Chinese Science Rising?
We must consider competitiveness and cooperation
SOURCE: AP/Ng Han Guan
Chinese participants stand onboard a giant float with a theme of science and technology moving towards Tiananmen Square for a major rehearsal ahead of the 60th National Day celebrations in Beijing, China, Friday, Sept. 18, 2009.
Print
Four years ago during a visit to Peking University I was teaching a group of students about development in U.S. stem cell policy, a matter that greatly interested them as they hoped to participate in the global enterprise of modern science. The United States sets the regulatory standard for the rest of the world and in order to participate, everyone must still play by U.S. rules. All of these students, ranging in age from about 18 to their late 20s, were working in a stem cell laboratory where their brilliant American-educated Chinese professor continues to do cutting-edge work. At a certain point in my lecture I casually mentioned that California had committed $3 billion to stem cell research. Immediately I noticed many raised eyebrows; they all wanted to have some experience in the United States anyway, and here was a golden opportunity.
Seizing on the moment for a light-hearted comment I said, “And perhaps we can get everyone here to come to America.”
Immediately the professor, sitting at the back of the room, raised his hand, smiled broadly and said, “But we’re going to bring them back!”
The point was not lost on anyone. That was 2005; even a few years before that his statement would not have been credible. I have been in China twice since then with the opportunity to see through a tiny window into the Chinese commitment to the life sciences. My impression is that their confidence has only increased.
The New Yorker’s Evan Osnos has provided an excellent brief comment on the growth of science in China, including a fascinating note about Mao’s skepticism concerning the scientific elite. Congress in the early nineteenth century was also skeptical about supporting gentlemen inventors out of the federal purse. The main sticking point was a constitutional debate about the authority granted the federal government to engage in “internal improvements.” A proposal for a national university to be located in Washington, though apparently a dream of George Washington, was caught in this debate. When scientific work presented specific and tangible advantages for their constituents, congressmen were supportive, but there were few such projects or opportunities in those days. One exception was the coastal survey, which aided in safe navigation and therefore commerce. Politicians were both willing and eager to support a project that brought concrete benefits to their own states. Similarly, a perceived need for nuclear weapons in the 20th century moved China to develop a sophisticated physics infrastructure.
Both the quality as well as the quantity of Chinese science is rapidly improving. Their system enables focused investment and rapid adjustment to new opportunities. Although I have written that America’s cultural advantages should keep us in the lead for a long time to come by most metrics (publications, patents, etc.), we need to consider whether we are doing enough to leverage the strengths that China can bring for our own benefit. Mostly we think in competitive terms, about the quality of our science and engineering preparation. But we should also be thinking in ways that account for the cooperative nature of science. For example, is our immigration policy keyed to the best and the brightest in emerging science and technology? Is our visa system as flexible as it could be? What about language instruction and cultural exchange? Although the international language of science is English, there are good interpersonal reasons for at least some of our young scientists to have incentives to learn Chinese. What reforms need to be made in our intellectual property regime or regulatory systems to ensure maximum flexibility and enhance the investment climate while also providing adequate protections here and abroad? What sorts of transparency should we insist upon with our Chinese partners to keep the playing field level and humane, especially in sensitive areas like human research protection?
There is no reason for us to fear for our scientific advantage, but we should be resolute. One Chinese university official told me he is disturbed that so many of their medical students are still lost the United States for the long term. The tide is rising but the geology is still in our favor if we have vision and wit to build upon in a sustainable way.
Jonathan D. Moreno, Ph.D., is the David and Lyn Silfen University Professor of Ethics and Professor of Medical Ethics and of the History and Sociology of Science at the University of Pennsylvania, and the Editor-in-Chief of Science Progress.
Comments on this article
