会网络分析方法,借助Ucinet绘制科研合作网络图谱,从而探讨京津冀地区高校科研合作网络现状及演化规律。[结果/结论]研究结果发现,高校科研实力强劲是形成科研合作的基础,清华大学、北京大学、中国人民大学、北京师范大学、北京科技大学、北京航空航天大学和北京交通大学在科研合作网络中处于核心地位;地域聚集特性是影响科研合作关系强弱的主要因素;各类大学归属于不同的块模型,占据不同位置和角色,具有不同的结构功能和作用;京津冀地区高校科研合作经过10年间的发展,已经形成一个动态演化的网络。     

高校科研档案管理比较研究及导向性思考

随着高校科研工作的不断发展,科研材料呈几何级数递增,但目前高校普遍存在着科研档案管理与科研工作发展不同步的问题,严重影响了档案体系的完整性与准确性。文章分析了高校科研档案管理面临的挑战和存在的问题,指出了高校科研档案归档范围的主要内容,开展了加强高校科研档案归档导向性思考,提出了推进高校科研档案归档规范管理的措施,如提高科研档案的管理意识、抓好科研档案的前端控制等,以实现科研档案的系统化、规模化、科学化管理,使科研档案管理与科研工作同步发展。     

加快我国农业科技进步的政策方向和对策建议

本文分析了我国农业科技进步各子系统中存在的问题;同时明确指出农业科技进步各系统需要改革的政策方向。提出农业科技投入的强度应处于发达国家和发展中国家水平之间,并由农业部门对农业科研实行统一管理;在科研立项中实行面对农户的目标管理制度;高校应与政府合作共建基层农业科技推广体系,引导科研机构、高校设立营销公司以推广农业科技;尊重农户意愿,以行政村为单位建立公开的土地流转市场;根据农户经营状况,采取不同类型的产业化合作等对策。     

“政产学研”模式下，独立学院培养人才模式 的探索与实践

20 世纪90 年代独立院校发展至今取得了一定的发展成果,独立院校办学规模逐步扩 张,在校学生人数也在逐步上涨,由此可以看出独立学院成为了高等人才培养的重要场所。独 立院校属于高等教育人才培养基地,独立院校培养的应用技能型人才主要是服务地方或者是区 域性产业,由此可以看出必须要结合学院特征以及专业特色,构建科学完善的“政产学研”的人 才培养模式。本文基于“政产学研”模式下探索独立学院如何培养创新人才并提出具体的人才 培养策略,旨在进一步提高人才培养质量。     

基于标度律的政府投入与高校创新效率研究*

目的对科研经费投入与创新效率进行评价,主要是为国家制定科研发展规划及政策,提高科研管理水平提供参考依据。方法标度律可以反映复杂系统的基本机制、动力学和结构。笔者将标度律推广到科研投入与产出关系的分析上,通过分析科研机构的资金以及科技人力投入与科研产出数据。结果发现科研投入与产出符合标度律关系,标度律指数基本保持稳定。基于标度律的方法,客观的对高校科研质量进行了评估,对于科技计划管理机构在高校经费投入和管理方面提供了事实依据和可量化比较的基准信息,是高校创新效率的重要参考标准,对中国在新时代完善高校科研投入和管理有重要的启示意义。     

高校科研管理的创新原则与实践

本文以创新为切入点,阐述了高校科研管理在市场经济条件下,在创新管理中应遵循的原则和实践。全面分析了高校科研管理创新转换机制,以适应科研事业的快速发展。     

试析用科学发展观指导高校廉政文化建设

加强高校廉政文化建设,必须在正确认识其科学内涵的基础上,充分认识用科学发展观指导高校廉政文化建设的重要意义。用科学发展观指导高校廉政文化建设,要坚持廉政文化建设以人为本的思想,坚持廉政文化建设的全面、协调和可持续发展。     

高校在科技文化发展普及中的作用和策略

论述了发展普及科技文化的重要意义，全面分析了高校通过培养创新人才、开展科学研究、提供社会服务引领科技文化发展的不可替代的作用，从推进绿色的科技文化研究、实行系统的科技文化教育、做好隐性的科技文化育人和开展广泛的科技文化传播等四个方面提出了高校在科技文化发展普及中的路径选择。     

角色理论视角下高校科研项目过程质量监管模式的探讨

文章针对我国高校科研项目管理的情况,分析了科研项目及科研成果存在的技术性质量问题,并借鉴美国环保署项目管理经验,结合我国高校科研管理情况,以管理角色视角从项目课题组、高校科研管理部门、项目主管部门等管理主体入手,对保障高校科研项目质量,实施科研项目全过程的实时监督管理新模式进行了探索。     

农业科技推广促进农业高校教学工作的思考与实践

农业科技推广是农业高校实现产学研紧密结合的桥梁和纽带,对促进教学与人才培养、科学研究具有重要作用。西北农林科技大学结合实施以大学为依托的农业科技推广模式建设,探索出一条农业高校师生参与农村科技试验示范基地建设、网络信息服务、科技培训、科技下乡、科技扶贫等科技推广活动,有力地促进了教学工作和教学科研改革。     

高校科研绩效与学科发展潜力评价方法的研究

[目的/意义]在“双一流”建设背景下,科研绩效和学科评价日益受到关注。越来越多的高校利用已有的数据库资源,定位学校优势学科和潜力学科,为学校“双一流”建设提供服务。[方法/过程]本文基于InCites和ESI数据库提出一种高校科研绩效与学科发展潜力评价的方法。首先从科研影响力、国际合作能力、学科产出力三维视角构建评价体系;其次根据数据结果从发文量、论文被引、引文影响力、国际合作、ESI学科等二级指标全面剖析科研产出和潜力学科;最后形成一套较为全面的评价指标。为了更好的使用该方法,以北京工业大学为例进行数据呈现。[结果/结论]运用本方法可较为客观和全面的评价高校科研绩效与潜力学科,为学校的发展战略提供理论依据和数据支持。     

林业类高校人文社会科学论文产出与引文分析

为了解中国林业类高校在人文社会科学领域的研究现状与发展趋势,基于中文社会科学引文索引（CSSCI）对近十年6所林业类高校的人文社科类学术成果进行计量分析,其结果反映出林业类高校人文社会科学的科研水平与学科发展情况。通过分析人文社会科学的学术成果及引用特征,为高校图书馆的馆藏优化提供依据,也为学科建设、科研评估等提供科学、准确的评价数据和理论依据。     

Can science survive in the modern age?

A recent newspaper account of the 1970 annual meeting of the AAAS was headlined, "Science's Blank Check Bounces." I am not, however, advocating that giving a "blank check" to science will solve all our problems. The discussion of science policy in the last three decades has too often confused necessary with sufficient conditions. A strong basic science is a necessary condition for a strong economy, a livable environment, and a tolerable society. But it is by no means a sufficient condition. That a vital science is an indispensable tool of human welfare in the present stage of evolution of man on the planet does not mean that it is the only tool or that it cannot also produce the opposite. Indeed, there seems almost to be a complementarity between the power for good and the power for evil inherent in science. Nuclear energy poses the possibility of nuclear holocaust, but is indispensable to a continuing supply of energy after fossil fuels run out. The computer threatens us with "big brother," but seems indispensable to the rational management of our complex social structures. Molecular genetics could be used for frightful purposes, but opens up the prospect of the final conquest of human disease and food supply. Drugs which control human behavior have opened up frightful possibilities for abuse and self-destruction, but they also offer the hope of conquest of mental illness. What I have referred to are really technologies, not science, but science is needed to use them wisely, although it will not guarantee their wise use. Although science cannot ask for a blank check, there is a part of it which must have the autonomy to "do its own thing"if it is to continue to serve society. How much of science should have this autonomy, and what sort of accountability should be required of it will be matters of continuing debate. Some accountability outside the scientific system itself is essential, as in any other human activity, but the degree of external accountability which is necessary will depend also on the success with which science maintains its own system of internal accountability, guaranteeing the intellectual excellence and integrity of its results. Although I do not believe scientists can be held accountable for the uses which society makes of the knowledge they produce, they do have an obligation to make clear the implications of this knowledge insofar as it is within their special intellectual competence to do so. However, I believe that the highest allegiance of science must continue to be to truth as defined by the validation procedures of the scientific process itself, and that the distortion of scientific results or the selective use of evidence for political purposes, no matter how worthy, is unforgivable insofar as it is presented cloaked by the authority and imputed objectivity of science. That science should have a measure of autonomy does not mean it cannot also respond to new social priorities. As in the past, new social missions can open up exciting new scientific questions, as fundamental as any generated by the internal workings of science. However, what is important is that no matter how much the broad strategy of science might be influenced by social priorities, the tactics should be largely governed by scientific criteria. Furthermore, it is essential that some science be supported and cultivated for its own sake alone. Here the primary criterion must be excellence as judged scientifically, that is, by internal standards. The fraction of the total technical effort that is supported in this way should have some degree of constancy over the long term. You are no doubt wondering what is the answer to the question posed by the title of this article. I cannot give a definite answer one way or the other. The threats to the integrity of science, both from within and from without, are probably greater than at any time in the past, because science is much more a part of the total social and political process, no longer the semihobby of a few dedicated and somewhat eccentric individuals. But I am an optimist. I do not think that the scientific enterprise is going down the drain. It will change, as science has always changed. It will respond to new social priorities, but, like an organism responding to disease, it will develop antibodies which will fight and finally contain excessive control by external criteria, and in fact will transform these external pressures into new opportunities and new fundamental fields of inquiry. But I could be wrong!