The development of original scientific research instruments faces multiple challenges

In the process of scientific research, the catalytic role played by scientific research instruments is self-evident.

Instruments are necessary tools for scientific research. They not only automate operating procedures, but some of them are not instruments. A large part of domestic research funding is used to buy high-end foreign instruments. For example, a 454 high-throughput sequencer costs $500,000. Similar expensive instruments are everywhere. But why is there very few original biotechnological instruments in China?

The instrument must first have the need. For example, a very simple electrophoresis apparatus, if no one thought of using electrophoresis to separate charged macromolecules, there would be no birth of this instrument. The demand for R&D tools stems from scientists wanting to look more closely at the things of interest (nucleic acids, proteins, polysaccharides, even cells, chromosomes, tissues, etc.), classify them in more detail, or do faster and repeat work on their hands. Better sex, more efficient, and cheaper prices.

Why is the lack of original equipment in China?

There are about three reasons for this analysis: (1) Lack of exploration of original experimental methods; (2) Lack of communication between scientists and engineers and formation of suitable team opportunities; and (3) Lack of incentives.

Chinese scientists are relatively good at comprehensive induction, but the more detailed distinction is weaker. This kind of demanding practice is likely to make the demand for new instruments dull. In fact, the original spirit of Chinese scientists is very strong, for example, some laboratories have a lot of very clever experimental designs and instrument prototypes (such as cap chips, etc.). However, why is there not enough stamina to eventually develop the instrument?

In instrument development, such as Hitachi’s Professor Kambara, he invented a key technology for capillary electrophoresis of the automated sequencer, and Hitachi was established as one of the four rare lifelong researchers who had given a large number of funds. In addition to the money provided by the Japanese government, they organized a large team (mostly engineers) to specialize in the instruments used in the single cell research. In this way, five years later, when the field is hot, the world must buy instruments from Japan. With such a strategic vision, it is worth learning from this team's ability to organize joint research.

Whether a demanding scientist can team up with an experienced engineer is also one of the keys to instrument development. The concept of "units" in China's research institutes and universities is very strong. There are few shortcuts for horizontal cooperation among departments and units. As a result, the "Made in China" miracle cannot be translated into the research and development of original instruments. Copying other people's instruments is fast, and original R&D cannot be done.

In the United States, there are many opportunities for horizontal cooperation because both scientists and engineers are actively looking for such opportunities. For example, I was often invited to give lectures to completely unrelated engineering meetings. Engineers often came to talk to me to see if their skills could be used in the biological field. Jeff, the engineer in charge of developing the iCubate technology platform, "find it" to me. If you want to develop equipment, you must first “think”, and then you must actively look for opportunities for cooperation and find suitable talents. Of course, before this, we must first create opportunities for cooperation to succeed.

Industrialization gap original scientific research instruments need financial support

Successful cooperation requires money. Just like the "dream team" of the US professional basketball team, the combination of a perfect scientist and engineer needs a lot of investment. The money is used to buy time and buy market opportunities. But where to find money? Is it the first time to find money or to find someone? If there is not a large amount of up-front investment, once the instrument is developed, it can get considerable returns from the market is also an effective way to encourage everyone to cooperate. Whether it is money first or money later, there must always be a reasonable reward. This incentive method depends more on the government in China, and on the market in the United States.

The development of scientific research instruments is like pharmaceuticals, from the creative to the key components, to the construction of the first prototype, and the final mass production requires not only a huge investment but also a long period of time.

Under the circumstance that the return period of investment is long, as a new force for the innovation of scientific research instruments, SMEs can hardly obtain the favor of venture capital funds. What is even more embarrassing is that the state’s funding for the development of scientific research instruments rarely sends olive branches to SMEs.

In fact, in recent years, the state has continuously increased its support for major scientific instruments and equipment. In 2012, the Ministry of Science and Technology funded 66 scientific instrument development special projects with a total funding of 2.2 billion yuan. The National Natural Science Foundation of China has funded 38 special scientific research and equipment development projects with a total funding of 1.09 billion yuan.

According to Song Yizhi, the fund committee mostly supports the original research of scientific research institutes, and the Ministry of Science and Technology attaches great importance to the industrialization projects of large and medium-sized instrument companies. However, the gaps that are not taken care of by both are the most needed for SMEs' technological transformation. of.

Still need multiple tests

With funding and projects, instrument innovation is still a long journey. Many scientific researchers, including Xu Tao, believe that to create an atmosphere conducive to instrument innovation, we should first improve the evaluation system of science and technology, which is an important reason for restricting the development of scientific research instruments in China.

If domestic original scientific research instruments want to truly occupy a place, they still need to be tested. There is no original desire, no mechanism to form the best team, no economic support, it is difficult to develop original instruments. The development of instruments requires, first and foremost, leaders who can bring scientists and engineers together, who need to be familiar with the market, need experience, and have a good mechanism. Not all experiments are worth developing instruments for. This depends not only on scientific importance but also on market needs. It must also tolerate failure and give the loser a chance to try again.