Slashdot Mirror


China Will Lead World Scientific Research By 2020

Hugh Pickens writes "An analysis of papers published in 10,500 academic journals across the world shows that, in terms of academic papers published, China is now second only to the US, and will take first place by 2020. Chinese scientists are increasing their output at a far faster rate than counterparts in rival 'emerging' nations such as India, Russia, and Brazil. The number of peer-reviewed papers published by Chinese researchers rose 64-fold over the past 30 years. 'China is out on its own, far ahead of the pack,' says James Wilsdon, of the Royal Society in London. 'If anything, China's recent research performance has exceeded even the high expectations of four or five years ago.' According to Wilsdon, three main factors are driving Chinese research. First is the government's enormous investment, with funding increases far above the rate of inflation, at all levels of the system from schools to postgraduate research. Second is the organized flow of knowledge from basic science to commercial applications. And third is the efficient and flexible way in which China is tapping the expertise of its extensive scientific diaspora in North America and Europe, tempting back mid-career scientists with deals that allow them to spend part of the year working in the West and part in China." Here's the Financial Times's original article.

63 of 387 comments (clear)

  1. Beehives and ant colonies are efficient too by Gothmolly · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But I wouldn't want to live in either.

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    1. Re:Beehives and ant colonies are efficient too by kklein · · Score: 2, Informative

      You haven't been to China, have you? It's less beehive and more wild west.

  2. To summarize... by gatkinso · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "... China is tapping the expertise of its extensive scientific diaspora in North America and Europe, tempting back mid-career scientists with deals that allow them to spend part of the year working in the West and part in China."

    Translation: Chinese academics and scientists working in the West are, for all intents and purposes, spys.

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    1. Re:To summarize... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Read http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/08/28/060828fa_fact2?currentPage=all for more on how the Chinese approach science...

    2. Re:To summarize... by Walterk · · Score: 4, Informative

      Spys? That's quite harsh. There's many scientists from different countries working all around the globe. Many European ones in the US as well, and US scientists in Europe for instance. If a US scientist works in the EU, does that make him a traitor or a spy? It makes him a scientist. Science advances through different information being shared and further developed on. China and the US are not in a war, so to label them as spies seems rather odd.

    3. Re:To summarize... by Jurily · · Score: 2, Insightful

      China and the US are not in a war, so to label them as spies seems rather odd.

      Yes, they are, although the battlefield is purely economic. The US is losing.

      I wonder if China can do the same technological leap as Japan did after WW2.

    4. Re:To summarize... by Alex+Belits · · Score: 2, Informative

      The USSR propped up its research by doing the same thing (see nuclear weapons) and ultimately lost when better counter measures were taken to stop them.

      Really? What else did nice US propaganda workers tell you?

      Holy fuck, of all things, USSR had one of the best nuclear research programs in the world.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    5. Re:To summarize... by bsDaemon · · Score: 2, Funny

      Or a Communist agent called back to the motherland?

    6. Re:To summarize... by r_jensen11 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Fatherland. Motherland is Mother Russia

    7. Re:To summarize... by zix619 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Be in research in North America for more than 15 years now. In reality, the important number of Chinese researchers in north American universities is due rather to the lack of interest from North American students for long term studies: 80% of Masters and PhD students in computer science in North American universities are from the third world, e.g. China and India. this is not simply a matter of conjecture, it's a deep trend which takes root in North American value system which everything is evaluated in dollars. In these terms, how to motivate the students to pursue higher studies, paid a misery for 4-5 years to have their Ph.Ds in order to have a job underpaid compared to their colleagues who went to the industry?

    8. Re:To summarize... by RDW · · Score: 5, Insightful

      'Translation: Chinese academics and scientists working in the West are, for all intents and purposes, spys.'

      It's much worse than that! My extensive research has revealed the existence of a vast network of 'scientists' of all nationalities, operating (like the Illuminati and the Bilderberg Group) with little regard for conventional geo-political boundaries. Despite often working in laboratories funded by national governments (or even so-called 'charities'), these sinister 'researchers' have for decades (even centuries!) made the results of their arcane 'experiments' available in communistic fashion to other members of the cabal. To protect their work from the 'unenlightened', these results are usually presented (much like the treatises of the medieval alchemists) in highly cryptic language that is largely unintelligible to anyone who has not been suitably indoctrinated. This 'training' process usually takes the form of an extended apprenticeship to an individual further up the hierarchy who, as in most cults, holds out the promise of greater enlightenment and an elevation in status in return for performing often menial tasks at unsociable hours while being exposed to mind-bending concepts. The final initiation process, the esoterically titled 'viva voce' ('living voice') ritual is particularly dreaded.

    9. Re:To summarize... by Alex+Belits · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So, you don't deny that the very reason they got the bomb(at that time) was spying, do you?

      Why do you care what, of all people, I, deny or don't deny?

      You still believe that the Rosenbergs were innocent?

      As far as I know, they did not provide anything of importance. Even if you assume that they somehow sent Russians a diagram of "Fat Man", it was pretty much obvious by then, and couldn't have any effect on further development.

      Everything I know about USSR nuclear program suggests that spying had little, if any, effect on it, however there is no reliable way to determine if it played any major role or not. What I do know, is that both USSR and US concentrated their spying efforts on determining what weapons, and how many, each of them had, so they wouldn't accidentally end up with a massive disparity.

      The important points are:

      1. You can't develop the whole branch of science (or even a nuclear bomb project) from scratch in 4 years on spying -- leave alone on few notes.
      2. Nuclear weapons development (and related research programs, and high energy physics, etc.) in USSR went into its own direction, and was advancing at a pace that could not be sustained by "spying".
      3. The idiot claimed that the whole nuclear program was actually continuous "stealing" from US, and that it somehow was stopped or damaged when US made their program "more secure".

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    10. Re:To summarize... by Alex+Belits · · Score: 2

      So you never heard of the atom spies have you,

      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1524310&cid=30904470

      countless amounts of technical and theoretical information was stolen by your comrades which undoubtedly lead to breakthroughs.

      Please compare USSR nuclear program with USSR computer engineering (in 80's, post-BESM/Elbrus). Computers actually were based on "stolen" designs, and the whole area of development suffered massive setbacks due to playing catch-up and adapting to the changing direction of development performed elsewhere. As a result, USSR had excellent nuclear program (and theoretical physics), space program (and related science and industry), yet embarrassingly primitive computer/electronics industry. Hell, Russia STILL doesn't have any computer/electronics components industry to speak of. That's how far you can go on "spying".

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    11. Re:To summarize... by sourcerror · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Motherland. "Fatherland" is Germany, and Germany didn't do no stinking commies.

      Only Marx and Engels.

    12. Re:To summarize... by domatic · · Score: 3, Informative

      As far as I know, they did not provide anything of importance.

      Then you don't know much. Google "Alexander Feklisov" to get started. People like Klaus Fuchs handed over voluminous amounts of extremely detailed information. The Joe 1 device was an almost exact copy of the Fat Man because Beria insisted starting with proven designs first. Yes, it is true the Soviets had extremely capable talent like Kurchatov and he used the espionage in the best possible way. The spy information was primarily used as a check and confirmation of their own progress. If a young physicist came in his office with a hot sounding idea, Kurchatov would open a safe, look at some papers, and then say "No, try again." So they both came up with their own theoretical understanding as quickly as possible while avoiding costly blind alleys that we had to go down. Another example of a blind alley avoided was something called "Wigner's Disease" that very nearly required an extensive refit of the Hanford enrichment facilities.

      After the initial device, the Soviets didn't copy nearly as much but the espionage allowed their initial development to focus almost exclusively on productive ideas and shaved years off their nuclear program.

  3. I should hope so by MikeRT · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Since the PRC accounts for about 25% of the human race, while the US accounts for about 5%!

    Let the Chinese steal from us and then start innovating on their own. We'll then just start stealing from each other.

  4. Quantity != Quality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As a researcher in the physical sciences, I have noticed that nearly all the Chinese groups working my area publish complete crap of no value to other researchers. There are quite a few good Chinese researchers at American universities, but I have not once found a reason to actually cite a group based in China. They have a long way to go still before they reach the same level of impact as any western country (or hell, even its neighbors Korea and Japan).

    1. Re:Quantity != Quality by Cidolfas · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's the same in chemistry. What gets published in Chinese journals would get flat-out rejected from a US peer-reviewed journal. And the data is about as trustworthy as an old (1970's-ish) Russian journal, where often they just group a whole bunch of variations on a compound together and say they all react with the same mechanism, even when they shouldn't. That makes me have to disprove them, which eats up a lot of my own time. I've had to do it with both Chinese and Russian data in the fuel-cell polymer field.

      --
      I am become /dev/null, destroyer of data.
    2. Re:Quantity != Quality by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      When I was still in grad school, it was also the same in certain web technology research areas. I've read a bunch of conference submission papers from Chinese students and nearly all of it was non-original, improperly cited, and poorly researched. The problem they are having is that it takes time to boot strap a research program. You need to build a research culture, nurture experts in the sciences and have the free flow of ideas going. The last one is going to be a challenge for China and I sometimes wonder if they will be able to make it over that hump given their extreme censorship policies.

      As an aside, I find it interesting how culture effects research. When I was going to conferences US and even researchers from the EU would often present ideas that achieved a goal around a free market mechanism. Chinese researchers nearly always spoke of centralized control, even when the scale of the idea was really too big to make it work.

    3. Re:Quantity != Quality by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 4, Interesting

      As a researcher in the physical sciences, I have noticed that nearly all the Chinese groups working my area publish complete crap of no value to other researchers. There are quite a few good Chinese researchers at American universities, but I have not once found a reason to actually cite a group based in China. They have a long way to go still before they reach the same level of impact as any western country (or hell, even its neighbors Korea and Japan).

      It's the same in polymer physics and every field. Read this, which puts "leading the world in science" in perspective: http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/18/will-china-achieve-science-supremacy/?ref=science In short, China tells people they have to publish or perish on a much greater scale than in other countries. As a result, there is a huge amount of published crap.

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    4. Re:Quantity != Quality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I am a computer scientist. Asian.

      The research condition in China is extremely unhealthy. There are plenty of professors in high places who shamelessly rip off the younger researchers, and cronyism is rampant. Many professors will force the younger members in their group to put their names as first name authors in papers which they do not even read -- because the government's grant committee will only recognize papers with you as the first author. The worst is that the rampant cronyism means that younger researchers have no choice but to comply. That is, professors routinely give great reviews to papers written by buddies, no matter how crap. The same paper (or slightly altered) is published over and over again in different venues.

      There is no sense of value whatsoever with these researchers. No pride. No integrity. They exist just to make a living by crushing their opponents doing whatever they can. This is the Wall Street of research. God saves us all.

    5. Re:Quantity != Quality by tahyk · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Same in Engineering. I have an old professor friend, who is a journal editor. They send the same crap to hundreds of journal, and even though it has no scientific value it will pass the filter by chance. It's much easier to accept than deny, because you don't have to reason. You just don't have the energy and the manpower to politely deny all. And even if you deny, he sends it again next week with very little modification.
      But that's not their fault. Science is benchmarked by publications, no matter what is behind them. They just specializing to reach maximum in impact factor and not in real research. It's the same with the TOEFL and GRE. They achieve the maximum score without problems, but it doesn't mean they can speak English at all.

    6. Re:Quantity != Quality by JustinOpinion · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'd just like to echo this statement (I work in nanotech/materials science). There is undeniably a massive number of publications flowing from China. Much of it is high quality, but frankly it is drowned-out by a larger amount of uninteresting or trivial publications. In short, Chinese science funding is emphasizing quantity over quality. Thus they are making gains in the raw number of publications, but are not advancing the impact per publication at all.

      It's a sad state of affairs, really... because those Chinese scientists who do solid work and publish worthwhile papers have their credibility reduced because of the larger number of sloppy papers published by other Chinese scientists.

      If they truly want to be a driver of science and technology, and not just win a meaningless "# of pubs" game, they need to establish better priorities and better reward schemes. Of course this doesn't just apply to China: using publication count to measure productivity is tempting and is happening in many countries and funding agencies. This is why so many scientists are pushing for more emphasis on measuring impact, and not just raw output. (E.g. using things like h-index instead of publication count (yes, h-index has its own set of problems).)

    7. Re:Quantity != Quality by mosb1000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This was my first thought when I read the article, but I thought that maybe the situation had changed in the last five years since I've been out of academics. Based on the responses to you claim, it seems that it hasn't.

      This is really terrifying. Not a single person has seen fit to contradict you. I think the scientific community should be really concerned about this. There is already a lot of low quality work filling up the world of published research with meaningless garbage (I would have said that 1 in 10 papers was worthwhile while I was in college). From the sounds of things it is getting worse, not better.

    8. Re:Quantity != Quality by wvmarle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have read about this before (sorry no links) but the main reason of this huge production of publications is because Chinese measure their student's and scientist's performance that way. A Chinese PhD will during his thesis easily publish a few dozen papers while a western PhD student may do one or two. Some Chinese PhD's publish more papers during their PhD study than many Western scientists during their whole career. China is doing quite some quality research these days for sure though they have a lot to catch up and frankly a lot of their output (not only the toys) is crap.

      In the West, scientists are judged by their quality of work (this is hard to do, requires a lot of work by the assessor), while in China they are judged by the number of papers published (a nice easy number). This is what makes them so productive. Indeed the quality is often low, the advancements if any are little, but a paper is a paper and it adds to the tally.

      So while China may lead in 2020 in numbers of papers published, I doubt they will lead in quality. I think US is still nr 1 in that, Europe as a whole a good second. That's where the money is to really do fundamental research that has no direct commercial use (if any at all - LHC is a nice example) but that costs a lot of money in man-hours and equipment.

      That said, a lot of research done nowadays in the US especially is done by Asian PhD students, who may or may not stay in the US or go back to their home country.

  5. Priorities out of whack by Bicx · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Maybe things wouldn't be this way if people in the U.S. started fighting the stigma of becoming a "nerd," gave college research priority over athletics programs, and provided students incentive to be hard-working and inquisitive.

    1. Re:Priorities out of whack by stabiesoft · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes as the UTexas students recently discovered. Mack Brown gets a nice 5M/year now even though his contract wasn't up. They "gave" him a bump since he was so good. Of course he lost the BCS game. And don't even get me started on how valuable I think a coach even is. He's not the one with his butt out there getting creamed. But anyway,UT is short 30Mil now, so the students get a 4% tuition hike. Athletics has become what schools do, while academics are a sideshow. Its really pathetic. I stopped giving to my alma mater a few years ago when I found out the EE school was planning to use the money for F*chking wifi for the football stadium. WTF. I'd like to find a school to give to with a 0 dollar athletic program and give to them. I'm all for intramural for exercise, but this pre-NFL training camp crap should go. If the NFL wants a training camp, let them pay for it. /* end rant & I'll bet my karma takes a hit for this one */

    2. Re:Priorities out of whack by bsDaemon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I studied literature and classical history, then on my own read Hegel, Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Connolly, Neitzche and Heidegger as well as Plato, Cicero, Pliny, etc. I knew a lot of philisophy majors -- most of them were stoned all the time and would just ramble but they did quite well for themselves despite it. They mostly seemed to be bullshitting to me, but maybe I was just mistaken.

  6. More than just those three reasons by DiscountBorg(TM) · · Score: 3

    When it comes to the race to develop new technologies, I'm always reminded of the (easily missed) quote at the beginning of Deus Ex: "Their... 'ethical inflexibility' has allowed us to make progress in areas they refuse to consider." For example China does not have the ethical hangups about stem cell research that we do here in the west. Perhaps they will be developing new medicines and cures based on their research--and we will end up using it in the end as well.

    --
    "The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place." George Bernard Shaw
    1. Re:More than just those three reasons by mangastudent · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If anyone could cite a single therapy to come from embryonic stem cell research your comment might have some force.

      Unfortunately, solving that is equivalent to figuring out cancer (and that's essentially what you get when you put embryonic (undifferentiated) stem cells in animals); this is basic research pretending to be applied. Look at e.g. the recent equivocations of the California state organization that's administering their effort.

    2. Re:More than just those three reasons by krmt · · Score: 2

      It's still far too young to see any real successes. Prior to the past year, there wasn't any realistic way to make use of stem cells in many circumstances because of the paucity of cell lines available. Now there's more coming online. The real breakthrough though, Induced pluripotent Stem (iPS) cell technology, is brand new, and people have spent the last year making it safer by removing cMyc and whatever other oncogenes were necessary in the original formulation. That's basically done now and iPS cells should be less cancerous, so people are starting to move forward.

      Remember that clinical trials take a very long time, so don't expect to see results so soon. Clinical trials for stem cell therapy are underway and from what little I've read they seem to be going well. You're right that the cancer problem still needs to be solved, and that it's never a good idea to believe wild predictions, things are looking vastly more positive for stem cell therapy than you make out.

      --

      "I may not have morals, but I have standards."

    3. Re:More than just those three reasons by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Let's get this straight. You argue that when politics (nee religion) strangles a line of research, and that line of research subsequently produces few results, that is justification for continuing to strangle that line of research?

      If only the religious nuts would apply that principle to themselves.

  7. This improves the rate of progress for all of us by javilon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Forget for a moment the nationalistic and economic competition between USA and China. What this means to me is that with China, Russia, Brazil and India increasing their research output, the rate of scientific progress will probably double from what we had 10 years ago.

    That and the fact that I prefer (for moral reasons) a non starving Chinese population, means this is good to me. The current boom in biotechnology together with an aging population, means that scientific knowledge improves quality of life for all of us.

    By the way, China is investing heavily and making fast progress in stem cell development, a research area where the religious lobby in the USA has delayed progress. The USA has it's own political problems.

    --


    When his defense asked, "Which computer has Jon Johansen trespassed upon?" the answer was: "His own."
  8. Maybe the US should pay scientists decent wages by ZuchinniOne · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Things are seriously backwards here when some of the most educated people in the world are paid so poorly.

    Most post-docs doing basic research get paid between 30-40K. Perhaps if we paid scientists what they are worth there would be less brain drain.

    1. Re:Maybe the US should pay scientists decent wages by shabtai87 · · Score: 2, Funny

      What, do something fun and intellectually stimulating AND make money? What madness is this? Everyone knows you have to be bored and trolling youtube for 8 hours a day in an office setting to make a decent salary!

      --
      @humanity: *facepalm*
    2. Re:Maybe the US should pay scientists decent wages by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Technical staff at most defense firms in the US (PhD in engineering/science required) start off in the high 5-figures straight out of school. Don't confuse academia with science. In the US, well over half the science funding happens in private industry, which gave us things like the transistor, the artificial heart, and a damn big portion of the internets.

    3. Re:Maybe the US should pay scientists decent wages by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Risk-taking for productive enterprise is good. Risk-taking for no reason other than to make your balls look bigger or keep up with the Joneses is what got us here.

    4. Re:Maybe the US should pay scientists decent wages by ZuchinniOne · · Score: 2, Insightful

      True, but most basic scientific research happens in academia.

  9. Let me take you back 25 years by antifoidulus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    and you could find this exact same article, just substitute China for Japan. And yet 25 years later very few Japanese have won nobel prizes, Japan is a leader in a few select fields, but is a far cry from what people were saying it would be by now. This despite spending massive amounts of money on R&D and whatnot. Time will tell if this holds true for China as well, but I think it's important not to extrapolate too much on a very limited data set.

    1. Re:Let me take you back 25 years by antifoidulus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think you forgot that China is 10 Japans

      No I didn't, Japan didn't stop growing because it ran out of people(though that certainly is a risk in the future), it stopped growing because it's economic model, the EXACT same model China is using, works really well you are playing catch-up, but tends to fall apart really quickly once you are about equal with your competitors. China is heading for a crash much like Japan in the near future. Also, although China's population is 10x that of Japan, they are actually facing a very similar demographic challenge, the average age of the Chinese is increasing and the one-child per family policy is going to come back to bite them in the ass eventually when there are more retirees than there are workers.

      In addition, China is facing a demographic challenge that the Japanese are not facing, namely a shortage of women. By 2020 there will be massive social unrest in China as thousands of men who cannot find brides start becoming really aggressive. What I find hilarious about the situation is the fact that China actively discourages homosexuality. Hell, if I were running a country where there were on average 120 males to every 100 females, I would be out there promoting homosexuality like crazy, if more men were gay then they wouldn't riot about not being able to find a woman :P

    2. Re:Let me take you back 25 years by timeOday · · Score: 3, Interesting
      The doomsday predictions have already come true in large measure. American manufacturing is devastated, leaving millions of Americans out of the job at this moment. There is a new underclass of working poor and outright unemployed in the US due mainly to Chinese competition. Not prediction, but fact.

      Second, nobody expects China's population to outproduce Americans on a per-capita basis anytime soon. Their standard of living won't match ours anytime soon (that's not even possible until we move past the coal/oil-based economy, and even then would require China to take more land from other countries). But per-capita standard of living isn't the whole point; size does matter. They can outcompete is scientifically, militarily, and for natural resources overall, even with lower per-capita productivity.

      the one-child per family policy is going to come back to bite them in the ass eventually when there are more retirees than there are workers.

      All nations have to deal with aging demographics. The population pyramid scheme can't continue forever, it simply gets too crowded. China is dealing with it; Americans still seem confused by it and think maybe the solution is massive immigration, or that it's just something wrong with how Social Security is managed.

    3. Re:Let me take you back 25 years by mangastudent · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A few notes on your excellent analysis:

      China's demographic problems are starting to hit now, much earlier in the game than Japan, due to the forced One Child Per Family problem. For the aging, it's called e.g. the 4-2-1 problem, 4 grandparents have 2 parent have 1 child, who all of the parents realize is going to have to provide for all of them. So they save like mad instead of consume at levels that would build up their domestic market, a critical part of Japan's success.

      And the 2020 problem is going to be 10s of millions of men who can't find wives, not thousands. 22 million if I recall, but I'm not sure if that matches the 2020 date, but it will be soon.

      Finally, there's the big problem that this model is likely to work less well for China because of scale (10 times Japan's population) and Japan not having the countries it exported to be what in what looks to be a long term Great Recession (or worse). Probably the worse period for Japan that way was the 1970s, and what they did then (e.g. export early small not so high quality cars) worked well, enough that they were going like gangbusters in the 1980s, when they were predicted to take over the world. As we know, that ended in tears. I suspect it'll be a lot more messy in the much less cohesive PRC.

  10. And yet by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Every time I point out how China will replace the US as the dominant force in the world, I get modded troll. Well, America, I understand. My mother is British, and consequently I have a British passport. I understand the denial that's happening - the way you feel is just like the British felt from the mid 1800's up until the middle of last century. The decline of the British Empire took 100 years. But nowadays things happen a lot faster.

    Let's look at China:

          They have all the industry they need - so much, that they are rapidly becoming the worlds biggest exporter of everything.
          They have a huge population.
          They have a strong leadership.
          They have a real military. Uh this isn't Iraq, right? Their submarines are good enough to sneak up on US carriers, and they have demonstrated that they can shoot down satellites. Now I ask myself where the US will be with carriers on the bottom of the oceans and no satellites to coordinate communications for combined arms or provide overhead intelligence. They've chosen a very smart, asymmetric warfare route. They don't need to have ultra high tech main battle tanks capable of taking direct hits from M1's. They don't need hundred million dollar stealth aircraft. They just need lots and lots of reasonably good anti aircraft and anti tank missiles.
          They are becoming scientific leaders, which will even take away the US technology edge.
          They have a space program. They also have nuclear weapons. Combine the two and that means they can put a nuclear bomb anywhere on the planet with an ICBM. What's not known is their accuracy, but who needs accuracy if you have a multi-megaton device?
          Everything they can't innovate (yet), they can copy. Adherence to patents and intellectual property laws is only given by consent.
          They are the single largest holder of US debt, outside the US government.

          Ohhhh, it's going to be ugly. I certainly wouldn't want to live in Taiwan in the next 20 years, for a start. Forget the argument that the US is China's biggest customer, that's irrelevant. Wars often start between the best trading partners. The US and the UK circa 1800. The US and Japan WW2. France and Prussia/Germany, quite often in the 19th century. The only hope I have is that China has not shown any expansionist tendencies in recent history. They've been content with defending their borders. But if suddenly they decide to play the imperialism game - watch out!

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:And yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Imperialism? How about Tibet and East Turkistan? How about they have border disputes with several of their neighbors going as far as claiming an entire Indian state? Oh, they're way into Imperialism.

    2. Re:And yet by smallfries · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They are becoming scientific leaders, which will even take away the US technology edge.

      There is no evidence for that. The metric used in the article (number of papers published) is quite simply the worst possible metric and gives us no information at all about the state of Chinese Research in comparison to other countries.

      Wars often start between the best trading partners.

      No, wars start between the largest economies who are rivals for resources and/or markets. They rarely start between trading partners. In the examples that you list Britain and the US had fought the war of independence over trading rights in the New World, and when Japan attacked the US in WWII it was in response to a trade embargo.

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
    3. Re:And yet by AHuxley · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The US wanted Asia as a market for US goods on US terms.
      Lots of Fords to sell. Lots of deals to be done.
      Japan had its own ideas of empire.
      Japan had no real natural supplies for the 20th century.
      They did the math and took form China.
      The US added sanctions and Japan re did the math. They had one shot and removing the US or it was all over.
      They rolled the dice before the real shortages set in.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    4. Re:And yet by fozzytbear · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My mother is also British, and I also have a British passport. So I believe we have matching credentials on this matter.

      Are you saying that China is going to conquer the world? Are they going to build some kind of empire?

      I'm just going to point out, as you are probably aware, that after the decline the British Empire, England did not cease to exist. It wasn't swallowed up into the US. Moreover, while the US does have tremendous influence throughout the world, the British haven't lost all of theirs (even if it's diminshed).

      England is leading a quite pleasant existence as a little island off the coast of Europe. And island that I've considered moving to on multiple occasions. I doubt either of us would have bothered to get our UK passport if there wasn't some value in having it.

      I supposed my point is that you're predicting some sort of doom. But what that doom is, is unclear. Considering your mention of ICBM and large armies, I imagine you expect some kind of violent demise for the US.

      Now the slightly off-topic part:

      Ironically, my parents would both probably agree with this doom concept. Except they're willing to say that the doom is China and India taking away the jobs of all the engineers and other tech related fields in the US. While I believe that many jobs will move overseas, I'm fairly sceptical of the situation becoming as dire as some predict. All you have to do is look at the previously doomed empire of the UK or anywhere else in Europe to see millions of engineers (and IT) working quite happily.

      The fact is that in both the US and Europe there is a shortage of engineers, and demographics don't point to this getting better anytime soon. This is good news for people who are already engineers. This is also means that the US and Europe are going to have to outsource some engineering, and much of the research that goes with it. Is this a bad strategy long-term? Not sure. Do we have a choice? Not really. However, I can tell you that outsourcing engineering projects to places like India and China has been happening for decades now in the developing world, but even here in the US.

      For example, in the US, the designs of many chemical plants often use the same components. Ultimately, there may be one new step in manufacture of a new material, but the other 10 are old news. Often time the old news is outsourced, and the new (proprietary) part is done in-house. This can be seen as an efficient way of doing things. However, many times the outsourced work is done incorrectly. Sometimes this is because of poor design. Other times this is because of poor assembly instructions. Either way the blame generally falls back on the fact that the work was outsourced.

      So you end up realizing that while you saved money outsourcing your work, in the end it didn't work because it was outsourced. You might have outsourced to an amazing team of engineers, but because they weren't there to oversee assembly to communicate with the engineers who were, everything went wrong. Which really leads me to my final point. There is no substitute for having experienced and knowledgeable engineers/techies/staff at the scene of a complex problem.

      --
      "The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity." - Harlan Ellison
    5. Re:And yet by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 2, Informative
      I am not going to try to refute your entire argument as you obviously have done some homework and I doubt that in an hour of googling or rhetoric on the interwebz I could change your mind. There are, however, a few of your bullet points I would like to address.

      Their submarines are good enough to sneak up on US carriers, and they have demonstrated that they can shoot down satellites. Now I ask myself where the US will be with carriers on the bottom of the oceans and no satellites to coordinate communications for combined arms or provide overhead intelligence.

      Regarding this. Last time I checked into it (and I will admit that was a few years ago) United States aircraft carriers are deployed as part of a large battle group known as a task force. They patrol their various portions of the globe, and perform their missions, with a rather sizable escort fleet of both submarines and destroyers. That means that, while Chinese (and any other country's) submarines are perfectly capable of sneaking up on US carriers, they must manage to do so without being detected by a large wing (I believe somewhere between 10 to 25 destroyers and/or submarines) of other naval craft that are designed specifically for sub hunting and killing. That's not simple task. It takes years worth of battle experience to become good at that kind of submarine warfare. That said, I think that it should be noted that there is a lot more to naval and, in general, military strategy than pure numbers. Disagree with me on that if you want, but if I recall correctly the size of the Iraq standing army was actually significantly larger than the US force sent over there. It was superior technology and strategy that put the US on top. While, as you pointed out, China is not Iraq, strategy is a big deal in any engagement and I would not underestimate the schools of American military strategy. We love our armies, it's what we do.

      Regarding the satellite attacks you mentioned. Perhaps China is willing to knock out satellites as a means of warfare. If they do that, they will be polluting various orbits with a crapton of debris that is hard to track and avoid. If any country starts 'shooting down' satellites, it will make space a mess for everyone, not just the US. If China or any other country attempts this, that and that alone could be a significant factor in creating a rather large coalition against them. Furthermore, it would make it difficult for China to use GEO orbits for communications as well which, while it could be done, is kind of silly. GEO comm sats really are the quickest and most effective communication on the battlefield. To do away with it entirely is not the best idea, especially when you have spent a significant portion of time ramping up your own space program. Blowing up satellites in orbit to disable US military communications could work as an effective strategy if you can successfully communicate in a more organized fashion without that communication option yourself. Maybe China can do this, maybe they cannot, I don't know. What I do know is that the US military is all about backups and redundancy. If GPS and the other military comm sats are attacked and the networks are taken down, I can guarantee you that US commanders have a back up communications plan...probably two or three in fact.

      They have a space program. They also have nuclear weapons. Combine the two and that means they can put a nuclear bomb anywhere on the planet with an ICBM. What's not known is their accuracy, but who needs accuracy if you have a multi-megaton device?

      Their capabilities are still nowhere near those of the former Soviet Union. The advantage that the US has in having an over active defense lobby is that we are still producing military systems for fighting a war with the Soviets. One of the largest funded branches of military development right now is MDS (missile defense systems). We are slowly, but surely, building a very effective network of anti-ICBM technology. Take a look at the

  11. Defense Spending Is Out of Whack by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Maybe things wouldn't be this way if people in the U.S. started fighting the stigma of becoming a "nerd," gave college research priority over athletics programs, and provided students incentive to be hard-working and inquisitive.

    The the real priority that is clearly disparate between Western countries and China is purely what percent of our GDP we dump into science versus defense on a federal level. Do a budget comparison between the United States and China for defense spending. I think you'll find that that leaves China with much more resources to dump into education, their growing economy, building infrastructure and science.

    In the United States, military spending does foster more science and education but still not as much as dumping that new joint strike fighter contract into college educations for everyone. It ain't going to change but it's a very real difference that can be felt.

    --
    My work here is dung.
  12. Quantity != Quality by cpscotti · · Score: 2, Insightful

    At least in my field (Mobile Robotics), Chinese papers are everywhere but none of the ones I found were some kind of breakthrough.
    China is all about volume simply bc they are HUGE.
    And also... I'm still waiting to see a major civil war there sometime..

  13. "Emerging"? by Alex+Belits · · Score: 4, Informative

    rival 'emerging' nations such as India, Russia, and Brazil.

    It was 18th century when Russia was "emerging" in scientific research.

    --
    Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
  14. science relies on the free exchange of ideas by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Insightful

    so i don't believe any chinese researchers will be making amazing breakthroughs as long as they live in a country which is fundamentally opposed to the idea of the free exchange of ideas. the free exchange of ideas is not some cute tweak on the product of scientific research, it is a preceding requirement for quality research to even be done in the first place

    a society which does not allow a free exchange if ideas does not result in minds flexible enough to grasp important patterns quickly out of a morass of data. which is the essence of science. a society which carefully controls information results in minds weakened by an artificially placid media environment, where all information is carefully chosen for its adherence to an official point of view. but the truth is often ugly, and when "harmony" is artificially imposed, you breed flimsy minds which can only be spoonfed ideas which aren't too challenging to them

    a truly keen scientific mind is bred in an environment where it is constantly challenged by ideas contrary to established belief. the mind is a muscle: challenge it, and it grows strong. put it in artificially serene environment free of opposing ideas, and it grows weak. the information environment that china supports therefore is contrary to the production of good scientific minds, and therefore contrary to the production of good science

    in science, you question everything. and therefore, you get the best scientific theories. but in china, you never question, you only behave and adhere to the official party line. and so china is not building the social environment in which high quality minds can exist and high quality science can be done. china is breeding a generation of minds that are made of cotton candy and fluff with their desire for "harmony" over ugly truths. it takes an adherence to freedom of expression to get minds that are free in thought, and therefore make good science

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:science relies on the free exchange of ideas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Soviet scientists made pretty big breakthroughs, though they were not living in a free country...

    2. Re:science relies on the free exchange of ideas by spinkham · · Score: 2, Interesting

      China is more free then you would think. Yes, there are some things they hide from their people(Case in point.. I talked to a nuclear engineering grad student in China who was complaining about how China has no nuke reactors because the west won't let them, when they have had reactors since 1994, and have 11 on the mainland and a few in Hong Kong, with more on the way.) but for the most part they realize technical information must be free-flowing to increase their economy. This is why thet have internet access, but pictures of the Tienanmen Square massacre are filtered. All inforation is free, except that which hurts the party.

      This seems to be most damaging to them in biology, history, and political sciance, and much less so in engineering, physics, and the like. China wants badly to make money, and knows science is a good way to get there.

      The flip side is that the culture does encourage saving face and helping your peers to the point of cheating, which has influenced even some of their best scientists and institutions to fake results and plagiarize as a matter of course. Yes, this is a problem all over the world, but it has more institutional support in China, at least the part of China that I am familiar with.

      --
      Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.
  15. It's part of a trend. by MustardAndPizza · · Score: 2, Interesting

    When I was taking stats, my stat professor told me that he saw the far east eventually becoming the technology center of the world because of the increased amount of technological manufacturing and R/D coming from that region of the world.

    On the other hand, he said, the United States is pretty unmatched in agricultural exports because of the natural resources at its disposal. China seems to be the biggest importer of agricultural goods from the U.S. All of that is to say, we might eventually see an increase in the value of raw commodities some time in the near future because of their increased export value.

    Since Slashdot is all about unsubstantiated rumors, is now an appropriate time to say I don't have any references for this?

    ----
    My signature is ill and couldn't be with us today.

  16. New Super Power by rotide · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It really is quite interesting to see a new Super Power being born. This is made a bit more interesting as I'm an American and "I" have been the Super Power for my entire life. To be witnessing the handover/taking of that torch is, admittedly a little unsettling, but hey, lets be honest, the US is no barometer of "good". We're pretty shady in our own right.

    That being said, I have a feeling if there isn't a massive overhaul of the Chinese government, it may be a short lived stay at the top. As their populace inevitably feels the benefits of being at the top, they are going to want a better standard of living. As more and more of their populace starts wanting more, wanting "better", and becoming more educated, the corruption, censoring, etc, is going to get more and more obvious. I can easily see their population eventually standing up and demanding something better.

    Hopefully they don't have the same growing pains we did (civil war, etc), although, we did come out better for it and it didn't kill us as a nation.

    It will be an interesting show to watch, even if it is a bit unnerving.

  17. Quality vs. quantity by David+Jao · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Counting the number of papers is a rather dubious way to measure research output. The article acknowledges this at the very end, pointing out that the quality of the research generated by Chinese researchers is rather mixed.

    My own experience as a researcher is that Asian countries in general (with the possible exception of Japan) have a long way to go before they match the impact of Western researchers. There are exceptions, such as the MD5 collision found by Wang et al., but in general most of the major breakthroughs occur in the West.

    It's also not clear whether research produced by overseas Chinese is included in the total. Some of the very best mathematicians in the world are Chinese, but almost all of them are based at Western institutions. In any case, as good as they are, the number of overseas Chinese is so small that they don't represent anything close to a majority.

  18. Except... by geoffrobinson · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They have a one child policy. And lots of parents have sex selection abortion to avoid having their only child be a girl.

    So you are going to have a population that will decline in number that has a bunch of young men with no hope of being married. Say what you will, the drive to take care of your family is important to society.

    That's not a recipe for long-term success.

    --
    Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
    1. Re:Except... by spinkham · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've been to China a few times, and my in-laws lived there for 3 years, teaching at a high tech university.
      There is definitely a class struggle in China where a contingent of highly educated, highly skilled workers feel that the peasant masses are holding them back. The large population is both a blessing and a curse to China.

      Even so, the well educated portion of the population if China is still quite large, and we will see their influence continue to grow.

      --
      Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.
  19. Not held back by pesky "ethics" by HisMother · · Score: 3, Interesting

    An astonishing fraction of research "results" from China are just plain made up. No wonder they're so prolific! I don't doubt that they will eventually make significant scientific contributions as a nation -- they're 20% of the world's population, after all -- but they're going to have to clean up their act before the global scientific community starts to take them seriously.

    --
    Cantankerous old coot since 1957.
  20. true and not-true by nerdyalien · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Let me bust some myths here...

    1. By publication numbers, YES! China or even any Asian institution can easily knock down a Western institution. But once you bring in "Impact Factor", Asian institutions sink in to the bottom of the pacific!!

    Maybe Westerners don't know much about what I'm about to tell. In general, researchers in Asia (especially of Chinese descent) loves to publish barrage of papers every year. Most institutions in this part of the world gives you incentives/bonuses based on the "number" of publications.

    How do I know this? Because I'm a PhD student in an university in south-east Asia. When I entered this department, head of research was a mainland Chinese. His first rule was "publish at least 1 journal + 1 conference paper every year. Without 2 journal papers, I won't even read your thesis".

    As a consequence of this rat-race, people here are just publishing every crap they can and they don't respect the quality or adherence to ethics of sciences. Even one time, a chinese-descent researcher asked me to fake/make-up data and publish (in fact, that's how she get really amazing data for publications). Here people may call it "scientific discovery", but for a proper trained eyes (like myself), its nothing but "scientific fraud".

    Personally, I'm very disappointed with how research departments operate here. Hence I applied to US grad schools last month.

    2. Can China improve ? I'm not sure. But certainly I have met several extremely talented mainland Chinese researchers, but all of them reside in some other country (e.g. Australia, Singapore).

    Then again, I was asked to review a conference paper, written by *post-doc* students from a non-popular rural university in China. Literally, it was unreadable. It seems they have heavily used the thesaurus or used a translator altogether. Lets forget about the language (even I am happy to help them re-write the paper). That particular paper I read, it didn't prove anything significant nor important, knowledge contribution wise.. NULL. Undergrads in my university report much better research outcomes.

    So it is hard to predict... but surely, western institutions still have the mojo.

    3. Despite what we see and read, I strongly believe they (Chinese) have a proper R&D knowledge sphere hidden out somewhere. Otherwise, they won't be able to progress in nuclear, military and other technology fronts. Also not to forget, they have journals and other publications in *chinese*.... which I believe are out of reach to us, as we can't read Chinese and those material hardly get translated to English and reach to science databases in west.

    As of 2010, it is safe to say... US/UK/EU institutions have the monopoly in Research.. and Asia is nothing but spammers to periodicals. Just my $0.02...

  21. Not to start out with by zogger · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Russia's nuke research was greatly helped/jump started by industrial espionage during the WW2 lend-lease program, partly facilitated and financed by short term profits centered traders and compromised governmental functionaries inside the US and Canada. Nuke secrets and actual hardware, including uranium salts and more refined metals, were loaded on planes in the US and shipped there through Alaska into Siberia. They were able to bypass decades of research that way. After that, ya, good at it, but it was that jump start that kicked them into high gear.

    Fast forward to today, and it is exactly what China has been doing now in a way for the last twenty years. Just the level of scientific and engineering help is much larger. They have been acquiring just mega loads of already developed tech to start with and work from, at firesale prices or free, heck, they get paid to just take it, that they can turn around and clone and refine and further develop, without doing much of the preliminary steps.

      It has been a huge global market advantage for them, simply an enormous advantage, as is obvious looking at global finance today. The west has been giving them every possible industrial advantage, all so that the market traders and labor arbitragers can rake in huge short term profits. Of course China would take that deal, and has, free stuff, then work from there. They got bootstrapped a hundred years in technological development in 20.

    China isn't the real problem with the decline of western economies, and it was predictable, and was. It has been the west's own business people in collaboration with some politicians basically selling them out and taking a fat skim in the middle. It's like those corporate raiders who do a hostile take over of some company, sell off all the juicy bits fast for huge short term profits, gut the companies, vote themselves a golden parachute then move on to their next victim/target. Except this has been on entire national scales. We let the looters..loot.

        That's why so many of these western nations now have to bailout banks, watch their hard industries collapse, watch their trade deficits soar, watch their internal debt load soar, watch their unemployment levels soar, and resort to desperation governmental accounting tricks with their currencies, etc, to make it appear that things are better than they really are.

  22. Causes of wars by Kupfernigk · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Responding to one of your points, the US/UK war around 1812 resulted from several factors, one of which was growing American imperialism (they wanted to annex Canada) and one was perceived British weakness (they were fighting Napoleon at the time.)* Japan fought WW2 over imperialism - they wanted to dominate the Far East which was fast becoming an American zone. Their trading status was unimportant.

    China consists of a strange mix: two First World territories (Hong Kong and Taiwan), an emergent country (mainly the seaboard) and a large Third World country. In order to become the dominant power, the emergent bit has to become First World and the Third World bit has to become emergent. This is unlike Europe (where the emergent bit is the poorest part) or the US, where the emergent and Third World parts are relatively small and mixed in with the First World part.

    On this analysis, China needs to look inwards before it looks outwards. An aggressive war would result in the destruction of the most advanced parts of China, leaving the rest back near the iron age. Europe and the US would be badly damaged but would survive and retain First World capabilities. It is simply not in the Chinese interest to damage its most valuable assets. Just like Mao, they would let the peasants starve first.

    * The War of 1812 does not figure in glorious US victories. A coalition of French Canadians, native Americans and the British successfully defended Canada and burned the White House, then the British went on to defeat Napoleon and weaken US power in the Caribbean for many years. The US turned Westwards. So much for Imperialist wars.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."