当前，科研人员使用与课题研究无关甚至虚假的票据报销科研经费，或者通过编造劳务人员名单冒领“劳务费”等方式套取科研经费的行为时有发生。为了对套取科研经费的行为进行有效规制，司法机关对于一些涉案金额较大、影响恶劣的科研人员以贪污罪追究了刑事责任，部分知名专家、学者也因此而身陷囹圄。法院的判决契合了当今社会严厉打击腐败犯罪的形势，但其也带来了一系列理论问题：第一，科研人员套取科研经费的行为构成贪污罪吗？这里主要涉及两个争议点，即划入课题依托单位科研经费的性质问题（是否仍为公共财产）以及科研人员是否具备贪污犯罪主体身份的问题；第二，如果科研人员套取科研经费的行为不构成贪污罪，那么对这一行为该如何定性？是根本就不构成犯罪还是构成其他犯罪？急需理论界予以积极回应。 目前国内关于此问题的研究存在若干局限，而国外的科研经费管理体制比较成熟，对科研人员的规制相对合理，在科研经费犯罪问题的处理上有许多值得国内借鉴之处。因此，本文为尝试解决国内科研领域存在的如上问题，在比较研究的基础上，撰写以下三章内容： 第一章，从中外数起科研经费犯罪案件入手，分析案件判决中存在的问题。主要包括科研经费的性质与归属问题，科研人员是否属于国家工作人员的问题，判决结果轻重与否的问题。 第二章，对域内外套取科研经费案件定性中的相关争议问题进行比较研究。我国台湾地区和大陆地区套取科研经费案件中的主要争议是科研人员的身份和科研经费的性质问题，而在韩国和美国等国家，该问题则基本没有争议。在大陆地区，司法机关认定科研人员属于国家工作人员，因而可以成为贪污罪主体，理论界则存在相对立的观点，本文认为科研人员属于受委托从事公共事务的工作人员，其在侵吞科研经费的过程中，存在利用职务上便利的行为，因而可以成为贪污罪的主体；司法机关认定科研经费属于国有资产，理论界存在不同认识，本文认为科研经费的性质取决于其来源，来源于财政拨款的科研经费，即使划拨到科研承担单位，仍属于国有资产，可以成为贪污罪的对象。对于科研经费的性质与科研人员的身份，我国台湾地区理论界始终存在争议，司法机关始终认定科研经费属于科研承担单位所有，而不是课题组所有；科研人员的身份则经历了公务员到非公务员的变化。对比我国台湾地区、美国和韩国，对于套取科研经费的案件，尽管使用罪名不同，但司法机关都认定可以构成犯罪。 第三章，在对域内外套取科研经费案件的刑事处理进行充分比较的基础上，本文提出我国处理套取科研经费案件过于严苛，主张借鉴美国的和解制度或者我国台湾地区的暂缓起诉制度，对情节一般的套取科研经费案件不做犯罪处理；在必须按照犯罪处理的情况（如涉案金额巨大、情节非常恶劣）下，也应当适用财产刑或者缓刑，不应当适用自由刑。

At present, scientific research personnel use funds that have nothing to do with the research of the project or even false invoices for reimbursement of scientific research funds, or fraudulently collect labor funds by means of fabricating a list of laborers, and often take actions such as research funds. In order to effectively regulate the collection of scientific research funds, the judicial authorities have investigated criminal responsibility for corruption crimes by some scientific researchers who have a large amount of money and have had a bad influence. Some well-known experts and scholars are also being held in prison. The judgment of the court conforms to the situation in today's society that severely cracks down on corruption crimes, but it also brings a series of theoretical questions. First, does the behavior of scientific research personnel's taking scientific research funds constitute corruption? There are mainly two disputes here, that is, the nature of the research fund allocated to the research subject (whether it is still public property) and whether the researcher has the identity of the subject of corruption; secondly, if scientific researchers take out scientific research funds Does not constitute corruption crime, then how to determine this behavior? Does not constitute a crime at all or constitute other crimes? There is an urgent need for a positive response from the theoretical community. At present, there are some limitations in the domestic research on this issue, and the management system of foreign scientific research funds is relatively mature, and the regulation of scientific research personnel is relatively reasonable. There are many points worthy of domestic reference in the handling of scientific research funding crime problems. Therefore, in order to try to solve the above problems existing in the domestic scientific research field, the following three chapters are written on the basis of comparative research: The first chapter begins with a number of scientific research funding crime cases both at home and abroad, and analyzes the problems in the case judgment. It mainly includes the nature and ownership of scientific research funds, whether the scientific research personnel belong to the national staff, and whether the result of judgment is heavy or not. The second chapter makes a comparative study on the related disputes in the nature of the outsourcing of scientific research funding cases. The major disputes in China's Taiwan region and mainland China for taking scientific research funding cases are the nature of scientific research personnel and the nature of scientific research funding. In countries such as South Korea and the United States, the issue is basically uncontroversial. In mainland China, the judiciary finds that scientific researchers belong to national workers and thus can be the subject of corruption crimes. There is a theoretical standpoint in the theoretical community. This paper believes that scientific researchers belong to the staff who are entrusted to engage in public affairs and that they are embezzling scientific research funds. In the process, there is an action that facilitates the use of duties, and thus can become the subject of corruption crimes; the judicial authorities determine that scientific research funding belongs to state-owned assets, and there is a different understanding in the theoretical community. This article believes that the nature of scientific research funding depends on its source and comes from financial allocations. Scientific research funds, even if allocated to scientific research undertaking units, still belong to state-owned assets and can become targets of corruption crimes. Regarding the nature of scientific research funding and the identity of scientific researchers, there has always been controversy in the theoretical community in Taiwan. The judiciary has always determined that scientific research funding belongs to the scientific research undertaking unit, not the research group; the identity of scientific research personnel has experienced civil servants to non-civil servants. Variety. Comparing China's Taiwan region, the United States, and South Korea, the judiciary has determined that it can constitute a crime despite the use of different charges for cases involving the collection of scientific research funds. The third chapter, based on a thorough comparison of the criminal processing of the outsourcing of scientific research funding cases in the field, this paper puts forward that China's handling of scientific research funds is too harsh, and advocates the use of the United States reconciliation system or the suspension of the prosecution system in Taiwan. Cases of arresting general scientific research funds are not criminally dealt with; in the case that the crime must be dealt with (if the amount involved is huge and the circumstances are very bad), property penalties or suspended sentences should also be applied, and the freedom penalty should not be applied.