Scientist says distinction lies in review system

Mu-ming Poo is a man who enjoys many honors.

He became a Yale professor at the age of 36 and has since worked as a professor at Columbia University and the University of California, San Diego, and is now at the University of California, Berkeley.

He was also honored by his election to the US National Academy of Sciences in 2009 and to the Chinese Academy of Sciences two year later.

More notable than these achievements, though, is the role he has played as the founding director of the Institute of Neuroscience, under the Shanghai Institutes for Biological Sciences of the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

The 64-year-old was born on the Chinese mainland, raised in Taiwan and later spent many years in the United States. He eventually decided to contribute to science in China and returned to his homeland. Since 1999, he has flown every month between his laboratory in Berkeley and his office in Shanghai.

"My job in Shanghai is to establish the circumstances that allow first-rate research to be conducted at the institute," Poo said.

He insisted that the only way to build a world-class institute is to ensure that researchers are appointed in a way that meets high standards.

Every four to six years, lab heads there are subjected to a regular review conducted by mail by between six and 10 of their international peers whose names are not released. Teams of distinguished scientists will also visit a research site and evaluate the work being done there.

Their recommendations will help determine whether researchers' appointments will be renewed and the extent to which various projects that were reviewed will continue to receive support.

"No one will be exempt from this review process, not even prestigious members of the Chinese Academy of Sciences," Poo said.

Every researcher the institute hires is given eight years to establish a research program.

A review at the end of the eighth year is used to determine if a researcher deserves a tenure appointment.

"Eight years should be enough for the researcher to establish an interesting line of research and show achievements that are recognized to be truly significant by peers in the international community," Poo said.

"The real way to measure the academic standing of an institution is rather simple — just look at how difficult it is to gain a tenured appointment at that institution," he added.

In the past decade, the Institute of Neuroscience has gained an international reputation for being one of the best neuroscience institutes in Asia. Many researchers there have published works in some of the most-respected journals on neuroscience and been invited to give lectures at international conferences.

Poo said the use of the tough review system greatly contributes to the quality of the research conducted at the institute.

"Critical reviews are at the heart of first-rate research institutions," Poo said. "If some researchers find that this isn't the environment they want to be in, they can easily find jobs in places that do not have such a review system and that will probably give them better salaries and research support."

In the past, a few investigators have decided, before being subjected to the reviews, that they wanted to leave the institute.

In an unusual policy, the institute requires tenured investigators to continue to come under review every six years. The results of that regular scrutiny do not affect appointments of tenured researchers but do influence how much research support — lab space and money for research — the institute will provide.

A failure to pass a review may result in a laboratory being closed, although researchers may still teach and perform other functions at the institute.

"At most Chinese institutions, it rarely happens that the laboratory of a senior researcher is shut down merely in response to his making slim contributions to scientific knowledge, especially that of a member of the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

"Many laboratories are actually run by younger colleagues, who lack true independence," Poo said. "All of the publications from the laboratory will carry the name of some senior member. Instead of making scientific contributions to the lab, the senior member's only task might be to raise money."

Yet, what about senior members helping direct research and organize a cohesive team of younger scientists?

"Teamwork is very important in attacking difficult problems," Poo said. "Yet, senior members' roles and contributions in the laboratory must be reviewed objectively by experts in the field. This is why an impartial international review is necessary.

"We want senior leaders who can guide teams toward making important breakthroughs," he added.