5月27日出版的《科学》杂志刊登社论——《创新需要新思想》（Innovation Needs Novel Thinking），对如何实现科技创新进行了一番探讨。以下为文章主要内容：

 

科学、技术和创新是经济增长和国家繁荣的关键动力。很多国家不论贫穷，都愿意下大力气去发展它们。不过，实现创新需要创新思想。

 

在经费资助和学术发表方面，同行评审被广泛认为是最好的一种体制。但是，同行评审也具有一定保守性，尤其在经费有限的情况下，一些冒险的科研项目比那些“比较保险”的项目要较难获得支持。如果多一些像美国国立卫生研究院（NIH）的先锋奖或者美国能源部的能源高级研究计划署（ARPA-E）项目等这样的计划，那些前沿的创新研究就有望获得更好支持。

 

科研机构和资助机构也需要重新思考一下科研项目评价标准。同时，创新研究成果的实现需要的时间更长，这点也是需要双方都加以考虑的。

 

此外，增加年轻科学家的数量，鼓励更多女性、少数族裔和残疾人加入到科研行列，从而实现科研人群多样化，也将对创新具有促进作用。“科研新人”较少受到传统思想的束缚，在科研上往往具有新想法，科研机构和资助机构也应该在招聘、报酬和资助体系上相应地作出调整和改进。

 

对多数科研机构和资助机构来说，要作出调整体系的决定是很难的，尤其现在经费预算削减严重，许多进行中的研究项目也受到威胁。但科技与创新关系到未来的繁荣，必须作出一些改变。（科学网 张笑/编译）

Innovation Needs Novel Thinking

Science, Technology, and Innovation are critical drivers of economic growth and national well-being. As a result, investing in them has become a source of hope for many countries, both rich and poor. But innovation demands that novel ideas be pursued, and the science and technology (S&T) enterprise may not be well structured, in the United States and elsewhere, to attract, recognize, and exploit new ideas. Some long-held traditions and modes of operation need to be reexamined to ensure that the system is optimized as an engine for advancing society's goals.

Peer review is widely recognized as the best system for choosing among research projects to fund and deciding which papers to publish. However, peer review can be somewhat conservative, particularly when grant support is limited, resulting in the support of “safer” projects over more risky ones that are based on scant pilot evidence. Urging peer reviewers and funders to support more high-risk but also potentially high-payoff or transformative research, which can revolutionize fields, has not worked well, at least in the United States, as pointed out in 2007 by the U.S. National Science Board.* What is needed are more programs like the U.S. National Institutes of Health's (NIH's) Pioneer Awards or the U.S. Department of Energy's ARPA-E program, in which funds are set aside for research that pushes the frontiers in groundbreaking ways. Projects are reviewed by committees charged with evaluating the projects' potential to be transformative, as well as their overall quality.

Research institutions pursuing high-risk research may have to rethink evaluation timelines and the criteria for judging and rewarding performance. Achieving the goals of a transformative research program can take longer than those of an incremental program designed in a more linear way; transformative research can have many false starts and thus a reduced publication rate. This factor must also be considered by funders, who may likewise need to rethink their criteria for support and for evaluating progress.

Fostering innovation will also benefit from increases in both the number of young scientists and the diversity of the pool of researchers. One of the best arguments for funding more young investigators is that scientists should be enabled to pursue their most creative ideas, which many people believe come earlier in one's career. There need to be more programs like the European Research Council's Starting Independent Researcher Grants, NIH's New Innovator Awards, and the U.S. National Science Foundation's CAREER grants.

In addition, innovation often comes from nontraditional thinking, and many new ideas will come from new participants in science and engineering who often are less tied to traditional ways. That argues for increasing the diversity of the scientific human resource pool, adding more women, minority, and disabled scientists, as well as researchers from smaller and less-well-known institutions. The benefits of increasing diversity for fostering innovation and economic success have been argued well elsewhere.** Both research institutions and funders need to attend more to these sources of novel thinking and may have to refine recruitment, reward, and funding systems accordingly.

These kinds of systemic adjustments in the major S&T-performing and -funding institutions will be hard to make, particularly in the face of severe budget cutbacks that threaten ongoing research programs in many parts of the world. Making these changes will require leadership and courage at the highest levels of S&T institutions. But if the S&T community is going to continue to deliver on its part of the promise that has led to the belief that science, technology, and innovation will be the source of future well-being, changes will have to be made.