论文部分内容阅读
学术问题有争论,技术问题有不同见解,科技成果评奖、推广应用受到监督,是正常现象,有利于科技进步。《尚书》云:满招损,谦受益。再圆满的成就听些不同意见也是有利的。关键是争论双方要以“坚持真理、修正错误”的态度对待,搞意气之争则毫无意义,不是科技人员应有的作风。铁路安全事关重大,政协委员提出议案是社会监督,《科学时报》3月9日和4月20日分别就铁路车辆轴钢问题刊登争论双方的意见,是舆论监督。大力开展科学评论是《材料导报》办刊宗旨之一,召开“铁路车辆轴钢学术研讨会”虽有“多管闲事”之嫌,但似乎也是合理的,因为争论的核心是材料的性能。但事物往往是复杂的,判断是非要记住“兼听则明”。现将“会议纪要”连同肖纪美院士、钟群鹏院士就轴钢的失效情况和基本性能分析文章一并发表,供读者参考。
There are controversial academic issues, technical issues have different opinions, awards scientific and technological achievements, promote the use of supervision, is a normal phenomenon, is conducive to scientific and technological progress. “Book of Changes” cloud: full of damage, Qian benefit. It’s also good to listen to different opinions. The key point is to argue that both sides should treat themselves as “upholding the truth and correcting mistakes.” There is no point in making a vociferous dispute. It is not a style that scientific and technical personnel should have. The safety of the railway is of great importance. The motion put forward by the CPPCC National Committee is the social supervision. The “Science Times” published the opinions of both sides on the axis steel of the railway vehicles on March 9 and April 20, respectively, and is the media supervision. Vigorously carrying out scientific reviews is one of the purposes of the “Herald of Materials”. It seems reasonable to hold the Symposium on Axle Steel for Railway Vehicles despite the fact that it is a “meddle in business” because the core of the debate is the performance of materials. But things are often complicated, and judgments must be remembered. Now “the minutes of the meeting,” together with academician Xiao Jimei, academician Zhong Qunpeng on the failure of shaft steel and basic performance analysis of articles published for readers reference.