China To Overtake US In Science In Two Years

An anonymous reader writes "China is set to overtake America in scientific output as soon as 2013 — far earlier than expected. Chinese research spending has grown by 20% per year since 1999, now reaching over $100bn, and as many as 1.5 million science and engineering students graduated from Chinese universities in 2006. 'I think this is positive, of great benefit, though some might see it as a threat and it does serve as a wake-up call for us not to become complacent,' said Professor Sir Chris Llewellyn Smith. However, the report points out that a growing volume of research publications does not necessarily mean an increase in quality."

Comments

What, people measure scientific output?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there some way to objectively measure it? Number of patents, number of papers, what?

Re:What, people measure scientific output?

[user32.ExitWindowsEx]

"China is set to overtake America in scientific output as soon as 2013" sounds like something that would bubble up in a Civ 4 or 5 game.

Re:What, people measure scientific output?

[iamhassi]

Don't worry about it, we have this kid

But China does have cooler model trains than we do

Re:What, people measure scientific output?

[Lemmy Caution]

It's measured in the ability to RTFM, which Chinese scientists seems to excel at:

"The figures are based on the papers published in recognised international journals listed by the Scopus service of the publishers Elsevier."

Re:What, people measure scientific output?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Is there some way to objectively measure it? Number of patents, number of papers, what?

In two turns their SuperComputer will be completed. Since they have a higher population, they'll get more research points. But if we build a Space Station, we can overtake them in 25 years.

Re:What, people measure scientific output?

[XiaoMing]

Is there some way to objectively measure it? Number of patents, number of papers, what?

FTA:

An analysis of published research - one of the key measures of scientific effort - reveals an "especially striking" rise by Chinese science.

Chinese spending has grown by 20% per year since 1999, now reaching over $100bn, and as many as 1.5 million science and engineering students graduated from Chinese universities in 2006.

One key indicator of the value of any research is the number of times it is quoted by other scientists in their work.
Although China has risen in the "citation" rankings, its performance on this measure lags behind its investment and publication rate.

Maybe the website can list "the patience to read TFA before asking redundant questions" as one of the metrics?
Also duly noted that the last one says China still lags behind in number of citations normalized to investment/publications, but still clearly defines a metric.

Re:What, people measure scientific output?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the website can list "the patience to read TFA before asking redundant questions" as one of the metrics?

I figured it would be worthless as they'd just come up with some meaningless statistic to judge it...thanks for saving me the time.

Re:What, people measure scientific output?

[kurt555gs]

Number of Chinese scientists? We still have a lot here.

Re:What, people measure scientific output?

[kurt555gs]

The number of Chinese scientists. We still have a lot of them here in America!

Re:What, people measure scientific output?

[CyberDog3K]

It's the little beaker in the upper left hand corner of the interface.

Re:What, people measure scientific output?

[joocemann]

China also is notorious for science fraud. From my observation, which can be summed up as a 'scientist browsing and delving into various pubs regularly', when there's fraud, it's usually in China.

Re:What, people measure scientific output?

[wmac]

Scientific output normally refers to cited papers (even though it could be seen wider).

http://www.scimagojr.com/countryrank.php?area=0&category=0&region=all&year=2009&order=it&min=0&min_type=it

Narrow down to the last year. Also interestingly Iran has the highest growth rate in all countries (11 times he average of the World) and Asia is the future scientific growth region.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18546-iran-showing-fastest-scientific-growth-of-any-country.html

Re:What, people measure scientific output?

[wvmarle]

I would argue: there isn't.

After all what is the value of a particular bit of research? You would say the invention of the transistor was very valuable, but what about the enormous amount of research that went on to get to this point? The discovery of semiconductors, for example. The manufacturing techniques to actually make those parts. A bit of research never comes on its own, and it's anyway hard to put a value on it.

The information coming out of the LHC for example one person would consider fantastic and very valuable as it tells us more about how matter is built up; others will argue it's useless as while interesting to know it's not something that goes into making a new product. At least not yet. The inventor of the semiconductor also never would have thought that it would make web sites like this one possible. You don't know what the quality of a scientific discovery is.

Back to quality of scientific output: the best way probably to measure it, is citations. The more a paper is cited by other papers, the more researchers think it's valuable information and good research.

However with Chinese papers in the mix I expect two problems: one is the "link farm" effect (they cite each other), the other is language: many Chinese don't master English well enough to order a cup of coffee, let alone to write even the summary of a research paper (this is personal experience - even with university students in Hong Kong where English is the medium of education!). A lot is published in Chinese and as such pretty much inaccessible to non-Chinese researchers. The rest of the world publishes in English, which in turn is largely inaccessible to Chinese students.

Re:What, people measure scientific output?

[The Grim Reefer2]

If there is any truth to this story then they are headed down the same hill as the US, just a few years behind.

Re:What, people measure scientific output?

[Bowling Moses]

Yes and no. Here they're using a simple count of the total number of scientific articles published, and yes China will soon eclipse the USA. However not all papers, and the journals they are published it, are created equal. For instance I recently submitted a paper to the "Journal of Medical Entomology." Sounds spiffy, like the first name that slips off of the tongues of science journalists everywhere, no? Nope, it has an impact factor of 2. That means that over the preceding two years the average article published in that journal was cited by another paper twice. In my view an impact factor of 2 puts that journal at the very floor of 2nd-tier journals. Not everyone on slashdot would agree and might want four citations per two years for their floor. There's subjectivity to it certainly. However impact factor of the journal is not everything; it's just the average number. There will always be articles cited more and cited less. I've got one paper in another journal that has been cited ~5x as often as the average paper published in that journal, and another article in a third journal that...hasn't done as well. Such a spread isn't all that unusual. So besides the number of articles you've published, and in what journals (with what impact factor) you've published in, you've got how many times your articles have been cited by other articles. There are different ways of trying to compute the importance of a researcher, but one of the most common ways is the H-index. It's a way to try and work out how significant a scientist you are, but it is controversial. It is calculated simply which makes it at least somewhat popular. Say I have five published papers, the first paper has been cited 15 times, #2 11, #3 4, #4 2, and #5 once. I have an H-index of three: I have three papers that have been cited at least three times. The flaw is that even at the low level you can have vast differences of scientific importance. If I had only three papers each of which had been cited three times my H-index score would still be three. Likewise, if I had five papers with #1 cited 100 times, #2 60 times, and freshly published #3,4, and 5 cited 0 times, I'd have an H-index of 2 despite the field clearly thinking my top two papers were pretty important. There are other indexes out there, but none are perfect, and there is no perfect way to measure scientific output. However currently if you want to do science professionally you must be able to read English. All the top journals are in English, just as once upon a time all the top organic chemistry journals were in German. That's a measure of supremacy in science, but while English is the language of science today, it has been otherwise in the past and will likely change in the future.

Re:What, people measure scientific output?

[jd]

It's some function of the number of papers published and the number of times each paper is cited. (It is assumed that the more a paper is cited, the higher the quality of the paper. In a number of countries, Universities are funded according to this measure, so underfunded institutions tend to be penalized for outputing less and rich, and rich, popular institutions tend to get extra funding as they tend to publish more, get into glossier journals, and get their stuff noticed better.)

It's not a particularly rational measure, but it's one of the few measures that allow the US to excell at anything and the only measure by which the savagely mutilated British university system can get any recognition at all. Personally, I think both countries aught to fund their academic systems properly, sensibly and maturely. But please remember, ever since Cambridge University was founded by rapists escaping from Oxford University in the 12th century, there's been questions as to whether much of academia is capable of doing much with sense or maturity.

Re:What, people measure scientific output?

[jd]

That's just sour grapes. Just because the Chinese tried to fraudulantly deny Perelman his claim to solving one of the world's toughest maths problems (amongst other academic misdeeds)! Besides, academic fraud is widespread. Any South Korean cloning experts come to mind? Then there's the US medical researchers who won't publish papers that would make their sponsors look bad. The truth is, academia needs to be properly and heavily funded by Governments and those trusts that can demonstrate neutrality, not by private organizations, and there really should be a heavy crackdown on corruption.

Re:What, people measure scientific output?

[gmuslera]

If their number of patents is close to 0, then they are several years ahead of US science, and politics.

Re:What, people measure scientific output?

[dakameleon]

The problem is we've allocated too many citizens to entertainment and not enough to science and production. Also, our method of government means the citizens are restless with war weariness.

The domestic advisor recommends you build a temple to keep the populace happy.

Re:What, people measure scientific output?

[$0.02]

Basically, the Google algorithm. For every published paper you compute its rank based on the number of other published papers referencing it. Then you make a sum of all the ranks.

Re:What, people measure scientific output?

[hahn]

China also is notorious for science fraud. From my observation, which can be summed up as a 'scientist browsing and delving into various pubs regularly', when there's fraud, it's usually in China.

And so your conclusion is that they don't publish any good research and that U.S. scientists never commit fraud (or publish bullshit research)?

Re:What, people measure scientific output?

[SQL Error]

It's measured in the ability to RTFM, which Chinese scientists seems to excel at:

"The figures are based on the papers published in recognised international journals listed by the Scopus service of the publishers Elsevier."

Given some of the crap that Elsevier publishes, I'd wait for independent confirmation.

Re:What, people measure scientific output?

[joocemann]

China also is notorious for science fraud. From my observation, which can be summed up as a 'scientist browsing and delving into various pubs regularly', when there's fraud, it's usually in China.

And so your conclusion is that they don't publish any good research and that U.S. scientists never commit fraud (or publish bullshit research)?

No. That isn't my conclusion. I normally wouldn't answer a question this ridiculous, but I have a feeling you need extremely clearly stated words else your imagination starts pretending.

Re:What, people measure scientific output?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because governments are the paragons of neutrality.

Re:What, people measure scientific output?

[Swampash]

Is there some way to objectively measure it? Number of patents, number of papers, what?

Yeah, you go to the back of the line if your country has a "Creation Museum".

Re:What, people measure scientific output?

[Hojima]

It's usually measured by Libraries of Congress of peer-review journals or metric fucktonnes of Graduate student brains, but at the rate we're going, we'll be using the Bricks shit per American.

Re:What, people measure scientific output?

[Luckyo]

Traditional methods are somewhat limited. Realistically you could try measuring it in how many companies spend their R&D money there, or how many peer-reviewed articles there are published.

But in general, the "total scientific output" would require a very clear definition of such "output", and that would differ based on point of view of the speaker.

Re:What, people measure scientific output?

[mrsnobody]

In computer science at least, nearly all the best papers awards are given to United States institutions (with a minority to Canadian and European universities).

Re:What, people measure scientific output?

[satuon]

From TFA:

A sociologist originally from Shanghai, Dr Cao told the BBC: "There are many millions of graduates but they are mandated to publish so the numbers [of papers] are high.

You get what you measure.

Re:What, people measure scientific output?

[Ruie]

"China is set to overtake America in scientific output as soon as 2013" sounds like something that would bubble up in a Civ 4 or 5 game.

And the ability to beat the game at Deity level should be a requirement for any politician. After, all isn't the real thing a lot harder ?

Re:What, people measure scientific output?

[Hognoxious]

The problem is we've allocated too many citizens to entertainment

Lawyers are entertaining?

Re:What, people measure scientific output?

[Hognoxious]

Also interestingly Iran has the highest growth rate in all countries (11 times he average of the World)

Give it a rest. Growth statistics are misleading, as they're very sensitive to low starting points.

Re:What, people measure scientific output?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, those little empires that we once could just destroy with but a whim have come back...but hey, that's the funnest part of the game, that's when the real wars starts...and the nukes so we got loads to look forward to.

To bad we spent so much money in other areas, but there is still hope, we could launch a space craft to where ever and win by fleeing to space.

o.... right; china is beating us at science...Fuck..

There is only one sensible action, time to invade and eventually reload :P

Re:What, people measure scientific output?

[Anonymous Coward]

>> Is there some way to objectively measure it? Number of patents, number of papers, what?

The inverse of number of patents in fact.

The US patents system slows down innovation to a near full stop since years

Re:What, people measure scientific output?

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like the recent vaccination/autism scam in the UK.

Re:What, people measure scientific output?

[AmiMoJo]

I don't know how this got modded up. You are going to have to provide a more compelling argument than "from my observation" to back up such claims.

Re:What, people measure scientific output?

[Warwick Allison]

Your "two problems" are completely contradictory: they surely have LESS linking due to there being LESS Chinese language papers (as indeed TFA said).

Re:What, people measure scientific output?

[Anonymous Coward]

Appropriate smbc reference.

Re:What, people measure scientific output?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wake me when they have public restrooms that don't require squatting over a shithole. They scientifically have a *bunch* more people living in squallor than any "first world" country. Mmmm...rice and the smell of feces!

Re:What, people measure scientific output?

[joss]

> ever since Cambridge University was founded by rapists escaping from Oxford

Could I get a reference on that please ?

Re:What, people measure scientific output?

[HeckRuler]

But everyone knows that China pushes hard for publication, and you either publish or perish. Well, the same can be said for here, but it's significantly more dire in China. So everyone knows that while China publishes a lot of research papers, most of them are crap.

Your metric, crap it is.

Re:What, people measure scientific output?

[GooberToo]

I have a feeling you need extremely clearly stated words else your imagination starts pretending.

Welcome to /. Home of the black and white concept and literal-only interpretation.

Re:What, people measure scientific output?

[Anonymous Coward]

... But if we build a Space Station, we can overtake them in 25 years.

Duh...USA can't even get their astronauts to the ISS, have to hitch rides on other country's space ships.

OTOH we have the best ponzi schemers in the world!

Re:What, people measure scientific output?

[Antisyzygy]

After having read many Chinese papers for my job as an RA at a Lab I can confidently say there is a higher incidence of crap papers coming out of China. There are plenty of brilliant Chinese scientists I work with but I think that because China has such a huge population, and everyone there wants jobs that require higher education, there is a higher incidence of competition and so Chinese science authors publish anything that is even remotely publishable regardless of how insignificant the contribution is to gain a couple more marks on their CV.

Re:What, people measure scientific output?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

GNN Headline Update: Woosh!

Re:What, people measure scientific output?

[tehcyder]

So, in conclusion, not only are almost all Chinese people crap at science, they're also almost all crap at foreign languages too?
Certainly no ridiculous generalizing going on there.

Re:What, people measure scientific output?

[tehcyder]

Please learn to use paragraphs.
They make even relatively short posts much easier to read.
Thanks.

Re:What, people measure scientific output?

[jd]

That was caught almost immediately as bad science by virtually every academic in Britain. Not their fault that the medical scamming in the US has made everyone too paranoid to believe anything positive.

However, I =WILL= use that example to prove a point. In order to disprove the original paper, it had to be cited. By being cited by all of the critics, it automatically raised its ranking. This was a BAD paper that, by the current scoring system, became also a very valuable paper. This is precisely why such a primitive system is flawed.

Re:What, people measure scientific output?

[jd]

Everything's relative. Compared to the Creationist Museums around the world, Crystal Clear radio, or the Tea Party, then yes, governments are (relatively speaking) very neutral indeed.

Personally, I think that if you replaced one of the Houses (in any dual-house system) with a meritocratic selection system and the other with some form of proportional representation, you'd get far more neutrality and far more sense. However, that's just my opinion and you can't have it. So nyah!

However, you're missing the point entirely. I said "funded", not "run". The BBC is partly funded by the British Government but it is not run by it. They have a charter, agreeing in general terms a vague framework in exchange for the right to levy by license fee, but that's it. And that's how I like it. A corporate, semi-autonomous quango.

Universities should be run the same way. Indeed, until this year in Britain, they were. In Britain, universities were partly Government-funded under a charter that agreed there would be certain standards maintained, a certain minimum level of research, etc. The Government had no authority to dictate terms or to say what research had to be done. The current Government has violated this charter this year and risks a major collapse in the system and potentially severe social unrest (these kinds of charters are not just legally-binding, they're also honour-bound and extremely traditional - brushing them aside is a move likely to upset a LOT of people).

America has no real quangos. NASA's boss obeys Congress and can be hired/fired according to the political mood of the time. NPR isn't really a quango - it has the semi-autonomy but the Republican move to eliminate funding means there's no way to build up a charter-driven system.

As such, Americans generally don't comprehend this idea of someone being given money without having to give back devout loyalty. There just aren't that many parallels in society in the US, with most levels having abandoned any form of mutual benefit idea a long time ago. (Most people work for their paycheck, they do not work for the mutual benefit of anything or anyone. If others benefit, it's merely an incidental effect of others happening to be on the path of acquiring absolute independence.)

Re:What, people measure scientific output?

[wvmarle]

The language part is just personal experience. I live in Hong Kong, and visit the mainland regularly.

Most people across the border speak 2-3 languages already, just not English as that's no use in daily life. In Guangdong for example most people speak the language of their home town when at home; Cantonese when visiting other areas; Mandarin at school etc. and with people from other provinces. Don't forget that mandarin (the official Chinese) is a second language for the vast majority of Chinese people. And with vast majority you have to think of >90%. I've seen statistics that just 5% of the Chinese is native mandarin speaking (defined as: language the person uses when talking to their parents). They all speak their local language first, and later learn mandarin in school. Even a leader like Mao Zedong was known to struggle with his mandarin.

Re:What, people measure scientific output?

[jd]

Cambridge claims it was a murder in this history.
Cambridge clarifies that it was a murder of a woman, as a prelude to a book review

Ok, I'm going to have to say I was mistaken on the crime itself, but not of the effect.

Re:What, people measure scientific output?

[Anonymous Coward]

"heavily funded by Governments"

vs.

"demonstrate neutrality... heavy crackdown on corruption"

Make up your mind.

Re:What, people measure scientific output?

[nobodie]

here is some anecdotal stuff, but not objective measurement:
I went out to lunch today (I work in the DU Shu Lake Higher education "town" or district, all universities and colleges) and sat at a table next to 4 kids, undergrads at one of the tech vocationals in the neighborhood. They were having a hot discussion about SOB and embedded systems, that led them to a technical question that related to some higher math and one of them asked about a particular equation, another spouted the equation and wrote it with a chopstick on the table while the others nodded.
A few minutes later another (female) student reached back and tapped one of the guys and asked another question about a particular teacher and they talked about them for a bit. The consensus was that they were OK, but not great.

Now, this is a cheap noodle shop in a small town outside of Shanghai, tech students here are not the top 10%, they are probably in the bottom half in fact. But they have the passion to talk about this stuff while they are at lunch, discuss, pass on insights, interact about their education. Where is this happening in American community colleges? (about the same level)

So, how long will it take?

Re:What, people measure scientific output?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wish I had mod points for you.

Re:What, people measure scientific output?

[jc42]

The "publish or perish" principle is at work worldwide, and has a well-known effect on publication quality everywhere. True, China has pushed this rather strongly lately, and it's good grounds to look at their publication data with skepticism. But this is true to a great degree everywhere in the world.

So far, there doesn't seem to be any single reliable metric for "quality" in scientific publication. This is why a number of different metrics are used (citations, etc.), and why nobody with any sense uses any of them as anything other than a rough measure.

The topic has gotten even more complex over the past decade, asscientific "publishing" slowly migrates to the Internet. Science's PR people (;-) haven't quite figured out how to put the right spin on this yet. But stay tuned; they'll come out with metrics for online publishing, and we'll all have some new graphs to view with skepticism.

Chinese universities also have more cheating

[Joe The Dragon]

Chinese universities also have more cheating then us ones.

Re:Chinese universities also have more cheating

[JanneM]

You have any numbers supporting that assertion? Specifically, is it true when weighted by research impact?

Re:Chinese universities also have more cheating

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes.

Re:Chinese universities also have more cheating

[wvmarle]

There is a lot of anecdotal evidence of cheating.

And it's also helped by the fact that in China researchers are judged by number of papers they put out - so there is a very strong incentive for copying work from others and add maybe a bit of your own just to push out yet another paper. It's normal for a PhD at a Chinese university to have a dozen or two papers on his name when graduating; against just a few for PhDs at European or American universities.

Cheating is considered a large problem within universities in China - not only universities but also other parts of the whole education system. I've read about doctors working in hospitals with bought certificates. Recently it was pilots flying commercial Chinese airliners without having actually passed the exams. It's a real problem - and arguably part of the problem is the lack of checks and balances. These pilot licenses should have been verified with the school that purportedly issued them, for example, yet airliners were too busy expanding that they didn't do this. I wouldn't be surprised if more bribes were involved in not having those licenses checked.

Quality of Chinese research in general is still low. They will surely pick up to the game sooner or later, and there are definitely very good Chinese researchers around. Just have a look at the top universities in the US: many of their top researchers nowadays are Chinese nationals. Oh and that they are working in the US and not in their home country is not just because.

Re:Chinese universities also have more cheating

[JanneM]

Yes, there is cheating going on, of course there is. Problem is, cheating is going on elsewhere too, and with only anecdotal evidence it's hard to determine to what degree there really is more cheating in China than in, say, the US or Europe, and to what degree it is a matter of perception.

"And it's also helped by the fact that in China researchers are judged by number of papers they put out [...]"

Yep. But so are researchers everywhere. Your publication count - how many papers, with what impact factor - largely determines your future career no matter where you work. Is that good? No. There's lots of negatives with such a system. Is it a fact of life at the moment? Yes, unfortunately.

"Quality of Chinese research in general is still low. "

Which is why I was asking for a rigorous comparison. My feeling is - I have little hard data - that cheating is more common at lower-level schools than higher-level ones; and at earlier career stages than at later ones, simply because the benefits of cheating is greater, and the risk of getting caught is smaller, in the former cases than the latter.

So to determine relative levels of scientific fraud you need to control for both those factors, and compare research at similar quality levels, from comparable institutions, performed by people at similar stages in their careers. Not easy. But necessary if we're going to go from guesses to real data.

Re:Chinese universities also have more cheating

[Dayze!Confused]

If it's anything like my experience in Taiwan then I'm not surprised at all. I went to driving school in Taiwan to get my local license. The school consisted of 5 days a week for 6 weeks we went to school and had a "driving instructor" tell us how to take the test on the course that they have at their school. Their school is also certified to have the test taken there. There are little rocks and other curiously placed items, plus extra large side mirrors and triangular mud flaps, to help aid you along. When taught to back into a parking space I was told to line up a light pole with my passenger door and turn the wheel all the way, when I see the line is parallel with the triangular mudflap then I stop, turn the wheel back to the straight position and back up until the triangular mudflap points at the white line behind me.
Parallel parking was much the same. Line the triangular mudflap up with a rock that happens to have been painted into the fog line on the road, turn the wheel until it can't turn anymore and backup until the other wheels triangular mudflap hits the fog line and then stop. Turn the wheel all the way back in the other direction and then back up, perfectly parallel parked each time.
The "driving instructor" only sat with you the first couple days, then he figured you pretty much got it and then could go off and bs with his buddies. If you got bored of driving around the same track for two hours you could go inside where you get to practice taking the exact same test that you will have to take at the DMV for the written portion.
The real kicker is, although your "driving instructor" may be a "certified tester" he can't test his own students, so another one of the "driving instructors" will probably test you. They'll help you cheat the whole time while taking the driving test. There is a part where you have to stop on a hill and are not allowed to roll backwards. The "certified tester" will actually press the break for you on his side of the car so that you can make it through this part without failing. After the test, even if you did it perfectly, they will at least dock you 4 points on some random line JUST so that the government doesn't get suspicious that everyone is passing with 100%. I have driven a car for 10 years and I did everything right, but he docked me a couple points on the clutch not being steady, or not shifting smoothly, which was complete BS.

There is a huge business for so called "Cram Schools" here. They are schools made to help students "get ahead" of their peers. But everybody goes to them. For some reason people can't accept that their teachers at school are sufficient to teach their children so they ship them of to cram school for 3-4 hours after school, which starts at 7am and gets out around 4-5pm. You can imagine daycare isn't really needed for those mothers who choose not to stay at home but go out and work, they can just send them off to learn what they should have learned in school. Most people I've talked to have explained that what they do in the "Cram Schools" is just teach them how to pass the test that their teacher will give.

Granted it's not as bad as it used to be, where teachers would actually purposefully not teach things in their class and then set up a cram school right across from the school where they did the real teaching.

I can only assume that this goes on in china still. That and their cookie cutter format to school. You literally have the same class through half of elementary, all of middle, and through the last two years of high school. In high school, after one year you decide if you want science and math or social studies and art. You spend your final year pretty much just taking tests and getting ready to take tests.

Once in college, which is determined by how well you did on your tests, and a University is separated into multiple "Colleges", when just applying for college you already have to have predetermined which major you want, because when you apply for "College" it is a "College" within the

Re:Chinese universities also have more cheating

[jelizondo]

Right, perhaps we need some citations from 2006 and 2008 or maybe read some books from 15 years ago to find that indeed the ol' US of A is falling behind instead of anecdotes of a cheating driving school.

I'm NOT an American, but I have lived and worked in the USA and one of my daughters went to school there and I'll tell you, children are promoted even if they should have to take remedial classes or flunk, so spare the anecdotes and give us some hard statistics to prove the USA is not falling behind.

Re:Chinese universities also have more cheating

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you'll find it was Indian pilots who were found to be faking their license, not Chinese

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=chinese+pilots+fake+license

Be careful not to confuse one emerging super power with the other :)

Re:Chinese universities also have more cheating

[petman]

You do realise that Taiwan (Republic of China) has a totally different government and education system from the People's Republic of China, don't you?

Re:Chinese universities also have more cheating

[toutankh]

By the way, the effort in China to produce a lot of papers does not only consist in submitting a lot of papers. There is also an increasing number of new Chinese journals, some of them of questionable reviewing process. I recently had to review a paper for "The journal of xxxxxx University". Such journals are highly questionable. For instance, will scientists from xxxxxx university be subject to the same reviewing process as other people? I initially wanted to refuse but finally accepted to review it, for various reasons including curiosity about how strict or complacent the editor can be.
I must also add that when submitting the review I was asked to enter my address so that they can send me a gift. I did not fill it and received a gift nonetheless. In the end it really feels like they try to buy referee reports so that some research output can be increased.

Re:Chinese universities also have more cheating

[Anonymous Coward]

considering that there are more Chinese than US citizens then there are probably more students there too. Consequently more students means more cheating. Unless of course Chinese people in general and students and scientists specifically are different then others which they are not.
Do you have some other problems to clarify?

Re:Chinese universities also have more cheating

[Anonymous Coward]

then us ones

One typo, lower case letters and no punctuation for the abbreviation. There you have why "us" is not "outlooking so good".

Re:Chinese universities also have more cheating

[Dayze!Confused]

I know that they have a different government and education system, although the education system I would assume is like it is in Taiwan and Japan, going off other peoples experiences that I know in Taiwan who have lived in China, including a professor at one of their universities, and what I've seen through television and what not.

You may also note that I qualified my statement in the first line by saying

If it's anything like my experience in Taiwan

that way you may know this is from my experience in Taiwan.

But I would say that the culture is still shared between China and Taiwan, and it is this culture that seems to encourage this cookie cutter approach to education and innovation. Reading forums it seems that this is also evidenced in Japan also where they care about where the degree is from and that the person got top of class and not so much as to whether or not they know how to apply the knowledge that they have supposedly obtained during these 16 years of schooling.

Thanks for trying to tear apart my argument without showing any evidence to the contrary.

Re:Chinese universities also have more cheating

[Anonymous Coward]

Interestingly, this also sounds like India.

Re:Chinese universities also have more cheating

[Anonymous Coward]

"There is a lot of anecdotal evidence of cheating"

And of course the plural of anecdote is still not DATA.

Re:Chinese universities also have more cheating

[Anonymous Coward]

And it's also helped by the fact that in China researchers are judged by number of papers they put out

So are researchers everywhere, including American academics. See: "publish or perish", "minimum publishable unit", etc. Yes, ideally they'll be judged by quality as well as quantity. But in most cases, people count papers.

Re:Chinese universities also have more cheating

[BrianPRabbit]

There is a lot of anecdotal evidence of cheating.

The key word in that sentence is "anecdotal". Unless some studies can corroborate the claim the existence anecdotal evidence, IMHO, is unhelpful and irrelevant, unless that evidence leads to investigation to corroborate the otherwise rumors of cheating.

Hmm, such investigation could help raise U.S. research output. ;-)

Re:Chinese universities also have more cheating

[BrianPRabbit]

That should read, "corroborate the claim, the existence of anecdotal evidence ...".

Re:Chinese universities also have more cheating

[Antisyzygy]

It seems easier to get a doctoral degree from a Chinese university as well. For example, I work with a Chinese guy that will spend three years here in a research capacity on an exchange program, not take a single course, publish a few papers, and THATS his PhD. He also told me he never paid attention in class in China for undergrad and just studied for the notorious exams when they came up. Hes a smart and nice guy, but he doesn't do a whole lot of independent research. He just does what he is told. I wish I could do what I am told for three years and have a PhD, but something tells me its not worth that much.

Re:Chinese universities also have more cheating

[tehcyder]

There is a lot of anecdotal evidence of cheating.

Oh well, that settles it then.
I saw a pig fly once. True story.

Re:Chinese universities also have more cheating

[Anonymous Coward]

International comparisons are, and always have been, a minefield. Statistical tricks for the pride of the motherland, if you're into bragging about your own country. Or stretched negative interpretations if you're trying to push your country in a different direction.

For example, I've seen sets of numbers showing the US continually improving - in the same article that tries to scaremonger about 'falling behind' nations that have been ahead in test scores for decades and with which the gap is actually narrowing. One of your links is kind of like that. Curiously, no one ever shows any definitive proof of an actual decline, though. Not that graduation rates are declining (and not even that standards for graduation are declining; actually, I've seen complaints that the requirements keep going UP) or that dropout rates are going up. Not that national literacy rates are declining. Not that national college degree achievement ('real' accredited degrees only) is declining. Not that the standards for college degree achievement are declining. Somehow whenever one of these 'US falling behind' articles comes up, it's always stuffed full of anecdotes, and when I'm lucky and there's at least a chart with raw scores, the scores aren't going down, and when there's a chart of some other nation for comparison it's doing the statistician's sin (extending the trend at the end forward into the future).

When all the actual number say things are the same or stable, the burden of proof is on the ones who want to contradict that (saying things are one the decline).

All of this being exacerbated by the generic "China! boogabooga! boo!" scare thing, of course. As if a nation rising from total failure to "normal" somehow redefines the state of all other normal nations to "falling behind". (Essentially, redefining "falling behind" from, you know, being significantly *behind* to just not being incredibly far ahead anymore). As if there isn't an expected normal human peak a nation would reach with standard education and nutrition, and instead you can extend the high part of a curve forever and that means oh my god they're going to be our mutant overlord hyperintelligent brains-in-jars in ten years, start practicing groveling now! instead of, say, them following the exact same curve everyone else did which would lead to the exact same cluster of scores that the top 30 or so nations already run in.

Re:Chinese universities also have more cheating

[StikyPad]

Nice try. It's always best to introduce a few mistakes when cheating to create plausible deniability, but deliberately misspelling "than" and failing to capitalize "US" is just too obvious.

Re:Chinese universities also have more cheating

[Anonymous Coward]

Then US ones did what? C'mon now don't keep us in suspense or are you another one of those American spastics that don't know the difference between then and than?

Re:Chinese universities also have more cheating

[Grishnakh]

That certainly isn't great, but at least it's better than the USA where we don't even bother doing any real driver training or testing at all.

My driving test, for instance consisted of:
1) Pull out of parking space in parking lot of strip-mall-located DMV (located at the corner of two medium-size streets).
2) Drive to road, take a right turn.
3) Drive 200 ft to stop light, and turn right.
4) Drive 100-200 ft to entrance to strip mall parking lot and turn right.
5) Park.

Did my test consist of any left turns? No. Changing lanes? No. Driving on a highway? No. Parallel parking? No. It was a total joke.

I'd say a system where cheating on tests is rampant is better than one where there isn't even a real test and people are allowed to operate dangerous equipment at high speeds with no training and no testing, other than showing they know how to operate the wheel and pedals.

Re:Chinese universities also have more cheating

[Dayze!Confused]

My test in Taiwan was on a closed course, and during the 45 days of schooling we don't have a driving permit to go out with a licensed driver. I grew up in Washington state and my test there was fairly good.
1) Parallel parking at the DMV (hard to find a dynamic place to parallel park, so it makes sense)
2) Right turn out of DMV
3) Change lanes to the left, go through lighted intersection obeying traffic signals.
4) Change lanes back to the right, right turn into an (forgive my English, been out of states for too long) uncontrolled neighborhood (no stop signs or other traffic stuff)
5) Left and right turns, slowing down while approaching uncontrolled intersections
6) Parking on a hill with/out a curb.
7) Backing around a corner
8) Going back to the DMV
9) Reviewing how you did on the test and where you could improve EVEN if you passed the test

I guess it really depends on where you live. Comparing my two experiences were like night and day. The Washington test had points where each section was a maximum of four and tested you on various aspects such as proper signaling and looking with your head to lane travel and car control. The Taiwan test, in contrast, had 30 point penalties for rolling backwards while starting on a steep hill, or 15 point penalties for hitting a sensor that is on the inside of the white/yellow line while driving forward/backward.

Although I did hear from my instructor that Taiwan was going to be switching to a similar method as they do in the states where they drive in traffic for the test. Needless to say the instructors were non too happy because this means that it would be much harder for them to keep up their 100% pass advertisement while not actually teaching much about driving.

Re:Chinese universities also have more cheating

[Grishnakh]

My test was in Tennessee. Needless to say, they don't have the greatest drivers there. But they're nowhere near as bad as the drivers here in Arizona where I live now.

Quantity

[Anonymous Coward]

Quantity =/= quality.

Who will be first to automate outsourcing?

[Anonymous Coward]

In communist China, jobs outsource you.

Definition of a grad student...

[russotto]

...a machine for turning ramen into "scientific output".

Re:Definition of a grad student...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ramen is a Japanese thing.

Re:Definition of a grad student...

[Anonymous Coward]

Which they took from the Chinese.

Re:Definition of a grad student...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry. China is becoming more successful. This means that students will end up in business courses rather than something useful like science/maths.

Once this next generation of parasites is let loose on the Chinese economy sucking the lifeblood out of it like a fat leech... they'll bankrupt it and need bailing out from the next big economic boom zone - India maybe.

It's the circle of life. The wheel of fortune... come on Americans... sing along with me.

Re:Definition of a grad student...

[betterunixthanunix]

s/ramen/stimulants and sources of calories/g

Re:Definition of a grad student...

[artor3]

Whoosh...

Re:Definition of a grad student...

[rubycodez]

Look it up, ramen is a japanese dish made with chinese wheat noodles more importantly, grad school students may or may not produce anything useful, but they all turn food into poop

Re:Definition of a grad student...

[outsider007]

Lo mein doesn't have the same ring to it.

Re:Definition of a grad student...

[rrohbeck]

All scientists are followers of the Church of the FSM? Interesting.

Re:Definition of a grad student...

[tehcyder]

The thing is, if all thee people are parasites, who keeps employing them and why? Surely the shareholders and ruthless company directors should be keeping their business-parasite quotient down as low as possible?

Re:Definition of a grad student...

[Anonymous Coward]

They aren't parasites on the financial company.

They are parasites on the economy. Unlike other industries, the financial sector is a massive leech sucking the life out of country's economy - it takes more and more for itself.

That's why these financial companies keep hiring them.

Not surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

When I hear things like Texas wants to slash 10 billion dollars from the public education budget. Or did that not get through?

Re:Not surprising

[fox171171]

The United Corporations of America (formerly USA) do not need or want the citizens to be smart. It only needs them to be consumers.

Re:Not surprising

[Brett Buck]

So you have some data correlating the amount of money spent to kids learning proper English, math, and science? I would be fascinated.

Re:Not surprising

[rubycodez]

Most of the money spent on education is wasted, look at at breakdown of your local schools for percent admin, special education, debt servicing, retirement benefits, etc. Slashing 25% or more across the board wouldn't need to change the amount spent on actually teaching.

Re:Not surprising

[rubycodez]

Forty years ago when I was young, we spent a quarter of the inflation-adjusted amount on education as we do today, and actually learned history, geography, English, and mathematics. Half the students today can not find the United States on a globe. There seems to be an inverse correlation.

Re:Not surprising

[Tablizer]

When I hear things like Texas wants to slash 10 billion dollars from the public education budget...

Now they'll never finish their English-to-Foxnews translation of history books.
   

Re:Not surprising

[Brett Buck]

That would be my observation as well. I would note that the number of NEA agitators and highly-paid official seems to have grown astronomically. So I really can't see why the money hasn't gotten any better results - quite puzzling.

Re:Not surprising

[Maxo-Texas]

And 40 years ago, a huge number of very smart americans were not allowed to earn a decent living elsewhere and so they went into teaching. You know.. women.

Not happening today.
Plus we practically had a mono-culture which made things more efficient.
Plus (supporting your point) we were teaching harder material earlier and just failing out people who didn't get it (lots of high school drop outs) so the folks who did get it actually learned something.

Re:Not surprising

[timeOday]

Do you have any particular reason for thinking education has gone downhill? Judging by SAT scores, average SAT math scores have gone up a bit while verbal skills have gone down somewhat over the last 40 years. That's actually good, considering a larger percentage of all students take the SAT than 40 years ago, bringing down the average score.

Re:Not surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

When I hear things like Texas wants to slash 10 billion dollars from the public education budget.

You do what? Finish the fricking sentence, you 'tard.

Re:Not surprising

[rubycodez]

You are apparently unaware of the "SAT Dumb Down", which has happened several times in the last 40 years.

Re:Not surprising

[tehcyder]

So you have some data correlating the amount of money spent to kids learning proper English, math, and science? I would be fascinated.

I imagine if you spend nothing on education you get fewer people educated, but that's just a guess.

Re:Not surprising

[Grishnakh]

Plus we practically had a mono-culture which made things more efficient.

True, and I think that's one reason the country is falling apart. There's too much diversity. People can't agree on some of the most basic things, like whether kids should spend their time in "ethnic studies" classes, or whether kids who don't bother to study should be passed to the next grade so their self-esteem isn't hurt.

The answer is simple: the country needs to break up into 5-10 smaller countries. Then, diversity won't be a big problem, because people as far away from each other as Alaska, Maine, Florida, Texas, and southern California won't all be fighting to push their ways onto each other, or avoid the same. People in Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont have a lot in common with each other, but not with people in southern California or southern Florida, where a lot of people don't even speak English (and refuse to learn it). If we split up the country, these things won't be a problem any more. The southwest can be a separate country where Spanish is the official language, southern Florida can break away and join Cuba as a single country, the New England states can break away and form their own country (and maybe the Canadian Maritime provinces might join them: Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, etc.). The Pacific Northwest states can form a new country called Cascadia, and northern California might join them, as might British Columbia, where the people have much more in common with Washingtonians and Oregonians than with Quebecoi. Then Quebec can break away from Canada and finally do things their own way, as they've always wanted to do.

This "united we stand" stuff is overrated crap. Unity with people you have little in common with only causes problems and infighting.

Re:Not surprising

[Maxo-Texas]

We have diversity in the south at a neighborhood level. It's not going to be possible to split up. And I agree, we can't even agree on what is reasonable noise levels and reasonable times of day to have loud noise much less school standards, legal standards, and other items.

I suspect its like that in most states at least (so groups of states would still have diverse cultures).

Re:Not surprising

[tehcyder]

Most of the money spent on education is wasted, look at at breakdown of your local schools for percent admin, special education, debt servicing, retirement benefits, etc. Slashing 25% or more across the board wouldn't need to change the amount spent on actually teaching.

Yes, and in the same way any commercial organisation is just wasting money by employing secretaries, receptionists, finance staff, filing clerks, HR staff, legal staff, as well as paying them retirement benefits, holidays , etc. You don't need any overheads to run a business at all, so you should be able to cut 25, 50 or even 100% of them, resulting in increased profitability with no down side whatsoever.

You are a buffoon, sir..

Re:Not surprising

[rubycodez]

You are the buffoon, ignorant of human nature, and it is laughable you imagine public education as being run like any profitable business.

I have worked at a dot-com startup with less than a hundred employee, that was given a couple hundred of millions of dollars by investors. The company proceeded to waste tens of millions of dollars per year on unneeded staff and equipment, lavish bonuses were given out, incredible company outings and parties thrown. Needless to say, when the money ran out in a few fun-filled years, most the people were thrown out the door, most the gear sold, moved from beautiful high rise in one of nation's largest cities to tiny building. The problem with the educational system (and the entire U.S. federal government) is exactly the same as this internet startup, with exactly the same problems and needing exactly the same solution.

Re:Not surprising

[Grishnakh]

You're going to have some kind of diversity no matter what. But my point is that, by breaking up the country into smaller units, the diversity within any one country will be much reduced, resulting in less infighting. Yes, you're still going to have problems, but it's less than when you try to decide on school standards with people from places as far apart as Alaska and Miami. (Someone here is probably going to say that this is a State issue, but in reality it's not, as the Federal government has been getting heavily involved in things that used to be State issues, such as with No Child Left Behind, and there's no going back.)

Look at Europe, for example. The local cultures between, say, Greece and Ireland, or Spain and Finland, are very very different, but they don't have to fight about it because they're in separate (and quite small) countries. Spain, for instance, still thinks it's cool to torture bulls for fun, and more advanced European countries know that this is barbaric, so it's only done in Spain and they don't have to fight about it in politics. Of course, Spain is changing, and itself is composed of different regions with different values, such as Catalonia which has banned bullfighting recently, and maybe Spain itself will even break up before long as it has different regions with different languages (notably the Basque region which straddles the Spain-France border). But in the meantime, instead of fighting about every single issue that may take generations to resolve, the way we in the USA are with whether we should teach Creationism as Science, they simply stay in separate countries, many no bigger than our own states (Ireland only has 5m for instance, about the size of my state of Arizona). But, to eliminate the inefficiency of separate currencies and customs and all across a dozen+ countries, they have a trade and economic union, and as a consequence, the Euro is doing quite well right now, despite the debt problems in Portugal, Greece, and Ireland.

this is the thing that bothers me

[phantomfive]

'I think this is positive, of great benefit, though some might see it as a threat and it does serve as a wake-up call for us not to become complacent,' said Professor Sir Chris Llewellyn Smith

Science is absolutely not a competition. Was Argentina harmed because the US went to the moon? Was Russia harmed when penicillin was discovered? No, not at all. China's increased scientific research is a benefit to all of us.

The only way you could possibly twist this into a bad thing is if you think China is going to become a military power and try to take over the world. But it's a LONG logical stretch between "greater scientific spending" and "army capable of conquering the rest of the world." So let's cheer up a little and not look at everything through the lens of fear. This is great!

Re:this is the thing that bothers me

[Anonymous Coward]

Plus now we can steal all their Intellectual Property instead of them stealing ours.

Re:this is the thing that bothers me

[taktoa]

Well, China may spend a lot on science, but has comparatively few important innovations (in the last 100 years). I mean, try to think of one game-changing Chinese invention (in China) from the last 100 years. The idea that we're slipping behind China technologically is utter bullshit.

Re:this is the thing that bothers me

[geek]

Science is absolutely about competition. The "Space Race" was the single greatest time in scientific advancement in history. Being the first to do something great is a fantastic motivator. It is also very rewarding and drives people to do their best work as well as drives people to question the results.

I can't think of anything more scientific than competition. The desire to be better, to do better, to create and innovate are all competitive.

Re:this is the thing that bothers me

[Doctorer]

Your argument is flawed, because they are already a large military power who have repeatedly demonstrated their desire to conquer the world.

Re:this is the thing that bothers me

[Anonymous Coward]

Time to hit the history books.

You possess a certain optimism and naivete that can only be tempered with uncomfortable hard facts... Unfortunately.

Re:this is the thing that bothers me

[lennier]

Science is absolutely not a competition. Was Argentina harmed because the US went to the moon?

John F Kennedy, 1961: "We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade, and do the other things, not because it is easy but because it will annoy Argentina."

Re:this is the thing that bothers me

[phantomfive]

they are already a large military power

Their power is but a shadow of the United States and an even smaller portion of the entire world.

have repeatedly demonstrated their desire to conquer the world.

Oh yeah? Back this one up with a well written, fact-based post and you'll get a +5 informative. But I seriously doubt you can do it.

Re:this is the thing that bothers me

[DrFalkyn]

Science is absolutely not a competition. Was Argentina harmed because the US went to the moon? Was Russia harmed when penicillin was discovered? No, not at all. China's increased scientific research is a benefit to all of us.

Was Europe harmed by German research in the 1930s?

Re:this is the thing that bothers me

[Doctorer]

I'm not so hooked on /. cookies to do the work for you.

Re:this is the thing that bothers me

[phantomfive]

In other words, your post is nothing more than speculation. The fact is, there is no evidence China wants to conquer the world. And you know it.

Re:this is the thing that bothers me

[Anonymous Coward]

Which means you haven't done the work at all. Making shit up and passing it as truth seems to be a huge passtime these days.

Re:this is the thing that bothers me

[Doctorer]

In other words, I'm not going to write a peer-review quality thesis for your "+5 insightful". And you know it.

Re:this is the thing that bothers me

[Anonymous Coward]

Benefits us all. Benefits them financially relative to other exporters of science.

Re:this is the thing that bothers me

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Well, China may spend a lot on science, but has comparatively few important innovations (in the last 100 years). I mean, try to think of one game-changing Chinese invention (in China) from the last 100 years.

The idea that we're slipping behind China technologically is utter bullshit.

I know, I know, this is slashdot, and asking you to RTFA is useless. But seriously, you don't have to read the article, or even the summary, because right in the article title it says "overtake US in science in two years," so what does the last hundred years have to do with anything?

(oh, and I'd call the synthesis of insulin - one of the first proteins ever synthesized a game changer, you on the other hand, may beg to differ).

Re:this is the thing that bothers me

[phantomfive]

Suit yourself.

Re:this is the thing that bothers me

[ub3r n3u7r4l1st]

There are trailer trash who reads /. and speculate racist BS unfortunately.

Re:this is the thing that bothers me

[MoonBuggy]

How about just one citation from a respectable source to back up the opinion which you decided to take the time to share with us?

Re:this is the thing that bothers me

[quenda]

repeatedly demonstrated their desire to conquer the world.

Funny then that they didn't start with Hong Kong or Macau. The 2nd Guandong Boy-Scout brigade equivalent could have taken Macau at any time over decades.

Re:this is the thing that bothers me

[Anonymous Coward]

The only way you could possibly twist this into a bad thing is if you think China is going to become a military power and try to take over the world. But it's a LONG logical stretch between "greater scientific spending" and "army capable of conquering the rest of the world." So let's cheer up a little and not look at everything through the lens of fear. This is great!

No. US corporations will lose money and power, and get US government to become increasingly restrictive to maintain as much money and power as possible, worse than now. That is something to fear, but I for one, welcome our new US overlords. Oh wait, they are not new at all.

Re:this is the thing that bothers me

[JanneM]

"Your argument is flawed, because they are already a large military power who have repeatedly demonstrated their desire to conquer the world."

This is all about openly published research. Research that is open to everyone no matter where it's performed. Military considerations do not enter into it.

Re:this is the thing that bothers me

[kendbluze]

Science may not be a competition, but technology certainly is. One thing leads to another...

Re:this is the thing that bothers me

[gmuslera]

Patent science knowledge, and then it becomes a competition. Add extra points if you manage to harm commerce of countries that don't follow your definition of patents (i.e. only are valid what our citizens invent, the other country inventions could wait till some of us do the same).

Science used to be standing over the shoulders of giants... now is steping over everyone else to claim everything as yours.

Re:this is the thing that bothers me

[Cheech Wizard]

Your argument is flawed, because they are already a large military power who have repeatedly demonstrated their desire to conquer the world.

Let me think a moment... Which country is now in 3 outright wars (Iraq {which isn't over}, Afghanistan and now Libya {by proxy of the UN/NATO}) and one shadow war (Pakistan). I wonder which country in the world really does want to take over the world...

Re:this is the thing that bothers me

[rubycodez]

Chinese invention of hybrid rice in mid 1970s allowing 6 tons per acre yield was game changer in asia. Artimisinin made by the Chinese in 1972 is used to globally to treat for drug-resistant malaria and blood flukes. Some say the Tianhe-1A supercomputer, the world's fastest, is a game changer too.

Re:this is the thing that bothers me

[ub3r n3u7r4l1st]

or Taiwan, for that matter.

Re:this is the thing that bothers me

[Anonymous Coward]

The only way you could possibly twist this into a bad thing is if you think China is going to become a military power and try to take over the world. But it's a LONG logical stretch between "greater scientific spending" and "army capable of conquering the rest of the world." So let's cheer up a little and not look at everything through the lens of fear. This is great!

Uhm, China is a military power and does have an army capable of conquering the world. Perhaps you haven't been paying attention but they soundly defeated U.N. forces in Korea and nearly defeated U.S. soldiers with an army fighting in the winter without shoes or bullets. They simply surrounded the U.S. soldiers and kept attacking with bayonets until they ran out of ammo. And this was the year following the civil war.

Know what? In their next war, the Chinese army will have shoes. And plenty of bullets this time, too. What the U.S. needs to do is cut this defense budget that is not being used for anything defensive and use it to pay for every U.S. citizen to attend college for free in pursuit of an advanced degree (the bachelor's you'll have to earn yourself, but the states should go back to inexpensive education as well).

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2011/01/117_77104.html

http://www.koreanwar-educator.org/topics/chosin/vallowe_research/vallowe_chapter_08.htm

Re:this is the thing that bothers me

[Anonymous Coward]

The Tianhe isn't a game changer. There's nothing fundamentally changed by it. It's just more processors.

Wake me up when there's something NEW in supercomputing... and not just a processor core pissing match.

Re:this is the thing that bothers me

[rubycodez]

Yes, there is fundamental change in that the west didn't make it, and the next version will use chinese processors. Harbinger of things to come, the decline of the west.

Re:this is the thing that bothers me

[jelizondo]

So that the comment doesn't become redundant, I'll link to it.

Not only is the USA slipping behind China, it is slipping behind other developed nations.

I'm not an American so I can't vote in your elections but you CAN.

Vote for more education and stricter measurements for advancing children to the next grade.

You might find it funny that a non-American urges you to strengthen your country, but I rather deal with the USA (with all its warts) than with China as the global super-power.

So don' t hide your head in the sand and do something about it now!

Re:this is the thing that bothers me

[jelizondo]

I'll risk my karma by calling you stupid.

When was the last time China conquered or acquired by conquest any land?

China holds today the territory it had about 200 years before Christ. Please cite any examples of China holding territory gained thru war in the last 200 years.

Now, the USA has acquired land by military power recently in comparison: half of Mexico (1845), Puerto Rico (1898), Guam (1898), Hawaii (1898) or made "protectorates" or installed "friendly regimes" in Chile (1973), Iraq (1963, 1973 and 1983), Guatemala (1993), Venezuela (2002), etc. etc.

Re:this is the thing that bothers me

[purpledinoz]

Science is absolutely not a competition.

But it's the sign of the times. Bright people are lured into finance, rather than science, for the big buck they can earn at Goldman Sachs.

Re:this is the thing that bothers me

[MasaMuneCyrus]

Oh yeah? Back this one up with a well written, fact-based post and you'll get a +5 informative. But I seriously doubt you can do it.

Well, on one hand the state forces foreign companies to make 49%/51% joint Chinese-owned company ventures in order to have access to the Chinese market. Once foreign firms get access and have spent a considerable amount of resources getting started in China, the state forces them to manufacture a certain percent of their product in China, NOT by themselves, but it should be subcontracted out to a Chinese company (e.g., Honda China can't make, design, and manufacture all their own stuff, they have to transfer technology to some Chinese company so that the Chinese company can make it... if you don't follow their rules, the state can simply legislate your technology away, or worse). Once you've transferred sufficient technology to the Chinese company, you start wondering why no more orders for your products are coming in, and then you realize that it's because the very Chinese company you've partnered with is now making the product 100% in China without your help and "entirely of their own innovation."
http://ampontan.wordpress.com/2010/10/17/letter-bombs-11-coming-up-on-the-rail/

So there's our economic domination. And that's just one example of it. There's lots more, and it's in the news very frequently.

Then we have border disputes. China claims or has, in the past 10 years, claimed territory of: Japan, North Korea, South Korea, Taiwan (the entire country at missile-point, no less), Russia, India, Bhutan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Philippines, Brunei, Tajikstan, and any other country that has the misfortune to be touching them that isn't on their payroll. The People's Liberation Army annually ventures into Bhutan dozens of times. The government not only holds onto old conflicts which they have dubious claim, but starts new conflicts semi-frequently. We've also seen that when the CPC is pissed about a border, the Chinese media is used to intentionally and flagrantly lie about the facts in order to stir up nationalism. They have also shown that they will put the government's hand in everything, ranging from travel agents to school exchange trips to locking up the offending country's nationals for "espionage" (punishable by death) to economic embargoes meant to force countries to bend backwards and obey. Of course, the CPC will deny any involvement in any of these actions.

The People's Liberation Army continues to modernize and deploy more force aimed directly at Taiwan. The PLA "defense" budget continues to grow in the double digit percents every year, and it's almost exclusively aimed at Taiwan and the US -- it's still less than 20% of the US def

Re:this is the thing that bothers me

[MasaMuneCyrus]

I found this comment on chinaSMACK, but I think it fits well here, too.

Chinasmack Rule 1. Subcategory A:
i) A commenter cannot criticize one country without criticizing America in equal or greater amounts. If a poster criticizes China that person is inevitably from America, and must be met equal and opposite criticisms of the US (e.g. “But, but, America!”).

Thank you Cheech Wizard, you are in compliance with protocol and will be allowed further commenting privileges.

Re:this is the thing that bothers me

[Yvanhoe]

Which will only stay true if we manage to solve this IP laws madness before it is too late.

Re:this is the thing that bothers me

[Anonymous Coward]

Guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people.

Re:this is the thing that bothers me

[Ruie]

'I think this is positive, of great benefit, though some might see it as a threat and it does serve as a wake-up call for us not to become complacent,' said Professor Sir Chris Llewellyn Smith

Science is absolutely not a competition. Was Argentina harmed because the US went to the moon? Was Russia harmed when penicillin was discovered? No, not at all. China's increased scientific research is a benefit to all of us.

Keep in mind that for a while penicillin was an important military asset, as it greatly increased the survival rate of wounded soldiers during World War 2.

Re:this is the thing that bothers me

[phantomfive]

That's good to know, and actually really interesting. But I don't think we'll be going to war against China. At least, no more than we went to war against Russia during the cold war.

Re:this is the thing that bothers me

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, wrong. Science absolutely IS a competition, and if you think otherwise you're turning a blind eye to the entire history of the Scientific method. Competition is the hallmark of Science... and of mankind in general.

Was Argentina harmed because the US went to the moon?

No. Was the US harmed when we lost the World Cup? No. Does that make Soccer NOT a competition? No.

Does competition == harm? No.

China's increased scientific research is a benefit to all of us.

No, it's a benefit only if they share that research.

The only way you could possibly twist this into a bad thing is if you think China is going to become a military power and try to take over the world.

IF they will become a military power? Hello have you bothered to read ANY history? China is, and has been, a major military power for quite some time. If you feel the need to argue, I'd suggest you start by talking to some people in Tibet.

The mistake that Prof. Smith is making, is assuming that we have not yet become complacent. We've BEEN complacent for the last 20 years (at least).

Re:this is the thing that bothers me

[Anonymous Coward]

Yellow peril and all that. How 1930s of you.

The Tianhe uses Intel Xeon processors and NVIDIA GPUs.

Re:this is the thing that bothers me

[delinear]

I'm not sure I follow your economic reasoning - most countries actively engage in some level of protectionism. This comes down to how much they think they can get away with - the reason China can get away with so much is because lots of companies want to do business with them - that's a willing partnership no matter how onerous it may seem, there's nothing stopping those businesses giving up the Chinese market and going elsewhere, so to that extent China is hardly forcing anything on anyone (and I suspect, as the standard of living increases there and pushes up the cost of doing business, they'll find their strong bartering position equally eroded as in the West).

Re:this is the thing that bothers me

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with competition: when taken too far, it breeds a fixation on "winning". This can lead to shortcuts and cheating. thereby negating the majority of the benefit.

Re:this is the thing that bothers me

[Warwick Allison]

I suspect the US will start saying "let's all work together, instead of competing" at about the time when the rest of the world has stopped listening to it. A bit like how Norway will ask to join the EU when their oil runs out and they need an export market for goat cheese.

Re:this is the thing that bothers me

[Warwick Allison]

Indeed, from the original Royal Society report, 35% of papers are now international.

Re:this is the thing that bothers me

[Masterofpsi]

Science is absolutely not a competition. Was Argentina harmed because the US went to the moon? Was Russia harmed when penicillin was discovered? No, not at all. China's increased scientific research is a benefit to all of us.

Don't tell the politicians that. Anything that could get them to prioritize education and science in this country is worth it. If it takes fear of China, then so be it.

Re:this is the thing that bothers me

[Anonymous Coward]

The Space Race was couched entirely in the rhetoric of the Cold War. It shouldn't be surprising that such a bad example can't prove your bad view of science, I suppose.

Re:this is the thing that bothers me

[rubycodez]

where did I say this was bad or to be feared? the west is deserving of its decline. This will be the last Chinese supercomputer to use Xeon CPU and NVIDIA GPU

Re:this is the thing that bothers me

[Uberbah]

Uhm, China is a military power and does have an army capable of conquering the world.

Not so much. China doesn't spend a tenth what the U.S. does on its military and has a sixth of Russia's nuclear arsenal. The U.S. has about 800 military bases around the world - China has zero. And the U.S. Navy could take on the rest of the world's navies - combined.

Re:this is the thing that bothers me

[Uberbah]

And where is the equivalency between China's militarism to American militarism, or were you too busy trying to be clever to get that far?

Re:this is the thing that bothers me

[Anonymous Coward]

But they _do_ take over the world:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chung_Kuo

Re:this is the thing that bothers me

[phantomfive]

You've compiled an impressive list of bad things China has done. Actually it's really good, and I don't say that lightly. You can also compile a list of bad things the US has done (I would argue it would be a less bad list, but that is irrelevant).

The original claim was that China desires to conquer the world. Certainly there is no doubt that they wish to conquer Taiwan, they make no secret of that, just as the US makes no secret of their influence in Saudi Arabia. However, unfortunately, your evidence does not back up the claim that China desires to conquer the world.

Re:this is the thing that bothers me

[Uberbah]

Well, on one hand the state forces foreign companies to make 49%/51% joint Chinese-owned company ventures in order to have access to the Chinese market

Irrelevant to world conquest.

Then we have border disputes. China claims or has, in the past 10 years, claimed territory of: Japan, North Korea, South Korea, Taiwan (the entire country at missile-point, no less), Russia, India, Bhutan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Philippines, Brunei, Tajikstan, and any other country that has the misfortune to be touching them that isn't on their payroll.

Irrelevant to world conquest. And the rest of your post can be countered with simple "the Chinese aren't doing anything that the Americans, British, French and Russians aren't doing as well, and probably to a greater degree".

Re:this is the thing that bothers me

[Anonymous Coward]

Something funny Americans might not know.

In Argentina we have a saying "The Americans can go to the moon, but they still wipe their asses with toilet paper!"

In Argentina over 90% of households have bidets (the most hygenic way to clean oneself, btw) and it is a shock to find out that a technologically advanced civilization such as the US does not have bidets!

Re:this is the thing that bothers me

[Anonymous Coward]

I repeat... since you don't seem to get it.

Wake me up when something fundamental actually changes.

Re:this is the thing that bothers me

[Grishnakh]

Science is absolutely not a competition. Was Argentina harmed because the US went to the moon? Was Russia harmed when penicillin was discovered? No, not at all. China's increased scientific research is a benefit to all of us.

I disagree. When one country manages itself well (relatively) and a lot of positive activity happens there, other smart people want to move there. This is known as a "brain drain". When Europe was mired in warfare and wreckage, and the USA was where all the innovation was going on, smart people from Germany and the rest of Europe came here to take advantage of the situation. This had a "positive spiral" synergistic effect, with their contributions improving their new host country and its economy even further. But it also hurt their former countries to an extent, as these people were no longer there and contributing to that nation's success.

The same will happen (and already is happening) with the USA. Lots and lots of Americans are already living in China, because it's doing so well economically, and the USA is doing badly and teetering on the edge of a precipice of disaster. If China does even better with science and research, it won't be just entrepreneurs and businessmen moving over there, it'll be all the scientists and engineers too, leaving no one in the USA to do that kind of work.

Sure, the USA, now composed of only coal miners and Starbucks baristas, will benefit in a small way by China's advances by being able to buy their products, but you don't get the same economic benefits by buying manufactured equipment from elsewhere as you do when you're the nation that develops and manufactures that equipment in the first place.

Back to your example of Argentina: was Argentina harmed by the USA going to the moon? No. But it didn't really benefit either. What kind of environment for science is there in Argentina? Probably not much. How's Argentina's economy? IIRC, their economy totally collapsed about a decade ago, and it hasn't been all that strong or stable over the course of the last 50 years. Is it a place that upper-middle-class people would want to live or move to? Probably not.

Overtake? Hardly...

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you purely count in terms of quantity, not quality.

Re:Overtake? Hardly...

[arbiter1]

Yea but would also mean China would have to Actually come up with stuff and not steal idea's from us.

Let's keep things in perspective

[rs1n]

Don't forget that they have a much larger population, so they will produce more papers just because there are more people. But as the summary points out, quantity and quality are two different things. In the past, we've seen articles on how competitive people are over there (few top schools, and too large a population = greater competition) to the point where there have been reports of academic dishonesty (not to say that they are the only ones, though).

Maybe theyl find...

[flyneye]

Maybe theyl find more mixmatch dinosaurs and herbal viagra, but if the world of science elsewhere continues to bulk up on benefactor bia$ and special interest spin, then Il be just as happy to shun them all for my magic 8 ball. It already more accurate than the press and the local weathermen.

papers like those for Traditional Chinese Medicine

[Palpatine_li]

believe me, you can make a statistician kill him/herself just by forcing him/her to read them.

no suprise

[BurgEnder]

As most Americans seem more concerned about burning bushes, the destruction of society by letting anyone marry, and other ridiculous religious nonsense. The stupi-di-fi-cation of America was started by the right-wing years ago because a dumb American is a controllable American.

Re:no suprise

[Anonymous Coward]

I more concerned about itching clintons, the destruction of society due to unavoidable incest on an island, and just whose damn business religion is anyway. The stupification of the world started as we discovered being able to do whatever you damn well please is empowering. Empowering enough as it were to make BurgEnder mumble doubletalk in esperanto. Guess he was controlled. I love poking his pissy button.

Re:no suprise

[phantomfive]

The 'stupidification of America' is an imagination of your weird-wing ideology. Statistics can't speak to specific cases, so maybe the people you hang out with are idiots, but overall America has a higher level of education than at any time in history. Check it out. It's somewhat leveled off recently (in part due to immigrants not graduating from school), but in no rational worldview could you call it 'stupidification.' Seriously. If you want a cultural reference, look at how geeks are treated in Grease compared to High School Musical. It wasn't nearly as respected to be smart in those days.

Re:no suprise

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

You're assuming the quality of education remained the same over that time. It didn't. More years of education doesn't mean better education if people, on average, are reading less, using their heads less, and have worse teachers. People certainly have worse teachers today--which is not to say they don't have some phenomenal teachers. But forty and fifty years ago, teaching was one of the only good jobs an intelligent woman could get. You had a huge percentage of the brightest women in the country going into teaching. Today we don't. It makes for a more egalitarian society, but also one that isn't taught as well.

Re:no suprise

[phantomfive]

Yawn. You are speculating. What numbers do you have to show that education has gotten worse? If the best you have is your vague speculation that intelligent women no longer become teachers, then you sir have seriously failed at any sort of evidence-based thought. Come back when you have some real numbers to discuss.

Re:no suprise

[zach_the_lizard]

I learned things in high school that my parents didn't get taught. Trig and calculus weren't taught to them from what I gather. My grandpa has a high school diploma but can't do algebra. It may be they are exceptions, but I wouldn't just assume they were taught more back then. We need some facts.

Re:no suprise

[Roger W Moore]

You are speculating. What numbers do you have to show that education has gotten worse?

Actually I would argue that the orignal plot linked above provides such evidence. Given that the importance of education and the access to it has not significantly changed over the past few decades and that, in the same time, there has been no chance for humans to evolve to become smarter the only conclusion you are left to draw is that educational standards have dropped.

If I compare the expectations on my kids currently in primary school vs. what I was expected to learn it becomes even clearer. In fact in secondary school we did, admittedly basic, polynomial calculus by the age of 16. Now many students leave school at 18 without ever having seen calculus.

Re:no suprise

[phantomfive]

As the poster in another thread pointed out, in his grandpa's day, they didn't teach trigonometry in school at all. His grandpa got a degree without learning algebra.

It is great that you learned polynomial calculus, but most schools didn't teach that fifty years ago.

Re:no suprise

[BurgEnder]

It's the people I don't hang out with who scare me, and even though I referenced the right-wing in my last post, I don't subscribe to any far-leaning ideology.

Re:no suprise

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

All of my aunts and uncles learned much of the western canon, phenomenal European history, and lots of US history in the 70s in public school. A few years back I was in the rare documents section of one of the foremost colleges in North America, and two kids out of maybe thirty had any idea what the Concord Hymn was. They didn't even offer European history in my high school, and the New York State Global Studies curriculum is a six month course stretched out to cover two years. The New York City Public school system was the wonder of the world around 1900. Today I know a teacher who had to pull a kid off a female teacher's leg because the kid was humping it, and the kids beat up cops in front of the school.

Re:no suprise

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

You are speculating too. You are picking a chart and speculating that all other variables remain constant. Society changes.

My speculation is not vague, and I didn't say intelligent women no longer become teachers. I said a huge percentage of intelligent women go into other jobs, jobs that are more profitable and were closed to them years ago. Teaching was open to them at that point. Ergo many intelligent women who would have been teachers had they been born forty or fifty years ago are not teachers today. I have mostly anecdotal evidence of deterioration in the quality of education, because an analysis thereof isn't my field--look up the reading at risk report for one concerning trend, although not directly on point. (Just the first hard numbers that come to mind for concerning numbers in the field of education.)

Re:no suprise

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

My Grandpa could do trig better than most engineers or surveyors. But I think the one-room schoolhouse was still around where my grandmother grew up around then. The country is a lot more populated today than it was in the 1930s... it's hard to draw a trend from that.

Re:no suprise

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

And some people forget, and they change things. The whole "new math" craze, for example. Or the language prescriptivist grammarians (and their modern analogues) have created to denote English terms in a way which makes it harder to learn. Students used to learn English fairly well by more reading and by learning latin, which helped them get the English grammar right. (Spanish serves much the same function, although probably a little less so because the language is simpler).

Re:no suprise

[phantomfive]

Chart is greater than anecdotal evidence. Apparently what they taught passed for evidence in your day wasn't worth much. Too bad.

Re:no suprise

[phantomfive]

oh, I just realized that you pointed to the "Reading at Risk" study lol. Apparently what passes for reading comprehension in my generation truly is deficient.

Re:no suprise

[Roger W Moore]

It is great that you learned polynomial calculus, but most schools didn't teach that fifty years ago.

Well I don't know where you grew up but where I did in the UK they most certainly did teach polynomial calculus 50 years ago. Both my father and grandfather learnt it at school.

Re:no suprise

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

1) You will get more flies with honey. Ad hominem attacks tend to be poor and reflect a weakness in the underlying argument, but even when they don't they make you less likely to convince people who don't agree with you.

2) I disagree. A chart is not per se greater than anecdotal evidence. A chart would be better than anecdotal evidence if it contained more data points on exactly the same question. Otherwise, there is judgment or reason involved. See http://borkweb.com/story/global-warming-causes-pirate-population-decrease for example. A chart is simply different data. Whether that data is more or less reliable than anecdotes or reasoning depends on how you use the chart and what you are trying to determine, and it may be that they speak to different things.

For example, you could chart the information content of advertisements over the last seventy years and you would see that it decreased substantially over time. One could conclude that people care less about information today than they did then. But in reality, the decrease in information content is at least in significant part due to legal regulations on advertising making it much safer to advertise things without giving information about them. So people are careful to avoid stating anything positive and depend on non-informational content, which they have also gotten better at utilizing such content in advertisement.

Similarly, a chart showing that people are educated for more years does not necessarily mean that people are more intelligent or better-educated.

Re:no suprise

[phantomfive]

Are you one of those people who feels you have to disagree with everything someone says?

Civ4

[taktoa]

Beakers per turn!

Re:Civ4

[FauxPasIII]

-nod- We could get back on track in no time by just building a library in every town in America.

Re:Civ4

[mug funky]

if there isn't a library in every town in America, i think that should be done regardless.

book stores don't count.

Re:Civ4

[deek]

America already has the Library of Congress, which increases scientific output by 50% in all cities. There are just too many entertainers, some of which should be converted to scientists. That should be pretty obvious to most Civ players, I hope.

Re:Civ4

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the insightful mod, I wonder if some people got it.

Re:Civ4

[deek]

I'm guessing, regardless of whether they got it or not, people agree that America has too many entertainers.

Good

[JanneM]

A step rise in Chinese research - and in Indian, and other newly developed countries - means more total research happening around the world. More research and more results is a win for everyone.

In addition, the spread of research efforts mean that more avenues are explored, and that progress is not as dependent on the temporary political and scientific winds in any particular country or region.

Re:Good

[wvmarle]

[...] progress is not as dependent on the temporary political and scientific winds in any particular country or region.

Don't forget religious and cultural ideas.

For example astronomy is a subject that was held up for long time for religious/cultural reasons. For example, for very long astronomers tried anything to just be able to explain the movements of the planets on the assumption that the Earth is at the centre of the universe. They just wouldn't/couldn't accept the idea that the Sun is the centre of our solar system - let alone that even the Sun is not the centre of our universe.

Various cultures have various ideas on how the world is working, and this meta-ideas can very easily open or close certain doors to scientific advancement.

Re:Good

[Abelard01]

Would you like to get famous stars' hairstyles with Christian louboutian shoes,Would you like to wear famous Hollywood stars herve leger dress and Christian louboutian? Here we can help you. All good with big discounts and free shipping. You can also find wholesale jerseys with cheapest price , Ed hardy clothing with high quality and free shipping. what could be more worthwhile?

Re:Good

[altoz]

More research and more results is a win for everyone.

I understand the sentiment of this quote, but I have to disagree. Suppose they develop something harmful? An example might be a new biological weapon or technology to make government control more pervasive. We already know that their human rights record is horrifying. What makes you think that all the developments will inevitably be positive?

Re:Good

[JanneM]

What we're talking about here is published, public research, available to anyone with access to a library. From that point of view, it doesn't matter who discovers something potentially harmful, anyone has access to it.

Besides, if human rights and peacefulness are critera for who should be allowed to do research, neither the US nor much of Europa would qualify either.

Re:Good

[altoz]

You're attacking a straw man here. I never said they shouldn't be allowed to do research. I just questioned whether all this research is always a good thing like you claimed. I'm saying that it's not.

For now, China seems satisfied to get scientific prestige measured by how much they publish. But it's not stopping there. All this research is to get an edge on the rest of the world, not for the good of the international community or science or whatever. Once they have the edge, are they going to use it benevolently? Either to the world or to their own citizens? I highly doubt it.

In my view, this large recent increase in research has as good a chance of being a bad thing as it is a good thing.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

It's only a win if the technology can be used --- remember the parasites who produce no value (e.g. bureaucrats, financial sector) will keep that from happening. This is the reason that technology must spread in the lawless lands.

publications dont count.

[barv]

The system of citations & referees is so crappy that a count of publications and citations is so corrupted that it is fairly irrelevant. It is the eruption of the techno entrepeneurs that measures & indicates the savvy and value of a nation.

Immortality

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a real chance of breakthroughs in longevity that would keep all of us alive longer (perhaps even indefinitely). For this to happen many of us older folks may need the Chinese to fulfill their scientific potential ASAP. To me this trumps concerns over economic nationalism.

Go China!

The last line is the important one

[Sycraft-fu]

China may do a lot of research, but it does not seem to do a lot of good research. If you've been to China, it is understandable why: There is very much a mentality of "Whatever you want to do is ok, so long as it gets you ahead." Lying, cheating, all perfectly ok. Well maybe you can argue this works in normal life and business (though some serious downsides can be pointed out) it doesn't work in science.

Feynman put it really well (he was talking about the Challenger disaster): "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."

Well China's culture doesn't magically stop when you start talking universities and labs. The faking of results goes along strong, because it helps you get ahead. Publish more papers, be more prominent and all that. Works for the individual researcher, I suppose, but that means overall the research is useless. I can write as many papers as I like, fake as many results as I like, that claim that X causes Y. However if X does indeed not cause Y it doesn't do any good, I can't change reality.

Before China can become truly top at science, as in producing the most useful actual output, they'll have to have a cultural change, at least in the scientific community and probably the larger culture.

However I also fail to see why this is a big deal. I wouldn't consider myself all that worldly, but I've traveled to a fair number of countries not the US. All of them are by definition #2 or lower in science output, as well as many other things the US is #1 at. Guess what? that doesn't matter. They are nice places to live, with happy productive people, stable governments, and so on (I don't tend to visit countries that don't meet those requirements). I could move to Canada or the UK or Norway and be quite happy there. They may not be #1 in anything, I don't know, but it doesn't matter. You don't have to be the best at everything, I think maybe Americans need to learn that.

Re:The last line is the important one

[Lord_Jeremy]

Mmm. Very true on some points. However it also comes to mind that China is often noted for ignoring things like licensing requirements for foreign-produced software. The chinese business or lab or whatever that isn't paying $X for all their copies of Microsoft Office can put that $X into R&D, advertising, whatever they want.

Re:The last line is the important one

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly so. Chinese culture places value on Face first and foremost. ANYTHING is acceptable as long as Face is maintained. The APPEARANCE of success and honorable conduct. Doesn't matter how it's done, only that it's accomplished. Example:

Chinese Company #1 bids on a contract to produce x number of widgets for y cost per unit, meeting safety guidelines put forth by the contract holders.

Chinese Company #2 bids on a contract to produce x number of widgets for y cost per unit, which is cheaper than company #1 because while they CLAIM they'll meet the safety guidelines they in fact will use potentially toxic materials in manufacture to cut their costs down and allow them to meet the contract needs on a financial level.

Company #1 lost face because it failed. Company #2 gained face because it succeeded. Only if Company #2's indiscretions are ever revealed can it lose face from this.

Re:The last line is the important one

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I think you'll find Norway *is* number 1, and the US is normally around number 10.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legatum_Prosperity_Index
(or indeed any other measurable index you care to find).

The US isnt really number 1 in anything, and I think maybe Americans need to learn that.

Re:The last line is the important one

[maxume]

Something like that only makes a small difference. A researcher might need $3000 of software, but they can use that software for 5 years, a period of time over which they will cost a lot more than $100,000 to employ.

Re:The last line is the important one

[Anonymous Coward]

Oooh, let me gratefully return the idiocy of scale in an opposed nature.

I have traveled the world and have been to the US, and clearly Alabama was by definition #2 or lower in science output, as well as many other things Europe is #1 at.

Re:The last line is the important one

[nate nice]

There's actually a few books that recently came out on that premise. America's second place is the first place loser mentality. It's interesting overall but very much a part of our culture. We love this all or nothing proposition we live in where the winner gets everything and everyone else is a loser.

It's the whole Vince Lombardi thing. We want to achieve greatness over and over I guess.

Re:The last line is the important one

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

If you've been to China, it is understandable why: There is very much a mentality of "Whatever you want to do is ok, so long as it gets you ahead." Lying, cheating, all perfectly ok.

China? That's how things work everywhere nowadays. Look at all the crooks running out banks and industries.

Re:The last line is the important one

[Anonymous Coward]

A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view

Regardless of that:

variety of factors including wealth, economic growth, personal wellbeing, and quality of life

Which isn't science specifically... but in all honesty, regardless where we (USA) rank; I couldn't care.

I am by no means an ambassador, but have found out when speaking to anyone outside the USA, it always seems to be other countries that have to start the insults or hostility when the word "American" is mentioned, while my typical response is "what did I personally do to you?"

Yes there's bad Americans, but that isn't me.

Plagiarism

[domulys]

the report points out that a growing volume of research publications does not necessarily mean in increase in quality

No kidding. China (and Asia South-Pacific in general) has a rampant plagiarism problem. E.g.,:

http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml
http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-04-11/news/20844688_1_yuan-papers-professor

This practice has permeated many of the country's scientific journals, where it is commonplace to copy-and-paste large sections of others' work. International journals are typically able to shield this using "similarity detectors" and peer review, but the occasional hack-job still gets through occasionally.

Wow this is a surprise!

[Giometrix]

I'm surprised; I thought the Chinese were already "beating us" (whatever that means) in Science. Good for them! Hopefully this will inspire the U.S. and Europe to get their shit together.

Woohoo!

[SecurityGuy]

Awesome. Then we can just copy their IP for a change.

Aww, go ahead and mod me troll. You know it's true.

Re:Woohoo!

[Anonymous Coward]

Awesome. Then we can just copy their IP for a change.

Aww, go ahead and mod me troll. You know it's true.

They'll do the jobs American's don't want to do! Awesome!

Re:Woohoo!

[Tablizer]

Awesome. Then we can just copy their IP for a change.

Yeah, we'll make our own lead-filled tot toys instead of depending on a foreign supplier.
     

Re:Woohoo!

[c0lo]

Awesome. Then we can just copy their IP for a change.

Aww, go ahead and mod me troll. You know it's true.

Interesting. Here's a question to ponder, how is US going to pay the debt to China?
1. commodities? Australia covers most of the mineral sector, thank you; as for agri-exports, there are countries with lower prices.
2. US production? China owns it.
3. IP? China is (or will be) ahead - this assuming China actually gives a more than a damn about IP.
4. Music/movies/entertainment? Somehow, I don't think the Chinese people are actually interested in Lady Gaga, Pink or the like.
5. "Fast pizza delivery" and other (local) services?

The mystery: how exactly is US planning to pay the foreign debt and balance the trade deficit with China?

If you are tempted by "who gives a damn about foreign debt/trade deficit, US can default" as the "nuclear threat of the 2010 decade".
Imagine what would happen if Chinese would "retaliate" and dump, on the international financial market and within a month or so, the US treasury bonds they own - if US defaults, they are worthless anyway.
What you think would happen with the prices in US if suddenly the price of crude oil is expressed in other currency but USD - for example, what about yuan/renmimbi?
Finally, please remind me who was the champion of globalization in the last 20 years?

Re:Woohoo!

[Anonymous Coward]

Time to start learning to read those strange characters, eh?

Re:Woohoo!

[SecurityGuy]

Interesting. Here's a question to ponder, how is US going to pay the debt to China?
1. commodities? Australia covers most of the mineral sector, thank you; as for agri-exports, there are countries with lower prices.

Seriously? Money. That's how these things work. China buys our debt in money, we give them more money later. We are, all the time, paying our debt to China and selling them more. If China had any doubt whatsoever they were going to be paid, they wouldn't be buying the debt.

That's something people seem to misunderstand about other countries "buying" us. Other countries put their money here because it's risk-adjusted return is worth it. The return isn't that great right now, but the risk is effectively zero. Now, if you were China with an economy going gangbusters, why would you not invest all the money they invest here in your own economy? I sure would. Unless...

Figure out the unless and you'll learn something important.

Is that so?

[virgnarus]

Being in one of the largest hospitals in the US with a cancer research division comprised entirely of Chinese people, I must say I'm a bit surprised at the news.

Re:Is that so?

[SecurityGuy]

I worked in one of those. It wasn't the superior research skills of the Chinese, it was racism. Once, it was a balance of lots of nationalities, then they hired someone who only hired Chinese.

There were a lot of people who did really good work there, certainly including the Chinese members, but any time you have a top notch place composed entirely of one nationality, you know it's not merit driving hiring. And yes, I'd say that for an all caucasian crew as well.

Re:Is that so?

[kdsible]

I must agree with "securityguy" having seen this in action. Taking care of your own to a whole new level. Its business as usual.

Re:Is that so?

[antifoidulus]

Yup, but with one major difference, a Chinese prof who only accepts Chinese students doesn't have to worry about being called a racist, an American prof(regardless of race) who only accepts American students(regardless of race) will automatically be called a racist.

Here we go again...

[bogaboga]

However, the report points out that a growing volume of research publications does not necessarily mean in increase in quality...

Let's remember that although the USA discovered the silicon chip via Bell Telephone Laboratories USA, it was not until the Japanese came around and showed us what to do with it.

Guess what, several decades later, all our electronics are Asian made! What a shame! And the recent quake in Japan exposes how dependent we are on those Asians when it comes to sophisticated chips...forget INTEL and AMD.

I am afraid this story will be repeated but with China this time.

Re:Here we go again...

[Anonymous Coward]

Rewriting history I see...

Re:papers like those for Traditional Chinese Medic

[retchdog]

no, they just make for entertaining counterexamples/stories for their classes/clients.

Or US tax code encourages foreign R&D

[Billly Gates]

With the American tax code taxing 35% of all profits it is no wonder why these American companies with mountains of cash want to invest in R&D rather than let it sit in Asian or Swiss vaults.

Maybe if we did not have such high taxes more science and R&D could be done in America.

Re:Or US tax code encourages foreign R&D

[Anonymous Coward]

You're an idiot. If your logic were even remotely accurate, then Europe would be the last in the pack as far as R&D goes. Guess what? They're not.

Re:Or US tax code encourages foreign R&D

[Rufty]

BULLSHIT!

Of course it's a competition!

[caxis]

Was Japan harmed because the US developed the nuclear bomb? Hell yes science is a competition--perhaps academic science is of potential benefit to everyone, but government and corporate science--I'm less optimistic.

Re:Of course it's a competition!

[phantomfive]

Was Japan harmed because the US developed the nuclear bomb?

Absolutely not. There are debates about the ethicality of using a nuclear bomb, and especially about dropping the second bomb, and I don't know enough to answer that question. But one thing is clear beyond doubt: the offensive attack the US had planned if they didn't use the bomb would have been far worse. And that is historical fact.

Re:Of course it's a competition!

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a retard if you think that anything justifies killing civilians with a nuclear bomb, or maybe you're just another US brainwashed citizen that thinks you have the rights to do what you want in the world for so less when you've done so worse.

Re:Of course it's a competition!

[Anonymous Coward]

This may come as a shock to you, but intelligence is not defined as conformity to your system of ethics, and adopting a different one doesn't require "brainwashing".

Re:Of course it's a competition!

[Cheech Wizard]

/snip/ But one thing is clear beyond doubt: the offensive attack the US had planned if they didn't use the bomb would have been far worse. And that is historical fact.

"And that is historical theory." - There - Fixed that for you.

Re:Of course it's a competition!

[phantomfive]

The immediate alternative to the nuclear bombs was to expand the conventional bombing campaigns. They would have been just as damaging. That is the fact I am referring to.

Re:Of course it's a competition!

[phantomfive]

There is no good way to kill someone. Nuclear bombs are just another weapon, with their own set of disadvantages and advantages. You focus on the horrors of the nuclear bomb, but if it prevented another fire-bombing campaign, then the end result was less slaughter.

Re:Of course it's a competition!

[timeOday]

So, I guess your analogy here is, let's hope the Chinese dominate us militarily so they can wipe out a few of our cities in the blink of an eye if need be so we'll surrender before they have to do something really bad to us.

Did I get that right?

Re:Of course it's a competition!

[phantomfive]

My analogy here is, as the US, let's not try to expand into countries around the world, torturing, killing and raping their citizens on a mass scale, and then try to attack the navy of military forces we have no hope of defeating. That's a bad idea.

Re:Of course it's a competition!

[Hognoxious]

The existence of the plan, and its contents, are fact.

The effect of the plan is theory, since it was never carried out.

Clear?

Re:Of course it's a competition!

[delinear]

Nevertheless it's a pretty standard rule of engagement in war that you aim to minimise civilian casualties where possible. A protracted military engagement on the ground in Japan would have killed many more soldiers and far fewer civilians, but it would also have been costly and denied the opportunity to test a new weapon and demonstrate military superiority at the same time.

Re:Of course it's a competition!

[Warwick Allison]

What, there was a plan to slaughter civilians in a different way? Some other war crime was planned? WW2 of course was war crimes on all sides (except they didn't get defined so until after the war, and only the losers got prosecuted), I'm just sickened that something worse could have been planned.

Oh, and something that didn't actually eventuate can't be "historical fact".

Re:Of course it's a competition!

[phantomfive]

What, there was a plan to slaughter civilians in a different way?

Yes, actually, and it was brutal. Check out the Fire bombing of Tokyo for an example.

Re:Of course it's a competition!

[Uberbah]

Yes, "facts".

It's a fact that the Japanese were offering to surrender - with the condition that they keep their Emperor to save face.

It's a fact that the U.S. refused that offer, insisting on unconditional surrender.

It's a fact that the U.S. dropped a couple of nukes to force said unconditional surrender.

It's a fact that after the Japanese surrendered that they were...allowed to keep their Emperor.

Re:Of course it's a competition!

[StikyPad]

That's like saying that breaking your arm isn't harmful because I was planning on cutting off your junk.

Re:Of course it's a competition!

[rubycodez]

and if China develops a system that renders our nuclear missiles useless, and then wipes out a couple major cities, they can say "but the alternative plan was much worse!" And you'll nod your head and say, gawd bless those merciful Chinese.

Re:Of course it's a competition!

[phantomfive]

I reserve for myself the right to say whatever I want at that time.

Yeah, but we've got the most ...

[damn_registrars]

... ummm

...

facebook profiles per capita?

Yeah! That'll show 'em! Hell yeah! USA! USA! USA!

Re:Yeah, but we've got the most ...

[c0lo]

... ummm ... facebook profiles per capita? Yeah! That'll show 'em! Hell yeah! USA! USA! USA!

In the same category, don't forget "fast pizza delivery".

That is nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Around 2020, they will have man on the moon. More importantly, they will have multiple space stations around the earth, of which ONE will be open to the outside world. The rest will be military only (the more so since their space program is the ONLY one in the world that ANSWERS SOLELY TO THEIR MILITARY).

Likewise, by 2015, it will be announced that China has more nuke boomers in the water than does the entire west. In addition, it will finally be figured out that the number of land based and boomers missiles is a LOT more than the number of warheads that are claimed. IOW, they will finally come clean on their warhead production.

They will also have finished their dam in the Himalayans that feed all of India and Southern Asia, and it will become obvious that China is about to slowly take the water that THEY need ahead of the rest of asia. Keep in mind that China's water is not just dwindling, it is HEAVILY polluted.

In about 2 years, they will do a recall of many of their scientist that work in America. ANd a number of spies will head over there.

Lots of things are going to be forthcoming in the next couple of years.

dumb and dumber

[bcrowell]

This article is dumb for (at least) two reasons:

Dumb: As noted in the slashdot summary, quantity of papers isn't the same as quality. I have published physics papers in refereed journals, and my experience is that most scientific papers are correct but utterly inconsequential. They matter to the people who published them, because those people are desperate to get permanent jobs. Period.

Dumber: It's not a nuclear arms race, it's scientific research. By the (lame) metric of quantity of papers, the U.S. has increased its "output," while China has increased its "output" as well (and at a greater rate). Why is this a bad thing? Scientific progress enriches everyone.

Re:dumb and dumber

[Anonymous Coward]

Scientific progress certainly enriched the residents of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, amirite? ENRICHED THEM WITH URANIUM, LULZ.

Dumbest: People who think 'science' lives in a little box, set completely aside from things like politics, religion and stupidity.

Re:dumb and dumber

[Anonymous Coward]

You are the dumb one.

Sure, they won't catch up with our science overall because a single, bad measure of scientific output overtakes us.
But I can tell you that the pace at which they are getting better is scary.

BTW: Congress is just about to slash research spending, hurray, let's help those Chinese overtake us.

Re:dumb and dumber

[TooManyNames]

Ok, one question: If the quality of the papers being published isn't very good, as you seem to be suggesting, then how does China's increase in scientific output help to enrich everyone? It would seem to me that science as an enriching process is contingent upon quality contribution; the contrapositive of that statement being that a lack of quality necessitates a lack of enrichment.

Might I also observe that the statement "quantity of papers isn't the same as quality" applies just as surely to the US as it does to China. You might counter that, given the current state of affairs, the US produces papers which are obviously of higher quality relative to China, but that's really beside the point. The article isn't really making claims about the current state of affairs in China or the US, rather, it's making a prediction based on current trends. To me, making the claim that the US will maintain its superiority in terms of quality relative to China is no less bold than making the claim that China will significantly narrow that gap or close it entirely in the very near future.

Might I also note one other point of interest concerning whether or not China's overtaking the US is a bad thing: it depends on your perspective. From the Chinese perspective or that of broader worldwide community, it's probably great that China is forging ahead; after all, this will potentially lead to beneficial discoveries and applications around the world. However, from the US perspective, things are less optimistic. Will the US benefit in some ways from China's scientific prowess? Yes, absolutely. Will the benefit to the US from China's new scientific lead outweigh the benefit to the US of having the lead? I'd argue that it won't. I say this because I believe that this will act to reduce the US's credibility as a worldwide innovator and producer. Once that credibility is diminished, things like foreign investment will (continue to) shift from the US to China. The US already has an image problem with much of the rest of the world believing that it will be overtaken by China or someone else sooner than later. If China surpasses the US in scientific output, this could snowball into broader doubt that the US can actually produce something of value that China cannot (at less cost as well). Also, let us not forget that the US carries an enormous debt, and that this debt is essentially an IOU promising some repayment eventually. How do you go about repaying that debt? The way this has been done before is through the manufacture of products or supply of resources that the rest of the world wants. So if you're a nation holding that debt, and you see that the US's capabilities to manufacture, or even invent new methods of manufacture, has been diminished, would you believe that the US's ability to repay that debt has been unaffected? Or, would you demand higher interest rates as the debt begins to look riskier? At some point, these debts will need to be addressed and the magnitude of the debts depend, in my opinion, on the capability of the US to out-innovate its competitors (and they are competitors). Since the US is loosing (apparently rapidly) that edge, I'd say that China assuming the lead in scientific output is indeed a bad thing for the US.

Re:dumb and dumber

[sproketboy]

The article can't speak?

We can never compete with the Chinese fairly.

[elucido]

There are more of them, so of course more of them will graduate with degrees in anything.

Rather than competing fairly, we should be using every unfair advantage we have to one up them just as they are using every unfair advantage they have right now, such as price, or rigged exams, or lead in the toys sold to American babies.

Now I'm not advocating we use the lead in the toys, as obviously China punished the individuals responsible for that, but we have to sotp pretending like America with 300 million people will ever produce more of anything than 1.5 billion people. The math just does not work in our favor.

We do have some advantages, such as infrastructure which we aren't renewing and are allowing to go to waste. We do have a bigger economy which we aren't using to our advantage. It's our destiny to be the slaves of the Chinese. America has become a nation of pathetic silent servants.

Re:We can never compete with the Chinese fairly.

[c0lo]

We do have some advantages, such as infrastructure which we aren't renewing and are allowing to go to waste. We do have a bigger economy which we aren't using to our advantage. It's our destiny to be the slaves of the Chinese. America has become a nation of pathetic silent servants.

Interesting metaphor, let's see if one can extend it.
How does this work? "On top of irrelevant (for China) advantages, US also has the biggest trade deficit and foreign debt with China. To translate: the Chinese already paid for "merchandise" on the "international slave market" - the clock towards the moment they'll assert the ownership is ticking".

I hope ...

[Anonymous Coward]

When the US is a third-rate, has-been country with no scientific or technological leadership in the world, the irony will be that it wasn't the Communists or terrorists that did us in ... it was all of those so-called America-loving conservatives who reward ignorance and shun scientific knowledge, who defund scientific research and agencies, who cut education and kill financial aide for college students, who attack scientists for daring to contradict the ideology with their elitist "facts." It will have been these people who damned our country.

Re:I hope ...

[mbkennel]

They'll be sure to hang the liberals for it.

Re:I hope ...

[Uberbah]

Don't forget

D) Demolishing any industrial policy to promote domestic manufacturing

The teabaggers could abolish the minimum wage, the NLRB, OSHA, overtime laws and every other form of worker protection and there would still be third world labor willing to work for what a fraction of what Americans would. For one thing, they don't have our housing costs or soon to be mandated junk health insurance to pay for. Unfortunately, Democrats haven't served the interests of the working man either, by pushing "free trade laws" (larded down with pro-corporate policies like extended copyrights) and embracing "austerity" (but not for the rich) over job creation (thanks Obama!).

The Germans figured this out a long time ago:

1) Invest in Education and encourage a high standard of living
2) Promote high quality and high end manufacturing from the skilled workforce created by 1)
3) Take the rewards from 2) and reinvest them in 1)

Re:I hope ...

[argStyopa]

This is what poses as +5 insightful on /., an AC screed against conservatives? Does Soros own /. now, too?

You DO realize that it was conservative, deeply religious people that BUILT this country - the industry, the infrastructure, the economy? It was their hard work, their dollars, their effort that has produced anything of value. The effete intellectuals pretty much just sat around and whined about how bad everything is/was.

No, I think when the US is a downtrodden 3rd-rate country, people are going to wonder why the Left built a massive, overwhelming government that stole from the productive and handed it all to the non-productive. Self-evidently an economically suicidal plan.

Perhaps if scientific research is worthwhile, someone will INVEST in it, rather than needing to steal tax dollars to fund the study of the mating strategies of violets?

Perhaps tax dollars taken from the public should be put to positive use beyond funding giant government agencies that perform little to no useful function? (Dept of Energy, Dept of Education)

Perhaps not everyone needs to go to college? And if you want to go, rather than making Joe and Joanne Public help pay for your lazy ass you could SAVE UP YOUR OWN MONEY and pay your own way. If you don't have enough, perhaps you could work hard and save enough for your kids to go? It's amusingly naive that you think it's strange that people are reluctant to give their dollars to you, so you can go to school.

And insofar as politicians contradicting scientists? I'm glad the Left doesn't do that!...oh wait: http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/11/10/10greenwire-white-house-changed-report-implying-experts-su-96097.html

Re:I hope ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice work responding to a "screed against conservatives" with even more tone-deaf whining about the other side of the political spectrum. Blah blah, the Liberals want to take all your money and have a massive government that forces women to have abortions. Whatever. You completely gloss over the valid point of GP that this country suffers from a massive anti-intellectualism movement where science and scientists are now being treated with suspicion where it used to be pride and respect. You people are so hung up on the bottom line of scientific research that any scientific effort that doesn't return immediate results is a Liberal scam. China is going to wipe the floor with us with advanced energy and who knows what else, all because you people are going to spend the next x decades complaining that Liberal science isn't pulling its weight in society.

Re:I hope ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Would someone with more time than me, please pick apart this BS. "effete intellectuals"? Soros? The same old tired "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" line? Only one segment of the humans in American history contributed materially to its current stature, and you can define that divide using contemporary ideological nomenclature? Grow some original thoughts.

Re:I hope ...

[thoth]

Perhaps if scientific research is worthwhile, someone will INVEST in it, rather than needing to steal tax dollars to fund the study of the mating strategies of violets?

The problem with this is a lot of scientific research doesn't pay off in Wall Street units of time (this quarter, next quarter, this fiscal year, anything longer isn't going to happen). Stuff that takes decades to do only gets funded through the government. Corporations aren't interested in long term payoff. Look at the energy industry, almost no technology progress in decades, why? Well it doesn't matter to the companies, they just pass their costs straight on to the consumer.

Re:I hope ...

[Chowderbags]

You DO realize that it was conservative, deeply religious people that BUILT this country - the industry, the infrastructure, the economy? It was their hard work, their dollars, their effort that has produced anything of value. The effete intellectuals pretty much just sat around and whined about how bad everything is/was.

The founding fathers as a group had too much of a difference in religious make up than exists today. Some were deeply religious, but Jefferson cut and pasted together a Bible without miracles or a deity and Franklin's tenure in Europe ended up getting him every STD known to man at the time from all the orgies he had. Regardless, most of them were intellectuals (lawyers/generals/publishers), though yes, they did do a lot of whining. They even wrote some of it down somewhere in an angsty manifesto to some guy across the ocean. I hear there was a fight or something.

No, I think when the US is a downtrodden 3rd-rate country, people are going to wonder why the Left built a massive, overwhelming government that stole from the productive and handed it all to the non-productive. Self-evidently an economically suicidal plan.

Wall Street traders are not productive. I repeat: WALL STREET TRADERS ARE NOT THE LEAST BIT FUCKING PRODUCTIVE. An investor, someone who's willing to hold onto a company, and nurture it for decades, they're productive. People making trades for a quick buck are not only not productive, they harm productivity. The constant push for money right now this very quarter and damn everything down the line is what has driven our economy into the shitter. Who cares if we move to cheap goods that break after a week, consumers are idiots and we want money now! Why worry about sending jobs overseas when we get our dividends now? Who cares that in a decade there won't be anyone with enough money to actually buy anything, I can move to somewhere else!

Workers were productive for decades, even heavily unionized workers. It didn't fucking matter. People who were several levels up shipped their jobs off.

Perhaps if scientific research is worthwhile, someone will INVEST in it, rather than needing to steal tax dollars to fund the study of the mating strategies of violets?

Fat chance. Hard science research doesn't pay off this quarter/year/decade, if ever. It's a huge gamble, and although we're better as a society for it, no company wants to take on the risk anymore. The last company to really invest in basic research was Bell Labs back in the day, and we got amazing inventions out of it, but it's hardly an example of the triumph of the free market.

Also, as I'm sure you're aware, the very medium you're posting to (the internet) arose out of government funded research. It's extremely unlikely that it would've arisen from private research, and even less likely that it would be anywhere near as free as it is today.

Perhaps tax dollars taken from the public should be put to positive use beyond funding giant government agencies that perform little to no useful function? (Dept of Energy, Dept of Education)

Department of Energy funding mostly goes to atomic weapons (upkeep, cleanup, etc). The research into alternative energy is very tiny. The Department of Education services innumerable loans and grants, which is somewhat important when the only decent jobs in the country require going to college for 4 years with colleges getting more and more expensive all the fucking time.

Perhaps not everyone needs to go to college? And if you want to go, rather than making Joe and Joanne Public help pay for your lazy ass you could SAVE UP YOUR OWN MONEY and pay your own way. If you don't have enough, perhaps you could work hard and save enough for your kids to go? It's amusingly naive that you think it's strange that people are reluctant to give their dollars to you, so you can go to school.

Have you taken a look at th

Chinese Professor

[slapout]

Reminds me of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTSQozWP-rM&feature=player_embedded

USA shyit

[Anonymous Coward]

This wont be the last thing a country overtakes the USA in...... in the coming future!

USA is going to shyit

to busy suing each other!

Not enough funding...

[ub3r n3u7r4l1st]

With people complaining about STEM brain drain due to lack of science funding from the government, and STEM grads jumping into the luscious field of finance , what do you expect?

Technology != Science

[Roger W Moore]

The "Space Race" was the single greatest time in scientific advancement in history.

Not really - the space race was more about technology than science. Scientifically the problem was solved: there was no problem calculating the physics involved to go to the Moon - the problem was developing the technology capable of doing so. It was a fantastic motivator for science and remains one of mankind's shining achievements but was really the result of applying science rather than discovering new science.

Re:Technology != Science

[eggnoglatte]

Thank you. "Rocket Science" is one of the big misnomers of the past century. It really is rocket engineering (i.e. applying scientific results to solve problems). There is nothing wrong with that, but its not science.

Re:Technology != Science

[Solandri]

Not really - the space race was more about technology than science. Scientifically the problem was solved: there was no problem calculating the physics involved to go to the Moon - the problem was developing the technology capable of doing so.

To further back that up, of the 12 people who got to walk on the moon, 11 were pilots. The only scientist to go was a geologist on the very last mission.

Re:Technology != Science

[geckipede]

There is a big overlap between science and engineering.

Just to take one example, the fluid flow equations for dealing with turbulence within the combustion chamber and nozzle of the F-1 engines on the Saturn V weren't known sufficiently well to predict their behaviour. At the time, a lot of people thought that constructing such large rocket engines was insanity, and that the Saturn V should use large clusters of smaller engines like the Russian N1 did, as smaller engines were far more stable.

The problem of stabilising flow in a large combustion chamber was solved experimentally, by testing engine configurations and deliberately introducing instability in them until there was enough data to solve the problem theoretically.

The end result of all of that was that the Saturn V had a relatively simple five-engined first stage and was very reliable. In contrast, the N1 had huge numbers of engines arranged in rings, which were a nightmare to deliver fuel to, and several flights were lost in incidents of uneven fuel flow.

Re:Technology != Science

[delinear]

I'm not sure what that backs up - if you're sending a million/billion dollar spacecraft on a flight to another celestial body and you want a reasonably good chance of it getting back in one piece, you send the best piloting team you've got. Anyone can collect rock samples, it doesn't really take a scientist on the scene, although it's obviously useful to have the additional perspective if you can afford the weight and skill trade-offs, but I don't think this was part of any "technology vs. science" hidden agenda.

Re:Technology != Science

[Big_Breaker]

They go hand in hand. It would be hard to get the Hubble Space Telescope into orbit without a space program and its technology. Hubble provided data that informed scientific theory.

Re:Technology != Science

[mikael]

There was once a discussion on TV on space travel:

Interviewer: "So, Dr., tell me about the difficulties in making a manned mission to other planets like Mars?"

Dr. "Well, to start with, you need a pressurised crew cabin with enough air, water and food supplies to last three years, as well as the large quantity of fuel to take you there and back again. All of these supplies, as well as the crew must be protected from radiation and the extremes of temperature. However, none of these problems are impossible to solve, but have well known and tested solutions."

Interviewer: "So, it's not really rocket science then, sending a manned mission to somewhere like Mars?"

Dr. "Actually, it *IS* rocket science."

Re:Technology != Science

[Roger W Moore]

There is a big overlap between science and engineering. Just to take one example, the fluid flow equations for dealing with...

The difference is that engineering is applied science, mainly physics. This is not really an overlap. The example you give is not science but engineering. The concern was not whether fluid dynamics was valid under those conditions but rather whether they had designed the engine correctly and not overlooked some solution of the equations which would cause the thing to fail.

Sometimes doing engineering you can also do science in amazing and unexpected ways e.g. discovery of the cosmic microwave background. However, this did not happen in this case. We learnt how to build truly massive rocket engines but did not make new scientific discoveries.

pshaw!

[The AtomicPunk]

Well, fine, so they're great at SCIENCE. How good are they at spying on their own citizens, printing money, and starting senseless wars? eh? eh? Yeah, that's what I thought, the US still has that market cornered... so there.

Re:pshaw!

[Dishwasha]

Thank you Peter Griffin.

Re:pshaw!

[oliverthered]

remember your mother land.

Who Cares!

[Anonymous Coward]

Any scientific study worth a darn will produce something tangible. Let them do the heavy lifting for a while so we can just acquire it and reverse engineer it. I'm happy to let them fritter away money on lots of dead-end research before they come up with something useful.

Hey China! Payback is a b***h!

Re:Who Cares!

[rubycodez]

Maybe they'll even let some of us study in their grad schools, like they did ours. In and out of classroom, in another culture, that would be fascinating.

Re:Who Cares!

[c0lo]

Let them do the heavy lifting for a while so we can just acquire it and reverse engineer it.

'R you sure you have enough funds and wetware for the R&D required to reverse-engineer? It's not like China would fill obliged to fill patent application with the US Patent Office to let you know how stuff work, "trade secrets" may be just enough for them.

Opinion != Fact

[Roger W Moore]

the offensive attack the US had planned if they didn't use the bomb would have been far worse. And that is historical fact.

Since when did educated guesses become fact? While I would tend to agree with you that is my (and your) opinion which is it something very different from a fact since we could both be wrong.

Re:Opinion != Fact

[phantomfive]

The alternative plan (assuming there wasn't some unexpected peace move) was to expand the fire bombing campaigns. Compare the casualty numbers of the fire bombings and the nuclear weapons, and it's fairly clear. The nuclear bombs were meant partially as a propaganda technique, and it succeeded, not only in Japan but also in many parts of the world. You rarely hear about the Tokyo fire bombing, even though there were more casualties.

Re:Opinion != Fact

[k8to]

Plans, projections, expectations.

I agree with all these. However the outcome is in fact, NOT, a matter of fact, because it did not occur.

Re:Opinion != Fact

[phantomfive]

lol I'm glad you agree. Now let's work on reading comprehension. Here is my original quote:

the offensive attack the US had planned if they didn't use the bomb would have been far worse. And that is historical fact.

Now, what did I claim was a fact? That they had planned a far worse campaign (essentially, they were going to continue and expand the firebombing and conventional campaign). Maybe something would have interceded to stop that plan, but the plan, as planned, would have caused far worse damage. The fact that it was planned is a fact. Clear? :)

Re:Opinion != Fact

[Pantero Blanco]

His reading comprehension isn't at fault here.

the offensive attack the US had planned if they didn't use the bomb would have been far worse. And that is historical fact.

"That" refers to the preceding statement. The quote claims that a hypothetical outcome is a historical fact.

the offensive attack the US had planned (and that is historical fact) if they didn't use the bomb would have been far worse.

This is what you meant (and yes, it is most likely true).

Stop suing

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe if the US companies stopped suing eachother they would have more money to spend on R&D.

Re:Stop suing

[c0lo]

Maybe if the US companies stopped suing eachother they would have more money to spend on R&D.

At least they'll have some money for a while. Even so, I'm not so sure they'll spend it on R&D... better chances are for the some dividends (to raise their stock prices) followed executive bonuses (because of the stock performance)... while the money last.

US/slash/output/still/superior/though

[Anonymous Coward]

kill him/herself just by forcing him/her to

entertaining counterexamples/stories for their classes/clients.

You two are making slashdot more slash-dottier than normal with all/those/slashes/in/your/text. Are we competing with China's slash output too?

Re:US/slash/output/still/superior/though

[Anonymous Coward]

they have already 2.6 billion of them!

(ok, very very bad joke, but i couldn't resist.)

Chinese research

[Anonymous Coward]

But the problem with chinese research is not that there is good research but that it's indistinguishable in an ocean of crap. I never read any chinese author paper in a magaine unless I know the author or found it by reference from another non-chinese paper. most of them are just a waste of time. Seriously I'm not exaggerating.

But that's not just my bigoted opinion. The chinese governement has said as much when they promised a crackdown on phony research. Good for them.

Re:Chinese research

[Anonymous Coward]

I gotta say, the research that comes out of the Western world is just as crap. The papers that are being published under the banner of 'publish or perish' is killing the quality.

Re:Chinese research

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks Shu Kwan!

Ooh! I Know How to Handle This!

[Greyfox]

Greetings China! We demand $Technology as tribute for our continued friendship! Be aware, our words are backed by NUCLEAR FORCE!

Japan vs US

[pavon]

Was US industry harmed when Japan started taking research seriously, and applying it to their products? Absolutely.

Re:Japan vs US

[Jeeeb]

Was US industry harmed when Japan started taking research seriously, and applying it to their products? Absolutely.

Was the average US consumer harmed? No. They benefited from cheaper, better quality, more functional products. The fact that US companies couldn't keep up is a problem with US companies. It would be extremely stupid to be afraid of others increasing the knowledge pool of humanity because we want to live in a time warp where companies incapable of innovating are protected from having to.

Re:Japan vs US

[oliverthered]

take it you didn't loose your house then?

Re:Japan vs US

[Jeeeb]

take it you didn't loose your house then?

Should we have been afraid of the development of cars because horse and carriage makers might loose their jobs? Saying we should be afraid of scientific advancement because companies can't keep up is saying that we should be afraid of the advancement of humanity because un-innovative companies can't compete.

Re:Japan vs US

[oliverthered]

on the contrary.. I'm saying you should be afraid that 'your' government isn't keeping things running well and keeping up.

I'm saying if your in the USA you should be afraid of your government, not China.

Re:Japan vs US

[Jeeeb]

on the contrary.. I'm saying you should be afraid that 'your' government isn't keeping things running well and keeping up. I'm saying if your in the USA you should be afraid of your government, not China.

With all due respect then, perhaps you should consider wording yourself more clearly than "take it you didn't loose your house then?" Especially when you consider that the grandfather post, which I was replying to, was stating that US industry was harmed by Japanese research.

Now as for your overall assertion, I'm not sure exactly where it is that you're saying the US government isn't keeping things running well and keeping up. If you're suggesting that the government should support workers who've lost their jobs because of technological advance or help companies who are losing their markets because they can't keep up with technological advance, I think that is a matter of your own political philosophy. Libertarians would almost certainly disagree, although many others may agree. I won't bore you with the details of my personal beliefs.

If you're suggesting that the fact that China is catching up with the US in scientific output is because of a failure of the US government, then I would have to disagree. It's simply a mater of scale. China has more than 4x the population of the US. If the average Chinese citizen is 1/4 as economically productive as the average US citizen then the Chinese economy will be larger than the US economy. Same scale applies roughly enough to scientific output, as long as the Chinese can get their house reasonably in order, then it is natural that China will produce more research than the US. Now there are almost certainly problems with science in the US some of which are almost certainly problems with the government. However, based on population, the natural state of affairs is that China will produce more scientific research than the US.

Re:Japan vs US

[oliverthered]

I don't think you can separate the two, was it harmed by Japanese research or by the lack of US investment in US research.. where is the split?

The US didn't keep up with the Joneses in terms of research, tech and efficiency... the short term 'imaginary' gains that resulted led to long term trillion dollar budget deficit, loss of homes for the people, not the companies (who coincidentally employ the people).. now you could go all communist like the hunter gathers... but I have a feeling someone would want to dictate and control things... Why not have the driving investment in wisdom over so called equity.

And this matters to who?

[kdsible]

What exactly should the U.S. be worried about? I fail to see the fear mongering. China is getting more powerful.......Blab blah....its' been in the news for months. The communist's are coming...we need to increase the military/Science budget by another 50 billion or we risk being overtaken. Good grief already.

Re:And this matters to who?

[oliverthered]

well. it's more like they stayed 'communist' (well more socialist dictatorship) long enough for us to get greedy and wasteful enough and then sucked us dry. not one nuke fired, sweet undercut.

China 2030 and HA HA HA America

[Zeio]

This has been a long time coming.

Chinese Professor
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTSQozWP-rM

HA HA HA America
http://www.atom.com/funny_videos/haha_america/

Our arrogant decadent hedonistic lazyness will cause American hegemony to end with with a whimper...

Prepare to be strangers in your own land.

But...

[Anonymous Coward]

We've got them beat in religion! We easily have 180,000,000 religious adults, apparently there are only 110,000,000 over there. We win! Whoo!!! Whoo!!!

I'm not worried

[Anonymous Coward]

We have plenty of Chinese scientists in this country...and our Chinese scientists are better than their Chinese scientists...so there.

the west strikes back....with a whimper ;-)

[Anonymous Coward]

Restores my faith in the west, to see so many we can't stand others getting ahead type posts. LONG LIVE THE USA....U-S-A....U-S-A....U-S-A....
Perhaps the problem is not without, but within? Just a thought.

You know a country is leading ...

[2Bits]

... in scientific research when you see the following:

1. Best research papers are published in the local language, and not in a foreign language
2. The country hosts the best scientific publication entities.
3. Scientists do not have to learn a foreign language to do research and read papers.
4. Other countries' scientists have, at least, a working knowledge of your language.
5. The best and brightest in the world come to study at your graduate schools.
6. The best and brightest scientists want to immigrate to your country (to have the opportunities to work on advanced research).

None of these apply to China yet, and I don't think it happen in 10 years, let alone 2 years. So, if I were an American policy maker, I'm not gonna to freak out yet.

Re:You know a country is leading ...

[A Nun Must Cow Herd]

And when you do freak out it will be too late.

Re:You know a country is leading ...

[cishuman]

# Best research papers are published in the local language, and not in a foreign language ...
# Scientists do not have to learn a foreign language to do research and read papers.

So, by your reckoning, Classical Rome was the leading country in medical and philosophical research until the 1700s, at least?

The Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica were not written in English, you know...

Re:You know a country is leading ...

[kubitus]

I would consider the growing number of people learning Putonhua!

Re:You know a country is leading ...

[Anonymous Coward]

So the netherlands and the Roman empire were the leading scientific countries in Newton's time?

Re:You know a country is leading ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think the language argument is very good. Remember that Latin was used in scientific publications all the way up to the 18th century - hundreds of years after the roman empire's fall. A language becomes an international standard for various resons, mostly based on trade, and one it has that status, it is hard to displace, as it serves a useful purpose as a universal language independently of the fate of the country it came from. I suspect that English will be a very hard language to displace, as the amount of international communication is much greater now than ever before.

Re:You know a country is leading ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Half of your points relate to the language. Sorry to break it to you, but that is not relevant.

Re:You know a country is leading ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of your points are just plainly wrong. Language has nothing to do with it, english is and has been the standard language in science for a long time now. There is no need to change that and it won't change any time soon. It is no measure of the quality of non-native-speaker research. You can argue for hosting respected publications and most certainly for getting people to come study and work there but language is by no means an indicator of success.

Re:You know a country is leading ...

[Anonymous Coward]

You could have said the same thing about Japan in the 1940s. Nowadays, do American scientists learn japanese to read papers written in japanese?

Re:You know a country is leading ...

[Anonymous Coward]

That actually depends on the branch of science that you are considering. For math, 3 & 4 are actually both true already (not sure about 5).

Re:You know a country is leading ...

[lehphyro]

Language is not a good metric because English was chosen mainly because it's a very straightforward language and the US came up in the best position possible after world wars. Chinese is too complex and time consuming to learn.

Re:You know a country is leading ...

[rubycodez]

just because YOUR country isn't having its engineers and scientists and students study Chinese doesn't mean that other countries aren't seeing the future. In India and SE Asia, they are studying Chinese because of the huge increase in trade since 1990s. My nieces and nephews in SE asia are learning Chinese in grade school to college levels.

Also worth noting the major global players on the planet are putting in the machinery to ditch the U.S. dollar as world currency.

All this will come together and leave most U.S. residents surprised their country is a has-been used-to-be.

Re:You know a country is leading ...

[Anonymous Coward]

If this is a problem, then the time to act is now.

Any policy maker who waits until there are significant signs of a decline doesn't understand science well enough to do anything useful. Scientists take roughly a _decade_ to train. Institutions can take a generation to build. And that generation doesn't start until the scientists are trained.

PS Please pretend that I ranted that American scientific prominence is unimportant to the nations leaders. Then, pretend I ranted that there are few good arguments for training more scientists. Figure about two-three paragraphs each. Thanks for saving me the typing.

Like 4 Like comparison

[oliverthered]

China's science is about as good as US pharmacological (sorry drug cartel) science, full of flids, zombies, addicts and school shooters.

Re:Like 4 Like comparison

[oliverthered]

Basically they are known for making up results and faking things.... There are so many examples... but that math problem that the Russian guy proved using fluid math and sorting out singularities (can't remember the name... it's the math that's important) in an example of China making bogus claims.

oblig comic reference

[Seto89]

This topic is featured on the current SMBC comic!

quote

[moco]

"There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere." Isaac Asimov

Yes, i played lots of civ4... why do you ask?

More to come, much more to come. And in Chinese.

[G3ckoG33k]

From 2010: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11453384

"A Chinese rocket carrying a probe destined for the Moon has blasted into space."

"China launched its first manned flight into low-Earth orbit in 2003; and two more followed, with the most recent one in 2008."

With their population, lack of religion, their scientific output surge was inevitable and still is largely untapped. More to come, much more to come. And in Chinese.

"and do the other things'"

[Anonymous Coward]

and do Marylin Monroe in every room of the white house, not because it is easy (well she is) but because it is hard..

Facts vs. Theories

[Cheech Wizard]

Many historians would argue Japan was ready to surrender prior to the bombs being dropped. Some historians say Japan was actively trying to surrender before the bombs were dropped. But even taking what you say, it's still theory, not fact. It's not fact any more than Rumsfeld's theory that the US would take Iraq, that the US soldiers would be welcomed as liberators, and it would be a 30 to 90 day war which would cost no more than US$30Billion - And that Iraq oil revenues would pay for the war (i.e.: it wouldn't cost US taxpayers a cent). A few trillion US$ later..... You are still calling things "facts" when they're just your theory (aka a guess) as to how things would have played out.

Re:Facts vs. Theories

[phantomfive]

Maybe they would have surrendered. That is speculation. What I am stating is merely what the alternate plan was. And that is a measure of fact. The immediate plan, in absence of the bomb, was to continue the firebombing/conventional bombing. There is no rational reason to believe it would have been better than the nuclear weapons. Look up what happened in the Tokyo firebombing for an example. People look at the nuclear weapons, because they are dramatic, but the firebombing was just as bad, if not worse.

Chinese Degree System

[King_of_Mars]

With regards to the increased output of Chinese Universities; the degree one earns there may, or may not be, similar to what we have here in the West. There is a long history in China of study in Confucian institutions which awarded a Degree. Initially a Degree meant a position in the Government Bureaucracy of the time; essentially entrance into the upper class. At other times a Degree was required to enter civil society; perhaps an analogue to owning a business here in the U.S. now days. During those periods Degrees were bought rather then earned; sometimes at the explicit consent of the Dynasty in order to raise funds for extraordinary times.

no quantity = no quality

[kubitus]

good and especially original ideas are statistically distributed.

The biggest fool may have the best idea, but being a fool it is stolen from him and exploited by others!

-

Sounds familiar - isn't it?

Re:You know a country is failing

[mjwx]

... in scientific research when you see the following:

- Sales and marketing are considered more important professions then doctor or scientist.
- Reality TV is considered an unmissable event.
- Solutions to problems involve cutting budgets to scientific organisations.
- It's popular to advertise your own ignorance.
- It's unpopular to show an aptitude for something.
- Scientific research in one area is halted by a religious minority waving an old book.
- You have to write lists of poorly thought out points to dissuade yourself from the fact science is failing in your own nation.

So if I were an American policy maker I wouldn't freak out because an uneducated populous allows you to openly serve other masters.

not in science

[Corson]

not in science but in science "output", whatever that means. totally different.

RTFA

[David Off]

As noted in the original article they used references as an indication of quality. On that basis China was 9th rising from 0 -> 4% of published papers.

Regarding numbers, my wife is a University Professor in France. She has a target of at least 4 papers per year. So even in the "west" quantity not quality can be an important driver to publish. One of her colleagues has been suspended for not publishing enough (well nothing at all for 5 years).

smbc coverage

[Anonymous Coward]

obligatory comic: smbc

Tibet?

[Kupfernigk]

China holds today the territory it had about 200 years before Christ

Oh please. There was no "China" ca. 200 BC. That's as bad as believing that, because it says to in a book, Jews are allowed to steal Palestinian land.

Yes, the US is an aggressive and expansive imperial power. But so is China. China is gaining influence in or buying up parts of South America and Africa. NATO is currently taking out some of its military hardware in Libya, where it was courting influence with Ghaddafi. It still claims to own the (relatively free and democratic) republic of Taiwan. There are more ways of taking over the world than by naked military aggression. China and the US: Tweedledum and Tweedledee.

Re:Tibet?

[jelizondo]

Allow me to enlighten you.

The subsequent Han Dynasty ruled China between 206 BC and 220 AD, and created a lasting Han cultural identity among its populace that extends to the present day. [See].

Also see a map of the Han territory about 2,000 years ago.

The difference with Jews is that the Chinese have occupied those territories without interruption and today most Chinese think of themselves as Han descendants.

Re:Tibet?

[jelizondo]

Sorry about the short and not quite friendly reply this morning. I was kind of in a hurry to get to the first of several meetings, respond to emails, etc. You know, the business of making a living.

I quite agree with you, China and the USA are imperialistic powers. Every nation that has military or economic power, tends to exert it in ways that further their own interests. That is human nature and there is not much we can do about it.

Now, as I pointed out in other posts to this thread, I rather see the USA keep its leadership because they at least pay lip service to basic human rights (agreed, not always) and to democratic ways (yes, not always.)

China in the other hand, thinks its people are cattle to be corraled and made productive, one way or another. The rest of us, non-Chinese, are less than cattle to them. The poorest Chinese peasant will look down on anyone not Chinese, because they are some kind of master race and the rest of the world is composed entirely of barbarians.

Given the above, one has to recognize that China (named so after the Quin [pronounced sheen] dynasty, which first unified the kingdoms) has been a political state for longer than any other country. The USA is just a bit more than 200 years old, Germany less than 200 and so forth.

While there are marked differences between North and South Chinese, they have always struggled to control ALL of China. Not this stuff of the Confederate States against the damn yankees or the panamanians wanting independence from Colombia. No sir, it's all or nothing. Taiwan was part of China before 1895 (when the Japanese got it by force) and came to be part of China again after the end of WWII (1945); the struggle between communists and the nationalists ripped the two apart, but both claimed to be the legitimate government of China, all of China.

Eventually, Taiwan will be part of continental China again, whether under a democratic (or almost democratic regime) or under the communists, is a question to be decided yet. So you see, there is no extra-territorial claim; it is simple one group staying in one island claiming to be the rightful government of all of China against a larger group in the continent claiming the same exact thing.

Tibet is a different thing entirely, having struggled against China for, literally, centuries. But it has also struggled against British troops trying to ascertain dominance over the territory, so it is not only the Chinese.

Chinese think that Tibet is part of the greater Chinese territory. Before you scream imperialism, let us remember that they have not made any claims against Indian, Pakistani, Korean or Vietnamese territory; it is simple that they have conquered and lost Tibet some many times, that they feel it is a rebel part of their territory.

Quite unlike the Americans sizing half of México in a purely expansionist drive, not even in dreams had the USA any right to such territories as it didn't have any rights to any territory in America; lest we forget, it was Britishers fighting native Americans to disposes them of their rightful lands.

But again, I rather see the USA maintain its leadership with all its warts and defects than see the Chinese exert their power.

So, if I understand this correctly...

[Tomsk70]

....their supercomputers have cpu's ten years behind Intel's, but their science output overall will overtake the US in two years.

I think I'll wait and see if that happens, thanks.

Re:So, if I understand this correctly...

[ibsteve2u]

Intel's plants in China build 65 nm technology with plans to move to 45 nm. Sure, Intel is holding the 32 nm and smaller stuff out (hopefully), but riddle me this: If high school and college teach you the basic skills needed to make advancements upon your own, then why wouldn't being inside of Intel's 65 nm plants provide China with the skill sets they need to launch development of their own chips?

What placing manufacturing in China did was provide them with the opportunity to skip right on past the "Hey, look what germanium does if you put a bias current on it..." grunt work of the R&D we Americans invested in.

Don't forget that technology is like sex: It ain't how big it is, it is how well you use it.

And please don't forget that the prevailing attitude in Corporate America is that every penny spent on R&D is a penny that could have gone into the CEO's paycheck...

Most of all, do not underestimate the damage that greed at the top is causing. The physical disconnect - the separation; the lack of timely feedback and input from production workers - between the R&D labs in America and the plant floor way over in China alone is a huge disadvantage that we voluntarily inflicted upon ourselves...all because "workers" were transformed by "flood-up/trickle-down" economics into a "cost" that should be eliminated.

Re:So, if I understand this correctly...

[ibsteve2u]

Most of all, do not underestimate the damage that greed at the top is causing. The physical disconnect - the separation; the lack of timely feedback and input from production workers - between the R&D labs in America and the plant floor way over in China alone is a huge disadvantage that we voluntarily inflicted upon ourselves...all because "workers" were transformed by "flood-up/trickle-down" economics into a "cost" that should be eliminated.

To expand upon that a little: The plant floor provides great feedback if you're willing to listen; from there comes the "This doesn't work so well." and the "Wouldn't it be better if we did it this other way?" feedback that transforms a good product into a great product.

At this point you should be thinking: "Huh...now why would Chinese workers provide that feedback to absentee American "owners" (itself a lie)? If they're good little capitalists, they'll keep those ideas to themselves until they can turn to the state for financing to build a competing product that incorporates all of those improvements. If they're good little communists, they'll keep those ideas to themselves in order to use them to advance China to their plainly obvious goal: Global supremacy."

That is what you should be thinking, and that is what our wealthy few should be thinking. But either the latter are blinded by their greed or they just don't care if they destroy America as long as they get wealthier.

Me, I have no evidence to support the hypothesis that our wealthy few are blindly stupid - but I have plenty to support the hypothesis that they see the destruction of America not as a risk to themselves but as the infliction of pain upon the American "worker" (a.k.a. the American people) - and that is something that they equally plainly approve of.

Re:So, if I understand this correctly...

[Tomsk70]

I must confess, I've always wondered about the legality of foreign manufacturing - after all, what is the point of having labor laws at all if you can simply have things built abroad and legally ignore them?

Especially when we're talking about Apple pricing, where one could assume the high cost was due to local manufacture (but of course, the real reason is as you say - greed)

Re:So, if I understand this correctly...

[ibsteve2u]

I must confess, I've always wondered about the legality of foreign manufacturing - after all, what is the point of having labor laws at all if you can simply have things built abroad and legally ignore them?

Especially when we're talking about Apple pricing, where one could assume the high cost was due to local manufacture (but of course, the real reason is as you say - greed)

Those labor (and environmental) laws are pretty much the driver behind inequitable free trade, the attacks on unions, etc. etc. etc. The right is truly trying to run the clock backwards to the days of Hoover and even before...

Way back; back to when they could use workers up (or literally destroy them) in any way they pleased and then dispose of them without any further thought. Same goes with the environment...the right truly believes that they are entitled to destroy in order to self-enrich and "labor" (a.k.a. the American people) should be powerless to protest the harm that they inflict, whether that harm comes in the form of premature death from overwork, being crushed in unsafe machinery, lack of health care, malnutrition because what they are paid doesn't cover what the corporate infrastructure charges them for energy, food, and housing, or from being poisoned at work or at home by toxic emissions and waste products.

Hence their multipronged attack of inequitable free trade and production in countries which lack environmental laws and worker and consumer safety laws combined with the use of their wealth to corrupt our government from the governorships of too many states to Congress and even the Supreme Court (witness Citizens United).

To the right (or Corporate America, if you'd prefer; the terms are nearly interchangeable if you include those "conservatives" who typically have a significant financial interest in Corporate America), inequitable free trade is only a tool; a hammer with which to pound down the American people's ability to say "No!" to abysmal wages, unsafe working conditions, and a toxic environment.

They'd far rather produce in this country both because the additional transportation expenses are dependent upon oil prices and can dig into their profit margins and also (and importantly) because it is difficult to revel in your ability to terrorize your workers when they are so far away. But for now the rigged currency exchange rates offset transportation expenses and make producing offshore more lucrative. Add to that the fact that offshore production is so useful as a weapon with which to crush unions and exert downward pressure on wages across the entire labor force....well, the right flat out lies when they say they want to create jobs here.

Putting the American people into direct competition with offshore labor forces who can have the same standard of living as Americans for 1/5th the wages - in dollars - because of bogus currency exchange rates was a stroke of evil genius on the part of the right and neoliberal Democrats.

"Far earlier than expected"? Ah, arrogance...

[ibsteve2u]

Not much you can't do, if somebody is providing you with all of their technology and manufacturing expertise even as they shovel money in faster than you can spend it. It is too bad the Republicans and neoliberal Democrats so hate "labor" (while somehow trying to differentiate between "labor" and the American people each election cycle); without the blind spot about the capabilities of "workers" that hatred creates, they might not have made so many stupid assumptions as they were selling America out to the Chinese.

What is funniest of all to me is the masters of the aforementioned politicians are still formulating policy based upon a couple of amazingly stupid assumptions: That the dollar will always be king and that they will always control the dollar - and so control America and the world.

The dollar is just a figment of the human imagination; true wealth are resources and the ability to transform those resources into useful things. The Republicans and neoliberal Democrats have given such real and tangible assets away for great piles of an imaginary substance whose value is dependent upon whether or not those with real and tangible assets accept it.

Now that is leadership.

On the bright side, at least in continually attacking our education system the Republicans are doing what they can to ensure that we won't have to worry about catching back up with the Chinese in science.

Mine more minerals

[sourcerror]

Not enough funding... mine more minerals ... I mean oil ...

Not entirely

[acb]

The USA's lead in Creation Science is expected to be safe.

Thank Goodness

[Clubbah]

Thank goodness we didn't roll back the Bush era tax cut to pay for the last round of hysterical speculation by Wall Street.. Massive cuts in education on Main Street seem to be a much better prospect for the future.

Go ahead, deny it

[Anonymous Coward]

"...a growing volume of research publications does not necessarily mean an increase in quality." Denial is only the first stage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%BCbler-Ross_model

True Threat Is Zach Weiner

[Jason Levine]

The true threat is Zach Weiner. If his sinister plan goes through, he'll publish Infinity papers!

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2198

Definition of an associate professor...

[Anne_Nonymous]

...a machine for turning grad students into published papers.

Number One

[Zinner]

Just ignore the Visigoths storming the seven hills. We're Number One!!

Yeah, High Taxes!

[Zinner]

You mean like General Electric that paid a whopping ZERO in taxes?

HAHA FAIL

[Anonymous Coward]

LOSERS.

At least

[Anonymous Coward]

we're not descended from monkeys

Payback's a Bitch

[Carcass666]

The good news is that the United States will be able to find something to do for all the people excreted from its deteriorating education system, once the service jobs have all filled/dried up. We can have cheap labor creating knock-off products based upon Chinese intellectual property.

So once we are #2.....

[JoeKeegan123]

...does that mean that ALL science expenditures will stop, and EVERYTHING will be funneled into WAR CHESTS and MILITARY SPENDING? I'll bet that it does....and all scientific innovations will be driven by the military.

I think the whole topic is a troll

[Anonymous Coward]

A near perfect topic for a troll.

Tough to quantify objectively at best.

HOWEVER, the planet needs all the positive science it can get. If we are going to continue to live on the Blue Marble, we need to figure out better ways of existing since we have the way to kill off our species and many other either slowly through denuding of resources and spoiling the very land we live on and water we drink, or rapidly by our ever evolving weapons.

Extinction for humankind is a very real possibility. I for one would like all available great minds on the planet addressing the problems irrespective of where they live. Perish the thought of another dark ages be it brought on by nuclear holocaust, global famine, or cultural ignorance and intolorance.

Since I rarely respond to these types of debates, the troll must be working....

Time to relocate

[lsatenstein]

USA is falling behind China and India. If you want to be with the winners, it is time to move.

education

[Anonymous Coward]

We need to look at some facts here. 30 years ago, China was sending students to the US to study math and science. Today we are looking at the facts that China, with a population of nearly 2 billion, has a base of the same proportion of VERY SMART KIDS that we do, and much more incentive for those same kids to do well in school, learn something, and go on to become the geniuses of the future. In china, they will better their lot--and that of their families, which is very important--if they produce, even if the people themselves become the property of the state once they have shown their ability to think and produce new ideas. Our kids, on the other hand, are more interested in facebook, twitter, tattoos, and video games than they are interested in life, in actual productive research, in finding out about how to make the universe work for them, and in making their country strong. Think about it.

China is to lead US in 2 years

[Anonymous Coward]

If the Republikans have their way. They have zero sense of anything. I would expect that we will abandon electricity and everybody will have a coal furnace in 1 year.