來源：饒毅科學

1 問：為了吸引更多科學人才，無論是歸國還是第一次來中國，中國需要做什么？更多經費？改變學術文化/出版壓力？還是中國迄今每一樣都做對了，只需要時間？

答：中國大量投入科學，過去二十年幾乎是指數增長。所以，雖然需要經費增長，但它不是目前的關鍵。擇優支持科學家及其好的科學是關鍵。有良心的一流科學家支持一流科學家，二流科學家或沒有良心的科學家支持三流科學家。出版問題都從屬于誰支持誰做什么。

18 年前，施一公和我在清華北大生命科學學院的改革就是支持最好的科學家做好的科學。現在這是金標準：合理的支持、最佳的結果。中國很多單位現在大量投入經費支持庸俗的科學，只以通過低品位編輯而發表文章為唯一目的。這種文章在中國認為是檢驗成功的公平指標。這帶來了前所未有的問題，中國在高顯示度雜志發表大量無意義的文章、在低顯示度雜志發表大量造假文章。創造了世界歷史上單一國家從未達到的絕對數量和相對比例。

2 問：看來，許多返回中國的科研人員大致可分為兩類：一類是為數不多的已經功成名就的學者，其中一些人可能已接近退休年齡（或者是因為諸如「中國行動計劃」等因素而被迫離開）；另一類是職業生涯早期的科研人員，他們在美時間不長且在美沒有太多牽絆。似乎像您或施一公這樣在美國已經功成名就但仍然相對年輕 / 處于職業生涯中期的回流學者并不多。您認為這是為什么？而中國吸引更多的此類人群是否重要？

答：中國已經制定了許多新政策來支持高年資人才招聘，比如：取消強制退休，并提供了個性化的一攬子待遇。但的確，最好能有更多的 50 或 45 歲以下的，正處于職業發展中期的人才，他們擁有足夠的經驗且未來可期。

問題出在雙方：中國的大多數機構對高年資人才招聘持抵制態度，因為機構領導自私，盡管上級有指示，但他們并沒有為機構的利益而工作；而在國外工作的大多數中國人缺乏責任感，只關注個人的短期利益，而不感到需要為中國的未來。

3 問：您在我們上次談話中提到，當您那一代人去美國時，看到的是美國最好的一面 —— 開放、象牙塔等，并錯誤地認為它代表了整個美國。您能否詳細說明一下您當時的意思？

答：在 20 世紀 80 年代初，中國和美國在許多方面形成了鮮明對比。對科研人員來說，中國的教學質量差且研究支持有限。美國的研究生所得的報酬幾乎比中國資深教授收入的 30 多倍還多。科研的基本條件更是相差甚遠。當時，有幸能去美國的中國教授們，會從他們訪問過的美國實驗室收集一次性試管，并帶回中國重復使用。美國的教授和科研機構慷慨地歡迎中國學生，并為大多數無法支付學費的中國學生提供全額獎學金。美國的教學比中國的教學更加深入且廣泛。在我在加州大學舊金山分校讀研的第一個學期，我學到的東西超過了在中國兩年所學的東西。

我們大多數人都對新知識感到興奮，并且熱衷于與美國的教職員工和學生交流。但在中國，我從未聽說過有任何一位教授能夠像加州大學舊金山分校的路易斯?萊克哈特一樣，他是一位神經生物學教授，卻攀登過珠穆朗瑪峰；或者像布魯斯?阿爾伯茨一樣，他是《細胞分子生物學》這本全世界通用的教材的作者，并曾擔任《科學》雜志主編；或者像羅恩?維爾一樣，他是一位年輕教授，在《細胞》期刊上發表了 4 篇第一作者論文后發現了新蛋白質（驅動蛋白）。我的同學中有一位是哈佛大學的畢業生，曾在巴黎工作。那個時期 UCSF 的研究生中有一位是諾貝爾化學獎得主達德利?赫施巴赫的女兒，還有一位面試 UCSF 神經科學項目的學生是約翰?霍普菲爾德的女兒。在我在哈佛大學做博士后時，我的實驗室同伴中有馮諾依曼的唯一外孫以及一位諾貝爾物理學獎得主的弟弟。他們超級聰明，同時又善良且勤奮。馮諾依曼的孫子在哈佛大學讀研期間發現了 PI3K。我們被迎入了這樣一個社區，那里為我們提供了一個即使是在現在的中國也找不到的智力環境。

4 問：您是否聽到更多您認識的美國科學家最近表示他們打算回到中國？促使人們做出回國決定的主要因素有哪些 —— 政治因素（中國行動計劃、簽證問題）、經濟 / 職業相關因素（科研經費削減、針對華裔學者的「竹子天花板 」）、個人因素等？

答：很多人都在談論（離開美國）這個問題，不僅有美籍華人，還有非華裔的美國人。科學家需要穩定的資助來進行富有創意且高風險的科研工作。對美籍華人來說，意識到美國并非未來之光，而是有著根深蒂固的種族歧視的地方，這是艱難且苦澀的。我在 2005 年公開向《科學》雜志抱怨的「竹子天花板」現在已經成為一個小問題。另一個重要因素是，盡管許多美籍華人熱愛和崇拜美國大學和教授，但現在他們意識到自己的這種崇拜是盲目跟風，直到今天，他們才發現，當美國政府將資金作為籌碼時，美國大學和教授在道德上并不勇敢。很多過去十八年討厭我警告的人現在意識到，我比他們曾崇拜的那些美國人勇敢，這已經不再是笑話。

5 問：北京大學和其他中國機構是否已經加大了招聘力度，以應對美國日益變化的環境？您在微信群中曾經提到，您愿意幫助任何想要離開美國并在其他地方尋找工作的人。

答：中國已經制定了許多新政策來歡迎來自其他國家的科學家，不論其出身。就我個人而言，我愿意幫助任何優秀的科學家，包括幫助他們找到合適的崗位，并協商一個合理優厚的一攬子待遇，我甚至會嘗試看看他們未來在中國的工作所產生的所有知識產權是否可以完全屬于他們自己。

我的想法是，中國和中國機構將支持科學家們開展優秀的科研工作，而不是為了知識產權。與全人類利益相關的優秀科研工作相比，知識產權在國家層面上只是一件微不足道的小事。我的想法是，中國應該成為所有優秀科學家的避風港，不是出于經濟原因，而是出于道德原因以及全人類的共同利益。

6 問：那么阻礙人們回到中國的主要顧慮是什么？

答：對于美籍華人來說，他們心存疑慮的部分是因為他們不了解所有的政策變化。對于非華人，他們被西方媒體蒙蔽了，那些媒體非常無知且經常發布不真實的信息。

7 問：西湖大學的模式是中國吸引國際人才的最佳方式嗎？寧波東方理工大學、福建福耀科技大學好像也類似？或者，中國的傳統大學是否也開始成功地吸引人們從世界各地前來？

答：西湖大學當然是一個很好的模式。北京大學、清華大學、首都醫學科學創新中心中心（CIMR）、北京腦科學研究所（CIBR）、北京生命科學研究所（NIBS）、南方科技大學、中國科學院都是很好的機構。

寧波東方理工大學是嶄新的大學，很好的大學。福耀？我不能確定。有待觀察它可以辦好、還是瞎搞。并非像有錢人想象的有錢就容易辦好大學。單有經費一項不足以辦好大學。

8 問：您提到，像北京大學這樣的中國大學仍在鼓勵中國學生出國留學，但其實是學生們自己更不愿意去。這是為什么？當您鼓勵學生出國留學時，您是否就是否留在國外或之后回國的問題給他們提供一些建議？

答：學生和他們的父母擔心安全問題。沒人愿意把孩子送去一個充滿不確定性的地方。我希望那些已經在美的學生能夠堅持下來，完成學業后再回國。但如果他們必須回國，中國會想出辦法歡迎他們回來。

9 問：您說，考慮從美國轉到中國工作的理工學科學者不必擔心政治環境或政治限制會侵犯他們的工作或學術自由，這是正確的嗎？

答：在中國，過去 40 年來，理工學科學者所研究的內容沒有任何限制。在中國，理工學研究者享有完全的學術自由。我曾開玩笑說，我讓實驗室做研究是提供我講笑話的資料。從來沒人要求我收回這個說法，也沒有任何機構試圖干預。科學被交到了科學家手中。出于同樣的原因，我會指責科研人員們所犯的錯誤科學和欺詐行為，并且不允許他們把責任推卸到機構上。

10 問：總的來說，在您回國后的這些年里，您是否注意到人們對您決定的態度發生了變化 —— 即從最初的驚訝到現在認為這是一個非常普遍或可以理解的選擇？

答：不同的人在選擇工作地點時有不同的理由。我的理由非常不同，許多人仍無法理解：科學家應該為高于個人有限利益的目的而工作。

· In order to attract more top-tier scientific talent — whether to return or to come in the first place – what does China need to do? More funding? Change to academic culture/publishing pressure? Or is it mostly doing everything right so far, it just needs time?

China has invested in science heavily, almost exponentially over the last twenty years. So, while funding should increase, it is not the key factor at this stage. Supporting scientists based on merit and their good science is the key. 1st rate scientists with good conscience recruit and support 1st rate scientists. Scientists of the 2nd rate or bad conscience support 3rd rate scientists. The problems with publishing are all secondary to who are supporting whom for what.

The reform that Yigong Shi and I carried out 18 years ago at Tsinghua and Peking Schools of Life Sciences have made sure that the best are recruited and supported for good science. They are now the gold standards: reasonable support and best outcome. Many institutions in China are simply pouring in funds for mediocre science: science with the sole purpose of publishing through editors with bad tastes, but such papers are viewed in China as objective and thus fair measures of achievements. This culture has resulted in historically unprecedented problem of lots of meaningless papers in high visibility journals and more fraudulent papers in low visibility papers. This has not happened with any other country either in absolute numbers or proportions of papers published by a single country.

· It seems that many of the returnees to China generally fall into two categories: a smaller number of very established scholars, some of whom may be approaching retirement age (or were pushed out by things like the China Initiative); and early career scientists who haven’t spent much time in the US and don’t have many ties there. It seems that there have not been as many returnee scholars like yourself or Shi Yigong, who were well established and successful in the US but still relatively young/mid-career. Why do you think that is? And is it important for China to attract more of that demographic?

China has instituted many new policies to support senior recruitment, eliminating retirement requirements and offering individual packages.

But you are right in pointing that out: it would be ideal to have more recruits younger than 50 or 45 years of age, with enough experience and much future. The problem lies on both sides: most Chinese institutions are resistant to senior recruitment because institutional leaders are selfish and do not work for the interests of their institutions despite instructions from higher-ups; most Chinese working in other countries do not have a sense of responsibilities and look only at their personal short-term interests but not the future of China.

· You mentioned in our last conversation that when your generation went to the US, what you saw was the best of the US – open-minded, ivory tower etc. — and you mistakenly took it to represent all of the US. Can you expand on what you meant?

In the early 1980s, there was a stark contrast between China and the US in many aspects. For scientists, training was poor and support of minimum. A graduate student in the US was paid more than 30 times that of a senior professor in China. The basic conditions for research were even more different. Professors in China, the lucky ones who had chance to go to the US, would collect disposable tubes from the US labs they visited, and bring them back to China for re-use. American professors and institutions were generous in welcoming Chinese students and offered full scholarships for most Chinese students who could not pay for tuition. Teaching in the US was much deeper and broad than that in China. In the first semester of my graduate studies at UCSF, I learned more than what I learned in two years in China. Most of us were excited in new learnings and in meeting American faculty members and students. I have never heard of any professors in China who could be like: Louis Reichardt at UCSF who was a professor in neurobiology but had climbed Mount Everest, Bruce Alberts who was an author of the textbook Molecular Biology of the Cell used by the entire world, or Ron Vale who was a young professor after having published 4 first author papers in Cell discovering a new protein (kinesin). My classmate included a Harvard graduate who had worked in Paris. One graduate student in that period was a daughter of Dudley Herschbash, and a student who interviewed with the UCSF neuroscience program was a daughter of John Hoppfield. When I was a postdoc at Harvard, my labmates included the only grandson of John von Neumann and the young brother of a Nobel physic prize winner. They were super-smart, kind and hardworking at the same time. John von Neumann’s grandson discovered PI3k while a graduate student at Harvard. Being welcomed into such a community provided us with an intellectual environment that could not be found in China even now.

· Have you heard from more people you know in the US that they are looking to come back to China lately? What are the primary causes driving people’s decisions to return – political (China Initiative, visas), financial/career-related (funding cuts for research,『bamboo ceiling』for Chinese scholars), personal, etc.?

Many are talking about this, not only Chinese Americans, but Americans of non-Chinese origin as well. Scientists require stable support for creative and high-risk research. For Chinese Americans, realizing that the US is not a beacon of the future, and actually harbors deep rooted racism is hard and bitter. Bamboo ceiling which I publicly complained to Science magazine in 2005 is now a small issue.

Another important factor is that, while many Chinese Americans love and worship American universities and professors, they now realize that they have idolized those and found out neither American universities nor American professors are courageous morally when the US government put their funding on the line. It is no longer a joke that many who have hated my warnings over the last 18 years now realize that I am much more courageous than the Americans they used to worship.

· Have PKU and other Chinese institutions stepped up their recruiting efforts in response to the changing climate in the US? You mentioned in a WeChat group that you were willing to help anyone who was looking to leave the US and find employment elsewhere.

China has instituted many new policies to welcome scientists from other countries, regardless of their origins. Personally, I am willing to help any good scientist, including helping them with finding a good match, and negotiating a reasonable good package, to the extent that I would try to see whether all intellectual properties (IP) they generate in future work in China can completely belong to them. The idea is that China and Chinese institutions will support scientists for good science, not for IPs. Those are petty, at the national level, compared to good science for the benefit of the entire human kind. My idea is for China to be a safe haven for all good scientists, not for economic reasons, but for moral reasons and for the common interests of all human beings.

· What are the main concerns holding people back from returning to China?

For Chinese Americans, there are lingering doubts partly because they do not know all the policy changes. For non-Chinese, they are blinded by Western media which are often ignorant and put out images that are not true.

· Is the Westlake University model the best way for China to attract more international talent? Or are more traditional Chinese universities also starting to succeed in attracting people to return/come from around the world?

Westlake University is certainly a great model. Peking, Tsinghua, the Chinese Institutes for Medical Research (CIMR), the Chinese Institute for Brain Research (CIBR), the National Institute for Biological Sciences (NIBS), Southern University of Science and Technology, the Chinese Academy of Sciences are all good institutions.

· Is the Westlake University model replicable? I see there are efforts to do something similar in places like 寧波東方理工大學 and 福耀科技大學。 How do you see the prospects of this model becoming more widespread in China?

The Ningbo Eastern University of Science is a brand new one, and good one. Fuyao, I am not sure. It remains to be seen whether it is really run properly or messed up. Universities are not as easy as some rich people think. There is no guarantee that funding alone can make a good university.

· Has it become more difficult for Chinese universities to recruit overseas/returnee talent from the US given the restrictions on academic exchange and the difficulty for scholars in the US to travel to China?

That is a factor, but minor. It can not block people who really want to leave the US.

· You mentioned that Chinese universities like PKU are still encouraging Chinese students to go study abroad, but it’s the students themselves who are more reluctant to go. Why is that? And when you do encourage students to go study abroad, are you giving them any advice on whether to stay abroad or return to China afterwards?

Students and their parents are worried about security. No one wants to send a child to a place with so much uncertainties. I hope those students who are already in the US will stick out and finish their education before returning. But, if they have to return, China will work out a way to welcome them back.

· You said that STEM scholars considering changing from working in the US to working in China do not need to worry about the political environment/political restraints infringing on their work or academic freedom, is that correct?

In China, over the last 40 years, there is no restriction on what STEM scholars can work on. There is total academic freedom for STEM scholars in China. I once joked that I only get my lab to work so that I have more jokes to make. No one ever asked me to retract that statement, and no institution ever tried to intervene. Science is left in the hands of scientists. For the same reason, I blame researchers for bad science and frauds they committed, allowing them no shifting of blames to institutions.

· In general, in the years since you’ve returned, have you noticed a change in people’s attitudes toward your decision — i.e. From initial surprise to now it being a very common or understandable choice?

Different people have different reasons when choosing where to work. Mine is very different and many still can not understand: a scientist should work on purposes higher than one’s limited self-interests.

Chinese scientists have long flocked to American universities, lured by the promise of a world-class education and resources that their home country could not provide. In the 1980s, Chinese scientists who visited the United States would collect disposable test tubes to reuse in China, said Rao Yi, a neurobiologist at Peking University in Beijing,who studied and worked in the United States for two decades.

The admiration continued even as China’s economy boomed. In 2020, nearly one-fifth of Ph.D.s in science, technology, engineering and mathematics awarded in the United States went to students from China, according to data from the National Science Foundation. Historically, the vast majority of those Ph.D.s stayed in the United States — 87 percent between 2005 and 2015, the data showed.

Professor Rao at Peking University said that China’s progress in recruiting international talent had also been hampered by jealousy among domestic colleagues.

Professor Rao Yi, left, watching students doing research in a laboratory at Peking University, in Beijing, on Friday.

Credit Andrea Verdelli for The New York Times

「While funding should increase, it is not the key factor at this stage,」 Professor Rao said. 「Supporting scientists based on merit and their good science is the key.」