What is scientific research innovation? Scientific research (i.e. scientific research) is a process of knowledge construction. Its purpose is to make a reliable, logical and non arbitrary explanation of the observed natural phenomena. The process of scientific research includes three steps: (1) observing one or a group of phenomena; (2) Propose a hypothesis to explain this phenomenon and predict the existence of related phenomena; (3) Carry out experiments to prove the rationality of assumptions and predicted values. The success of scientific research depends on three elements: (1) ideas (or strategies); (2) Technical platform; (3) Execution. Innovation refers to things produced by improving existing ideas, processes or methods. Other concepts related to innovation are invention and discovery. Invention refers to a new thing (idea, process or method) that does not exist before after experiment. Discovery refers to things or facts that are not obtained or recognized through experiments for the first time. Therefore, the purpose of scientific innovation is to improve existing ideas or methods through observation, hypothesis and verification. Because the improved things (innovation) caused by scientific research are more common than the new things (invention), the word scientific research innovation is more common in daily language than scientific research invention.

Why does scientific research innovation need strategy? Strategy refers to the action plan to achieve long-term or overall objectives under uncertainty. To some extent, scientific research innovation is like a battlefield, with a lot of uncertainty. It is a place where people are not recognized. On the battlefield, bullets don't know where you come from, your position and youth. As long as you have no strategy, you will die. In terms of scientific research and innovation, viruses and bacteria don't recognize which school you graduated from, what title and how old you are. As long as you have no strategy, you will fail. Therefore, in order to survive in the field of scientific research and innovation, we must have a certain action plan or strategy to avoid detours.

Where does my scientific research innovation strategy come from? After graduating from domestic undergraduate, I went to the University of Melbourne, Australia to study for a doctorate in parasitic immunology. My research direction is to produce and use monoclonal antibodies to improve the immune diagnosis of human hydatidosis. At that time, the tutor set a high goal, that is, to produce monoclonal antibodies against the two main antigens (ag5 and AGB) of hydatid fluid, IgG type, forming a standard arc in immunoelectrophoresis. Considering that there is no ready-made monoclonal antibody production technology in the laboratory, everything starts from scratch. The tutor's knowledge about monoclonal antibodies is also learned in the book, and the experimental design will inevitably be wronged. Moreover, in the first two years, I lacked the initiative. I did everything according to what my tutor said, and the progress of the experiment was very slow. Since the third year, I feel that if this development continues, it is impossible to obtain enough results and fail to meet the degree requirements. So I began to think independently. As long as the experimental results designed by my tutor were less than expected, I thought about improving them in different ways. In this way, I improved the experimental efficiency, not only made up for the loss of the previous two years, but also completed the doctoral course. Since I was the first in the world to produce the monoclonal antibody AGB of hydatid fluid and the second to produce the monoclonal antibody ag5 of hydatid fluid, I was the first to use these two antibodies in the immune diagnosis of human hydatid disease. I successfully wrote 8 articles with experimental data. Later, I summarized the experience, lessons and strategies taken during this period into three points: first; Better; Different. To be first is to be first, which can be both conceptual and methodological; Better is to try to do better in the results when you can't be the first; The difference is that when we can't be the first in ideas or methods and can't be better in results, we should consider adopting different methods.

What is the use of my research innovation strategy? Project breakthrough. The scientific research and innovation strategies of first, better and different are simple and refined, which can be learned once and have infinite effectiveness. As long as we focus on these three points, good ideas will be like a spring, continuous, the designed experiments are innovative, and most of the results can be published. Relying on these three strategies, I made key breakthroughs in the three scientific research projects I did later in only 6-8 months, and achieved the main objectives of the project in advance. Specifically, the first research project I did after my doctor graduated was about the molecular detection of sheep hoof rot bacilli. Experts at that time generally believed that there was no difference between pathogenic and non pathogenic strains of sheep hoof rot bacilli, except that the former had more pathogenic genes. However, I firmly believe that non pathogenic strains of sheep hoof rot bacilli have their own specific genes. Through the implementation of the improved screening method, I isolated a group of specific genes of pathogenic and non pathogenic strains of sheep hoof rot bacilli in 8 months, and established a rapid and accurate PCR detection system. The second research project I did after my doctor graduated was about molecular detection of Listeria. Through detailed discussion with the project leader, I changed the original design idea and made an important breakthrough in six months with different experimental methods. The third research project I did after my doctor graduated was about nucleic acid methylation. The study of nucleic acid methylation requires a key transformation step. Since the 1990s, many people have been trying to improve the efficiency of the transformation step, reducing it from 6 hours to 3 hours, and then they can't go down any more. I changed my career from molecular microbiology and adopted different ideas. Within 8 months, I shortened the transformation steps to 15 minutes, solving a problem that has plagued people for a long time.

Thesis writing. First, better and different scientific research innovation strategies also contribute to the writing and publication of scientific research papers. To be exact, every point of the scientific research innovation strategy I summarized can be calculated as 33%: if the scientific research article meets one point, it is 33% likely to be accepted; If the two points are met, there is a 66% possibility of being accepted; If three points are met, there is a 99% chance of being accepted. The self-assessment of the scientific research articles I wrote met two points or more than 66%, and they were basically accepted. For example, I wrote an article about treating non pathogenic strains of Listeria with strong acid. This article meets the two points in the scientific research innovation strategy, that is, first (I was the first to do this experiment with a non pathogenic strain of Listeria), and different (I did this experiment with a different Listeria strain, that is, a non pathogenic strain). As for the third point, better, no score or deduction (the results of Listeria pathogenic strains are similar to those of non pathogenic strains). Therefore, there is a 66% chance that this article will be accepted. Sure enough, it will be accepted three weeks after submission. For another example, an article I wrote to estimate the virulence of Listeria by percentage also meets the two points in the scientific research and innovation strategy, that is, different (different, I use different methods to estimate the virulence of Listeria), and better (better, using percentage to estimate the virulence of Listeria is obviously more accurate and simple; if the result is worse, points will be deducted), and the third point, that is, first, not satisfied and no score (I am not the first to estimate the virulence of Listeria) . this article was also received three weeks after it was submitted. Since I have a very clear standard for receiving scientific research articles, I know whether some experiments can be published at a glance. I often find out articles from what people think is ordinary. I am called a paper factory by my colleagues Many people engaged in scientific research do not understand the minimum requirements of scientific research articles. They always think that the more data contained in the paper, the greater the possibility of receiving. In fact, this is wrong and can not be wrong again. If your paper does not meet the requirements of first, better and different There are more than two points in the scientific research innovation strategy of. Too much data not only increases the workload of yourself and the reviewers, but also makes the reviewers feel that your understanding of scientific research innovation is vague. In addition, the scientific research innovation strategy I summarized is also very useful in the specific writing of the paper. Many graduate students say that the abstract, introduction, materials and methods of the paper are easy to write , but the discussion part was hard to write and I didn't know what to write. I told them that as long as they would be first, better and different In other words, are you the first to do such experiments? If not, you can review what predecessors have done in this area and point out their shortcomings, and the research you are doing now is to make up for this deficiency. Next, are your experimental results better than those of predecessors? If so, what are the advantages? For example If it's not better, what's the difference? Next, is your experimental method different from those of your predecessors? If it's different, what's the difference? After completing these three paragraphs, you can take out the key sentences of each previous paragraph, make a conclusion and discuss it. After listening to it, the graduate students said, I didn't expect to write the discussion part of the scientific research paper so simple.

Other innovations. First, better and different Your research innovation strategy also contributes to other innovation activities, including review writing, book editing and project application. In fact, if your review, edited books and applied projects can not meet more than two points in the research innovation strategy, your chances of success are small. Take these innovation strategies to every academic lecture and professional conference, You will have a deeper understanding and greater harvest. These innovative strategies are not only beneficial to the progress of biomedicine, but also promote the development of other disciplines. Imagine that if your literature, painting or other works of art can meet more than two points of the innovative strategies, it is difficult for you to be famous.

Conclusion. Scientific research innovation is the most important driving force of contemporary social progress. High quality and rapid scientific research innovation depends on effective strategies. What I have summarized are first, better and different The scientific research innovation strategy of reveals the mystery of interdisciplinary and interdisciplinary innovation, which is not only conducive to the rapid development of biomedicine, but also can promote the rapid development of other disciplines. Firmly remembering and flexibly using these powerful innovation strategies can make you invincible and fruitful in any innovation effort.