■ Professor Column of Shanghai Jiaotong University Hao Bailin, an academician of Xiong Bingqi China Academy of Sciences, recently published a written speech on his blog (this speech was delivered to the "Seminar on Scientific Ethics and Scientific Ethics" held by the Scientific Ethics Construction Committee of China Academy of Sciences in Beijing, but was stopped by the seminar), criticizing the improper behaviors and unhealthy practices of scientific leaders and government officials, and listing the statistics of SCI papers published every year since a leader became a postdoctoral fellow for 20 years, including 5,600 in 2003. Academician Hao believes that it is a common phenomenon to sign articles that he has made no substantial contribution or even doesn't read at all, and the bigger the official's works, the more articles are published every year. It stands to reason that the greater the efforts of an official, the less time and energy he spends on scientific research and the less articles he publishes. Moreover, scholars who have really engaged in academic research know that it is quite good to publish three or five papers a year if they concentrate on their research. It is incredible that some leaders can publish an academic paper a week. However, it is not easy for these leaders to recognize and review their "misconduct". Do these leaders think they are encroaching on the fruits of others' labor? Nowadays, the group that actively regards leaders as the first author and the first finisher of their own papers and research is not small. This group generally includes masters, doctors (in fact, most of them are recruited in the name of leaders and brought by other teachers), professors, associate professors, junior researchers in their disciplines and so on. Some scholars and experts put the leader's name on the papers and achievements that the leader did not participate in, which is obviously equivalent to disguised academic bribery. Will these leaders think that they have not contributed to the research? No, the leader will think that he plays a great role in the development of disciplines and academic research, because he uses his own resources to allocate power for scholars and experts and obtain projects, topics and funds. Isn't this a contribution? It was he who used his contacts with the business and scientific circles to win more research resources for his own disciplines and departments. Isn't this also a contribution? As for attending project kick-off meetings, conferences, symposiums, etc. , is a direct research behavior. Will some scholars and experts report the "misconduct" of these leaders, thinking that their labor achievements have been embezzled and their personal dignity trampled? They are well aware of the truth that "it is good to enjoy the cool with your back against a big tree, and some people in the DPRK are good at doing things", and they have been appreciated by the leaders, who can raise the banner of leadership and get more topics and funds; Otherwise, it is difficult to establish a project and publish a paper. Leaders strive for resources through their own power outside, scholars do research well, and the paper puts leadership first to realize the sharing of resources and benefits. Why not? Obviously, the root of the problem lies in the current administrative academic resource allocation system and academic administrative evaluation mechanism, which allows leaders, scholars and experts to work closely together to "get what they need." If the allocation right of academic resources is not in the hands of administrative leaders, if the academic evaluation right is not in the hands of administrative leaders, then it is impossible for administrative leaders to make ends meet in academic circles, and it is impossible for so many scholars and experts to give up their dignity and willingly serve them, study for them and write papers for them. Therefore, the above problems can only be solved if the administrative leaders stop engaging in academic research, concentrate on their own administrative work and hand over the allocation and evaluation of academic resources to scholars and experts. In foreign countries, even if you are the president of a university, no matter how much academic achievements you have made before, you often become a professional president after you take up an administrative post and stop doing scientific research. One of the reasons is that a person's energy is limited, and he is not allowed to have extra energy to do research. The school board (Council) evaluates his performance, not how well he studies. Another important reason is that if the headmaster engages in scientific research again, he will certainly use his authority to obtain academic resources for himself. Strangely, not only did he become an administrative leader, but he gained more academic resources and achieved greater "academic achievements", but he did not lead to serious academic administration and serious academic corruption.