I've spent a good amount of my research career working on (and sometimes in) China, with and without Chinese collaborators, depending on the project, and I have reviewed a lot of research by Chinese scientists.
It is excellent and remarkable how fast they are improving. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, Western scientists (mostly American and French scientists) were brought in quite a bit to help modernize the system, and it has helped substantially. The institutional resources and raw brain power available have meant rapid progress, especially once the Chinese grad students and faculty got up to date on the bleeding edge of research.
However, as with economic development, there are some substantial structural changes that need to happen in the transition from 'catch-up' growth to leadership. The biggest is a mind-set thing: There is far more respect for authority and confirmation bias in Chinese research than Western (especially American) research. In so many papers, the researchers go out and get great data and do a bang-up job of analyzing it, and then conclude by saying the results support the old hypotheses of the senior faculty who lead the research institute or some old Western luminary, regardless of the outcome of the analyses. I'm not going to say here that science advances funeral by funeral, but I definitely think that undergrad/grad students who grow up scientifically hearing about the cutting edge theories are more capable than older scientists of integrating the new theory them into their view of the world and their mental database of observations. This is required to further refine, develop or reject the theories and advance the state of knowledge. When junior scientists are not encouraged to rock the boat, then science advances much more slowly. Hopefully as national and institutional self-confidence increases, then revisionism (i.e. telling your boss that he's wrong, or that Dr. Famous American is full of shit) will get stronger.
The second is that, at least in my field, it is becoming very hard for Westerners to collaborate with Chinese scientists, and particularly to do fieldwork in China. (Note that I am a geoscientist and have mostly worked in Xizang province in Tibet, which has its own sensitivity issues). But I think that the government is deciding that the Chinese are caught up and then disallowing access to limit international competition. I can definitely see how they could feel exploited in a 'scientific imperialism' sort of way, and this is not at all restricted to China. But while this may lead to a more satisfying distribution of scientific fame for the Chinese, it also limits the rate at which the science advances. And Tibet is one of the richest areas in the world for studying tectonics and earthquakes, because it is vast, very active, and has essentially no vegetation so the quality and quantity of data is very high. Limiting access definitely means slowing down the rate at which we learn to understand earthquakes and earthquake hazards, and while there is a global downside (much of this knowledge applies to earthquakes everywhere), the downside is the highest for the Chinese citizens living near the faults that are not receiving as much study due to fewer researchers.
Having worked with chinese researchers in chemistry/biophysics, I agree with the observations about authority and confirmation bias. There's a discernable trend between, say, a postdoc who did undergrad & grad in china, a postdoc who did grad in the US, and a postdoc who did undergrad & grad in the US. This is not a problem confined to china, and to be sure there are many american scientists who can't seem to work up a healthy antiauthoritarianism (and things are getting worse here as certain public "scientists" are becoming authority figures)
I find these reports both exciting and deeply reassuring.
As research in the west becomes more politicised and regulated (the biosciences especially), having serious Chinese investments in science, with aspirations to become world leaders, is precisely what we need to promote competition and drive progress.
Another example is the use of CRISPR gene editing in human embryos. While we are dragging our feet ruminating over the ethical implications (largely ignoring the prospect of curing countless diseases), the Chinese have used the opportunity to get a head start.
As China continues to progress, it won't be long until we have another "Sputnik moment". If we won't fund and regulate science rationally, hopefully fear and national pride will motivate us instead.
Really? I've been waiting for over a decade for China and India to step onto the world stage. We should encourage and help more. These two countries with a combined 2.6 billion people should be able to easily outpace the research in the west. Does it matter if basic research is done in the US, India, or China?
Imagine if China and India could each double the amount of research done by the US.
While the world is traditionally looking at the West to lead new scientific advancements, they might be wrong. India and especially China are heavily investing into their science projects which are costing less than comparable projects in the US or the EU. India today launched a model of the reusable space shuttle prototype that took 5 years to develop and cost less than $15 million. How is that awesome? On the other hand, the US spends more on the defense R&D than on all other sectors combined (health, energy, space, environment etc). The EU's science projects often suffer from project decentralization, bureaucracy and member countries' varying public approval rating that are affected by political issues: Greek debt, migrant flood, situation in Ukraine, terrorism etc.
The problem with India though is that the country's education system was started by the British to recruit low level civil servants. I suspect that type of education system would be biased towards creating low level office workers and not pioneers of science and it continues to this day. The basic principles of science and critical thinking are still not a priority in our education system.
investment alone does not good science make. (obviously this is a slightly self-serving argument for me, but:) much of the best science has been done on a budget.
I don't believe I can put it better than the article above,
"These days, China is lavishing money on Mr. Science. But without the checks and balances provided by Mr. Democracy, the corruption plaguing the rest of the system is infecting the reputation of Chinese science. "
TIL there is no corruption and scientific plagiarism in democratic countries. It's not like the minister of education of the democratic country I live in, Annette Schawan, had to resign in 2013 because of plagiarism in her PhD thesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annette_Schavan#Plagiarism
cossatot|9 years ago
It is excellent and remarkable how fast they are improving. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, Western scientists (mostly American and French scientists) were brought in quite a bit to help modernize the system, and it has helped substantially. The institutional resources and raw brain power available have meant rapid progress, especially once the Chinese grad students and faculty got up to date on the bleeding edge of research.
However, as with economic development, there are some substantial structural changes that need to happen in the transition from 'catch-up' growth to leadership. The biggest is a mind-set thing: There is far more respect for authority and confirmation bias in Chinese research than Western (especially American) research. In so many papers, the researchers go out and get great data and do a bang-up job of analyzing it, and then conclude by saying the results support the old hypotheses of the senior faculty who lead the research institute or some old Western luminary, regardless of the outcome of the analyses. I'm not going to say here that science advances funeral by funeral, but I definitely think that undergrad/grad students who grow up scientifically hearing about the cutting edge theories are more capable than older scientists of integrating the new theory them into their view of the world and their mental database of observations. This is required to further refine, develop or reject the theories and advance the state of knowledge. When junior scientists are not encouraged to rock the boat, then science advances much more slowly. Hopefully as national and institutional self-confidence increases, then revisionism (i.e. telling your boss that he's wrong, or that Dr. Famous American is full of shit) will get stronger.
The second is that, at least in my field, it is becoming very hard for Westerners to collaborate with Chinese scientists, and particularly to do fieldwork in China. (Note that I am a geoscientist and have mostly worked in Xizang province in Tibet, which has its own sensitivity issues). But I think that the government is deciding that the Chinese are caught up and then disallowing access to limit international competition. I can definitely see how they could feel exploited in a 'scientific imperialism' sort of way, and this is not at all restricted to China. But while this may lead to a more satisfying distribution of scientific fame for the Chinese, it also limits the rate at which the science advances. And Tibet is one of the richest areas in the world for studying tectonics and earthquakes, because it is vast, very active, and has essentially no vegetation so the quality and quantity of data is very high. Limiting access definitely means slowing down the rate at which we learn to understand earthquakes and earthquake hazards, and while there is a global downside (much of this knowledge applies to earthquakes everywhere), the downside is the highest for the Chinese citizens living near the faults that are not receiving as much study due to fewer researchers.
dnautics|9 years ago
biofox|9 years ago
As research in the west becomes more politicised and regulated (the biosciences especially), having serious Chinese investments in science, with aspirations to become world leaders, is precisely what we need to promote competition and drive progress.
Another example is the use of CRISPR gene editing in human embryos. While we are dragging our feet ruminating over the ethical implications (largely ignoring the prospect of curing countless diseases), the Chinese have used the opportunity to get a head start.
As China continues to progress, it won't be long until we have another "Sputnik moment". If we won't fund and regulate science rationally, hopefully fear and national pride will motivate us instead.
melling|9 years ago
Imagine if China and India could each double the amount of research done by the US.
digi_owl|9 years ago
nedsma|9 years ago
simula67|9 years ago
dnautics|9 years ago
Jun8|9 years ago
P.S. Fantastic book BTW, quite different from general SF fare.
dajomu|9 years ago
arcanus|9 years ago
I don't believe I can put it better than the article above,
"These days, China is lavishing money on Mr. Science. But without the checks and balances provided by Mr. Democracy, the corruption plaguing the rest of the system is infecting the reputation of Chinese science. "
samdoidge|9 years ago
officialjunk|9 years ago
mlvljr|9 years ago
[deleted]
Kristine1975|9 years ago
gumby|9 years ago