
China's Science Revolution - alandarev
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-0192822d-14f1-432b-bd25-92eab6466362
======
cossatot
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.

~~~
dnautics
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)

------
biofox
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.

~~~
melling
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.

~~~
Pica_soO
Four bully's instead of two surely make for a nicer school yard.

------
nedsma
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.

~~~
simula67
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.

~~~
pm90
The way you put it, it almost seems like the whole Indian education system has
remained the same since the British left. There has been a lot of reform and
progress towards making science and mathematics more accessible to the masses.

------
Jun8
I just finished reading volume 1 of _The Three Body Problem_
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three-
Body_Problem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three-Body_Problem)) and
started vol 2. Could the big radio telescope be a case of life imitating art
:-)

P.S. Fantastic book BTW, quite different from general SF fare.

~~~
dajomu
I had exactly the same thought, thinking of that dish sending out a signal
instead...

------
arcanus
[http://www.npr.org/2011/08/03/138937778/plagiarism-plague-
hi...](http://www.npr.org/2011/08/03/138937778/plagiarism-plague-hinders-
chinas-scientific-ambition)

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
Counter point: Dictatorship Germany in WW2 produced many scientific
advancements.

~~~
groby_b
Sure. Granted, they killed a whole bunch of people for e.g. the medical
advancements. And the advancements are at least of dubious value[1].

And other advancements were... not as impressive as elsewhere. See e.g.
nuclear science.

But the upside of science under a dictatorship is that you _will_ publish lots
of papers claiming successes, for personal health reasons, so you've got that
going for you.

[1]
[http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199005173222006](http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199005173222006)

~~~
ramgorur
Warnher-von-Braun (and co.), who brought the fledgling "nazi space science"
from the post-war Germany to the US.

if we follow the time-lines of the space exploration of NASA after 1960 and
before 1960, his contributions are conspicuously evident.

Example:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_%28rocket_family%29](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_%28rocket_family%29)

------
gumby
Thank goodness for these comments. The article structure makes it almost
impossible to read. What on earth are they thinking?

