已有 4665 次阅读 2011-11-30 15:18 |系统分类:观点评述 这篇文章的目的之一是推介下饶海老师的一篇博文《令人想汪的科学家的乐园（一） 2011-11-29》，其二是先简单看看两者的相同与不同处。按说饶毅老师为NIBS鸣不平了，饶海老师怎么着也该呼应一下，那篇博文便是他的有趣观察。 也许是他的意思表达的不够直接，而且文中放了《Nature》11月16日的长篇报道《Five years in, has a lofty experiment in interdisciplinary research paid off?》，探讨了HHMI5年来的改革，许多人也许没有耐心仔细读完，忽略过去，甚为可惜。我只得就其中的要点以及我一点感想再写一写，希望能有更多的人从这两个十分相似的研究所的成长经历中获得些许启发，能支持NIBS的改革。 NIBS是在2003年完成的聘任，而HHMI的Janelia Farm Research Campus是在2006年10月建成于Ashburn, Virginia，不过其建立的理念形成早在1999在Boulder的Colorado大学的生物化学家Thomas Cech成为主任时开始，后来聘任了Rubin（a geneticist at the University of California, Berkeley）做HHMI的副主任开始具体有设想并按照ATT's Bell Labs和the Medical Research Council's Laboratory of Molecular Biology的模式一步步最终实施。 在成立的出发点上，两个研究机构有着显著的不同。NIBS是由科技部、发展改革委员会、教育部、卫生部、中国科学院、国家自然科学基金会、北京市政府、中国医学科学院等8个部委为主体组成理事会，共同管理北京生命科学研究所的筹建和运行工作，目标是争取在尽可能短的时间内组建国际一流的基础生命科学研究所，带有较重的国家利益。当然，从后来多方的反应看，也许国家期待NIBS能做一个科学特区，为整个科技体制改革作出试验。也许，后来NIBS的使命发生了拓展。这种拓展能不能实现，我是抱怀疑态度的，毕竟这已经超出了一个研究所所能承载的功能。 对比一下，HHMI背后是一个私立慈善机构，与美国政府没有多少关联，作出改革的目的仅仅在于“做更好的科学”（The HHMI was already funding hundreds of investigators at universities around the world. And with its endowment booming, Cech thought there must be some way for the organization to have a bigger impact on science than just funding a few hundred more. ）。我想，这是两者显著的不同。特别是后来，人们期待NIBS不仅做一个成功的研究所，更要为中国整个科技体制改革作出试验时，NIBS的使命实际上已经大大超出了纯粹科学研究的范畴。 在资助模式、人才招聘、甚至考核机制、研究范围和目标上，两者几乎是相同的，这让两个研究所都具有某种“令人想汪的科学家的乐园”色彩，让人恍然间想起了 Francis Bacon (1561-1626)在小说New Atlantis中描写的乌托邦Salomon's House。我原本以为，在科学职业化的今天，乌托邦式的科学是不存在的呢。 值得注意的是，在最初Rubin设定的方向中，研究所是集中于imaging和neurocircuity，但2008年Robert Tjian成为新的主任后，已经拓展了研究的范围，用他的话说，“give scientist the freedom to follow new opportunity as they asise”。我不清楚，NIBS是不是也设定方向，但目前来看，似乎是自由的，不管是在基础还是应用方面。这样，两者就更相似了。 为了进一步明白相似性，我一一列举如下： 1、地理位置的偏远与不在乎 NIBS不用说了，还是蛮远的，我去的时候真没想到。HHMI 则“move to a farm outside Ashburn, a dormitory suburb an hour's drive from Washington DC”但是，主任说了，来这里的人都“don't mind the remote location”。 2、有享受“特权”待遇，如果可以这么说的话。NIBS由中国政府拨款，HHMI本身也自我拨款，研究人员都不用写项目书竞争经费，没有行政干扰，也都不在乎能不能当终生教授。“use the HHMI's ample chequebook to free them from the distractions of conventional academic life. No administrative work, no teaching duties, no chasing tenure, no writing of grants.”我原来以为，NIBS的研究生也想当教授的，杰青，院士之类的，结果有个代表过来说，我们都不care这些。（见精选博文《我也谈谈NIBS》） 3、都招聘世界一流的科学家和有潜力的年轻人组成团队。 4、都试图做最重要、高风险的研究，而且都能保证“三年不鸣”。put them to work on a handful of grand scientific challenges — long-term, high-risk, high-payoff research that addresses some of the biggest questions in neuroscience.而且主任Rubin says that he does not expect the facility to start producing its best discoveries for another five or even ten years. 5、五年评估一次，保证不断有新鲜的科学想法。 6、大家最关心的年度资助额和研究人员待遇上，两者都是很高的，但对比一下，中国的NIBS的年资助额1.2亿和人员待遇50万并不算高。“ HHMI spends about $1 million per HHMI Investigator per year, which amounts to annual investment in biomedical research of about $825 million. ”（维基百科） 好了，说说我的观感： 1、NIBS由政府资助，也许是引发国内其他单位不平衡的原因之一。HHMI是私人慈善机构，最初由私人公司演变过来，最初创始人Howard Hughes成立这家慈善组织也许是为了避税，因为他还成立一家Hughes Aircraft Company，后来躲不过美国税务署，在50年代后期资助了8个研究机构的47名研究者。等Howard Hughes死后又打官司，成了新的董事会，后来又出售航空公司被 General Motors (GM) 竞得，才获得不菲资金。作为纳税人，我支持国家继续支持NIBS，因为他们做出了满意的研究。 2、饶海老师博文提到，HHMI与NIH资助的模式可以相互补充。我认为，在当前中国的情形下，政府资助NIBS和自然基金委的模式可以相互补充。 3、NIBS的学术示范意义和启示要比HHMI高，在中国，太缺乏纯粹科学精神和环境了，而美国相对不太缺乏。多关注它成功的科学的内在普遍性（如坚持高标准的聘用和职称评定，没有行政干预），而不是只是盯着经费支持，项目申请等特殊性。事实上，NIBS的经费支持不算太高，项目评估和对人员的考察亦十分严格。 4、对于NIBS，尤其要学习其高标准，严要求。其他研究机构和研究人员应该承认他们做出的成绩，给与正当的评价，而不应该落井下石。对他们进行的全新的科研模式尝试，要支持；而对于它是否能改变中国科技体制，不要苛求，也不要苛责。 声明：这篇文章主要是说HHMI新成立的Janelia Farm Research Campus与NIBS的对比，题目以及行文显得不妥，可能造成误解，已经有老师指出，特此致谢！重点想说的意思是，对于一些科研模式的改革，包括HHMI新成立的这个 Campus和政府支持的NIBS，都算一种改革尝试，好几年过去了，而且都做的不错，希望能有包容和支持。. 分享到： 收藏 分享 举报 . 全部作者的其他最新博文 • 北生所的成功可否复制？如何复制？• 再来谈谈科学有无国界与人才浪费• 中国十大最缺德行业• 希望有一天有人会说，回到中国是获奖关键• 微新闻：总理遭电视台恶搞..热门博文导读 • 中科院的“天价内存条”• 李开复已公开道歉， 承认没做过美国的副教授• 奉劝西方政客不要既做“政治婊子”又立“人权牌坊”• 方舟子打假屡屡成功，缘何？• 谁动了我的manuscript?• 读博士与不读博士的差别..当前推荐数：17 推荐人： Namychan 曹聪 flighter xsquare 远行的骆驼 blueice1126 chinasciens Nancyback Wuyishan qiaoqiao1980 ytking21cn book liuli66 yzhang111 RAOH xusuowen lixuekuan 推荐到博客首页 发表评论 评论 (18 个评论) tailijie 2011-12-1 08:49 很有趣 请教两个问题 1.说美国获得HHMI资助的研究人员的个人待遇很高,请问是多高? 2.美国获得HHMI资助的研究人员是集中在一个研究所上班吗? . . zxing 2011-12-1 01:40 不伦不类的对比。还乌托邦呢？人家直嚷嚷被 “边缘化”了！写这种东西，时间也太多了。 博主回复(2011-12-1 07:22)：是否合适拿来对比，是可以再讨论的。 . RAOH 2011-12-1 01:33 agree 14L 博主回复(2011-12-1 08:31)：HHMI新成立的这个园区，十分重视多学科，以及不同课题组的合作，NIBS也许也是这样的。这也是一个相似。 . RAOH 2011-12-1 01:33 5L, "但我看饶海老师的博文说5年～$70万美金", 5年～$70万美金是HHMI给international early career 的。 . yzhang111 2011-11-30 23:49 感觉很别扭。HHMI和HHMI的Janelia Farm Research Campus是两回事。相当于母公司和子公司的关系，博主好像不应该把它们混在一起互相代替。比如你说王晓东，许田，张毅时，给人的感觉是他们是Janelia的研究员似的。 博主回复(2011-12-1 07:26)：已经对博文做出修改，删除了这段引起歧义的部分。 博主回复(2011-12-1 07:17)：这个子公司还是遗传了母公司的不少东西，而且深化了。这是一种新的改变。谢谢您的澄清，王晓东等只是以前的研究员。 博主回复(2011-12-1 07:02)：这篇文章还是说这个HHMI的新生事物，Janelia Farm Research Campus，谢谢您的批评。 . waun 2011-11-30 22:27 真担心你这样的比较坏了HHMI的名声...哎.... 博主回复(2011-12-1 07:44)：不至于吧，我想主要是透过这个HHMI这个新的试验地Janelia Farm Research Campus，希望能对NIBS持一种宽容态度，毕竟NIBS在一些人的眼中好像另类一样。尤其是在支持年轻人上，两者都不错。 . hty333 2011-11-30 21:47 没有多少可比性, 两者不在同一水平. 博主回复(2011-12-1 07:20)：规模上确实差距大，性质也不相同，一个是资金会，一个是研究实体。不过那个新成立的Janelia Farm，有一定相似性，当然也有不同的地方，毕竟NIBS还是要进行职称评定的。 . bukexiao 2011-11-30 21:24 博主能否告诉我美国选拔HHMI的标准是什么吗？ 是由谁选拔的吗？ . Nancyback 2011-11-30 17:49 都有点像The second biosphere in Arizona. . freesailer 2011-11-30 17:14 我甚至觉得要吸引非华人的外国人回国，给的收入要高于在美国的收入。如果要给外国人保持美国品质的生活方式，比如购买进口食品等等，国内比国外高多了。到国内对外国人工人到了煤矿等高污染环境工作，还得多给健康补助。
令人想汪的科学乐园（一） 有 童鞋来 问了：“ 老 师 ，您的日子过得tmd真好， 可 上九天 揽 月，敢下五洋捉 鳖 ！ 可偶们还是打工崽，来点更实际的吧，您知道介个世界上可有 科学乐园嘛 ？” 偶问：“啥子叫 科学乐园捏？” 童鞋勇敢地答到：“不怕您笑话，就是 啥子都不操心，没有发表文章的压力， 更没人跟在后面屁颠屁颠地喊“咋还三年不鸣！” 只要尽心做科研就好了，而且只做重要滴工作，比如诺奖级或改天换地级别的。” 阿拉脸红 的答到：“不怕您笑话，您可以到偶滴实验室来干！就是工资不是顶高级！您要能带钱fellowship来，偶也 都不操心！” 童鞋豪爽滴答到：“钱是不能少滴！” 阿拉满脸堆笑的说： “介样子啊？还真有个好去处啊，前阵子就有个小盆友给请去了，吃饱喝足啊，走后还被塞了一满 盆的 美元；回来倒一声不啃，偷着乐 ！这地方可好了，待遇上乘，条件上等，要嘛有嘛！不 发表文章都可以活得杠杠滴，也没人三天两头滴叫“咋没应用价值！”， 只整 改天换地！ 不怕做不到，就怕想不到！ ” 详情见下文： Research at Janelia: Life on the farm ( 在“健力压”农庄的 日子 ） Five years in, has a lofty experiment in interdisciplinary research paid off? M. Mitchell Waldrop Nature 16 November 2011 Gerald Rubin points to three jumbo coffee urns that stand near a dining area in the Janelia Farm main laboratory building, an elegant ribbon of glass and concrete overlooking the Potomac River valley near Ashburn, Virginia. “We figured it was worth spending $20,000 a year to provide high-quality coffee for free ,” Rubin explains, “because that way, people won't be tempted to make it in their labs.” It is true that the coffee is good. But then, everything about this US$300-million facility testifies to the deep pockets of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI), the not-for-profit research-funding organization in nearby Chevy Chase, Maryland, that opened the Janelia Farm Research Campus five years ago as its first-ever intramural research facility. Related content • Microscopy: Bright light, better labels • Cell biology: Seeing cells with sheets of light • The future for Howard Hughes • More related content More significantly, the campus embodies what Rubin calls “ an experiment in scientific culture ” 1 . Put world-class researchers in an environment that makes it easy to interact across disciplines — right down to chance encounters around the coffee urns (see 'Cultivating collaboration' ). Then put them to work on a handful of grand scientific challenges — long-term, high-risk, high-payoff research that addresses some of the biggest questions in neuroscience . And use the HHMI's ample chequebook to free them from the distractions of conventional academic life. No administrative work, no teaching duties, no chasing tenure, no writing of grants . “This really is the ivory tower,” says Rubin, who was named director of the campus in 2003 and has been involved with the facility since its inception. The hypothesis is that this $100-million-a-year experiment will produce uncommonly great science. To Rubin, this means being much more than simply excellent. “ I'd consider us a failure if, in 20 years, we come back and say, 'We recreated the Salk Institute' ,” he says, hastening to add that he considers the Salk, located in La Jolla, California, to be one of the best free-standing research facilities in the world . “The point is that we didn't need to build Janelia Farm to do that,” he says. A geneticist through and through, he has proposed that Janelia must eventually be able to pass the “ deletion test ”: just as knocking out a gene can reveal its function, removing Janelia from the future scientific landscape should reveal the vital importance of its contributions to biology. Early days Expand Five years into Janelia Farm's life, however, Rubin admits that he has no hard evidence that it will ever pass that exceedingly ambitious test. Given the campus's long-term research focus — and the difficulties of creating a brand-new institute from scratch on former farmland — Rubin says that he does not expect the facility to start producing its best discoveries for another five or even ten years . So far, the experiment has proved only that the promise of well-financed, unfettered academic freedom can indeed entice high-quality researchers to move to a new facility. Still, the researchers' presence is reflected in the steady increase in publications from Janelia Farm labs (see 'Publications on the rise' ), and in the growing respect Janelia is commanding from investigators who were initially sceptical of its lofty ambitions. Getting even this far has been a major accomplishment, says Eric Kandel, a neuroscientist at Columbia University in New York who was one such sceptic. “No one has hit a home run yet,” he says. “But the team is in place.” The idea behind Janelia Farm originated in 1999, when Thomas Cech, a biochemist at the University of Colorado in Boulder, had just agreed to become president of the HHMI and was looking to try something new. The HHMI was already funding hundreds of investigators at universities around the world. And with its endowment booming, Cech thought there must be some way for the organization to have a bigger impact on science than just funding a few hundred more. To help him work out how to do this, he recruited Rubin, then a geneticist at the University of California, Berkeley, as HHMI vice-president for biomedical research. Rubin began by looking back at some of the wonderful experiences in his own career: summers as an undergraduate at the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York; a PhD at the Medical Research Council Laboratory of Molecular Biology (LMB) at the University of Cambridge, UK; and three years at the Carnegie Institution for Science Department of Embryology in Baltimore, Maryland. He wondered: what had made these places feel so great? Rubin posed the question to many people, including veterans of non-biological institutes — notably Bell Labs in Murray Hill, New Jersey, which had been an innovation powerhouse before the 1984 break-up of its parent company, ATT. The answers from all these places were surprisingly consistent, he says. Research groups were small, which promoted communication and mentoring. Group leaders were active bench scientists, not administrators or fund-raisers. Research was funded from within, so there was no need to chase grants. And no one got tenure, so that researchers could rotate through and ideas could stay fresh. Expand SOURCE: G. RUBIN Many institutes had implemented some of these principles. Bell Labs and the LMB, despite widely divergent remits in applied physics and molecular biology, had implemented all of them in their glory days. But no one was doing so at the time, says Rubin — especially not the internal-funding part. And that, he argued, was the HHMI's great opportunity. Cech and the HHMI trustees were sold on the idea from the beginning. But others were not. “I didn't see what was so special about recreating the LMB,” says Kandel, recalling his early scepticism. “It wasn't clear to me what problems would be solved there, or even what fields they would be working in,” he says. Many university investigators funded by the HHMI worried that this new initiative would end up cutting into their money. And most of them doubted that the HHMI would be able to persuade top-quality people to forgo tenure in established research centres and move to a farm outside Ashburn, a dormitory suburb an hour's drive from Washington DC . Also controversial was the initiative's proposed research strategy of focusing on a handful of grand challenges instead of tackling a wide range of biomedical problems. In 2004, the HHMI held a series of five workshops to determine what those grand challenges would be. One topic they settled on fairly quickly was technologies for biological imaging. “It was a great problem for us,” says Rubin. Not only would it bring together physics, chemistry, biology and many other disciplines, he says, “it was going to be an enabling technology for so many areas, the way sequencing had been”. A second major topic was understanding neural circuits and how they give rise to behaviour. This promised to fill a tremendous gap in neuroscience, says Kandel. “It was clear that we now understood neurons very well,” he explains. “And we had imaging techniques to see how large areas of the brain are interconnected. But there was nothing to link the two.” A new generation of techniques was poised to aid in this quest — most notably optogenetics, in which the activity of specific neurons can be tracked and manipulated using light, allowing researchers to work out the function of those neurons and how they connect. But at the time, the application of optogenetics to neuroscience was still in its infancy. And there was always the chance that Janelia Farm researchers would spend 20 years deciphering the neural circuitry of, say, the fruitfly Drosophila melanogaster , only to discover that it had nothing to do with the human brain. Most people thought that the underlying principles and logic of the circuits would have been conserved throughout evolution, says Kandel, but still, “it was a very ballsy move”. Fertile soil In October 2006, the HHMI officially opened Janelia Farm's main laboratory facility, dubbed the Landscape building for the way it winds for some 300 metres along the vast, open 'S'-shaped curve of a hillside. It's not exactly a warm and cosy place. The hallways on the upper two floors, where the inner glass walls open onto row upon row of laboratory benches, are so big and full of light that they feel a bit like airport concourses. They also seem to be constantly vanishing around the next bend, which can produce the disconcerting sense that one is stepping off into infinity. But none of that bothered Julie Simpson when she arrived in the summer of 2006, fresh from a postdoctoral appointment in neuroscience at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. She had been eager to get to Janelia Farm ever since hearing Cech give a talk about its philosophy — so eager, she says, that when she moved in, “I had to wear a hard hat because they didn't even have finished floors in my lab yet!” And she hasn't been disappointed. “I really like being part of a community focused on a particular problem,” she says. “Every talk is relevant, and every colleague is interested in the same basic thing” — albeit with different perspectives and lots of productive arguments. Simpson leads a group using optogenetics to trace the neural circuitry that gives rise to specific, hard-wired responses — grooming behaviour, for example — in D. melanogaster . Comparing the detailed structure of many such circuits, she says, should begin to reveal the general principles behind them 2 . Another early recruit was Eric Betzig, a physicist who had begun working at Bell Labs during the late 1980s, when the facility was still investigating everything from neuroscience to antimatter. Impatient with the steadily declining role of basic research at the labs, Betzig left to work at his father's machine-tool company in 1994. Soon after deciding to get back into research, he joined Janelia Farm in 2006 to work on a broad range of imaging technologies. “What attracted me was the same thing that had attracted me about Bell,” he says. “ All the resources you need, and no pressure to publish. I won't do science if I can't do it under those terms.” Before arriving at Janelia, Betzig had been developing an imaging technique, called photoactivated localization microscopy, or PALM, that he created in collaboration with Harald Hess, a physicist who is now also at Janelia Farm. It uses image-processing algorithms pioneered by astronomers to detect the position of single fluorescent molecules with nanometre accuracy 3 . Since starting at Janelia, Betzig has developed three more imaging techniques designed to help biologists peer deeper than before into the layers of living cells, with higher resolution and with less damage to them in the process. Janelia Farm is definitely not for everybody , says Rubin. “I've tried to make it irresistible for a small fraction of people,” he says — researchers who are confident enough to go without tenure, who don't mind the remote location or the six-person limit on group size, and who do want to work with their own hands. Plenty of researchers do seem to fit that description. At present, Janelia Farm has 20 research-group leaders, who are evaluated for renewal on a five-year cycle. The first round of evaluations begins next spring — a process Simpson calls “terrifying”, if only because it's new and no one knows for sure how it will work. In addition, 26 fellows at various stages of non-renewable five-year stints are working at the facility, as are more than 100 visiting scientists. With additional group members and support staff, the total number of employees at Janelia Farm comes to 424. Yet the place can still feel almost empty. “That's the first thing you notice,” says Robert Tjian, a biochemist who was once Rubin's colleague at Berkeley and who succeeded Cech as HHMI president in 2009. “We probably have another 100 to 150 scientists to put in the building before it's even close to being full.” Keeping creative Those spaces are empty in part because it has taken longer to recruit scientists than Rubin initially thought. The most common problem for prospective recruits is the six-member limit for research groups, he says. The remote location has been a smaller hurdle than feared, but it has been a factor. Rubin and his colleagues have done their best to fight that isolation. Janelia's visitor programme brings scientists in for weeks or even months at a time, and the campus hosts about a dozen scientific conferences every year. Nonetheless, the remoteness of the campus is a major ongoing challenge, says Carla Shatz, a neuroscientist who directs the interdisciplinary Bio-X programme at Stanford University in California, and who serves on the Janelia Farm advisory committee. “Janelia has to think about how it can create excitement and creativity and innovation in a location that doesn't have ready access to a medical school, an engineering school, biology, physics and chemistry departments or an undergraduate student body,” she says. A related challenge is that of keeping the research programme intellectually fresh. The tight focus on imaging and neurocircuitry has been useful in the initial phase, says Tjian, “so that everyone understood what Janelia Farm was”. But in the long run, he says, the place will stagnate unless it can broaden out and give scientists the freedom to follow new opportunities as they arise. That is another reason Janelia still has so many empty spaces: they allow for expansion. On the basis of a series of planning workshops held earlier this year, Rubin has begun to hire group leaders in the fields of cell biology, evolutionary biology, structural biology and chemistry — each of which has some overlap with neurocircuitry but will also extend the campus's programme in new directions. Looking back over Janelia Farm's first five years, Rubin says he is very satisfied. “We showed that we could go from an empty building to a functioning lab, that we could hire first-rate people, and that they could come here and work on interesting problems,” he says. “All the things people said we were certain to fail at, we accomplished.” But what happens next? Can Janelia Farm do 'great science' during the next 5 to 10 years? Will it pass Rubin's deletion test? Can it rewrite the introductory biology texts (Cech's favourite definition of great science), or foster “a couple of programmes that create a whole new direction” (Tjian's favourite)? That is the great unanswerable question. As Simpson says, “you can't engineer great science. You just have to create the conditions that make it possible, and see what happens.” 童鞋们， 诺奖 在向你们招手捏，还等嘛！ 更多阅读： wenku.baidu.com/view/35a69b0d76c66137ee061952.html http://www.labbase.net/News/ShowNewsDetails-3-50-558FA1830E172260.html 霍 华 德 · 休斯医学研究所 （ 英文 : The Howard Hughes Medical Institute, HHMI) 是 美国 一个非 营 利性医学研究所。截至 2007 年底 为 止，它是美国 规 模最大的私人 资 金 资 助生物和医学研究的 组织 之一。 Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) 是全球 规 模最大的非盈利性私立医学研究所 - 基金会， 拥资 120 亿 美元， 为 美国第二大的慈善机构， 仅 次于比 尔 与梅林达盖茨基金会。 HHMI 是由著名 飞 行 员 ，工程 师 霍 华 德 · 休斯于 1953 年成立的。 多年来， HHMI 已 经拨 款 15 亿 美元用于支持医学研究与教育。 该 基金会 拥 有 318 名研究 员 ，大多来自全美一流学府，其中不乏大 师级 学界泰斗，包括 7 位阿果 奖 得主。 100 多位美国科学院院士，以及才 华 横溢的新星。入 选 的二十几位 华 裔研究 员 像王 晓东 ， 许 田， 张 毅等等全都是各自 专业领 域中的姣姣者。 HHMI 支持范 围 包括数百个国 际 一流 实验 室， 为 每位研究 员 提供大 约 100 万 / 年研究 经费 ，每次任期 5 年，以支持 创 造性但高 风险 的研究工作，并使 这 些科学家集中精力，不必再 为 申 请 NIH 基金分心。医学及本科基 础 教育亦属于支持范 围 。 HHMI 与 联 邦主要医学生物学基金管理机构国立 卫 生研究院 (NIH) 既有互 补 ( 如 2001 年以来 HHMI 对 骨髓干 细 胞研究的重点支持 ) ，又有 协 作 (projects and the funding mechanisms) ，相得益彰。
标签: 乐园
