美国院士是如何“炼成”的？

摘要：  每年春天，也就是四月底、五月初的时候，国家科学院都要增选新院士。拥有院士身份表明你在学术界得到了广泛的认可，但是很多科学家并不清楚院士增选的流程到底是怎样的。其实这并不是有意为之：选举流程如果很神秘，对谁都不好。不过随着时间的推移，选举的环节确实变得越来越复杂，这部分地反映了科学领域迅速膨胀的现状。这种复杂度也反映了学术界的一个共识：不能让任何个人或者小团体对选举结果产生不良影响。在这篇社论中，我们将尝试解释一下这个不为大家所熟知的流程，此外，我们还将讨论一下为了让选举对年轻人和女科学家更有吸引力，我们都做了哪些工作。

国家科学院选举：通向院士之路

2005年5月24日PNAS（《美国科学院院刊》）（Vol.102，  No.21，  pp  7405-7406），

Bruce  Albert

美国科学院院长（现任《科学》总编）

KennethR.  Fulton,

美国科学院执行主任，PNAS出版人





每年春天，也就是四月底、五月初的时候，国家科学院都要增选新院士。拥有院士身份表明你在学术界得到了广泛的认可，但是很多科学家并不清楚院士增选的流程到底是怎样的。其实这并不是有意为之：选举流程如果很神秘，对谁都不好。不过随着时间的推移，选举的环节确实变得越来越复杂，这部分地反映了科学领域迅速膨胀的现状。这种复杂度也反映了学术界的一个共识：不能让任何个人或者小团体对选举结果产生不良影响。在这篇社论中，我们将尝试解释一下这个不为大家所熟知的流程，此外，我们还将讨论一下为了让选举对年轻人和女科学家更有吸引力，我们都做了哪些工作。

要成为候选人，首先从提名开始。尽管非正式的方式会提出很多候选人，不过正式提名只能由院士提交。每份提名材料应当包括候选人的简历、一份250字左右的概述候选人学术成就的说明——也就是当选理由——以及数量不超过12篇的代表性论文和著作。之所以做出篇数限制，是为了强调质量而不是数量。一旦获得提名，这份候选材料就会送到科学院31个专业领域中的某一个专业委员会主席手里，例如化学、分子与发育生物学或者数学（全部列表请见www.nas.edu/sections）。

每个专业都有自己遴选候选人的流程，由该专业的院士多轮投票筛选候选人。有些专业的流程相对简单，直截了当，有些则比较复杂，颇费周折，包括召开选举协调会、核心委员会选举以及其他各种各样的环节。如果候选人同时在两个（或者两个以上）的专业领域获得提名的话，情况就更复杂了。不过正如图一所示，所有专业领域的选举最终都要经过两次选举——也就是所谓的“非正式选举”和“正式选举”，至于为什么这么叫，已经无可考据了。候选人一旦顺利通过这两轮选举，就有机会被更广专业的院士们来评选了。31个小专业被归为六个大领域，候选人要首先通过这六个大领域的选举。

此外，候选人也可以由多位院士联名提名，也就是组成“自愿提名小组”（VNG），或者由国家科学院成立的“临时提名小组”（TNG），专门提名某个或者某些领域中的候选人。2003年，在“21世纪提名与选举特别委员会”的提议下，国家科学院委员会就组建了六个这样的临时提名小组——每个领域一个小组：数理科学，生物学，工程与应用科学，生物医学，行为与社会科学，以及应用生物学、农学和环境学。这些临时小组负责提名较年轻的男女候选人，他们的工作促使各专业提名更多的女性科学家和年轻候选人。

科学院章程规定了每年新增选院士的人数（目前不超过72人），每年科学院委员会都会分配各领域名额，在分配名额的时候，委员会会考虑目前科学院的规模以及增长较快的领域。

每年二月，这六个领域的院士委员会——每个委员会都由本领域的院士代表组成——会召开各自领域的会议，讨论所有已通过各专业委员会评选的候选人的资格。如图一所示，自愿提名小组和临时提名小组提出的候选人也会被加进来。

六大领域最终要提出自己的名单，人数为本领域名额的150%，并且按照得票多少排序，因为名额限制问题未能进入这个名单的候选人将在下一年选举中自动获得相关小专业的提名。

这六份大名单组成一份所谓的“优先名单”（Preference  Ballot），连同每位候选人的简历以及在“正式选举”名单上的排名，在每年三月初提交给所有院士，院士们必须给所有六个领域投票，而不仅仅是投自己的领域，而且选出的人数要达到最低要求，投票才算有效。投票结果经过统计整理制成图表，在每年四月底年度大会的院务讨论会上展示，参会的院士就“最终名单”进行表决，“最终名单”由得票最高的72名候选人组成，其中每个大领域的人数不得超过该领域的上限。其余候选人组成第二份名单，同那些在前期投票过程中未能通过各领域院士委员会的候选人一样，将自动获得下一年度相关专业提名的机会。

尽管院士们将最终名单作为一个整体来投票表决，参会的任何一位院士都可以要求单提出某位候选人进行讨论，专门进行表决。不过这样的“苛求”非常罕见。

第二年四月的年度大会上将介绍和欢迎这些新当选院士，在过去两年里，新当选院士的平均年龄是56岁。每年新当选院士名单的名单和介绍发表在PNAS网站上。

有人可能会问，这套选举流程的最终结果值得耗费这么大的人力物力吗？这么精心挑选两千名院士有必要吗？这是个很重要的问题，答案至少有两点，首先，原则上讲，每位院士都应当为其所在领域的年轻科学家们做出表率，让他们知道什么是一流的科学。其次，美国国家科学院同其兄弟组织——美国国家工程院和美国医学院——一道为我们的“运行部门”——“国家研究委员会”的公共服务工作提供支持。这四个组织共同组成了“美国国家研究院系统”，负有为联邦政府和各州政府提供广泛政策咨询的责任。咨询的范围非常广泛，从干细胞研究、生命科学领域博士后和年轻科研人员的现状到饮用水的砷中毒风险，以及未来气候变化等等。“国家研究院系统”平均每个工作日至少出台一份报告，大大增加了美国公共政策制定过程中的科学性。



下略两段有关美国科学院院士在PNAS投稿的讨论。



Every  spring,  in  late  April  or  early  May,  the  National  Academy  of  Sciences  (NAS)  elects  new  members.  Membership  in  the  NAS  is  a  widely  recognized  sign  of  excellence  in  scientific  research,  but  most  scientists  are  not  familiar  with  the  process  by  which  members  are  elected.  This  lack  of  information  is  certainly  not  intentional;  no  one  gains  when  the  elections  are  shrouded  in  mystery.  However,  the  election’s  successive  ballots  have  become  more  complicated  over  time,  in  part  reflecting  the  rapid  expansion  of  scientific  fields.  The  complexity  reflects  a  consensus  process  designed  to  ensure  that  an  individual,  or  small  group  of  individuals,  cannot  have  an  undue  influence  on  the  election.  In  this  editorial,  we  attempt  to  shed  some  light  on  this  poorly  understood  process.  In  addition,  we  describe  recent  efforts  to  make  it  more  welcoming,  especially  to  women  and  to  younger  scientists.

Consideration  of  a  candidate  begins  with  his  or  her  nomination.  Although  many  names  are  suggested  informally,  a  formal  nomination  can  be  submitted  only  by  an  Academy  member.  Each  nomination  includes  a  brief  curriculum  vitae  plus  a  250-word  statement  of  the  nominee’s  scientific  accomplishments—the  basis  for  election—and  a  list  of  not  more  than  12  publications.  The  latter  limit  helps  to  focus  on  the  quality  of  a  nominee’s  work,  rather  than  the  number  of  publications.  Once  a  nomination  has  been  prepared,  it  is  sent  to  the  chair  of  one  of  the  Academy’s  31  disciplinebased  Sections,  e.g.,  chemistry,  cellular  and  developmental  biology,  or  mathematics  (for  a  complete  list,  see  www.nas.edusections).

Each  Section  has  its  own  procedures  for  identifying  potential  candidates  and  for  winnowing  the  list  through  successive  ballots  of  Section  members.  Some  of  these  procedures  are  simple  and  straightforward;  others  are  lengthy  and  complex,  involving  screening  panels,  caucus  ballots,  and  other  mechanisms.  And  variations  occur  when  candidates  are  nominated  by  two  (or  more)  Sections.  But,  as  illustrated  in  Fig.  1,  all  Section  procedures  culminate  in  two  mandatory  ballots—named,  for  reasons  lost  in  history,  the  ‘‘Informal’’  and  ‘‘Formal’’  ballots.  Successful  candidates  then  go  forward  as  nominees  for  consideration  by  increasingly  broad  segments  of  the  membership,  beginning  with  the  six  discipline-based  Classes  into  which  Sections  are  grouped.

Candidates  can  also  be  nominated  by  a  group  of  members  by  petition  (a  Voluntary  Nominating  Group  or  VNG)  or  by  a  special  group  appointed  by  the  NAS  Council  to  search  for  candidates  in  a  specific  field  or  set  of  fields  (a  Temporary  Nominating  Group  or  TNG).  In  2003,  on  the  recommendation  of  the  ad  hoc  Committee  on  Nomination  and  Election  in  the  21st  Century,  the  Council  appointed  six  of  these  TNGs—one  for  each  of  the  six  Classes:  Physical  and  Mathematical  Sciences;  Biological  Sciences;  Engineering  and  Applied  Sciences;  Biomedical  Sciences;  Behavioral  and  Social  Sciences;  and  Applied  Bio-logical,  Agricultural,  and  Environmental  Sciences.  These  TNGs  were  charged  with  identifying  and  nominating  younger  candidates,  both  men  and  women;  the  work  of  the  TNGs  also  has  stimulated  the  nomination  of  women  and  younger  members  among  the  Sections.

The  Academy’s  bylaws  specify  the  maximum  number  of  members  who  can  be  elected  annually  (currently  72),  and  each  year  the  NAS  Council  determines  the  number  of  members  that  can  be  elected  from  each  Class.  In  allocating  these  Class  quotas,  the  Council  takes  into  account  the  current  size  of  the  Academy  and  the  areas  in  which  it  might  grow.

In  early  February,  six  Class  Membership  Committees—each  of  which  is  composed  of  representatives  of  all  Sections  in  that  Class—meet  to  discuss  the  relative  merits  of  all  of  the  nominees  who  have  survived  voting  in  the  Sections.  As  illustrated  in  Fig.  1,  the  nominees  of  VNGs  and  TNGs  are  also  placed  in  the  mix.  The  end  product  from  each  Class  Membership  Committee  is  a  rankorderedlist  of  nominees,  composed  of  150%  of  the  total  number  of  members  that  the  Class  is  permitted  to  elect.  Nominees  who  cannot  be  placed  on  the  list  because  of  this  upper  limit  will  be  automatically  considered  again  by  the  appropriate  Section  for  the  next  year’s  election.

The  rank-ordered  lists  of  nominees  for  the  six  Classes  comprise  a  ‘‘Preference  Ballot,’’  which  is  sent  to  all  Academy  members  in  early  March,  along  with  each  nominee’s  biographical  material  and  information  about  his  or  her  standing  on  the  Formal  Ballot.  Members  are  required  to  vote  for  a  minimum  number  of  candidates  in  all  six  Classes—  not  just  their  own—for  their  ballot  to  be  valid.  The  results  are  tabulated  for  presentation  during  the  business  session  at  the  Academy’s  annual  meeting  in  late  April.  Members  attending  the  annual  meeting  vote  on  the  ‘‘Final  Ballot,’’which  contains  the  names  of  the  72  nominees  who  received  the  highest  number  of  votes  on  the  preference  ballot,  up  to  the  maximum  number  permitted  in  each  Class.  The  remaining  nominees  appear  on  a  second  list  and—like  those  not  ranked  by  the  membership  committees  earlier  in  the  process—are  automatically  reconsidered  the  following  year  by  their  nominating  sections.

Although  the  final  list  is  voted  on  as  a  group,  any  member  at  the  meeting  may  request  that  a  name  be  removed  for  discussion  and  a  subsequent  separate  vote.  Such  ‘‘challenges’’  are  very  rare.

The  new  members  elected  each  year  are  introduced  and  welcomed  to  the  Academy  by  their  colleagues  at  the  annual  meeting  the  following  April.  For  the  past  2  years,  newly  elected  members  have  been  56  years  old,  on  average.  A  list  of  the  members  elected  this  year  can  be  found  in  the  supporting  information,  which  is  published  on  the  PNAS  web  site.

One  might  ask  whether  the  end  result  of  this  election  process  is  worth  the  large  amount  of  time  and  effort  that  is  devoted  it.  Why  does  it  matter  that  the  2,000  members  of  the  Academy  are  so  carefully  chosen?  There  are  at  least  two  answers  to  this  important  question.  First,  in  principle,  each  member  should  serve  as  a  role  model  for  defining  excellence  in  science  for  the  next  generation  of  scientists  in  his  or  her  field.  Second,  it  is  this  Academy—along  with  its  sister  organizations,  the  National  Academy  of  Engineering  and  the  Institute  of  Medicine—that  supports  the  enormous  public  service  efforts  of  the  National  Research  Council,  our  ‘‘operating  arm.’’  Known  as  the  National  Academies,  this  four-part  organization  is  chartered  to  provide  extensive  policy  advice  to  our  national  and  state  governments.  The  issues  addressed  cover  a  vast  range—from  stem  cell  research  and  the  status  of  postdoctoral  fellows  and  young  investigators  in  the  biological  sciences  to  the  dangers  of  arsenic  in  drinking  water  and  of  future  climate  change.  By  producing  an  average  of  more  than  one  report  every  working  day,  the  National  Academies  have  greatly  increased  the  wisdom  of  public  policymaking.

Election  to  the  NAS  confers  editorial  responsibilities  for  this,  the  Academy’s  official  journal,  established  in  1914  as  a  journal  for  members  to  publish  their  own  important  work  and  the  work  of  others.  In  1995,  PNAS  introduced  direct  manuscript  submission,  whereby  any  author—member  or  nonmember—can  submit  his  or  her  work  directly  to  the  journal.  All  papers  published  in  PNAS  are  evaluated  and  approved  by  an  NAS  member;  the  PNAS  editorial  office  secures  the  appropriate  editor  for  direct  submissions.

To  honor  newly  elected  members,  the  journal  publishes  brief  biographies  that  accompany  a  research  report  in  the  journal,  thus  providing  examples  of  role  models  of  excellence  in  science.  The  journal  has  an  open  archive  policy,  with  all  articles  made  freely  available  to  everyone  on  the  web  6  months  after  publication.  The  PNAS  web  site  receives  nearly  2  million  hits  per  week  and  conveys  groundbreaking  research  to  the  scientific  community  and  the  lay  public.



Bruce  Alberts,  President,

National  Academy  of  Sciences

Kenneth  R.  Fulton,  Executive  Director,

National  Academy  of  Sciences,  and  Publisher,  PNAS (责任编辑：glia)

搜索

热门标签:

美国院士是如何“炼成”的？