[转载]ZT: mendel - 你算几流的科学家？
屏蔽 ||| |
第二等科学家，相反，他们被第一等科学家雇佣，来建立和发明技术，公式，语言，完善和发展一流科学家的观点和发现。如发明蛋白质电泳的Laemmli和发明BLAST的Altschul,这类科学家，具有天才，能吃苦，有创造精神和对风险的耐受力。
第三等科学家是那些能运用新方法，新工具来解决一些新问题的科学家。他们有独特的洞察力和发现问题以及解决问题的能力。比如，自从Watson他们发现的DNA结构导致分子生物学诞生后，这类科学家就能运用分子生物学技术解决他们各自领域里他们关心的问题。这些科学家和第一等科学家不同，他们更关注“精确性”和“准确性”，他们更讲求科学研究的方法和细节。绝大多数真正的科学家，属于这第三等的科学家，他们解决各自科研领域里面的一个又一个“问题”，发表一篇又一篇的SCI。今天，在许多科研杂志发表SCI的科学家，绝大多数属于这类科学家。
第四等科学家即最后一类的科学家，是那些能把科学知识运用到实际领域的科学家，如解剖学领域。他们运用别人发明或发现的科学知识，但是很少创造新的知识。这等科学家，知识丰富，博闻强记，熟悉科研领域里面的许多知识，他们往往是写作的好手。他们也许不善于发表original articles,但是，他们往往是写Review的好手。如编写的Benjamin Lewin。他们在传播科学知识方面，贡献巨大。这类科学家很重要，没有他们，第三类科学家发表的多如牛毛的科研成果，会杂乱无章，无人总结。
Shneider在这里提到了一个很有趣的现象，许多属于第一等的科学家，他们的研究课题往往会被拒绝，因为评价这些研究课题的科学家，往往属于第三等，各自思维不同。各类科学家关心的重点不同，看问题的角度不同。如果第一等的科学家，他们的研究课题是第一等科学家来评审，往往会得到不同的评价。官方机构的“政治正确”又会扼杀知识和学术的自由，阻止第一等科学家探索他们的假说。
Shneider的分类很有意思，这个分类其实也揭示了真正科学研究的进化历程。在这个历程链条上的不同部位，都有不同等级的科学家扮演着不同的角色来完成整个的“科学研究”。
[1]
引用:
Trends Biochem Sci 34(5):217-23 (2009)
Four stages of a scientific discipline; four types of scientist.
Alexander M Shneider
Cure Lab, 43 Rybury Hillway, Needham, MA 02492, USA.In this article I propose the classification of the evolutionary stages that a scientific discipline evolves through and the type of scientists that are the most productive at each stage. I believe that each scientific discipline evolves sequentially through four stages. Scientists at stage one introduce new objects and phenomena as subject matter for a new scientific discipline. To do this they have to introduce a new language adequately describing the subject matter. At stage two, scientists develop a toolbox of methods and techniques for the new discipline. Owing to this advancement in methodology, the spectrum of objects and phenomena that fall into the realm of the new science are further understood at this stage. Most of the specific knowledge is generated at the third stage, at which the highest number of original research publications is generated. The majority of third-stage investigation is based on the initial application of new research methods to objects and/or phenomena. The purpose of the fourth stage is to maintain and pass on scientific knowledge generated during the first three stages. Groundbreaking new discoveries are not made at this stage. However, new ways to present scientific information are generated, and crucial revisions are often made of the role of the discipline within the constantly evolving scientific environment. The very nature of each stage determines the optimal psychological type and modus operandi of the scientist operating within it. Thus, it is not only the talent and devotion of scientists that determines whether they are capable of contributing substantially but, rather, whether they have the 'right type' of talent for the chosen scientific discipline at that time. Understanding the four different evolutionary stages of a scientific discipline might be instrumental for many scientists in optimizing their career path, in addition to being useful in assembling scientific teams, precluding conflicts and maximizing productivity. The proposed model of scientific evolution might also be instrumental for society in organizing and managing the scientific process. No public policy aimed at stimulating the scientific process can be equally beneficial for all four stages. Attempts to apply the same criteria to scientists working on scientific disciplines at different stages of their scientific evolution would be stimulating for one and detrimental for another. In addition, researchers operating at a certain stage of scientific evolution might not possess the mindset adequate to evaluate and stimulate a discipline that is at a different evolutionary stage. This could be the reason for suboptimal implementation of otherwise well-conceived scientific policies. DOI: 10.1016/j.tibs.2009.02.002
--我思故我在。
