Slashdot Mirror


China Plans to Surpass the U.S. in Nanotech Development

SoyChemist writes "Sociologists at the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting have reported that China is making major investments in nanotechnology. Their aim is to 'leapfrog' past the United States in technological development by focusing on long-ranging scientific goals. So far, the Chinese government has poured about $400 million into the young field of research. Considering the low cost of equipment and labor over there, that is a very large sum of money, and China's investment is expected to 'rise considerably.'"

22 of 282 comments (clear)

  1. Unfortunately, by wcpalmer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I see this being a place where the US will always lag behind due to conservative Christianity and the whole "don't play God" thing.

    Not trying to troll, but this sort of research and development is going to happen regardless. Other countries will take up the slack and fill any gap we do not.

    1. Re:Unfortunately, by taupin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If the Chinese government actually does put its weight behind this plan, I don't see that there's much the U.S. can do : China has the advantage of much cheaper labor, equipment, and so on and so forth, in addition to an extremely powerful, centralized government that is not at all afraid to use that power.

    2. Re:Unfortunately, by DigiShaman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Since when does developing nano technology require brute force cheap labor and low tech equipment?

      Nano Tech will require bright minds and very highend industrial technology. Currently, the US leads China in both fields.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    3. Re:Unfortunately, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Bright minds and high-end industrial technology in the US?
      Is that a joke?
      US is lagging behind Europe and Japan on both fields, I am sorry. They are at least 10 years in front of us.
      But by your "Fortunate Son" show of prejudice about China, I don't think you know much about that...
      Unfortunately, sing "Star Spangled Banner" and praise the massacres of civilians in Iraq won't help our nation's scientific advancement...

    4. Re:Unfortunately, by mrbluze · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Currently, the US leads China in both fields. But China needn't fear, as the US is doing everything it can from its side to reverse the situation.
      --
      Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
    5. Re:Unfortunately, by lee1026 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Assuming, of course, that the US simply don't just hire away all of their best and brightest, like it have been for a long time now. How do you think those professors got here in the first place?

    6. Re:Unfortunately, by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Assuming, of course, that the US simply don't just hire away all of their best and brightest, like it have been for a long time now.

      We've been able to do that because all the money was over here. However, between trade deficits and government borrowing, we've been working really hard on sending that money over to China lately. So before long it may not make much sense for their best and brightest to come over here when they can get paid with US cash right in their own hometowns.

    7. Re:Unfortunately, by Capitalist1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem is that they have *everyone else's* advanced technology and manufacturing plants, and those teachers who are so hot in their fields are *here*, not there. China's political system, and at root its culture, is the real barrier to their ability to become an economic powerhouse. Socialism doesn't work in the real world. It just doesn't. They've lived under it for the last 40-50 years, and it will take an equivalent of the Enlightenment for them to overcome the damage that has done to them.

      --
      One man's religion is another man's belly-laugh. - LL
    8. Re:Unfortunately, by HiThere · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Socialism works just fine in the real world. Communism doesn't scale, but it works "ok" at a local level. (Nobody's been fool enough to try it on a national level.)

      China is historically more capitalist than the US has ever been. There was a brief pause after the trauma of the Japanese invasion when Mao took over, but it seems to me that they're heading back to more normal times. (Of course, for China normal times means "We are the only important country. Everyone outside is a barbarian." And it includes a very strong central government. Expect a new Emperor soon (possibly with a different name).

      But this "normal China" is profoundly insular, not just ego-centric, but almost autistic. I can't really see the Chinese push into space as harmonious with their long term view. Nano-tech, though... they might do really well in nano-tech. (Remember, China may be insular, but it's also much of humanity. [Don't recall the exact percentages...and it changes from year to year anyway.])

      It seems reasonable to expect China will become a dominant technological power in the near future...but possibly not in all fields.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  2. meh by Sylos · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Last time China tried a great leap forward..didn't work out so well.

    --
    'Number-memorizing Chinese people.'-Anon
  3. Standard funding scare & beg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Looks like somebody wants more funding and is raising the China bogeyman to do it.

  4. totally ignorant by Quadraginta · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As someone who has actually worked with academics and entrepreneurs in this field, I call bullshit on this. No professional scientist or engineer I've met has spent a moment's thought on what any putative "don't play God" faction thinks, or even thinks he needs to. There's zero evidence that any such faction, should it even exist outside of your imagination, has ever had any significant effect on technological advancement in this country.

    Furthermore, my experience suggests that the Chinese have a much more substantial and real cultural barrier to any kind of technological progress (which is, I think, one reason why a society civilized a thousand years before the West, and having had a far larger population for far longer, has nevertheless consistently lagged behind the West in terms of invention and innovation, at least on a per capita basis).

    The problem is that the Confucian tradition strongly reinforcea an acceptance of existing heirarchy, and of paying the utmost respect to your elders and those better educated and more experienced than yourself. This is antithetical to innovation and invention. The only way you can invent something new is by doing something that older and wiser heads think is foolish. (If they didn't think it was dumb, they'd have done it themselves already.)

    Consequently true innovation happens only in a culture that does not value established wisdom too much, which is willing to take some chances on a young, hot-headed, crazy contrarian way of thinking. China has a long and strong cultural tradition of valuing established wisdom, and I think that is a much more significant cultural barrier to innovation than any silly Chicken-Little faddish fear that evangelicals are going to rise up and smite researchers working on nanoscopic gears and motors because the latter weren't described in the Bible.

  5. USA has no national goals by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 5, Insightful
    USA made great strides during the 1960s because the whole space thing was seen as a national goal with everyone onboard. Getting there was a national priority, above just any individual company's priority. That has ceased to be. Sure there were some Lockheed vs Boeing etc spats, but nothing like the inter-corporate fights of today. Major tech companies now just spend more time body-slamming each other.

    USA lacks national technological goals now and no matter how bright the minds, if they don't have a supporting environment then they will not reach their potential.

    China is working as a nation whiich means they will get further with what they have.

    Money and equipment don't make for winning. Here's the story of the 1996 Americas Cup: The US team had the might of Boeing (Crays etc) and fleets of white coats to do their math modelling etc. The kiwis had a corner in their warehouse with a couple of SGI workstations. The kiwis achieved more with their math modelling because the math guy was onsite and slept on the floor next to his computers. They used what equipment they had with maximum effectiveness.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:USA has no national goals by damienl451 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This article confuses being smart with being culture, which are two widely different things. Knowing lots of trivia about Shakespeare and Milton means you're cultivated (not smart). Knowing a lot about, say, nanotechs (as in: you're making valuable contributions to the field) means you're intelligent/competent in your field of expertise, but doesn't mean that you're cultivated. We can certainly lament that many Americans don't know much about history or geography, but it doesn't follow that they're less intelligent.

      I also dislike how she labels everyone who disagrees with her an `anti-rationalist'. There is nothing irrational or anti-rational about claiming that the average American doesn't need to know foreign languages. Why would not knowing a foreign language be `a manifestation of ignorance'? Sure, if you're a businessman, a diplomat or a show-off, being multilingual is beneficial. If you're a mechanic, a bank teller or a steel-mill worker, I don't see the point.

    2. Re:USA has no national goals by Dr.+Hellno · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The only problem I have with this article is the argument that media, not content are to blame. Video games are mentioned as a new development during the course of American intellectual decline, with the obvious implication that they are partially responsible. The author also mentions that she can't prove "hammering away at a Microsoft Xbox" is less beneficial to the young mind than reading, which clearly means that she believes this to be the case.

      The problem is, she's right... but the xbox is not to blame.

      Anyone who played monkey island and now plays halo knows what I mean. Likewise, anyone who has seen truly great films and now sees "live free or die hard", or worse, "transformers", knows what I mean. The content has become stupider, not the media. This is because people seem to want stupid fare, and that's not a phenomenon I know how to explain.

      If I can offer any kind of proof of the innocence of videogames as a medium, it's this: when I was about six, my parents installed some simple games for me on the family computer. The games were educational; with mickey mouse as my avatar, I remember learning the word xylophone. In another game, the concept of opposites was illustrated to me by example. Later, I learned about pioneers in Oregon trail; I learned my sense of humor largely from exposure to lucasfilm games.

      This is quickly becoming tl;dr. So, to summarize: this article is bullshit because it blames videogames (among other things) for the crumbling of the American mind; it fails to see that games without intelligent content, and movies of the same nature, are symptoms of modern-day America, not causes.

    3. Re:USA has no national goals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I use multiple languages for my work, but I fully agree. Achieving fluency in a foreign language is a noble goal, but for many people there's many other noble goals that should take priority. For many people, it's a luxury with little practical benefit - one that takes a very large amount of time and no small amount of money to master.

    4. Re:USA has no national goals by Angostura · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, I see a false dichotomy here. Knowing either lots about Shakespear or Nanotech mean that you are educated. That is all. You've been educated in different fields. Intelligence has more to do (in my opinion) with the ability to manipulate this knowledge and extrapolate from it in useful ways. The scope for extrapolation and manipulation is arguably greater with nanotech than Shakespear.

    5. Re:USA has no national goals by g4b · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Even if I agree with you in certain terms (e.g. less educated or cultivated people not being less intelligent), I still wouldn't dismiss the article's quintessence. My thoughts: and please, since my english isn't quite native, sorry if some sentences may be confusing, just read over and guess what i mean
      Preamble: I use intellectual gifted people as extreme example of high intelligence, but that doesn't mean, I only call this certain type of intelligence "more intelligent" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_giftedness First: Being bright and having a great deal of realisation, abstraction, association or analytical benefits (which are many, while not all, aspects of intelligence), doesn't mean, you reach the same goals with it as any other. If you are smart, but grow up in an environment, which doesn't push your skill in being smart, you don't get smarter, since your gifts are not attended to. This means, cultivation and education has something to do with increasing odds to create broad-horizoned and educated people, but it doesn't guarantee you more (as in quantity) intelligent people.

      Being intelligent can also give you a great deal of trouble; intellectually gifted persons tend to solve problems by explanation rather than confrontation. Imagine intelligent people amongst cavemen, where strength is primary goal in life.
      Being intelligent and having the wrong surroundings (no benefit from being educated, different goals when you grow up, less education oriented paradigms) leaves you as intelligent person like a burning candle without air. Also, you need social attendance, since you are a "thinker", and with this, your social skills have to be developed by "loring you out of your thinktank".
      Without this, you waste computational power to daily problems - and start getting quite depressed.

      From my point of view you can't separate intelligence and rate it on an "as is" basis. Very intelligent people can be less cultivated, but with cultivation, they may use their potential in a greater aspect. And with cultivation I mean knowing things about the world not certainly bound to one topic, like, who was W. Shakespeare and speak other languages.
      Also, a cultivated surrounding challenges the people to develop their intellectual skills, just as money can make your life easier.

      Second: intelligence doesn't make you a good scientist. Learning and Working does. Intellectually gifted persons e.g. can be often misunderstood as slow learners, because they don't focus their attention to one subject so easily. But in the end, they might make better scientists, because they try to extend the theories they are working on by own ideas, pushing creativity.

      To the topic: if you try to create nanotechnology, and you have a lot of people with intellectual potential to actually go into this subject, and have bright ideas, you need a sophisticated education system, which guarantees you:
      a) education in specialization (e.g. computer science, nanotechnology...)
      b) cultivation (to broaden your horizon)
      c) educated teachers who can judge your intellectual structure and attend to it like you need it (otherwise you only push people who can learn a lot, not think a lot)

      Especially learning other languages affects your thinking patterns a lot. I can tell that from experience, no matter what studies may say (luckily they don't contradict me), since I speak Hungarian and German, and a little bit of English and French.

      Final note: I doubt being China more successful atm. in nanotechnology. They might have the intellectual power, but are they more cultivated? Do they have the same educational benefits? I don't think so, but honestly, I lack education about this topic.
      But I don't doubt, that the mentioned article doesn't show us, that the States could do better in education, to leverage their inspirational force and leap forward in technology faster; sooner or later, China may catch up and m

    6. Re:USA has no national goals by david_thornley · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In Europe, knowing more than one language is beneficial, because (unless you live deep in Russia) you don't have far to go to find a place where people speak another language. There are, indeed, fairly small countries (like Belgium and Switzerland) that are multilingual.

      In the US, knowing Spanish might be useful in the South, and possibly French in the Northeast, but other than that English is all you need. While there are good things about knowing a second language, it isn't nearly as useful as in other places. Or in other languages - English is a very good language to know, in general, but the US already speaks that.

      Moreover, it's relatively hard to find people to practice a language with, and if you don't use it periodically you're going to start forgetting it.

      Knowing only English while living in the US is not the same as knowing only one language while living in Europe.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  6. talk about bs... by djupedal · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "has nevertheless consistently lagged behind the West in terms of invention and innovation

    Let's see - China had the sundial, sextant, gunpowder and circumnavigation of the planet under their belt long before the west stopped playing with dolls and you make a claim like that?

    They were tossed back to the stone age during world war two, courtesy the Japanese, and basically left to rot by the West - they are just now regaining technical traction. The Chinese used to lead the planet in terms of innovation and they want that honor back. They will leapfrog the industrial revolution and plow headlong directly into the technological revolution while the rest of the world sits and watches.

  7. National Chauvinism? by Geezle2 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Since when does developing nano technology require brute force cheap labor and low tech equipment?

    Nano Tech will require bright minds and very highend industrial technology. Currently, the US leads China in both fields.

    The problem with the "bright minds" that the US leads with is that America doesn't really produce them domestically any more. The US imports most of its bright minds nowadays and from where is it getting a lot of them? China.

    Sure, some of those bright minds stay in America after they are sharpened in American universities and steeled in American corporations. . .but quite a few go home too. Think about it. . .you are a smart Chinese engineer with a great idea. Do you stay in America to develop your idea; hiring expensive, dumb-assed, lazy, and worthless trailer park punks to staff your fledgling company or do you go back to China to get the ball rolling? Tough decision, isn't it? Not!

    Now, about that high end industrial technology. How far behind the US do you really think China is? (Keep in mind that most of the high tech goodies that Americans like to consume are produced in China). Do you think they are 25 to 30 years behind America? Wrong! Try 3 to 5 years behind - at the best! With a population way over a billion and a university system that is growing at warp speed, China is whittling that lead down fast.

    Your national chauvinism likely blinds you to the fact, but China has, so far, reached all of the major technological milestones that they have set for themselves. Your comment about "low tech equipment" also suggests that you have not been there lately. Sure, there are still some places in the hinterlands where farmers continue to use water buffalo to prepare their rice fields, but the same is true for Japan. This is actually a good thing and means that China still has an opportunity to preserve some of their cultural heritage before it fades into history by turning some of these communities into domestic tourist destinations. The rest of China, however, is well into the process of becoming a 21st century megapower. You don't have to like that fact, but it is healthier to come to grips with it.

  8. Re:talk about revising history. by dpilot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Islam was taken over by its own fundamentalists, too.

    We're following steps they have trod, about a thousand years later, with our Christian Fundamentalists.

    But I still don't see China stepping into the leadership role, the way they're planning. Look at my .sig, China wants the trappings of science, the technology. To really have the science, you need freedom of thought. The real question about China is whether they will grant sufficient freedom of thought for scientific leadership, and then find that they can't cram the genie back into the bottle.

    Back before the Iraq war, I suggested that Saddam had "his most loyal scientists" working feverishly on WMD. Had he had "his best scientists" working on them, they might have achieved something. I see something of the same quandary for China, as long as the Party insists on retaining absolute political power.

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.