外包，是最近生物医学领域比较时髦的一个词。自己实验室由于设备、技术等方面的不足，开展某一研究投入太大，让擅长此工作的公司完成。实验室的研究人员就可以从复杂的设备维护、复杂但又机械的实验操作中解脱出来，更多精力投入到对科学问题的思考和探究上。

院士又一轮结果出炉，科学网反响强烈。看到陈安老师的博客中说，好在评诺贝尔奖不用中国科学家参与。。。受此启发，我想到了Nature的一则新闻消息，Google一查，还真找回来了，2009年的“Italy outsources peer review to NIH”。讲的什么事？意大利政府把政府资助的科研项目评审外包给了美国的NIH。目的很简单，看看我们国内基金项目评审的诸多弊端，就明白了。什么是创新，意大利政府这一招不管好坏，超级创新。

好在意大利人民中愤青不太多，没有指责政府“崇洋媚外、卖国求荣、丧权辱国”。在意大利的网友请关注一下，当地媒体的反应。

我们院士评审争议这么大，能否考虑外包给美国科学院或者英国皇家学会呢？包给他们会有很多好处：

一、评审人学术水平没降低，至少维持现有评审的科学性。
二、公关难度无限提高，基本上可以杜绝找关系、走后门。
三、我们的院士也可以节省很多精力，用于科学研究、培养年轻人，或者争取大项目、申报国家级奖励。。。
四、管理部门不用再背黑锅了。即使出现有争议的人，也可以说，第三方无利益相关人士的评审，少量技术问题在所难免。
。。。（请网友补充）

随便说说，博得几次点击而已。我们的院士评审、基金项目评审不可能外包的。

玩笑开大点，为了减轻美国科学院院士的评审负担，他们也可以把评审任务外包给中国科学院，这样也避免了美国科学院院士评审过程中的公关现象。

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
下面转载Nature那个新闻，如果Nature觉得我侵权我再删掉。
Some question whether grants should be decided in-country.
Richard Van Noorden
    The US National Institutes of Health (NIH) is gearing up to begin a review of about 1,000 biomedical research grant applications for the Italian government, an experimental collaboration that comes at an inconvenient time for the US funding agency.
    The outsourcing agreement was made last year at the request of Ferruccio Fazio, now Italy's deputy minister for health in the welfare ministry, who is looking to improve the department's peer-review system for awarding competitive research grants (see Nature 455, 719; 2008). But its impact comes as the NIH deals with a flood of applications of its own, triggered by the US economic stimulus package (see Nature 459, 763; 2009).
    "We took on this project before the Recovery Act was passed, and we never would have taken on the Italian applications if we had known what our workload would be now," says Antonio Scarpa, director of the NIH's Center for Scientific Review. "Nonetheless, we are honoured to assist the Italians." It is the first time the NIH has provided systematic technical support for another country's grant applications, he says.
    Most biomedical research funds in Italy are dispensed through government appropriations to institutions, not through a competitive grant system. Many of the national peer-review systems that do exist, and which work in response to irregular funding calls, are plagued by accusations of conflicts of interest among a small pool of reviewers.
    "We want to change the culture. We need a peer-review process that is more transparent, and less prone to suspicions of bias," says Giovanni Lucignani, a diagnostic-imaging specialist at the University of Milan.
    Jacopo Meldolesi, a neuroscientist at Vita-Salute San Raffaele University in Milan who ran a competitive grant programme in Italy using foreign reviewers, argues that the process might work better with Italian scientists participating in the NIH review committees. "My reservation is that this is being done outside the Italian community," he says.
    未完，后面总帖不上。


相关专题：众议饶毅落选院士
转载本文请联系原作者获取授权，同时请注明本文来自牛登科科学网博客。
链接地址：https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-61772-476221.html

上一篇：癌症会传染吗？
下一篇：Cell 出版集团也创办了箩筐期刊Cell reports