Go homepage(回首页) Upload pictures (上传图片) Write articles (发文字帖)
The author:(作者)hpmailerpublished in(发表于) 2013/11/19 11:27:44 Academia Sinica recommended system of sectoral interests
Academia Sinica recommended system of sectoral interests
Some foreign fellow of the Academy of Sciences recommended system on more than one occasion been compared with China.
Academic science writer, well-known members of the academic fraud, for instance to China Youth daily reporter Fang zhouzi, United States Academia Sinica recommended was conducted in secret, usually by fellow nominees the candidate materials. Prior to this, candidates hardly any action in private space.
"We are also recommended by fellow system, but we also increased our sector recommendation, Institute. For example, the Ministry of education, the China Association for science and technology fellow, may recommend a candidate. "Former President of Peking University, the Chinese Academy of Sciences academician Chen jiaer said.
December 2012, the Bureau of the Chinese Academy of engineering academician meeting of the Chinese Academy of engineering elected rules work, academicians, or National Institute for candidates to nominate three channels.
First is a nomination by the academician, academicians may nominate a maximum of two per candidate. Candidates nominated for no fewer than 3 academicians of the Board in order to be valid.
Second was nominated, "the Central and the State Council directly under the relevant ministries, agencies, directly affiliated institutions, provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities and the people's Liberation Army system, in its scope and areas of design, research, construction, operation and higher education institutions, enterprises and public institutions by organizational systems, such as nominating candidates. ”
Third was nominated National Institute: "the Chinese Association is a member of the National Institute of systems, organized by academic groups to nominate candidates. ”
Chen Jia ' er told reporters that if exists in the Academia Sinica recommended system sectoral factors, can sometimes take into account sectoral interests, then such a fellow, candidates may not be in line with the real standard. "Often have departments that want to display their own record, would like to recommend some more, some more. ”
"But the real academician Conference convened when the who featured in various sectors have, about individual sectors is difficult to. Never actually recommended people, are recommended by fellow man more. "Chen jiaer said.
Chen jiaer said the academicians elect on, someone raised the question: after is not recommended, can remove the sector factor? "The future will decide after discussion. ”
Academician Wang Yu discovered that many units are packaged. In his opinion, ideally through peer professional references, although the Institute is a recommended approach, but norm needs to be discussed. "Real know you're high levels are not high society. "However, the Institute also has its problems. For example, did learn to have standardized and included comprehensive, there are missing, and so on.
Not only Wang Yu saw the advantages of Institute. Qin Boyi has suggested that Association nomination system can be used for selection of academicians, because from series, learned under the Association. "After a fellow candidate pre-selection by, could cast the colleague to check. ”
But he believes that peer review will have some problems: two of a trade never agree, there are peers are in-laws, peer-reviewed and prone to review comments and not objective.
Shen Guofang appraised, academician featured channels most of rationality. But he worries that rely solely on academician recommendation may be too good, especially local people unlikely to be elected. "Recently, Xinjiang, a fellow if he recommended by other means, possibly on hard, featured channels are not yet closed."
Academicians to concerns about missing talent, as reflected on the selection of channels from provinces and ministries.
He zuoxiu and Wang Yu were not in favour of abolishing the unit selection. He zuoxiu said that only units know how much contribution at work, why are denied a say in this? "Took the Ministry of railways, the Ministry of railways is a big, he recommended the candidates ' qualifications is not this have too far to go. ”
Most had no objection but also code for most wanted, fellow, is recommended.
In practice, fellow nomination recommendation, can be divided into two types. One, fellow of the academia which peer standards-compliant, the initiative to recommend. Professor Department of electrical engineering and applied electronics technology, Tsinghua University, the Chinese Academy of Sciences academician Lu Qiang told reporters that he had recommend too many peers that "some candidates for academicians do not know I recommend".
Another is that nominees to come, fellow, please recommend, what might be termed "passive recommended". Nanjing University, school of physics, Professor Wang Mu as fellow candidates for 2013, academician told reporters early in the fellow award, Academician Wang Mu were received recommending invitations.
He zuoxiu said that regardless of what kind of recommendation, it is recommended that all people need to do is review each other's filings, and fill in the the book of academician recommendation, signed a testimonial, write "I understand moral achievement, contribution and style of study for nominees, takes full responsibility for authenticity of nomination materials".
The problem is that even if his nomination is found there are some issues in the future, academician himself without any responsibility.
Two requests: "fellow of the academicians must be in accordance with the criteria and conditions, the independent candidates, preventing passive recommended, referees must do their understanding of science research, academic excellence and contribution, scientific ethics and style of study, and responsible for the content given the recommended book. "But how responsible, and there is no effective provision.
Some scholars believe that, seemingly stringent recommended system vulnerabilities. For example, every applicant is to declare the outcomes in my life, if recommended by the declarant does not know, reviewing application materials sent each other alone, it is almost impossible to understand the candidates exists in the scientific-ethical issues in life science research activities. "Fellow, if in such a case be authorized to serve as referees, essentially equal to be pulled. ”
Fellow of the official election issues
In recent years, the Academician candidate officials has been very high. According to media reports, in 2009, added 48, academician of Chinese Academy of engineering, more than 85% is incumbent, groups that makes official fellow of the candidate concerned. But how to define official, is still being debated.
Combed official fellow of the candidate's curriculum vitae, it is not difficult to find the common characteristic of this group: Office of executive level above, certain research resources, once in charge of major infrastructure projects. These characteristics, in its participating academicians, into a force for the booster.
"Individual official prizes, academician of CAs, it is hard to see results from its technology platform, a resources or is real engineering achievement and contribution. "The Chinese Academy of engineering, fellow of the Faculty of civil engineering, water conservancy and construction concern, Director of faculty Standing Committee Lei Zhidong.
Comment that, with resources win over fellow, votes-for power, had become a fellow of the officials participating the greatest abuses become the Academician system reform topics that cannot be bypassed.
However, in an interview with China Youth daily reporter of academicians, respondents were officials of academician candidates disagree on.
Wang Yu said: "If you are official, you don't need to when fellow. "In his view, prizes, academician of the first condition is" scientists ", and the present, and academics who wish to go to officials, officials who have to wear a hat.
Chen jiaer said the academicians were elected academicians cannot see officials of this brand, real scientific contributions. "The officials have done well, in science if there are no outstanding contributions, and should not be selected."
Shen Guofang appraised argues that cannot indiscriminately say officials can't be a member of that "most experts see if he is there."
He zuoxiu also share that view. In his view, the evaluation officials participated academicians, the key is to look at official academic accomplishments, contributions to the project, as well as the outcome of what is true or false. "Some of the officials on the promotion of science and technology decision making played a very important role, the actual forces played a significant role in the work, contribution to the decisions of this kind, we are very highly. ”
He zuoxiu's judgment was based on the current official's role in a major project. Under the current science and technology system, officials on the decision-making role of scientific project is self-evident.
Qin Boyi said: "there is not one person will be able to do it out of key leaders. Because some of the projects requires a lot of work, but the general idea is headed by major decision, so these leaders a great contribution. ”
In fact, the sequence of academician candidates, in addition to administrators, principals, deans and other "official" also become participating impulses of a group of people. Elected academician, academicians was also President or Dean was born.
In the current research system, principals, deans often revolved in a research project head first and "stuffing" the outcome, however, principals, deans and often don't have time to do research.
Shen Guofang told reporters that the participating academicians, President of Academy of engineering on such principals and wary. "He was doing, his achievement was not his doing, we attach particular importance. Dress up academicians, take what others have combined together to achieve results, which we want to be identified. ”
As an example, he used to have Chinese Academy of Engineering Awards many of the candidates have made. However, the Academy of engineering discussion, considered that the candidates own contribution so little in the awards, are mainly the contributions of others. "It's packaging as a suspect, there kinds of power become representative figures, looks great, we didn't pass the exam. ”
Shen Guofang appraised also found that many schools now hope that their principal is academician, to show the school's authority. In the view of Wang Yu, learning, linking, which after all is a kind of social atmosphere. In his view, the academicians is fellow of the scientist is a scientist, Executive direction executive leadership, "with hooks, hooks, I don't feel the need to. ”
Fellow selection system needs to change
"Once every two years, too thick, I think it's too dense. "Wang Yu repeated road.
Wang Yu considered "too secret", is a biennial selection of Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Chinese Academy of engineering academician frequencies. In the view of Wang Yu, busy co-opted a year later, it seems it wasn't long before, co-opted started up again in the following year.
Public reporting, academician of Chinese Academy of science, engineering, and researchers have also expressed similar concerns.
But in another part of the academician, is bounded by two years, is not without reason. Co-opted frequency issues, conducted an internal investigation and Chinese Academy of engineering.
Qin Boyi knew about this research. He told reporters that the research theme is roughly, what kind of co-opted frequency, to ensure research fellowship levels basically stable.
Final results of the survey are: once every two years, not more than 60 at a time. This is exactly what Chinese Academy of Sciences, Academy of engineering now provides additional frequency and quantity.
"Indeed, in 2013, academician of Academy of engineering elected only passed 50, CAs, at least once in the past through 29. "Said Qin Boyi, fellow, due to age, current non-steady decline in the number of senior academicians. His Academy of engineering medicine Ministry of health pharmaceutical group, and fewer non-number of senior academicians. "Up is more than 20, only 11 next year, will be less, it does not become an institution. ”
"They have the after math, what results to a selected number of candidates by one-third will have the results through two-thirds what would be the result, and so on. "Qin Boyi said.
Chen Jia ' er, also takes a similar view. "Academician needs rejuvenation. "He said, academician group needed an infusion of fresh blood.
He zuoxiu also believes that co-opted if the interval is too long, say 5 years all over, competition will become more intense. "However, you need to determine the maximum number of academicians. ”
Wang Yu reminded him of co-opted fellow in the next years to come, is the incoming public relations activities. Although negative news on more than one occasion been exposed before the public, each House has introduced strict rules, however, fellow, PR is still repeated.
Interviewed dozens of academicians, management pitfall is that PR and normal activities, covering boundaries, human relationships, cooperation is not easy to sort out.
In 2007, fellow, former Deputy Chief Engineer Zhang shuguang, a first time candidate, which Wang Yu first introduced the official candidate of "public art". Zhang shuguang, invited dozens of fellow when he went to visit the Sifang plant in Qingdao, "he said at a political rally, but gives the impression that he really did a good job, you would have nothing to say. ”
Found Wang Yu, Zhang shuguang, never say, "you want to pick me as a fellow", he is in the form of an academic report for academicians to get to know him, "you say, what's wrong with that? But the real honest scholarship may not be able to go up, people who have the power to make up. ”
He zuoxiu exposed to another form of "PR"-let people know, "I have no objection". It turns out that Academia Sinica cannot know everything about each candidate, it is inevitable that candidates came to introduce. "I have to candidates, he was not engaged in scientific understanding. For example, I studied physics, mathematics could not understand at all, after you've asked us to vote, how can we vote? ”
Qin Boyi said: "public relations has a positive meaning. Each doing their own, who do not know who, candidates can introduce yourself not in advance, this fellow to understand what you need to be good to judge someone. ”
But it is this learning process, Zhou shining some "hard" and "tough". He made a metaphor for candidates to visit an old Member of home, want to hear the guidance. So, with or without the thing? If not, some people will think it's great, but some people would think: even if you go to a friend's House, wouldn't you?
"The bars are hard to figure out. "Zhou shining said that if all candidates invited academicians to make academic reports, and academicians to get the reward, it isn't wrong.
Some academicians can consciously "to avoid arousing suspicion". Once a provincial leadership to find Shen Guofang appraised that "visits to see you." Shen Guofang appraised eventually declined: "inappropriate at this time."
He zuoxiu, he could accept some form of PR, but if they go too far, pretty much, "there is a degree, no one dares to me blatant PR, public relations, fellow, I would have to speak at the meeting. Fellow, but some will not do so. ”
Chen jiaer said if find some relationship problems, naturally, or was brought down at the meeting.
Zhou shining in expressing, no candidate dares now direct canvassing, since complaints very badly. "Corruption is not the problem here, major powers have not been brought under control. ”
Qin Boyi, now to the point where no candidate academicians are not public relations, not PR people only are kidnapped to public relations. "Moreover, the PR is elected or not on the issues, played a very important role, the proportion who do not speak. ”
Qin Boyi believes that these increasingly diverse public relations, reflecting a candidate eager to academic fame. By comparison, ordinary citizens will be more lightly, it is possible to climb the highest academic honor the tradition of candidates.
On the "PR" academicians under the accusation of, some researchers think, should elect the academicians of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Academy of engineering information to facilitate public supervision.
Fang said that in today's research environment, the academicians elect material is very necessary to open. He had read a candidate's election materials found there was a lot to be bragging, "he said and how the world leaders."
If the information is publicly, and constraints on the candidate will no doubt play a role. However, the academicians elect information disclosed a major problem, possibly from fears of Wang Yu.
"Such information, all walks of life only the peers understand, no one can understand you released. "Wang Yu believes that peer review is a very important element, but in the Chinese Academy of Sciences, an industry peers almost seven or eight people, only a few people have a say.
In this small circle, easy activities such as faculty and students, tendentious stuff in them. People who pull themselves, but how about blaming others how do not. "Also have their own grounds, this thing couldn't tamp down, said Justice Institute to comment, this is the most fair." Wang Yu said.
(Original title: Academician system awaiting overhaul)
Previous page 12 next page
院士推荐制度部门利益化
一些国外科学院的院士推荐制度，不止一次地被拿出来与中国比较。
知名学术打假人士、学术科普作家方舟子向中国青年报记者举例，美国的院士推荐是在保密状态下进行的，通常由院士推荐人准备候选人的材料。在此之前，候选人几乎没有任何私下操作的空间。
“我们也有由院士推荐的制度，但是我们还增加了部门推荐、学会推荐。比如，教育部、中国科协都可以推荐院士候选人。”北京大学原校长、中国科学院院士陈佳洱说。
2012年12月，中国工程院主席团会议审议通过的《中国工程院院士增选工作实施办法》规定，候选人有院士、单位或全国性学会三种渠道进行提名。
第一种是由院士提名候选人，每位院士至多可提名两位候选人。候选人获得不少于本学部3位院士的提名方为有效。
第二种是单位提名，“中央、国务院各有关部委、直属机构、直属事业单位，各省、自治区、直辖市和中国人民解放军系统，所属范围和地区内的设计、研究、建造、运行单位和高等院校、企业、事业单位等可按组织系统提名候选人。”
第三种是全国性学会提名：“中国科协所属的有关全国性学会可按学术团体组织系统提名候选人。”
陈佳洱告诉记者，如果在院士推荐制度中存在部门因素，有时可能会考虑部门利益，那么，这样的候选人可能不很符合真正的院士标准。“往往有可能部门希望显示自己的政绩，想多推荐一些，多上一些。”
“但是，真正到召开院士大会的时候，各个部门推荐的人都有，单个部门也很难左右。实际上好多部门推荐的人没上，还是院士推荐的人上得更多。”陈佳洱说。
陈佳洱透露，这次的院士增选会上，有人提出了一个问题：是不是以后部门不推荐，可以去掉部门因素呢？“今后，会经过讨论作出决定。”
王宇发现很多单位都喜欢包装院士。他认为，最理想的是通过同行专业推荐，虽然学会推荐是一种推荐的方式，但是具体怎么规范还需要再讨论。“真正知道你水平高不高的是学会。”不过，学会推荐也有问题。比如，学会有没有规范化、学会的收录是不是全面，有没有遗漏，等等。
不仅是王宇看到了学会推荐的优势。秦伯益也曾建议，可以采用科协提名的方式来遴选院士，因为从序列上看，学会都在科协之下。“院士候选人预选通过以后，可以请科协里面的同行来把把关。”
但他认为，同行评审会存在一些问题：有的同行是冤家，也有同行是亲家，同行评审容易出现评审意见不客观的情况。
在沈国舫看来，院士推荐的渠道最具合理性。但他担心，仅依靠院士推荐可能会埋没人才，尤其是地方上的人才很难被选出来。“最近新疆上了一位院士，如果他通过其他的途径推荐，可能很难上，现在还没到把别的推荐渠道关闭的时候”。
院士对遗漏人才的担心，同样体现在省市和部委的遴选渠道上。
王宇和何祚庥都不赞成取消单位遴选。何祚庥说，只有单位才知道他在工作中贡献多大，为什么要剥夺单位的发言权？“拿原来的铁道部来说，铁道部是个大部，他连推荐人选的资格也没有，这也太过分了吧。”
最没有异议也是最希望规范的，是院士推荐。
在实际运作中，院士提名推荐，可以分两种情况。一种是，院士看学界哪位同行符合标准，主动推荐。清华大学电机工程与应用电子技术系教授、中国科学院院士卢强曾经向记者表示，他曾经主动推荐过多名同行，“有的人选上了院士也不知道是我推荐的”。
另一种是，被推荐人找上门来，请院士推荐，可以称之为“被动推荐”。南京大学物理学院教授王牧是2013年的院士候选人，有院士告诉记者，在院士评选初期，院士们收到了王牧的推荐邀请。
何祚庥说，不论是哪种推荐，推荐人要做的都是审阅对方的申报材料，并填写《院士推荐书》，在推荐书上签名，要写上“本人了解被提名人的成就、贡献与学风道德等情况，对提名材料的真实性负完全责任”。
问题在于，即使其提名对象日后被发现此前存在某些问题，院士本人也无需负任何责任。
两院要求：“院士必须按照院士的标准和条件，独立推荐候选人，防止被动推荐；推荐人必须确实了解候选人的研究领域、学术水平和贡献、科学道德和学风等，并对《推荐书》所填内容负责。”但具体怎么负责，并没有行之有效的规定。
有学者认为，看似严谨的推荐制度存在漏洞。比如，每位申报人都是以平生成果进行申报，假使推荐者对申报人并不熟悉，仅靠审阅对方寄送的申报材料，几乎不可能从中了解被推荐人在一生科研活动中是否存在科学道德问题。“如果院士在这种情况下接受委托，担当推荐人，实质上等于被拉了票。”
官员参选院士问题
近年来，候选院士中官员比例一直很高。据媒体报道，2009年，中国工程院新增的48名院士，超过85%是现任官员，这使得官员院士候选人成为备受关注的群体。但怎么界定官员，也有争议。
梳理官员院士候选人的履历，不难发现这一群体的共同特征：行政级别在厅级以上，掌握一定科研资源，曾经执掌重大工程。而这些特征，在其参评院士时又变成一股助推的力量。
“个别官员参评院士，很难看出其技术成果是来自平台、资源，还是真正的在工程技术方面的成就与贡献。”中国工程院土木、水利与建筑工程学部院士、学部常委会主任雷志栋感到担忧。
有评论认为，用资源笼络院士，用权力换赞成票，已成为官员参评院士最大的弊端，成为院士制度改革无法绕开的话题。
但是，在中国青年报记者采访的两院院士中，受访者对官员参选院士的看法并不一致。
王宇认为：“你如果是官员，就不必当院士。”在他看来，参评院士首要条件是“科学家”，而目前，学术界的人巴不得去当官，当官的人又要戴一顶学术的帽子。
陈佳洱也说，院士们在选院士时不能看官员这个牌子，得看实实在在的科学贡献。“官员做得再好，在科学前沿如果没有卓越贡献，也不应该评选上”。
沈国舫则认为，不能笼统地说官员不能当院士，“最主要看他是不是专家，是不是有成就”。
何祚庥也赞成这种观点。他认为，评价官员参评院士，关键是看官员的学术成果、对工程的贡献以及成果到底是真是假。“有的官员对推动科技决策起了很大作用，实际工作中对调兵遣将发挥了巨大作用，对这类的决策贡献，大家都是评价很高的。”
何祚庥的判断，是基于目前官员在重大工程中扮演的角色。目前科技体制之下，官员对科技项目的决策作用是不言而喻的。
秦伯益说：“有些工程不是一个人就能做出来的，关键在于领导者。因为有些工程需要很多人合作，但总体的思路由主要领导决定，因此这些领导的贡献也很大。”
事实上，在院士候选人的序列之中，除了行政官员，校长、院长等“学官”也成为有参评冲动的一群人。在已当选的院士中，不少院士也是校长或者院长出身。
在目前的科研体系中，校长、院长往往在科研项目中挂帅第一负责人并“堆砌”成果，但是，校长、院长又往往不太可能有时间做科研。
沈国舫告诉记者，工程院对这类院长、校长参评院士很警惕。“他是不是真的在干，他的成绩是不是以他为主做出来的，我们特别重视。对于包装院士，拿别人的东西凑在一块取得成绩的，这种我们要加以识别。”
他举例，中国工程院曾经有位候选人取得的奖项很多。但是，工程院院士们讨论时认为，那名候选人在奖项中自己的贡献太少，都是别人的贡献为主。“这就有包装的嫌疑，靠着某种权力成为代表人物，成绩看起来很大，我们就没有通过。”
沈国舫还发现，现在很多学校都希望自己的校长是院士，以显示学校的权威性。在王宇看来，学、官挂钩，这种现象说到底是一种社会风气。他认为，院士是院士，科学家是科学家，行政领导是行政领导，“学要跟官挂钩，官要跟学挂钩，我觉得没有必要。”
院士遴选制度需要变革
“两年一次，太密，我觉得太密。”王宇不断重复道。
被王宇认为“太密”的，是中国科学院、中国工程院两年一次遴选院士的频率。在王宇看来，一年繁忙的增选过后，似乎还没过多久，下一年的增选又开始了。
公开报道中，一些中科院、工程院院士以及研究者也表达了类似的担忧。
但在另一部分院士看来，以两年为界并非没有理由。对于增选频率的问题，中国工程院曾进行过一次内部调研。
秦伯益对这项调研有所耳闻。他告诉记者，调研主题大致是，什么样的增选频率、数量才能够保证现有院士人数基本稳定。
调研的最终结果是：两年一次，一次不超过60个。这正是中科院、工程院如今规定的增选频率与数量。
“实际上，2013年工程院增选院士只通过了50个，中科院以往最少的一次才通过29个。”秦伯益说，由于院士年龄增长，目前非资深院士的数量正逐年下降。他所在的工程院医药卫生部药学组，非资深院士数量就越来越少。“原来最多是20多个，到明年只有11个了，要再少，就不成为一个机构了。”
“他们是有经过数学计算的，选多少会有什么结果，候选人通过三分之一会有什么结果，通过三分之二会有什么结果，等等。”秦伯益说。
陈佳洱同样持类似观点。“院士需要年轻化。”他说，院士群体需要注入新鲜血液。
何祚庥还认为，如果增选间隔时间太长，比如5年选一次，那样的竞争会更加激烈。“但是，需要确定院士的最高数量。”
对于王宇而言，提醒他下一个院士增选年到来的，是接踵而来的公关活动。虽然负面消息不止一次被曝光在公众面前，两院也出台了严格规定，但是，公关院士的现象依然屡禁不止。
在受访的多名院士看来，治理难点在于，公关与正常的活动、自荐、人际往来、合作的界限并不容易厘清。
2007年，原铁道部副总工程师张曙光第一次参选院士，这也是王宇第一次领略到这位官员候选人的“公关艺术”。张曙光彼时邀请了数十名院士赴青岛参观四方厂，“他在造势，但给人的感觉是他确实搞得相当好，你也无话可说。”
王宇发现，张曙光从来没有说“你们要选我当院士”，他是以现场作学术报告的形式让院士去了解他，“你说，这有什么问题嘛？但是，真正老老实实做学问的不一定能上去，有权力的人造势就能上去了。”
何祚庥接触过另外一种形式的“公关”——让人家了解，“这个我不反对”。原来，院士并非可以对每位候选人了如指掌，难免有候选人前来介绍情况。“我对候选人、对他从事的科学也不了解。比如，我研究物理学，对数学根本听不懂，听完以后还要我们投票，我们怎么投？”
秦伯益也说：“公关也有正面的意义。本来各做各的，谁都不认识谁，候选人提前介绍一下自己的情况不是不可以，这对院士了解自己将要去评审的一个人有好处。”
但正是这种了解过程，让周世宁感到有些“为难”、“不好办”。他打了一个比方，候选人去一位老院士家里拜访，希望听一听指导意见。那么，这时带不带东西？如果一点都不带，有的人会觉得这样很好，但有的人会觉得：即使你去朋友家，也不会这样吧？
“这个杠杠很难弄。”周世宁说，如果有的候选人邀请院士去其单位作学术报告，院士从中获取报酬，这也并非有错。
有些院士能自觉“避嫌”。一次，一位省级领导找到沈国舫，称“探望探望你”。沈国舫最终婉拒了：“这个时候不合适”。
在何祚庥看来，他可以接受某些形式的公关，但是如果对方做得太过分就不行了，“要有个度，没有人敢到我面前明目张胆地公关，公关了，我还会到院士大会上讲。但有的院士不会这么做。”
陈佳洱也称，如果发现有一些走关系的问题，自然就会在会上或会下被提出来。
周世宁同样表示，现在没有候选人敢直接拉票，因为投诉得很厉害。“贪污腐败的问题关键不在这儿，主要是权力有没有得到控制。”
在秦伯益看来，现在已经到了没有哪个参选院士不公关的地步，不想公关的人也只能被绑架着去公关。“而且，公关确实是在选不选上的问题上，起了蛮大作用，这个比例谁也说不出来。”
在秦伯益认为，这些日益花样繁多的公关，折射出了候选人对学术名利的急切态度。相较之下，普通公民会更淡然一些，有可能登临最高学术荣誉称号的候选人反而不能免俗。
在“公关院士”的指责之下，一些研究者认为，中科院、工程院应该把增选院士的资料公开，以方便社会监督。
方舟子说，在现今科研环境下，院士增选材料非常有必要公开。他曾读到一位候选人的参选材料，发现里面有好多都是吹牛，“他说自己如何如何世界领先”。
如果这些信息能够公开，对候选人无疑将起到约束作用。但是，公开院士增选资料的更大难题，可能来自王宇的担忧。
“这些资料，各行各业只有同行的人才懂，你公布出来也没人看得懂。”王宇认为，同行评议是很重要的内容，但是在中科院里面，一个行业同行的差不多七八人，只有那几人有发言权。
在这个小圈子中，很容易有师生、单位等有倾向性的东西掺杂其中。有人会使劲把自己的人往上拉，而指责别人怎么样怎么样不行。“拉也要有自己的根据，这个东西没法打压，真正说公正，以学会来评议，这个是最公平的”。王宇说。
(原标题：院士制度静候大修)
上一页12下一页
赞