The ability of technological innovation also depends on the environment. When our society can establish an environment that is not only sure of success, but also tolerant of failure, when scientific and technological workers no longer always face unrealistic demands from competent departments or "peers", and when all kinds of artificial constraints or obstacles are removed, scientific exploration and discovery will touch those who are truly innovative.
Value space.
I recently received a review of scientific research results, so I can give some suggestions. After reading it carefully, it seems difficult to talk about anything. It's not that the results are excellent or unique, but that the content and results are too satisfactory. From the expected goal at the time of project establishment to the final achievement, it is completely consistent and should be passed smoothly and reported to the conclusion.
Similar materials have been seen more than once, and those conclusions that are completely in line with expectations, like pre-designed engineering projects, are all run according to procedures and completed with good quality and quantity. But as a scientific research topic, it is so impeccable, but it feels lacking. It seems that it is mediocre only because of perfection, it is difficult to see innovation because of process standardization, it is boring because the conclusion is absolutely correct, and people can't enjoy the surprise after exploration and discovery because of lack of suspense.
The author once asked some comrades engaged in scientific research management whether there is any defect in management orientation. The answer is vague, which not only admits that there is room for improvement, but also emphasizes encouraging innovation from management requirements. However, it is still worrying that the goals set for the project have been repeatedly reviewed by relevant departments and experts, and the inspection during the completion of the project is also carried out in accordance with the preset goals. I wonder if the problem lies in this kind of management. As far as I know, scientific research should include diversity. Some of them have clear general goals and no theoretical breakthroughs. They just need to do some specific work or experiments to prove it. The other is the study of the unknown world, which is difficult to grasp in advance and may have many possibilities, but some conclusions can always be drawn through research; Some of them are purely exploratory and can only make some assumptions at most. They may not have the conditions to draw conclusions for a while, and even after they have some results, they can't fully prove anything. It takes long-term unremitting efforts and accumulation to gain something. There may be more cases, but there should be no doubt about the scientific research characteristics such as exploration, innovation and uncertainty.
Scientific exploration has its own laws. Seeking perfection and quick success will only give birth to a large number of mediocre varieties, while truly valuable achievements will lose their living space.
Recently, a colleague talked to the author about the "tornado research project" in the United States. The plan is not smooth, it can be said that it has been defeated repeatedly. However, the project has not been cancelled, but has been constantly getting new investment. There are probably two reasons: first, the actual demand, the annual losses caused by tornadoes in the United States are great, and it is really necessary to strengthen research in this area; Second, although the research has not achieved the expected goal, it is also rewarding to find the problem itself, so further investment is more targeted. I don't know if there is such a mechanism in China. The new investment does not depend on success, but comes from failure.
In fact, it is not uncommon for the research results to deviate from the expected goals. Professor Ding Zhaozhong, the Nobel Prize winner in physics, cited many examples in his report to illustrate this point, including others and his own experience. Such as electron-positron collider, Hubble telescope and other major scientific experiments, the results obtained are far from the original goal. Regarding Mr. Ding's point of view, someone asked at that time: How far is your research result from your original idea? Ding replied: Sometimes it is 100%. The author believes that what Professor Ding said is of practical significance, and many scientific research achievements and conclusions should be obtained through continuous exploration. If we can get all the results according to the predetermined ideas, the value of scientific research may be greatly reduced and the charm of science will be much less.
Wittgenstein, an Anglo-Austrian scholar, was a student of Russell, a famous British scholar, and later had great differences with Russell in academic views. Once, Russell was in charge of reviewing the opening report of his research project and gave the following opinions: "Some theories contained in Wittgenstein's new works are novel and original, which is undoubtedly important. I don't know whether they are right or not. As a logician who loves simplicity, I like to think that they are incorrect, but from what I have read, I am sure that he should have a chance to finish them, because when they are finished, it is not difficult to determine whether they have established a brand-new philosophy. " It can be seen from this opinion that Russell did not take the correctness seriously, but gave a positive evaluation of its innovation. Whether it is consistent with your own point of view is not the basis for judgment, but the conclusion should be drawn after completion.
From this perspective, the ability of scientific and technological innovation also depends on the environment. When our society can establish an environment that is not only sure of success, but also tolerant of failure, when scientific and technological workers no longer always face unrealistic demands from competent departments or "peers", and when all kinds of artificial constraints or obstacles are removed, scientific exploration and discovery will touch those truly innovative spaces.