国际竞争的核心是创新力的竞争，是核心技术的竞争，高层次人才作为这一核心要素的主要生产者，已经成为各国激烈争夺的对象。21世纪被称为生命科学的世纪，本研究以生命科学为领域，选取两院院士、长江学者、杰出青年、优秀青年、青年长江学者及青年拔尖人才等6类高层次人才作为研究对象，共计1406个非重复个体，对该群体的学术职业流动进行深入研究，主要目的是揭示生命科学领域高层次人才的流动态势，探究流动对学者学术发展的影响。

研究目的具体分为三个层面：第一，对目标群体的流动频率进行分析，探究人才流动的活跃程度，窥视学术劳动力市场的发达程度；第二，对目标群体的流动地区和单位进行分析，揭示不同地区和学术单位的人才引进和流失情况，了解人才流动偏好；第三，对目标群体流动行为与学术生产力的关系进行研究，探究流动行为对个体学术发展的影响。本研究的意义在于弥补现有的相关研究在数量和内容上的不足，揭示目标群体的流动趋势，为国家、地区和科研单位调整人才引进政策提供借鉴，同时，探究人才流动与个体学术发展的关系，为学术人才规划自身发展提供参考。

与研究目的一一对应，研究主体内容包括人才流动频率研究，人才流动偏好研究，以及学术职业流动与个体学术生产力发展的关系研究三个部分。

第一部分，对人才流动频率进行研究，发现，包括从事教授、副教授等稳定性工作和从事博士后、研究助理等非稳定性工作在内，1406个样本数据中，62.4%拥有学术职业流动经历，但发生稳定性流动的人数仅有167人，占整个样本数据11.9%。国际流动和国内流动比较而言，国际流动人次远远多于国内流动人次，人才更热衷于国际流动。此外，从1999-2018年间样本群体的国内流动趋势来看，每年的流动数量呈现轻微的波动上升，但没有明显的上升趋势。

第二部分，对人才流动的地区和单位偏好进行研究，发现，人才对稳定性工作地区和非稳定性工作地区的选择表现出相同的偏好，更热衷经济发达和高水平科研院校集聚的地区，国外以美国、日本、英国、德国等地区为主，国内以北京、上海、江苏、广东等地区为主。就人才流动的单位偏好而言，人才选择稳定性工作单位和非稳定性工作单位时更青睐国内外专业实力强悍、享有盛誉的科研单位，例如哈佛大学医学院、NIH和北京大学等。对人才流动的地缘和学缘关系进行分析，发现人才流动偏好地区与其硕士和博士就读地区存在显著相关关系，同时人才流动偏好单位与其硕士和博士就读学校也存在显著相关关系。

       第三部分，对学术职业流动与个体学术生产力发展的关系进行研究，发现，流动群体与不流动群体在学术生产力方面具有显著差异，流动群体的学术引用影响力、学术合作影响力和学术产出前沿性等指标优于不流动群体，但在流动群体内部，不同流动频率群体的学术生产力之间没有显著性差异。对个体流动前后的学术生产力进行差异比较，发现，样本群体在学术引用影响力和学术合作影响力方面不存在显著性差异，但相比流动前，流动后样本群体的学术产出量和学术产出前沿性更优，而专利转化率下降。此外，研究对人才的地区流向、单位学科流向与学术生产力的关系分别分析，发现学者自身学术生产力的发展不受到地区流向和单位学科流向的影响。

综上，本研究得出以下四点结论：第一，人才整体流动趋势不明显，国内学术劳动力市场活跃度低；第二，经济水平和学术环境对人才流动具有明显导向作用，地缘关系和学缘关系对人才流向产生一定影响；第三，拥有流动经历的群体相比未曾发生流动群体学术生产力表现更优，归因于流动群体自身具备的积极进取的拓展精神；第四，人才流动行为质疑“学术人”假设，因为流动前后个体学术发展没有显著变化，尤其是在学术产出影响力方面。根据研究结论，本研究提出四点政策建议：第一，各地区和单位之间拒绝零和博弈，实现人才资源共享；第二，各地区和科研单位加强本土人才培养，增强地区吸引力；第三，规范人才流动机制，促进人才合理流动；第四，鼓励学术人才明确职业发展目标，慎重流动。

The core of international competition is the competition of innovation and core technology. As the main producer of this core element, high-level talents have become the object of fierce competition among countries. Since the 21st century is called the century of life sciences, 1406 high-level academic talents in this field were selected as the research object in this study to conduct in-depth research on the career mobility of this group. The research object consists of academicians， and winners of a series of talent programs, such as Chang Jiang Scholars Program, National Science Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars, Outstanding Youth Science Foundation, as well as National Special Fund for High-level Talents. The main purpose of this research is to reveal the current mobility situation of high-level talents in the field of life sciences and explore the impact of mobility on the academic development of scholars.

The research aim can be divided into three minor parts: firstly, analyze the mobility frequency of the target group, explore the active degree of talent mobility, and spy on the development degree of the academic labor market; secondly, analyze the mobility areas and units of the target group, introduce the introduction and loss of talents in different areas and academic units, and understand the mobility preference of talents; thirdly, study the relationship between the mobility behavior of the target group and their academic productivity, and explore the influence of mobility on the individual academic development. This study has the following three meanings: firstly, supplement the research in the field of academic talent mobility to make up for the deficiency in quantity and content of the existing research; secondly, reveal the mobility trend of the target group and understand the mobility preference of academic talents to provide a reference for the adjustment of talent introduction policies by the country, region and scientific research institutions; thirdly, explore the relationship between talent mobility and individual academic development to provide a reference for academic talents to plan their career development.

Corresponding to the purpose of the study, the main content of the study includes three parts: the mobility frequency of talents, the mobility preference of talents, as well as the relationship between academic career mobility and personal academic productivity.

The first part is an overview of the overall mobility frequency of talents. It was found that including stable and unstable work experiences, 62.4% of the 1406 respondents have academic career mobility experiences, but only 167 respondents have stable mobility experiences, accounting for 11.9% of the sample. Compared with domestic mobility, international mobility is far more popular among academic talents. Also, seeing from the domestic mobility trend of the sample group between 1999 and 2008, the annual mobility frequency of the target group shows a slight fluctuation without an obvious upward trend.

The second part analyzes the preferred regions and units for talent mobility. It was found that the target group shows the same preference for stable and unstable work areas, and developed regions with top scientific research institutions enjoy greater popularity just like the United States, Japan, Britain, and Germany in foreign areas, and Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu, and Guangdong in domestic areas. In terms of preferred unites for mobility, talents favor scientific research units with strong professional strength and high reputation at home and abroad such as Harvard Medical School, NIH, and Peking University. By analyzing the geographical and academic relationships of talent mobility, it was found that there is a significant correlation between preferred regions for talent mobility and their master's and doctor's study areas, as well as between preferred units for talent mobility and their master's and doctor's study units.

The third part is intended to explore the relationship between academic career mobility and individual academic development. It was found that there are significant differences in academic productivity between mobile and non-mobile groups. The mobile group is superior to the non-mobile group in the citation impact, cooperation impact and view impact of academic output. However, within the mobile group, there is no significant difference in the academic output impact between groups with different mobile frequencies. Comparing academic productivity before and after the mobility of talents, there is no significant difference in the citation impact and cooperation impact. However, the number and view impact of the academic output of talents increased after the mobility while the patent conversion rate decreases. Besides, this research analyzed the relationship between regional mobility, unit mobility, and academic productivity respectively, and found that the development of academic productivity of talents has nothing to do with regional mobility and unit mobility.

This study draws four conclusions. Firstly, there is no obvious trend of talent mobility, and the domestic academic labor market is weak. Secondly, the economic and academic environment, in particular, the discipline strength of scientific research institutions, has an obvious guiding role in talent mobility, and geographical and academic relationships have a certain impact on talent mobility. Thirdly, talents with mobility experiences perform better in academic productivity than those without mobile experiences, and the reason for the better performance lies in the excellent personal quality of the mobile group. Fourthly, the research result challenges the hypothesis of "academic person", that is, there is no significant change in individual academic development before and after the mobility, especially the academic output impact. According to the conclusion of the study, four policy suggestions have been put forward. Firstly, all regions and academic units should refuse the zero-sum game to realize the sharing of human resources. Secondly, all regions and academic units should strengthen the training of local talents and enhance regional attraction. Thirdly, the mechanism of talent mobility should be standardized to promote the rational mobility of talents. Fourthly, academic talents are supposed to define their career development goals and be cautious about mobility behavior.