科研管理

• 论文 • 上一篇    

美国NIH、NSF评审制度研究及对深圳的启示

李杏林,贡毅   

  1. 南方科技大学科研部,广东 深圳518055
  • 出版日期:2019-08-20 发布日期:2019-08-22
  • 通讯作者: 李杏林
  • 基金资助:
    深圳市科技创新委员会软科学研究项目:“美国NIH、NSF等科研项目评审制度研究及对深圳的启示”。

A study of the NIH, NSF evaluation systems in the U.S.A. and its revelation to Shenzhen

Li Xinglin, Gong Yi   

  1. Department of Scientific Research, Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen 518055, Guangdong, China
  • Online:2019-08-20 Published:2019-08-22

摘要: 近年来深圳市R&D经费快速增长,用于基础研究资金的投入也逐年增加。本文首先综合分析和研究了美国国立卫生研究院(National Institutes of Health,简称NIH)、美国国家科学基金会(National Science Foundation,简称NSF)和国家自然科学基金委(National Science Foundation of China,简称NSFC)的科技项目评审制度和评价体系,在此基础上,结合深圳市的具体情况,将现行的深圳市科技项目评审制度和评价体系同NIH、NSF、NSFC等系统进行比较分析,为改革提供借鉴和参考。随着中国全面深化改革的推进,促进科技发展在社会其他领域尤其是经济领域发挥更大的作用,成为科技体制改革过程中的迫切要求。NIH和NSF的项目采取不定期申报的方式,我国现有的科技项目大部分采用集中期申报方式,两国管理机构赋予管理人员的管理权限不同。深圳市随着R&D经费的快速增长,用于基础研究资金的投入也逐年增加,加强科学研究与教育的紧密结合、把卓越管理的理念切实落到实处是亟需解决的问题。本文的研究将通过研究两国的科技资助管理政策,分析管理机构在制度建设、考核的全面性与连续性、科技信息管理等方面的特点,结合深圳市科技评价体系的发展情况,提出进一步完善科技评价制度政策体系,突出科技评价重点指标,加强科技评价的全面性及连续性的建议。以充分发挥科技评价的指导和引导作用。

关键词: NIH, NSF, 科技评价体系

Abstract: R&D funding and investment in basic research of Shenzhen is under rapid growth in recent years. This study firstly reviews the evaluation system of scientific-technological projects of American National Institutes of Health (NIH), American National Science Foundation (NSF), and National Science Foundation of China (NSFC). Based on this, we compare the review and evaluation system of scientific-technological projects of Shenzhen with NIH, NSF, and NSFC. The comparison results provide useful references to project reforms in Shenzhen. As the comprehensive and deepening reform is promoted in China, the development of technology plays an important role in economic and other areas in the society, and it has also become an urgent requirement in the reform processes of scientific-technological in China. The projects of NIH and NSF can be applied in several periods yearly, while most of scientific-technological projects in China can only be applied in a specific period yearly. The administrative permissions of project administrators in China are also different from those in the United States. Generally, two rounds expert evaluation are carried out in the evaluation of NIH scientific research projects. The evaluation index of scientific research projects of NIH mainly includes the significance, innovation, route, and research condition. Experts have to evaluate and grade on the projects item by item based on evaluation indicators, and point out deficiencies and making recommendations. The NSF regards academic value and wide impact as the two basic principles for project evaluation. Peer review is the major method for project evaluation both at home and abroad. The scientific-technological projects evaluation in Shenzhen also applied peer review method. However, there are also some deficiencies in peer review. For example, when consulting peer review experts in the period of project review, some innovative and challenge projects are difficult to be recognized by experts because the innovation of the projects have not yet been effectively validated. Additionally, some experts in some fields are not qualified to participate in evaluation processes, resulting in a reduction of the number of peer experts. In particular, lack of experts in some uncommon fields may receive the evaluation from an expert in other fields. The current evaluation mechanism is mainly limited by the willing and the free time of the experts. With the increase in the number of applications and the decrease of grant proportion, the potential qualified experts are becoming rare. With the rapidly growth of R&D funding and the investment of basic research of Shenzhen, how to combine scientific researches with education and how to put excellent management concepts into practice are urgent problems to be addressed. This article studies the differences of the funding policy, information management, and the construction, comprehensiveness, continuity of the scientific-technological projects management system between China and the United States. Based on the difference studies and the specific situation of Shenzhen, we give suggestions to improve the evaluation system of scientific-technological projects of Shenzhen. The key indicators for scientific-technological evaluation are proposed. The comprehensiveness and continuity of the scientific-technological evaluation system are also strengthened. This study will be function as a guidance for scientific-technological evaluation.

Key words: NIH, NSF, evaluation system of science and technology