Does anyone know where I can find information about major experiments and their phenomena that scientists have done?

China Scientists and the Nobel Prize in Science

Everything that China people once had-interest in nature, controlled experiments, experience induction, solar eclipse prediction and calendar calculation-was not enough. Obviously, only commercial culture can do what agricultural bureaucratic civilization can't do-integrate the previously separated knowledge of mathematics and nature. -Needham Needham anthology

The Nobel Prize in Science is the general name of the Nobel Prize in Physics, Chemistry and Physiology or Medicine. In peacetime, the most interesting competition between human beings in both physical strength and intelligence is the Olympic gold medal competition and the awarding of the Nobel Prize in Science. 1984, the 79th year of the Olympic Games, that is, the 35th year after the founding of New China, China achieved a breakthrough of zero gold medal in the Los Angeles Olympic Games. Now, the Nobel Prize has passed 100 years, and the scientific community in New China has been struggling for 50 years, but China still has no chance to win the Nobel Prize in Science.

No one thinks that only winning the Nobel Prize is the ultimate goal pursued by scientists, the purpose of engaging in scientific research and the highest goal pursued by the country. But winning the Nobel Prize is a sign that a country encourages original innovation and is in a leading position in scientific discovery. Because the original innovative technology rewarded by the Nobel Prize has played an important role in the whole human civilization and social progress. For example, the original discoveries of these award-winning scientists in information technology, quantum mechanics and semiconductors have brought our society into the information society.

According to the published nationality statistics, Nobel Prize winners are distributed in nearly 50 countries. A big country with a population of1200 million cannot occupy a place. What should we think?

Table 1 ~ 3 lists the top 10 Nobel Prize winners [1class = f9pt >; . The top 10 winners are either countries with advanced technology and economy, such as the United States, Britain and Germany, or countries with innovative cultural traditions, such as Denmark.

Table 1,1901~ ranking of the top 10 countries that won the nobel prize in physics in 2000.

Rank 1 2 3 4 5 7 9

Country (No.) USA (72) Germany (2 1) UK (19) France (10) Former Soviet Union (8), Netherlands (8), Sweden (4), Switzerland (4), Denmark (3) and Japan.

Table 2. Ranking of the top 190 1 countries that won the nobel prize in chemistry from 2000 to 2005.

Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9

Country (number) USA (46) Germany (26) UK (24) France (7) Switzerland (5) Sweden (4) Netherlands (3), Canada (3) Japan (2), Italy (2)

Table 3. Top 190 1 national rankings before the Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine from 2000 to 2005.

Rank 1 2 3 4 6 8

Country (number) USA (82) UK (22) Germany (17) France (7), Sweden (7) Switzerland (6), Denmark (6) Netherlands (3), Australia (3), Belgium (3) and Austria (3).

1, China scientists won the championship for six times.

China didn't win the prize, but overseas Chinese scientists won the prize six times.

In 1949, Yang Zhenning and Professor Fermi put forward Fermi-Yang model of elementary particles. 1954 cooperated with Li Zhengdao to put forward the law of parity non-conservation; 1957, he and Li Zhengdao won the Nobel Prize in Physics.

Li Zhengdao, 1956 cooperated with Yang Zhenning to put forward the law of parity non-conservation. 1957, he joined hands with Yang Zhenning on the Nobel Prize podium. At that time, he was only 3 1 year old and became one of the youngest four winners in the history of the Nobel Prize.

Ding Zhaozhong, 1974 A new particle called "J particle" was discovered in August. 1976 shared the nobel prize in physics with professor B Richet of Stanford university (193 1-).

Li Yuanzhe (1986) shared the Nobel Prize in chemistry with Professor D.R.Herschbach of Harvard University (1932+0932) and Professor Pogliani of the University of Toronto (1929-).

Chu Diwen, 1997, together with W. D. Phillips (1948-) and C. Cohen-Cohen Tannoudji (1933-) of the American Institute of Standards and Technology, won the Nobel Prize in physics. They won the prize for developing the method of freezing gas at ultra-low temperature.

1998, Cui Qi won the Nobel Prize in Physics for discovering the fractional quantum Hall phenomenon.

Chinese-American scientists have been missed several times.

Although the Nobel Prize in Science is considered to be the fairest, it is still controversial from time to time. The controversial focus of the Nobel Prize in Science is mostly on the winners, because the great scientists of this century are basically on the list. In the Chinese competition for the Nobel Prize, in addition to the above six Chinese winners, there are three Chinese who are recognized as regrettable "left out".

Chinese-American scientists Li Zhengdao and Yang Zhenning first questioned the classical theory of physics-the law of parity balance, and theoretically deduced the opposite law-parity balance, which is considered to be at least in the field of weak interaction between elementary particles. But the theory is always gray, at most, it is only a hypothesis, and it has to be said with facts. Wu Jianxiong, a female physicist from China living in the United States, proved this theory with experiments. This achievement caused a sensation all over the world. However, among the Nobel Prize winners in 1957, there are only Li Zhengdao and Yang Zhenning, but there is no Wu Jianxiong.

1987, the physics prize was awarded to two collaborators, German George Benoz and Swiss Alexander Miao Lei, for their "great breakthrough in discovering superconductivity of ceramic materials", while Zhu Jingwu, an American Chinese, was ignored by the judging organization for reasons other than science. Benoz and Miao Lei were the first breakthroughs in superconductivity. At the beginning of 1986, superconducting ceramic materials with an absolute temperature of 30K were discovered, which seriously impacted the traditional superconducting theory. At the end of 1986, the research group led by Zhu Jingwu synthesized superconducting ceramic materials with absolute temperature above 90K, which gave a fatal blow to the traditional theory. Many people thought that Zhu Jingwu should be at least the third prize winner, but when the list was published, Zhu Jingwu fell out of Sun Shan. The possible reason is that before and after Zhu Jingwu announced this news, another China team and a Japanese team announced similar results. In order to avoid national honor disputes, the award-winning institutions had to give up reluctantly, and Zhu Jingwu became an unfortunate outcast.

1June, 1993, two biochemists, Roberds (R.J.Roberts, 1943-) and Sharp (P.A.Sharp, 1944-) in the United States and Britain, won the Nobel Prize in Medicine for their outstanding contributions in discovering isolated genes. /kloc-at the end of 0/0, LOUISE CHOW, an American biochemist, and his wife wrote to the Science College of the Royal Swedish Academy, claiming that the isolated gene was first discovered by themselves, which triggered a controversy about the right to discover the isolated gene. Because in new york Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Mr. and Mrs. LOUISE CHOW presided over the electron microscope analysis group, and Roberds presided over the splicing experiment of RNA. Roberds's winning paper was published in Cell magazine. Among these authors, LOUISE CHOW's work is irreplaceable, but the result has not changed. LOUISE CHOW was blocked from the podium by the Nobel Prize winning organization.

3. Several lost prize-winning opportunities for China scientists.

The research of Nobel Prize-level scientists in China can even be traced back to before the founding of the People's Republic of China.

1923 American scientist Compton put forward the theory of X-ray quantum scattering, 1924 co-wrote a paper with China scientist Wu. 1926 Wu published papers such as "Strength Ratio of Changed Line to Invariant Line in Compton Effect", which further proved Compton Effect. Compton won the 1927 Nobel Prize in physics, but the "Kang-Wu effect" in the history of physics, Wu Xun You, missed the Nobel Prize.

From 65438 to 0930, American scientist Dirac predicted the existence of antimatter according to the research results of quantum mechanics. In the same year, Zhao Zhongyao (later one of the founders of the Institute of High Energy Physics in New China) published papers such as Absorption Coefficient of Hard Gamma Ray in Matter and Scattering of Hard Gamma Ray, and discovered the "abnormal absorption" of gamma rays when they passed through quantum matter, that is, the annihilation phenomenon of positive and negative electron pairs. His research was in the leading position in the world at that time. For various reasons, Zhao Zhongyao's research in this field was interrupted, and Japanese scholars who continued their research later won the Nobel Prize.

From 1946 to 1947, Qian Sanqiang and He jointly discovered the dichotomy phenomenon of uranium nuclear fission. Under the guidance of Iorio Curie and his wife, Qian Sanqiang wrote a long paper, which gave a comprehensive and detailed introduction to the trisection phenomenon of nuclear from both experimental and theoretical aspects. But his discovery was not further confirmed by a large number of repeated experiments until the 1960s.

194 1 year, Wang conceived an experimental scheme to verify the existence of neutrinos by observing the nuclear recoil in the process of atomic K capture, and wrote a paper, which was published in the American magazine Physical Review and published in 1942+0. In the same year, American scientist Allen confirmed the existence of neutrinos in the laboratory according to Wang's idea. Later, Reins (F.Reins, 19 18-), an American scientist, was inspired by Wang Si-xiang, used nuclear reactors to conduct experiments, and more accurately determined the existence of neutrinos, so he shared the 1995 Nobel Prize in physics with others, but the original designer of the experiment, Wang, was forgotten. During the period of 1960, Wang discovered a new negatively charged hyperon "anti-negative hyperon" while working in Dubra National Atomic Energy Research Institute of the former Soviet Union. At that time, it was the first negatively charged hyperon found in the laboratory in the world, and this discovery is still listed as one of the most important discoveries since the establishment of Dubra National Institute of Atomic Energy. Unfortunately, with the deterioration of Sino-Soviet relations, Wang once again lost an opportunity to impact the Nobel Prize.

New China won at least one Nobel Prize in Medicine, which is also the most promising time for China scientists. That's because 1965, China synthesized bovine insulin for the first time in the world.

1965 09 17 after seven years of hard work and collaborative research, the artificial synthesis of crystalline bovine insulin was completed. Its structure, biological activity, physical and chemical properties and crystal morphology are completely the same as those of natural bovine insulin, and it is the first artificially synthesized protein in the world. Protein, a vital crystal, was synthesized artificially for the first time, which made mankind take another step on the road of understanding the mystery of life.

Naturally, the world will not ignore the contribution of scientists in China. Since 1970s, some people have been nominated as bovine insulin developers to win the Nobel Prize in Medicine. Due to the large number of units and personnel involved in insulin synthesis, there is a heated debate on the report list in China. Finally, an ironic consensus was reached: "Let's go to the same place, or not at all". As a result, as many as 14 people were reported to Nobel primary and secondary schools (note: this statement is controversial. According to eyewitnesses, only researcher Niu Jingyi applied for the prize in China, but it was a pity that he failed to win the prize). The principle of Nobel Prize is to award only two or three people who have made great contributions, and no more than three people at most. However, at that time, China talked about collectivism, but he could not highlight the individual. This Nobel Prize-winning organization is not sure who is the real chief developer. Although China was nominated by others in the early 1980s, due to China's scientific research system and Nobel Prize selection rules, we finally lost the opportunity.

If the opportunity is lost, it will never come again.

It's a pity that acupuncture can't win the prize.

People in China can win prizes in the United States, but scientists in Chinese mainland have no chance to win the Nobel Prize, which is quite a bit like "orange gives birth to Huainan as a bitter orange", which deserves our deep thought.

Some people in China say that grapes are sour when they can't eat them: they begin to think that the Nobel Prize is bourgeois, and we are not rare; Later, I thought about it, but I couldn't get it, so I complained that people were biased.

There is no denying that the selection of any award will be flawed. For example, in the long list of winners, there are no great scientists such as Mendeleev, the discoverer of the periodic law of chemical elements, Gibbs, one of the founders of chemical thermodynamics, William Thomson, the founder of Kelvin temperature scale, and Gracie, the inventor of oral contraceptives.

Therefore, this does not mean that the Nobel Prize winners are biased against China, because the Nobel Prize is only for individuals, not for countries and nations. Otherwise, it can't be explained that there are so many winners among Jews rejected by Europeans, and it can't be explained why some people in Pakistan, Venezuela and other countries also won prizes.

China didn't win the prize of modern science and technology, so someone in China wrote to Karolinska Medical College, the awarding institution of medical prize, and proposed to award acupuncture in China. It is true that acupuncture has gradually been widely accepted all over the world, and its contribution to the world is no less than those new discoveries in modern medicine. Unfortunately, the Nobel Prize is only awarded to those new achievements and discoveries in recent years, which is an unshakable award rule of the Nobel Prize. If one day, scientists in China can figure out the principle of acupuncture and can express it perfectly in scientific terms, I believe the Nobel Prize winners must have a vision.

Although there are some unsatisfactory places, its authority is beyond doubt. This is the Nobel Prize for Science. In front of it, there is no distinction between big countries and small countries, and there is no distinction between color and race. Only achievements can be used to speak.

5. Reasons for not winning the prize

As for why China scientists didn't get the prize, the fundamental point is that the scientific level didn't reach its due height. Therefore, to analyze why we failed to win the prize is essentially to analyze why the level of basic research in China is relatively low. Zhao Hong; Hu Lezhen [3 class = f9pt > People first analyzed it.

Zhao Hong believes that there are four reasons why China missed the Nobel Prize in Science: First, the accumulation of scientific knowledge is not enough; Second, the research time is not enough; Third, the lack of scientists; Fourth, there is a lack of scientific talent identification and selection mechanism. In the accumulation of scientific knowledge, China's modern science and technology, due to historical reasons, is far behind the West. In the 40 years since liberation, China has made great progress in the cause of great science. However, there is still a big gap between China's basic science and the world's advanced level, especially the accumulation of basic scientific knowledge is not enough. A survey of American Nobel Prize winners (1901~19722) shows that the continuity of science is an important factor for the success of Nobel talents, that is, the accumulation of knowledge is not only related to the work of predecessors, but also closely related to the intellectual relay between two generations. Cultivating a Nobel Prize winner requires at least three generations of knowledge accumulation. This includes the basic role of education and research environment, especially family education. The influence of "knowledge inheritance" is mainly reflected in their subtle inheritance of their predecessors' academic attitudes, research methods and thinking habits. China is obviously insufficient in this respect. Sampling estimates of middle-aged and elderly academicians of China Academy of Sciences show that the average number of them from professional families is less than 39%, while the number of their next generation who continue to engage in high-level scientific research is less than 10%. In terms of research time, although the number of American scientists is less than 6.5438+0 million, they are all full-time scientists. The number of scientists in the former Soviet Union claimed to be more than 654.38+000 million, but the time was not completely spent on scientific research, and there were only several hundred thousand scientists when it was completed. According to the survey, the working hours of Chinese scientists in 1960s and 1970s were 16 hours per week. If the standard of full-time scientists is changed, the number of scientists will be halved. That kind of part-time scientific labor, involving meetings, study and other activities, is obviously harmful to scientific research. Regarding the lack of scientific community and scientific talent identification and selection mechanism, there is no hotbed of Nobel talents and its corresponding scientific community in China. There is no corresponding mechanism for selecting, cultivating and recommending Nobel talents in China.

Hu Lezhen believes that there are also institutional reasons why China scientists can't get the prize. China's scientific research has been closed and semi-closed for a long time, lacking international exchanges and cooperation. Even in China, the departments and regions are still in a closed state. (2) For a long time, the social status of scientific and technological personnel was underground, with meager income and difficult situation. The evaluation of professional titles, originally intended to improve the treatment of scientific and technological personnel, is often preempted by officials at all levels. In this way, not only the in-service researchers feel chilling, but also a large number of scientific and technological elites are lost. ③ There is a serious tendency of seniority in China, which makes it difficult for young scientists to stand out. For example, major projects are generally presided over by senior or even elderly scientists. Even talented young scientific and technological personnel should be patient in job evaluation and salary level. Therefore, they have no chance to show their talents at the best age of creativity. (4) In terms of organizational structure, government-run scientific research institutions basically dominate the world. According to the level of RD activities they are engaged in, regardless of basic research, applied research and technology development, according to the fields they are engaged in, regardless of public or market fields, they are sponsored or supported by the government. ⑤ In terms of science and technology development strategy, for a long time in the past, it was divorced from China's national conditions and only sought all-round development. As a result, the troops were evenly divided, the key points were not prominent, and the limited talents and resources were not used reasonably.

6. Why did the United States monopolize the Nobel Prize?

1985-2000, 15, * * 33 scientists won the nobel prize in chemistry, 20 of them were Americans or their main scientific research work was completed in the United States; Of the 34 people who won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 23 were Americans. Of the 37 Nobel Prize winners in physics, 23 are American citizens or live in the United States; Of the 24 scholars who won the Nobel Prize in Economics, 17 are Americans, and Americans seem to monopolize the Nobel Prize.

Why do Americans become the big winners of the Nobel Prize? Some American scientists believe that America's "universal currency" and "encouraging creativity and challenging ideas" have caused this phenomenon.

The US government fully supports and invests heavily in basic scientific research. In the draft budget of 200 1, the federal R&D expenditure is as high as $85.3 billion, of which about 50% is used for basic scientific research; Enterprises also attach great importance to scientific research and give great support to scientific research projects in terms of funds. The American Natural Science Foundation has funded many of the most outstanding and successful scientific research units or scientists, and sufficient funds have become a powerful driving force for the success of these scientists. According to statistics, due to the strong support of the National Science Foundation of the United States, 78 scientists won the Nobel Prize, and four of the eight Americans who won the Nobel Prize in 2000 received direct support from the Foundation.

In addition, the United States attracts elites from all over the world because of its developed economy, superior scientific research conditions and good competitive environment, and immigrant students from all over the world have improved the level of American universities. These foreign elites have become the decisive force to monopolize the Nobel Prize.

Although the level of primary and secondary schools in the United States lags behind Scandinavian countries, Switzerland, France and Germany in the world, American university education advocates independent thinking and initiative. Because scientific research is not limited to the old model or tradition, but always at the forefront, encouraging creativity and challenging ideas is also an important reason why American scientists have repeatedly won Nobel Prizes.

7. How to win the Nobel Prize: 10 standard conditions

Lu Yongxiang, president of China Academy of Sciences and academician of China Academy of Sciences, analyzed the Nobel Prize winners in the past century and put forward 10 questions for discussion, which can be regarded as an evaluation of Nobel Prize winners [4 class = f9pt > It can be called "10 meets the standard conditions" for China scientists to win the Nobel Prize.

A major theoretical breakthrough in natural science needs to be good at discovering the contradiction between existing theory and practice, and need to challenge the confidence and courage of traditional theory; The establishment and formation of major theories often go through a long debate and even criticism, and are recognized after repeated verification.

② Most of the first major discoveries came from keen observation of experimental facts and original experiments.

The invention of new scientific instruments and equipment often opens new doors to science.

(4) Major scientific discoveries and inventions of technologies and methods often have a great impetus and far-reaching impact on human health, social and economic progress.

⑤ Good scientific foundation and cutting-edge and cross-cutting research may also produce major scientific discoveries by accident, which is inevitable by accident.

The creative application of mathematics and computer tools may also bring natural science, engineering technology, economy and management science.

Breakthrough in method and theory.

⑦ Scientific arrangement and excavation of existing knowledge may also produce new major discoveries and theoretical innovations.

⑧ Good innovation atmosphere and high-level innovation base are hotbeds for producing high-level innovation achievements.

Pet-name ruby innovative consciousness, original ideas and innovative strategies are more decisive than funds and equipment.

Attending the breakthrough of scientific and technological innovation and its popularization and application need the corresponding innovation system and scientific management mechanism as a guarantee.

8. How many years will it take?

The external conditions of China's major scientific and technological innovation are gradually taking shape: ① the state has strengthened the investment in scientific research funds; (2) The society has a great demand for science and technology; ③ Vigorously cultivate, select, attract and gather outstanding talents; (4) Carrying out the open policy and maintaining a stable political situation; ⑤ Start to form a social environment that respects knowledge and science; ⑥ Advocating innovation and starting to establish a national scientific and technological innovation system.

Crucially, the growing environment for young scientists in China is improving. The "Hundred Talents Program" of the Chinese Academy of Sciences aims to train cross-century academic leaders; The "100 million talents project" organized by the Ministry of Personnel promotes the growth of young scientists; The implementation of the National Climbing Plan and the National Natural Science Foundation ensures the research of basic science in China, while the development of the "863 Plan" attempts to make China occupy a place in the high-tech field. The return of a large number of overseas students and the increasing international scientific and technological exchanges will make China scientists stand on the same starting line with foreign scientists in some frontier scientific research fields; The development of the strategy of "rejuvenating the country through science and education" is creating a good social atmosphere for China's scientific takeoff.

Yang Zhenning estimated when China would win the prize. He said: "I think there will be a job in China that can win the Nobel Prize within 20 years. If the economy grows rapidly, there will be more than one, but many. Because of the rapid economic growth in China, China leaders have ardent requirements for the speed of scientific and technological development, and their investment in research work has also increased significantly. " [5 class = f9pt & gt；

A scientific fluctuation cycle is about 35 years, and any country with no serious defects in its scientific research system is likely to make a major breakthrough in scientific research during this period. According to this, it will be 35 years from the "Spring of Science" in 1978 to 20 12. Then, we can wait 15 years at most. There is no shortage of scientific elites in Chinese mainland, and we should achieve the breakthrough of "No Prize".

This is not a bold and optimistic prediction. We look forward to the year when China won the Nobel Prize in Science.

9. What does China need to do? 10 Action Plan.

Zhou, the former president of China Academy of Sciences and a famous scientist in China, introduced in detail the conditions and countermeasures for China to make major scientific discoveries [6 class = F9PT >; It can be called "10 Action Plan" for China to win the Nobel Prize.

(1) Have the courage to face difficulties and make major scientific discoveries. Major scientific discoveries generally appear at the growing point of interdisciplinary subjects, rather than being obtained through experiments and logical reasoning with predictable results according to the conventional plan. Because the plan can only be made within the framework of the original scientific principles, and the individual scientist is limited by the narrow knowledge and traditional concepts of the subject, it is difficult for ordinary people to make a breakthrough in their concepts. This limitation and difficulty must be overcome.

② Fully understand the contingency and inevitability of scientific discovery. Usually, there are many failures in the process of scientific research and exploration, but there may be occasional phenomena in the failure, including seeds that stimulate new ideas. Only those who are not afraid of failure and are good at observation can notice the germination of new phenomena or new ideas in the temptation of monotonous repetition and develop them. Once the time for scientific discovery is ripe, discovery becomes inevitable; As for which scientist discovered it, it was purely accidental. History has proved that only those scientists who seize the opportunity in time can become the earliest discoverers.

③ Necessary qualities of innovative scientists. For example, I am less burdened, not afraid of jokes after failure, sensitive to new things, curious, not bound by the original way of thinking and the original theory, and dare to think and do; Relatively healthy, energetic, and working very hard; Affected by various social and family affairs, the brain is highly concentrated, and it is in a critical state of innovation day and night, and it is easy to make important achievements.

Self-confidence, being good at learning and making strategic choices are the basic conditions for finding something. We should have a rigorous scientific attitude, master advanced scientific methods, and build full confidence on this basis. Lack of self-confidence, not daring to encounter difficulties, and just being satisfied with tracking and imitating are huge ideological obstacles. We should be good at learning, not only standing on the shoulders of giants, but also not blindly following the opinions of authoritative people. We should proceed from our own reality and make a strategic choice of discipline direction. It is necessary to foster strengths and avoid weaknesses, focus on discovering new growth points and breakthrough points of the discipline, and concentrate on perseverance in order to gain something. In this regard, experienced academic leaders will play an important role.

⑤ Form an innovative academic group and a good scientific ecological environment. It is necessary to establish an academic group that can innovate continuously in an open and mobile environment; We should have the spirit of pursuing truth, seeking truth from facts and advocating scientific research ethics. There should be frequent exchanges and fierce academic debates among researchers. Through the fierce confrontation of various academic viewpoints, the in-depth development of a single discipline and the cross-integration of different disciplines, a good scientific ecological environment can be formed to realize the co-evolution of scientific systems, and individual scientists can also stimulate creativity and new thinking in this environment.

⑥ Give full play to the role of philosophy and scientific methodology. At present, the research objects of scientific frontier are mostly complex systems, and many objects have infinite degrees of freedom. The scientific methods and ways of thinking commonly used in the past are probably not enough and must be further developed to deal with complex systems. Therefore, it is necessary to strengthen the discussion of philosophy and the research of scientific methodology, mathematics and calculation methods. In addition, observation instruments are the forerunner of discovering new phenomena, so we should pay attention to the development of new instruments and experimental means.

⑦ Never stop climbing the peak, but forge ahead in adversity. Many people are eager for social recognition, stable career and social status, and have a hard job before they make achievements; But once you get a permanent position and title, you will stop working hard and lack the internal motivation to climb the peak of science. Obviously, too superior conditions may make people slack off, while adversity often makes people work hard. Scientific and technological workers who have not been recognized by the society and have not been included in the key support should not be discouraged. Scientists with major innovations in the future are likely to be those who are in the mainland and have not received major state funding.

Youth should become the main force of scientific research. Young people have the qualities and conditions mentioned above, so they may be the most innovative. If young people want to make a difference, they should study hard and exercise well. There is no shortcut to scientific research, trial and error; Try again and fail again. Only after a lot of trials and tribulations can you finally succeed. Only young people who are prepared psychologically, physically, intellectually and physically can seize the rare opportunity, realize their ideals and make important scientific discoveries.

Pet-name ruby do a good job of combining the old with the young and give play to the backbone role of middle-aged scientific and technological workers. In a good scientific research group, old, middle-aged and young scientists perform their duties. They support and cooperate with each other, forming a group with active thoughts, energy, experience inheritance, continuous development of technology and always at the forefront of scientific research.

At present, while training and selecting young scientific and technological personnel, we should give full play to the backbone role of middle-aged scientific and technological workers and the guiding role of elderly scientific and technological workers. Successful middle-aged scientists have been recognized by the society. They have undertaken many important scientific research projects and are the leaders of most scientific research projects. Without recognition and a better recognition mechanism, society should and can only give these responsibilities to the middle-aged generation, but not to the young people whose quality and ability have not been fully demonstrated.

Attending to respect and play the role of teachers. Many times, the work done by young people is not perfect and needs the guidance and processing of experienced scientists. For example, the complete theory of quantum mechanics was completed under the leadership of Born, Heisenberg's teacher. Young people's talents often need to be identified, cultivated and encouraged by experienced scientists in order to get the opportunity to play. There must be some commendable teachers behind a successful young scientist. Many great scientists, such as Bohr, Bonn, Prague and Fermi, brought out a large number of outstanding young scientists in their later years.

note:

1. The statistical data in the table are quoted from Sui Ping's Thoughts on Basic Science and Basic Science Personnel Training, China Science and Technology Forum, 200 1(3).

2. China Zhao Hong, don't forget the Nobel Prize, China Science and Technology Forum, 1995(4), P45 ~ 48.

3. Hu Lezhen, China Science and Technology Forum, also on why China missed the Nobel Prize, 1995(6), P28 ~ 29.

4. Lu Yongxiang, Looking at the Law of Original Innovation of Science and Technology from the Great Scientific Achievements of the Nobel Prize for Natural Science in the 20th Century, 200 1 Report on Scientific Development, China Academy of Sciences, Science Press, 200 1.

5. With Liu Zhenkun, China's Li is only one step away from the Nobel Prize, Guangming Daily (August 7, 2000)

6. Zhou, Historical Enlightenment and Conditions of Major Scientific Discoveries, Scientific Research Management, 2000(0 1)