d****d
发帖数: 214 | 1 April 16, 2012
A Sharp Rise in Retractions Prompts Calls for Reform
By CARL ZIMMER
In the fall of 2010, Dr. Ferric C. Fang made an unsettling discovery. Dr.
Fang, who is editor in chief of the journal Infection and Immunity, found
that one of his authors had doctored several papers.
It was a new experience for him. “Prior to that time,” he said in an
interview, “Infection and Immunity had only retracted nine articles over a
40-year period.”
The journal wound up retracting six of the papers from the author, Naoki
Mori of the University of the Ryukyus in Japan. And it soon became clear
that Infection and Immunity was hardly the only victim of Dr. Mori’s
misconduct. Since then, other scientific journals have retracted two dozen
of his papers, according to the watchdog blog Retraction Watch.
“Nobody had noticed the whole thing was rotten,” said Dr. Fang, who is a
professor at the University of Washington School of Medicine.
Dr. Fang became curious how far the rot extended. To find out, he teamed up
with a fellow editor at the journal, Dr. Arturo Casadevall of the Albert
Einstein College of Medicine in New York. And before long they reached a
troubling conclusion: not only that retractions were rising at an alarming
rate, but that retractions were just a manifestation of a much more profound
problem — “a symptom of a dysfunctional scientific climate,” as Dr. Fang
put it.
Dr. Casadevall, now editor in chief of the journal mBio, said he feared that
science had turned into a winner-take-all game with perverse incentives
that lead scientists to cut corners and, in some cases, commit acts of
misconduct.
“This is a tremendous threat,” he said.
Last month, in a pair of editorials in Infection and Immunity, the two
editors issued a plea for fundamental reforms. They also presented their
concerns at the March 27 meeting of the National Academies of Sciences
committee on science, technology and the law.
Members of the committee agreed with their assessment. “I think this is
really coming to a head,” said Dr. Roberta B. Ness, dean of the University
of Texas School of Public Health. And Dr. David Korn of Harvard Medical
School agreed that “there are problems all through the system.”
No one claims that science was ever free of misconduct or bad research.
Indeed, the scientific method itself is intended to overcome mistakes and
misdeeds. When scientists make a new discovery, others review the research
skeptically before it is published. And once it is, the scientific community
can try to replicate the results to see if they hold up.
But critics like Dr. Fang and Dr. Casadevall argue that science has changed
in some worrying ways in recent decades — especially biomedical research,
which consumes a larger and larger share of government science spending.
In October 2011, for example, the journal Nature reported that published
retractions had increased tenfold over the past decade, while the number of
published papers had increased by just 44 percent. In 2010 The Journal of
Medical Ethics published a study finding the new raft of recent retractions
was a mix of misconduct and honest scientific mistakes.
Several factors are at play here, scientists say. One may be that because
journals are now online, bad papers are simply reaching a wider audience,
making it more likely that errors will be spotted. “You can sit at your
laptop and pull a lot of different papers together,” Dr. Fang said.
But other forces are more pernicious. To survive professionally, scientists
feel the need to publish as many papers as possible, and to get them into
high-profile journals. And sometimes they cut corners or even commit
misconduct to get there.
To measure this claim, Dr. Fang and Dr. Casadevall looked at the rate of
retractions in 17 journals from 2001 to 2010 and compared it with the
journals’ “impact factor,” a score based on how often their papers are
cited by scientists. The higher a journal’s impact factor, the two editors
found, the higher its retraction rate.
The highest “retraction index” in the study went to one of the world’s
leading medical journals, The New England Journal of Medicine. In a
statement for this article, it questioned the study’s methodology, noting
that it considered only papers with abstracts, which are included in a small
fraction of studies published in each issue. “Because our denominator was
low, the index was high,” the statement said.
Monica M. Bradford, executive editor of the journal Science, suggested that
the extra attention high-impact journals get might be part of the reason for
their higher rate of retraction. “Papers making the most dramatic advances
will be subject to the most scrutiny,” she said.
Dr. Fang says that may well be true, but adds that it cuts both ways — that
the scramble to publish in high-impact journals may be leading to more and
more errors. Each year, every laboratory produces a new crop of Ph.D.’s,
who must compete for a small number of jobs, and the competition is getting
fiercer. In 1973, more than half of biologists had a tenure-track job within
six years of getting a Ph.D. By 2006 the figure was down to 15 percent.
Yet labs continue to have an incentive to take on lots of graduate students
to produce more research. “I refer to it as a pyramid scheme,” said Paula
Stephan, a Georgia State University economist and author of “How Economics
Shapes Science,” published in January by Harvard University Press.
In such an environment, a high-profile paper can mean the difference between
a career in science or leaving the field. “It’s becoming the price of
admission,” Dr. Fang said.
The scramble isn’t over once young scientists get a job. “Everyone feels
nervous even when they’re successful,” he continued. “They ask, ‘Will
this be the beginning of the decline?’ ”
University laboratories count on a steady stream of grants from the
government and other sources. The National Institutes of Health accepts a
much lower percentage of grant applications today than in earlier decades.
At the same time, many universities expect scientists to draw an increasing
part of their salaries from grants, and these pressures have influenced how
scientists are promoted.
“What people do is they count papers, and they look at the prestige of the
journal in which the research is published, and they see how many grant
dollars scientists have, and if they don’t have funding, they don’t get
promoted,” Dr. Fang said. “It’s not about the quality of the research.”
Dr. Ness likens scientists today to small-business owners, rather than
people trying to satisfy their curiosity about how the world works. “You’
re marketing and selling to other scientists,” she said. “To the degree
you can market and sell your products better, you’re creating the revenue
stream to fund your enterprise.”
Universities want to attract successful scientists, and so they have erected
a glut of science buildings, Dr. Stephan said. Some universities have gone
into debt, betting that the flow of grant money will eventually pay off the
loans. “It’s really going to bite them,” she said.
With all this pressure on scientists, they may lack the extra time to check
their own research — to figure out why some of their data doesn’t fit
their hypothesis, for example. Instead, they have to be concerned about
publishing papers before someone else publishes the same results.
“You can’t afford to fail, to have your hypothesis disproven,” Dr. Fang
said. “It’s a small minority of scientists who engage in frank misconduct.
It’s a much more insidious thing that you feel compelled to put the best
face on everything.”
Adding to the pressure, thousands of new Ph.D. scientists are coming out of
countries like China and India. Writing in the April 5 issue of Nature, Dr.
Stephan points out that a number of countries — including China, South
Korea and Turkey — now offer cash rewards to scientists who get papers into
high-profile journals. She has found these incentives set off a flood of
extra papers submitted to those journals, with few actually being published
in them. “It clearly burdens the system,” she said.
To change the system, Dr. Fang and Dr. Casadevall say, start by giving
graduate students a better understanding of science’s ground rules — what
Dr. Casadevall calls “the science of how you know what you know.”
They would also move away from the winner-take-all system, in which grants
are concentrated among a small fraction of scientists. One way to do that
may be to put a cap on the grants any one lab can receive.
Such a shift would require scientists to surrender some of their most
cherished practices — the priority rule, for example, which gives all the
credit for a scientific discovery to whoever publishes results first. (Three
centuries ago, Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz were bickering about who
invented calculus.) Dr. Casadevall thinks it leads to rival research teams’
obsessing over secrecy, and rushing out their papers to beat their
competitors. “And that can’t be good,” he said.
To ease such cutthroat competition, the two editors would also change the
rules for scientific prizes and would have universities take collaboration
into account when they decide on promotions.
Ms. Bradford, of Science magazine, agreed. “I would agree that a scientist
’s career advancement should not depend solely on the publications listed
on his or her C.V.,” she said, “and that there is much room for
improvement in how scientific talent in all its diversity can be nurtured.”
Even scientists who are sympathetic to the idea of fundamental change are
skeptical that it will happen any time soon. “I don’t think they have much
chance of changing what they’re talking about,” said Dr. Korn, of Harvard.
But Dr. Fang worries that the situation could be become much more dire if
nothing happens soon. “When our generation goes away, where is the new
generation going to be?” he asked. “All the scientists I know are so
anxious about their funding that they don’t make inspiring role models. I
heard it from my own kids, who went into art and music respectively. They
said, ‘You know, we see you, and you don’t look very happy.’ ” | d****d
发帖数: 214 | 2 Some insightful comments on the article:
JJ Bangor, ME
In years past, Nature, Science and the Cell Press Journals would devote
maximal energy to make sure scientific accuracy was maintained for all
articles that were published on their pages. Sadly, this is no longer the
case. In fact, a journal's impact factor is only helped by bad papers that
attract a lot of attention and are later found out to be fraudulent or
simply wrong. This is the case simply because these papers continue to be
cited even more frequently, since every good paper in the future now needs
to cite the bad data to justify why the new results differ from the "
literature".
More sadly, this also means that enormous amounts of research $$$ and time
are being wasted on reversing the damage done by these high-profile science
fiction "novels". Even more sadly, the "high-impact" journal that has
published the garbage typically will refuse publishing subsequent good and
careful work that aims to set the record straight, with the argument that "
this is no longer novel". So there is little incentive for serious
researchers even to correct the field, since it only wastes their time,
precious research $$$ and no longer has much impact.
In general, what is published in the scientific literature and in the lay
press is by and large correct, but only if you look at the overall picture
from a distance. As with most things, the devil is in the details. There are
far more papers where the general conclusions are true or largely true, or
some aspects of the study are correct, while some aspects may be just wrong
(not in itself a bad thing provided the study was rigorously conducted, but
a reagent may have failed, as opposed to simple sloppiness or negligence).
Where do you draw the line?
I grant every paper one wrong figure. Nobody is perfect and mistakes do
happen. The key is how do the authors deal with it. Give me a speedy, clear
explanation of what happened and how or if the mistake changes the
conclusions and I have no problem with it. Especially if the corrections are
initiated by the authors themselves and before their colleagues need to
start cleaning house. The real problem is where this does not happen and
where half-truths remain alive in the literature. You never hear about the
lost time students spend trying to reproduce what cannot be reproduced,
except through the grapevine. The spectacular cases of scientific fraud that
make it into the papers are not what concerns me. Those have entertainment
value and the corrective powers act instantaneously. It is the more specific
details in those "high-impact" papers that are wrong that do the most
damage.
Nicolas Berkeley
Scientists make mistakes all the time because research is very difficult.
But they usually get caught in the process. Even in the published literature
, mistakes are found all the time and results are hard to replicate. But
what's hard is to show that there was real dishonesty or fraud. Researcher
try to stay civil and always give the benefit of the doubt. It is also
considered bad manners to write an article pointing obvious flaws in
previous literature because you know very well that next time, someone else
could easily point weaknesses in your own research.
gene ny
Regarding the bias in not reporting negative results, there is the long
known problem of the "file-drawer effect."
the description of this effect is taken from http://www.skepdic.com/filedrawer.html
The file-drawer effect refers to the practice of researchers filing away
studies with negative outcomes. Negative outcome refers to finding nothing
of statistical significance or causal consequence, not to finding that
something affects us negatively. Negative outcome may also refer to finding
something that is contrary to one's earlier research or to what one expects.
The practice of reporting and publishing only positive-outcome research
creates a misrepresentation of the subject under investigation, especially
if a meta-analysis is done.
Ron US
failures to replicate a previously reported finding are often not published.
Perhaps that's why so many published studies are never cited in the
literature.........while good experiments (hopefully) they may not really
have had much value. | s******y
发帖数: 28562 | 3 这一段话非常的可圈可点啊，尤其是联系到去年那个砷生物的文章。哈哈哈
“In fact, a journal's impact factor is only helped by bad papers that
attract a lot of attention and are later found out to be fraudulent or
simply wrong. This is the case simply because these papers continue to be
cited even more frequently, since every good paper in the future now needs
to cite the bad data to justify why the new results differ from the "
literature". | O******e
发帖数: 4845 | 4 ^_^^_^
不过这个谁也没办法解决吧。
【在 s******y 的大作中提到】
: 这一段话非常的可圈可点啊，尤其是联系到去年那个砷生物的文章。哈哈哈
: “In fact, a journal's impact factor is only helped by bad papers that
: attract a lot of attention and are later found out to be fraudulent or
: simply wrong. This is the case simply because these papers continue to be
: cited even more frequently, since every good paper in the future now needs
: to cite the bad data to justify why the new results differ from the "
: literature".
| w********h
发帖数: 12367 | 5 这个说的绝对了。仿佛好文章就没人引一样。
恰恰相反吧，好文章引得还是多吧。。。
差文章，别人都懒得看。。。
【在 s******y 的大作中提到】
: 这一段话非常的可圈可点啊，尤其是联系到去年那个砷生物的文章。哈哈哈
: “In fact, a journal's impact factor is only helped by bad papers that
: attract a lot of attention and are later found out to be fraudulent or
: simply wrong. This is the case simply because these papers continue to be
: cited even more frequently, since every good paper in the future now needs
: to cite the bad data to justify why the new results differ from the "
: literature".
| w********h
发帖数: 12367 | 6 I strongly agree on this:
One way to do that may be to put a cap on the grants any one lab can receive.
a
【在 d****d 的大作中提到】
: April 16, 2012
: A Sharp Rise in Retractions Prompts Calls for Reform
: By CARL ZIMMER
: In the fall of 2010, Dr. Ferric C. Fang made an unsettling discovery. Dr.
: Fang, who is editor in chief of the journal Infection and Immunity, found
: that one of his authors had doctored several papers.
: It was a new experience for him. “Prior to that time,” he said in an
: interview, “Infection and Immunity had only retracted nine articles over a
: 40-year period.”
: The journal wound up retracting six of the papers from the author, Naoki
| d****d
发帖数: 214 | 7 Similar to that, Bruce Alberts suggested no more than nine members per lab.
receive.
【在 w********h 的大作中提到】
: I strongly agree on this:
: One way to do that may be to put a cap on the grants any one lab can receive.
:
: a
| B****a
发帖数: 1526 | 8 呵呵那Bob Langer可要裁掉90%的人手了。
【在 d****d 的大作中提到】
: Similar to that, Bruce Alberts suggested no more than nine members per lab.
:
: receive.
| z*h
发帖数: 773 | 9 Put a cap on the PI who receives federal grants only. If he gets money from
other sources or his pocket, he will spend as much as he can. | n***w
发帖数: 2405 | 10 My mentor also discussed this article with me today, saying that whenever I
publish a paper, I need to put all raw data [all triplicate experiments, the
whole blot (not just a cut band), etc] in one file so he can track. lol
Also we think that those reagent companies should be under federal
regulation, as a majority of grant money goes to antibodies and all such,
which may not work at all. This is very irritating... | | | F*K
发帖数: 608 | 11 This is communism. Capable people deserve more resources.
The key is to cut down Bio PhD recruitment, and pay who already in better.
from
【在 z*h 的大作中提到】
: Put a cap on the PI who receives federal grants only. If he gets money from
: other sources or his pocket, he will spend as much as he can.
| D*a
发帖数: 6830 | 12 如果手下养一群独立博后叫capable的话，那么这些博后既然事实都独立了不需要老板
指导大方向，那么把他lab拆了让这些capable博后都有resources成小实验头头不也是
一样为science做贡献么，LOL
【在 F*K 的大作中提到】
: This is communism. Capable people deserve more resources.
: The key is to cut down Bio PhD recruitment, and pay who already in better.
:
: from
| w********h
发帖数: 12367 | 13 说得对阿。。
【在 D*a 的大作中提到】
: 如果手下养一群独立博后叫capable的话，那么这些博后既然事实都独立了不需要老板
: 指导大方向，那么把他lab拆了让这些capable博后都有resources成小实验头头不也是
: 一样为science做贡献么，LOL
| y******8
发帖数: 1764 | 14 In most cases, a boss of a super big lab does not contribute to science
directly.
However, he has his own job to do.
Before, I wondered why the death of the Godfather, an old man, could has
such huge impact on his "family business". All the detailed works had been
done perfectly by other people. But, in the novel, he was counted as 50% of
the power of his Italian mafia.
Same thing here in biomedical research. If you remove Eric Lander, the most
powerful broker I knew, Broad would be a wreck pretty soon.
【在 D*a 的大作中提到】
: 如果手下养一群独立博后叫capable的话，那么这些博后既然事实都独立了不需要老板
: 指导大方向，那么把他lab拆了让这些capable博后都有resources成小实验头头不也是
: 一样为science做贡献么，LOL
| y******8
发帖数: 1764 | 15 There is too much non-scientific intervention in biomedical research.
If everything goes the way curiosity-oriented, every lab will be
automatically kept small.
【在 F*K 的大作中提到】
: This is communism. Capable people deserve more resources.
: The key is to cut down Bio PhD recruitment, and pay who already in better.
:
: from
| s******y
发帖数: 28562 | 16 关键就是，我们是否已经承认生物研究就是一个黑社会系统？
如果是的话，那么教父的存在就是合理的了：）
of
most
【在 y******8 的大作中提到】
: In most cases, a boss of a super big lab does not contribute to science
: directly.
: However, he has his own job to do.
: Before, I wondered why the death of the Godfather, an old man, could has
: such huge impact on his "family business". All the detailed works had been
: done perfectly by other people. But, in the novel, he was counted as 50% of
: the power of his Italian mafia.
: Same thing here in biomedical research. If you remove Eric Lander, the most
: powerful broker I knew, Broad would be a wreck pretty soon.
| y******8
发帖数: 1764 | 17 Biomedical research is still like a family business, to some extent.
Once it is industrialized, it would require much less labor force, and
everyone would be replaceable. However, would it still be called science?
【在 s******y 的大作中提到】
: 关键就是，我们是否已经承认生物研究就是一个黑社会系统？
: 如果是的话，那么教父的存在就是合理的了：）
:
: of
: most
| D*a
发帖数: 6830 | 18 本身依据science的定义和在大家的心目中，这种所谓“影响力”就是不正常的。
影响力是客观存在的，因为大家是人总会有从众和偶像崇拜心理，但是作为科学家不应
该把这种心理合理化。
这篇文章谈论的正是这种不合理。
挥挥手笑一笑就是job的话，science跟老腊肉统治下的红朝有什么区别？
of
most
【在 y******8 的大作中提到】
: In most cases, a boss of a super big lab does not contribute to science
: directly.
: However, he has his own job to do.
: Before, I wondered why the death of the Godfather, an old man, could has
: such huge impact on his "family business". All the detailed works had been
: done perfectly by other people. But, in the novel, he was counted as 50% of
: the power of his Italian mafia.
: Same thing here in biomedical research. If you remove Eric Lander, the most
: powerful broker I knew, Broad would be a wreck pretty soon.
| y******8
发帖数: 1764 | 19 I don't think scientists would worship those big names, but the public does.
Well, you got to have someone to ask money for your research, right?
Research itself never generates enough revenue. If the public pulls off
extra incentives, all of those brokers would disappear in no time.
【在 D*a 的大作中提到】
: 本身依据science的定义和在大家的心目中，这种所谓“影响力”就是不正常的。
: 影响力是客观存在的，因为大家是人总会有从众和偶像崇拜心理，但是作为科学家不应
: 该把这种心理合理化。
: 这篇文章谈论的正是这种不合理。
: 挥挥手笑一笑就是job的话，science跟老腊肉统治下的红朝有什么区别？
:
: of
: most
| l**********1
发帖数: 5204 | 20 挥挥手笑一笑就是Jobs的话，science跟金三世统治下的现北朝鲜有什么区别？
【在 D*a 的大作中提到】
: 本身依据science的定义和在大家的心目中，这种所谓“影响力”就是不正常的。
: 影响力是客观存在的，因为大家是人总会有从众和偶像崇拜心理，但是作为科学家不应
: 该把这种心理合理化。
: 这篇文章谈论的正是这种不合理。
: 挥挥手笑一笑就是job的话，science跟老腊肉统治下的红朝有什么区别？
:
: of
: most
| | | D*a
发帖数: 6830 | 21 树为年轻人的偶像讲讲课签个名当然没问题，但是grant评审团也一股脑把钱往这些人
手里送，这并不是public在worship those big names吧。
这些科学家如果真有那么大的影响力，应该去science community外面游说要钱，去关
心青年科学家的培养方式，不是成天开会去说we found xxx，不是看着哪里哪里
funding cut了，但是他们的钱还是绰绰有余。
很遗憾，绝大部分所谓牛人的影响力往往来自开专业会议的时候前呼后拥，但是出了科
学界没几个人知道的。
does.
【在 y******8 的大作中提到】
: I don't think scientists would worship those big names, but the public does.
: Well, you got to have someone to ask money for your research, right?
: Research itself never generates enough revenue. If the public pulls off
: extra incentives, all of those brokers would disappear in no time.
| y******8
发帖数: 1764 | 22 R01 is a relatively fare game. I knew some Nobel laureate's R01 got trashed by study section. But, would you think those PIs with >20M NIH
money/year went through R01?
The government is worse than the public in many cases.
【在 D*a 的大作中提到】
: 树为年轻人的偶像讲讲课签个名当然没问题，但是grant评审团也一股脑把钱往这些人
: 手里送，这并不是public在worship those big names吧。
: 这些科学家如果真有那么大的影响力，应该去science community外面游说要钱，去关
: 心青年科学家的培养方式，不是成天开会去说we found xxx，不是看着哪里哪里
: funding cut了，但是他们的钱还是绰绰有余。
: 很遗憾，绝大部分所谓牛人的影响力往往来自开专业会议的时候前呼后拥，但是出了科
: 学界没几个人知道的。
:
: does.
| y******8
发帖数: 1764 | 23 Also, those >50M donation from the public never went through peer review.
【在 D*a 的大作中提到】
: 树为年轻人的偶像讲讲课签个名当然没问题，但是grant评审团也一股脑把钱往这些人
: 手里送，这并不是public在worship those big names吧。
: 这些科学家如果真有那么大的影响力，应该去science community外面游说要钱，去关
: 心青年科学家的培养方式，不是成天开会去说we found xxx，不是看着哪里哪里
: funding cut了，但是他们的钱还是绰绰有余。
: 很遗憾，绝大部分所谓牛人的影响力往往来自开专业会议的时候前呼后拥，但是出了科
: 学界没几个人知道的。
:
: does.
| D*a
发帖数: 6830 | 24 你谈特例还是个例，如果big name确实完全没有任何优势，那么投稿被拒，grant 被拒
，等等等等，都是按照规矩来，也没人抱怨了。
trashed by study section. But, would you think those PIs with >20M NIH
【在 y******8 的大作中提到】
: R01 is a relatively fare game. I knew some Nobel laureate's R01 got trashed by study section. But, would you think those PIs with >20M NIH
: money/year went through R01?
: The government is worse than the public in many cases.
| y******8
发帖数: 1764 | 25 It depends on how "big" the name is, and in what kind of way. I knew many
well established PIs are struggling with their R01 applications. Many of
those are still actively involved in detailed research, which might be
disliked by many trainees.
When some of them became brokers, they will set up their own rules, which do
not apply to common scientists. So, they still follow the rules.
If you want a "big name", you could try to reach it. But some people
chose not.
【在 D*a 的大作中提到】
: 你谈特例还是个例，如果big name确实完全没有任何优势，那么投稿被拒，grant 被拒
: ，等等等等，都是按照规矩来，也没人抱怨了。
:
: trashed by study section. But, would you think those PIs with >20M NIH
| D*a
发帖数: 6830 | 26 我感觉我们完全跑题了。
do
【在 y******8 的大作中提到】
: It depends on how "big" the name is, and in what kind of way. I knew many
: well established PIs are struggling with their R01 applications. Many of
: those are still actively involved in detailed research, which might be
: disliked by many trainees.
: When some of them became brokers, they will set up their own rules, which do
: not apply to common scientists. So, they still follow the rules.
: If you want a "big name", you could try to reach it. But some people
: chose not.
| y******8
发帖数: 1764 | 27 Drift away from LZ's topic?
LOL, it is the spirit of BBS, right?
【在 D*a 的大作中提到】
: 我感觉我们完全跑题了。
:
: do
| D*a
发帖数: 6830 | 28 哈哈，言之有理～
【在 y******8 的大作中提到】
: Drift away from LZ's topic?
: LOL, it is the spirit of BBS, right?
| O******e
发帖数: 4845 | 29 少量大实验室的存在还是必要的，毕竟很多课题是跨领域甚至跨学科的，当然需要很多
不同背景的人。
【在 D*a 的大作中提到】
: 如果手下养一群独立博后叫capable的话，那么这些博后既然事实都独立了不需要老板
: 指导大方向，那么把他lab拆了让这些capable博后都有resources成小实验头头不也是
: 一样为science做贡献么，LOL
| w********h
发帖数: 12367 | 30 你总是四平八稳地来总结陈词。。。
【在 O******e 的大作中提到】
: 少量大实验室的存在还是必要的，毕竟很多课题是跨领域甚至跨学科的，当然需要很多
: 不同背景的人。
| | | b*******n
发帖数: 8420 | 31 我觉得这才是正解。government grant本来就是公益性质的，分配的时候就应该公平一
些。
那些大牛要是真牛的话，就应该从private sector忽悠到钱做研究。
from
【在 z*h 的大作中提到】
: Put a cap on the PI who receives federal grants only. If he gets money from
: other sources or his pocket, he will spend as much as he can.
|
|
