Recently, a Beihang student Geng's ** has attracted widespread attention. Geng questioned the academic and scientific research achievements of Ding, a foreign academician of the Russian Academy of Engineering of a company, and this questioning set off a wave of enthusiasm. In **, Geng pointed out that Ding basically has no remarkable achievements in the field of academic and scientific research, and he actually has the title of foreign academician, which raises his questions about Ding's identity.
As we all know, becoming an academician is the glory and dream of scientific researchers, and it is the highest honor that embodies academic achievements. However, Geng mentioned an interesting phenomenon in his questioning, that is, Ding, as a foreign academician of the Academy of Engineering, did not have any remarkable scientific research achievements. This triggered everyone's thinking about "water academicians". In the end, why is there a phenomenon of "water academicians" in the academic world? Is there a problem with the scientific research evaluation system? Or did some people get this title in exchange for benefits? These questions deserve in-depth understanding.
In order to verify Ding's academic and scientific research achievements, Geng began to investigate. Not only could he not find out Ding's doctorate information, but he also found that Ding's scientific research achievements were very limited. Faced with these facts, Geng was shocked. He rightly questioned: "How can a person without any scientific research achievements get the title of foreign academician?" This can only indicate that there is an exchange of interests. This remark caused dissatisfaction among the "academicians" and executives of a certain company, who decided to interview Geng and ask him to apologize.
At the interview site, Geng's counselor attended as a representative of Beihang University. Out of politeness, the counselor addressed Ding and others as leaders, hoping to settle the dispute. However, Geng did not give face to the counselors, let alone Ding and the executives. He pointed out in a joking tone that they are not the leaders of any ** department or institution, and it is inappropriate for them to be called leaders, let alone unworthy. This remark was an embarrassing experience for the counselor, who tried to reassure Geng, saying that such behavior would have an impact on a company, but Geng asked what the impact would be. Geng's questioning continued, and he asked about Ding's scientific research achievements, which embarrassed Ding and the executives, who admitted that they could not find Ding's results, and the people present laughed at this time.
The original purpose of the interview was to fight against Geng and emphasize the majesty of the status of "academician", but in the end he fell into a situation of doubt and embarrassment. Geng's public questioning showed his confidence. Based on facts, he pointed out that Ding lacked hard indicators of scientific research results. In addition, he mentioned the difference between the academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the academician of the Academy of Engineering of Ding, implying that the latter is a "water" title. These questions have triggered everyone's thinking about the "academician" selection system and scientific research institutions.
Geng dared to question the high-ranking "academicians", which reflects the needs of the development of our times. Questioning authority is the source of social progress. Geng's courage and intelligence have made people have high hopes for him. The counsellor's confession at the interview was disappointing. His attitude was too worldly, and he acted clearly out of professional necessity, which was a sad thing for Beihang.
Through Geng's questioning, we see the problems that exist in the academic world. Questioning is the driving force for social progress and a necessary condition for promoting academic development. At the same time, we need to recognize that questioning needs to be based on facts and figures, and done in a constructive manner, in order to contribute to the progress of the academic community. For Geng, his questioning was a powerful exposure of the phenomenon of "water academicians". It is hoped that such an exposure will attract more people's attention, prompt the academic community to carry out in-depth reflection and reform of the evaluation system, and ensure the fairness and justice of academic honor. At the same time, I also hope that more courageous and academically oriented young people like Geng will stand up, question and challenge authority, and contribute to social progress.