What's new

Corruption and Nepotism in Research

Bussard Ramjet

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Nov 10, 2014
Messages
3,978
Reaction score
2
Country
India
Location
India
How one of China's top science projects is turning to tofu | South China Morning Post

How one of China's top science projects is turning to tofu

Investigators find ¥34 billion fund, aimed at cleaner rivers and lakes, is being squandered


The term "tofu projects" was coined years ago to describe poorly built infrastructure that could prove deadly.

But anti-corruption investigators have found that the term - first used by Premier Zhu Rongji to describe flood dykes that were as porous as tofu dregs - could equally be used to describe some of the shoddy projects that have been taking place under the guise of the nation's biggest scientific research programmes.

One such project that has come especially under the spotlight is the "Special Water Programme" - China's largest ever scientific research fund, launched in 2009 with a pledge of 34 billion yuan (HK$41 billion) over an 11-year period to find technological solutions to clean major rivers and lakes.

The fund had promised to breakthrough institutional obstacles, reduce pollution discharged into the waterways, and rehabilitate six major rivers and lakes.

Last month, after a series of reports the fund was being misused at local levels over the past few years, the chief engineer of the programme, Meng Wei, was given a warning for oversight.

Read more: China's deadly water problem
An inspection had found that fake and disreputable research projects had been claiming money from the fund.

Meng is also the director of Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences, one of the leading institutes of the special programme. A few other executives and researchers also received warnings - the lowest type of administrative punishment in the mainland's bureaucratic system.

The irregularities were first spotted by inspectors from the country's top graft-busting body in March.

The Ministry of Environmental Protection launched a subsequent investigation, and found several research institutes, an environmental company and an accounting firm were involved in cheating or squandering research funds.

Funding approval was given for plagiarised research and to projects not eligible for sponsorship, state media reported.

The reports did not put a figure on how much money had been squandered, but the Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences was ordered to retract 450,000 yuan it had granted as a "technology service fee" for two institutions.

The ministry said it would hand over evidence of criminal violations to prosecutors.

Dead fish litter the Daheiting Reservoir. Photo: Xinhua

This was not the first time the fund had been misused. Last year, Chen Yingxiu, a vice-president at Zhejiang University, was sentenced to 10 years in prison for embezzling 9.45 million yuan from the fund.

China Business News reported last year that a mid-term review of the programme found that its funds had been spent on buying microwaves, cleaning air conditioners, covering student tuition, and even paying personal income tax.

The latest findings show that poor management can also result in the squandering of public funds dedicated to solving one of the mainland's most pressing environmental issues.

"How ridiculous, we've surveyed the country's major rivers over the past decade, without spending a penny from the national fund," said Yang Yong, an independent geologist.

The environment ministry's yearly update said nearly 30 per cent of the country's major rivers remained polluted or severely polluted - with 9 per cent unsafe for human contact.

And some of the chronic problems in lakes, such as algae outbreaks in summer months, remained severe.
 
@cirr @cnleio @AndrewJin @TaiShang

I also read a paper published jointly by Tsinghua and Peking University Heads about the extreme politicization of research funds, where many professors have to lobby for research funds and they are awarded not on merit, but on guanxi.

Research impact: A tale of two systems : Nature : Nature Publishing Group

I can't find that paper, I am sure that I read the paper in Nature, but what basically the two professors said was this:

A lot of effort has to be done to get research funding by lobbying.

A lot of times, your research topic, or your capability can matter less than your contacts.

The system of distributing research grants is highly inefficient.

@Shotgunner51 @Edison Chen @FairAndUnbiased @tranquilium

Are there some research folks out there?
 
@cirr @cnleio @AndrewJin @TaiShang

I also read a paper published jointly by Tsinghua and Peking University Heads about the extreme politicization of research funds, where many professors have to lobby for research funds and they are awarded not on merit, but on guanxi.

Research impact: A tale of two systems : Nature : Nature Publishing Group

I can't find that paper, I am sure that I read the paper in Nature, but what basically the two professors said was this:

A lot of effort has to be done to get research funding by lobbying.

A lot of times, your research topic, or your capability can matter less than your contacts.

The system of distributing research grants is highly inefficient.

@Shotgunner51 @Edison Chen @FairAndUnbiased @tranquilium

Are there some research folks out there?

Erm, are you actually surprised? Guanxi means social relationship. This is how university around the world gather funding for research. There is a reason why US universities, engineering schools in particular, recommend students to work in the industry first to build up personal contact and relationship before going into research. In US, as a professor, as long as you meet the minimum qualification for doing the work, the main determining factor on your funding is your social relationship, or Guanxi if you want to sound exotic.

I don't know why people pretend to be mystified by social relationships. It is one of the fundamental forces in human society and common in all culture and society.
 
Erm, are you actually surprised? Guanxi means social relationship. This is how university around the world gather funding for research. There is a reason why US universities, engineering schools in particular, recommend students to work in the industry first to build up personal contact and relationship before going into research. In US, as a professor, as long as you meet the minimum qualification for doing the work, the main determining factor on your funding is your social relationship, or Guanxi if you want to sound exotic.

Not my claims man. Also, there is one thing to get funding via social relationships, and another to use social contacts to plunder money from research funds into useless research, or simple fraud.

Also, I can't find that article from Nature right now. It was written by two returnee professors from the US, by the 1000 talent program, who had some senior posts in Tsinghua and Peking. I am sure you'd agree that they have enough insight into both systems.
 
Not my claims man. Also, there is one thing to get funding via social relationships, and another to use social contacts to plunder money from research funds into useless research, or simple fraud.

Also, I can't find that article from Nature right now. It was written by two returnee professors from the US, by the 1000 talent program, who had some senior posts in Tsinghua and Peking. I am sure you'd agree that they have enough insight into both systems.

useless is a strong word. There's alot of research I'd characterize as useless around here but I don't say anything. Fraud is a different story and has objective measures of yes or no.
 
Not my claims man. Also, there is one thing to get funding via social relationships, and another to use social contacts to plunder money from research funds into useless research, or simple fraud.

Also, I can't find that article from Nature right now. It was written by two returnee professors from the US, by the 1000 talent program, who had some senior posts in Tsinghua and Peking. I am sure you'd agree that they have enough insight into both systems.

Fraud is fraud. That is a crime. However, here is your original words:

"many professors have to lobby for research funds and they are awarded not on merit, but on guanxi."

I am simply pointing out that instead of implying social relationship as a mystical term by using a sound translation of the Chinese word for it, it is normal for researchers to build personal contacts and obtain funding through familiarity contact. If they failed to uphold their end of the contract, then it is that individual's problem. Your words:

"The system of distributing research grants is highly inefficient."

It is incorrect because this is the system the entire world uses, not just China.

Btw, I just noticed that the articles comes from South China Morning Post, which pretty much destroys whatever little credibility it has left. No wonder it can't get simple terms like social relationship right.
 
Fraud is fraud. That is a crime. However, here is your original words:

"many professors have to lobby for research funds and they are awarded not on merit, but on guanxi."

I am simply pointing out that instead of implying social relationship as a mystical term by using a sound translation of the Chinese word for it, it is normal for researchers to build personal contacts and obtain funding through familiarity contact. If they failed to uphold their end of the contract, then it is that individual's problem. Your words:

"The system of distributing research grants is highly inefficient."

It is incorrect because this is the system the entire world uses, not just China.

Btw, I just noticed that the articles comes from South China Morning Post, which pretty much destroys whatever little credibility it has left. No wonder it can't get simple terms like social relationship right.


The research findings used in the article were by Discipline committee themselves. Also, the article I'm trying to cite is one published in nature. All these correspond to having a politicized, and inefficient system.

This is not to say, that merit doesn't play a role, just it is behind international standards.
 
The research findings used in the article were by Discipline committee themselves. Also, the article I'm trying to cite is one published in nature. All these correspond to having a politicized, and inefficient system.

This is not to say, that merit doesn't play a role, just it is behind international standards.

Just look at the final results though: how many papers per researcher are being published in Nature, IEEE or other top tier physical science/engineering journals?
 
On just an unrelated note, I was digging for the said article in Nature about research system, and found this:

457522a-1-lg.jpg


Obviously this is old, don't know how much things have changed, can someone provide me latest numbers?

Yet still, even a drastic change can only bring down the number to 70%.

China targets top talent from overseas : Nature News
 
Nobel Prize win sparks academic selection debate - Global Times

It is a Global Times Piece, so don't shoot me.


Nobel Prize win sparks academic selection debate
By Bai Tiantian and Cao Siqi Source:Global Times Published: 2015-10-8 0:23:01
Share on twitterShare on facebookShare on sinaweiboShare on linkedinMore Sharing Services0


c12981cb-f3e2-468b-b4fb-59c949e8720e.jpeg

Chinese 2015 Nobel Prize winner in medicine Tu Youyou speaks during an interview in her apartment in Beijing on Wednesday. Photo: AP





Tu Youyou, China's first Nobel laureate in medicine, has shocked the public and triggered much reflection over China's research institutions as the scientist was found to have been repeatedly denied the honor of an academician.

Tu, 85, was awarded the Nobel Prize on Monday for her contribution in creating a drug that effectively combats malaria.

She was nicknamed online as the "Three Nos" laureate, for she has no doctorate degree, no experience studying in an overseas university and she was never elected to be an academician.

Rao Yi, a neurobiologist at Peking University who has been advocating for Tu's long-neglected contribution, called Tu's Nobel Prize "a shock to China's scientific system" and said whether to reform the system is a decision "to verify if officials are up for their jobs."

"It is a shame to the system and the [Chinese] culture that Tu had been for so long neglected. The reason behind this is [the system's] hindrance to creativity and development," Rao told the Global Times.

His opinion was echoed by Gao Xuemin, a professor with the Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, who told the Global Times that the problem of corruption should be addressed in the selection of academicians and the selection criteria should be re-evaluated.

Speculations of corruption and cronyism have long haunted the selection procedure of academicians to the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the Chinese Academy of Engineering (CAE), especially after Xie Jianping, a researcher under China Tobacco, a State-owned manufacturer of tobacco products, was elected academician of the CAE in 2011 for his research on how to reduce the health risks caused by smoking.


Interview requests from the Global Times were turned down on Wednesday night by Tu's husband, Li Tingzhao, who said Tu's age and health forbid her from further speaking to reporters.

Inspired by traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), Tu discovered Artemisinin a drug that is now part of standard antimalarial regimens, having been proven to reduce fatalities from the disease.

She said in an earlier statement that Artemisinin is a gift to the world and that the Nobel Prize is an honor to China's scientific field and a symbol that TCM has gained world recognition.
 
chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/http://www.swissnexchina.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2014/08/Chinas-research-culture.pdf

I finally got the research paper that I was talking about.


It was written by Shi Yigong, and Rao Yi, both are esteemed scientists in China.

China's Research Culture


Here is the piece. And must I say, both Shi Yigong, and Rao Yi are extremely great scientists who are deeply respected all around the world.

Shi Yigong recently published a ground breaking paper on spliceosome, which was shared here on PDF as well.

So please take their words seriously.

China's Research Culture
 

Back
Top Bottom