Scientific Measurement And Evaluation Of The Level On National Basic Medicine Research

As the platform and prerequisite of medicine development, the basic medicine research is the source and support of medical innovation, each tremendous development in medicine field can not be separated from the basic medicine research. Throughout the last century the Nobel Medicine Prize which is considered as the highest honor in the medicine field and has the history more than 100 years, represents 80% of basic research projects. Thus it can be seen that the importance of basic medical research foundation is evident. In contrast, the scientific research policy of our country once merely paid attention to applied research other than basic research, which ignored the enormous potential role of basic research. China established the National Natural Science Foundation which is the embodiment of attention to basic research. NSFC is the sustentation fund toward basic research and applied research mainly, which plays a leading and coordinating role of scientific research. With the dramatic growth of the capital investment in the medical research field, the evaluation of scientific research has been the important issue which is concerned by not only scientific system itself but also the government and society.This paper mostly discusses the problem about scientific measurement and evaluation of national basic medicine research. Scientific and effective evaluation mechanism is a very important significance for optimizing the allocation of research resources, stimulating innovative potential of researchers, creating scientific and technological innovation environment and promoting the establishing and perfecting of the national scientific and technological innovation system. Using the quantification method, the paper chooses the medicine project achievement which subsidizes by the country natural sciences fund delivers as the data origin, and then makes the local science measurement and the level measure. According to Z-P curve characteristic, the paper may divide into the high, secondary, the low three levels, which used for to express various provincial capital areas in the NSFC paper. The statistical result indicated that the arrangement in 1st-6 is Beijing, Shanghai, Guangdong, Chongqing and so on which is 6 province or the quantity paper is 63.26%, the superiority is obvious, belongs to the high level provinces or cities; The arrangement in 7th–26 is Jiangsu, Sichuan, Hunan, Liaoning and so on which is 20 provinces or cities, which has the certain scientific research strength. The arrangement in 27-34 is 8 provinces or cities which is relative weak on medicine basic research strength. The country natural sciences fund is manifests of national support science and technology innovation policy, the different local technology innovation ability difference has affected the regional fund paper quantity in the certain degree. The quantity distribution, on the one hand has reflected the actual scientific research level difference, on the other hand demonstrates NSFC has leadership function.At the same time, this paper used the stem cell to study this topic for comparative analysis, discovered that the quantity of stem cell papers of American, Japanese, English, German and France among 55 countries papers, which was 74.65%, but the other 50 countries is only 74.65% of the total quantity; China also entered first 10, but comparing with "Top Five" of the world stem cell research, which has the obvious disparity. The paper analyzes the disparity between our country and the other countries in this research area, which can support data reference for strengthening international cooperation and establishing the technical policy for the national reasonable fund investment.The paper concludes that we should determine the nature of with the quota method greatest degree perfect union is the scientific research appraisal development tendency, the formulation is scientific, effectively, the scientific target system is the development tendency, on the one hand we may carry on the quantification the target to carry on the strict quantification, on the other hand we cannot carry on or not be suitable to uses the quantification the target to carry on the qualitative colleague expert to appraise.