On March 11, 2004, the highly respected British journal
Nature published a special supplement entitled "China
Voice" in recognition of several positive trends in the country,
including China's sustained efforts over many years to turn itself
into a world-class scientific power. However, the journal's editor
noted, China is not yet fulfilling its scientific potential, with
many opportunities lost and world recognition inadequate.
In a recent interview with China's Newsweek magazine,
Chinese Academy of
Sciences President Lu Yongxiang offered his views on the
Nature supplement and on the state of science in the
country.
Newsweek: How would you evaluate this
special supplement to Nature? Are the articles in the
issue accurate representations of actual situations in Chinese
science?
Lu Yongxiang: Nature is a
world-renowned journal with a very good reputation. Publishing a
special supplement like "China Voice" is very rare for
Nature?-- in fact, this is probably the first time.
This indicates that Nature pays close attention to China's
scientific and technological development, which, in turn, shows its
acknowledgement of China. Without China's rapid development and
distinctive progress in science and technology, they would not have
published this.
In "China Voice," eight scientists make observations about
China's development in science and technology, which are well
intended. Some offer constructive and sincere suggestions, which, I
believe, will be of great help to China's future development in
science and technology.
The history of science, especially of modern science, is not
very long in China, about 100 years at most. During much of this
short, 100-year history, China was in turmoil. The history of
science being on the right track and being considered important
since 1949, especially after reform and opening began, is even
shorter, 30 to 50 years in total.
Under the circumstances, I believe that it was a great
achievement for China's modern science to reach its present state:
from laying the foundation to its rapid development since reform
and opening. This is a rare thing in the world.
It takes time to develop a scientific culture, construct
scientific research bases and inculcate scientific beliefs,
thoughts, spirit, and abilities. It is not like commercial or
industrial investment. For example, if you invest in a large power
plant, you can expect that it will generate electricity in two or
three years.
Copernicus, Galileo, and Bruno put forward their own views about
the universe back in their own respective times, but 200 years
passed before their views were developed into systematic and basic
science.
I think that the gap in science and technology between China and
developed countries results from historical factors. It is our hope
that we can direct our scientific and technological development
onto the fast track. However, we should follow the law of
scientific development. It might cost the effort of several
generations, or even of more than ten generations. From the
beginning of the last century to now, five or six generations have
contributed to China's modern scientific development.
Newsweek: In "China Voice," Pu Muming
writes, "deferring to what the teacher says and accepting doctrines
of the classics is the foundation of Confucian education. It is
debatable whether this education mode serves as a booster or an
impediment to development of Chinese society." Do you agree?
LY: At present, we should not underestimate the
influence of feudalism, which lasted several thousand years in
China. The respect for teachers advocated by the traditional
Chinese culture is right, but the tradition of advocating the
practice of positioning by seniority and not encouraging students
to outdo their teachers is certain to impede the progress and
development of science and technology.
In a comparison with Western education, ours focuses more on
inculcating knowledge but less on cultivating abilities; more on
instructing students to follow established rules strictly but less
on instructing students to explore and be creative; and more on
respecting teachers and obeying moral codes but less on encouraging
students to outdo their teachers.
In our country, parents and kindergarten teachers prefer to
teach children how to do things. In foreign countries, however,
people let children learn things by themselves. I saw an example of
this kind of education in a German family. The parents let their
child crawl on the floor. There was a cup of hot tea on the table
and the child wanted to grab it. My first response was to take the
hot cup away immediately. However, the parents let him touch the
cup and realize that it was hot, which would prevent him from
touching the cup next time. Of course, the prerequisite to this
practice was safety from burning the child.
When kindergartens bring children to picnics, they only bring
rice, salt, and kitchen utensils. They need to look for water and
firewood in the surrounding area. They cultivate children's spirit
to explore when they are only four or five years old.
Newsweek: It seems that science in
China has not obtained the status that Western countries have, nor
the respect it is due.
LY: In China, it is education that enables us
to know and understand science. In the West, however, it was the
struggle with nature and religion that built up the prestige of
science.
Many scientists, such as Copernicus, Galileo and Bruno, were
attacked or even burnt to death after they put forward new ideas
and new concepts. Decades or even more than a century later, their
ideas were proved by application to be correct. Science has won the
victory and thus acquired great prestige in society.
In early days of the development of modern science and
technology, only a minority of people benefited from it. Later, the
majority of people benefited, which convinced them of the value and
importance of science and technology. In China, this process is
lacking. Modern science is introduced from abroad, so science and
technology do not mean much to common people.
There must be a historical process before Chinese people can
have a correct understanding of science. In our effort to make
clear to them the importance of science and technology, the basic
issue is the contribution of our own scientists, especially
important discoveries and inventions made on our own soil. Only if
this happens, can we expect further improvements in the scientific
spirit and beliefs of common people.
Newsweek: Yang Xiangzhong writes in
"China Voice" that China's investment in scientific research is
insufficient. Do you think this is a big issue?
LY: Investment in scientific research has
increased greatly in recent years. But still, the ratio of this
investment to GDP is less than that of developed countries, which
has already reached 2 to 3 percent. The ratio in China has reached
1.2 percent, better than the average ratio, about 1 percent, of
developing countries.
The next step for China is to increase this ratio, say, to 1.5
percent by 2005, to 2 percent by 2010 and to 2.5 to 3 percent by
2020.
True, investment is very important in developing science and
technology, but the optimum use of resources and talents plays a
more important role. If there were no talent, excellent scientific
ideas or reasons, invested money would be wasted. History shows
that many scientists have made great scientific achievements with
little money. Einstein, who put forward the Theory of Relativity,
had little money; the German scientist Wegener, who put forward the
Theory of Plate Tectonics, had little money as well.
In short, scientific talent and ideas are more important than
money.
Newsweek: In past decades, China has
had one contradiction that has not been resolved well. That is the
contradiction between investment in basic research and in
application research. With limited funds, more has been invested in
application research. Basic research is usually ignored.
LY: This is a common problem in all developing
countries. Our investment in basic research is really too low,
accounting for only 6 percent of the total investment in science
and technology. The figure in developed countries is generally 15
to 20 percent; in other developing countries, it is around 10
percent. In some countries it may be higher, such as India, where
it is over 10 percent.
This phenomenon is connected with tradition and governmental
understanding of scientific development in developing countries.
After China began its opening and reform, some people thought that
investment in basic research should reap quick benefits. In fact,
basic research should serve to discover and accumulate new
knowledge and foster new talents, laying a good foundation and
blazing a way for application research and technological invention.
The benefits of basic research are comprehensive and long term.
It is not only scientists and administrators who should have a
deep understanding of the importance of basic research. The entire
society should have a correct understanding of it. Then it will be
easier to decide the proper ratio for investment in basic research.
In addition to deciding the proper investment ratio, it is also
essential to select the proper key field, and then to select
talents or team players. We should accord full respect to
scientists and their decision-making ability in innovation; invest
consistently; introduce a proper competitive mechanism; and
establish a scientific evaluation system. The lack of competition
and evaluation is wrong. However, it is not conducive to the
development of basic research either if the evaluation period is
too short or done hastily or unscientifically.
Newsweek: Modern science and
technology are developing very rapidly. Decision-makers may not
fully master the development of various disciplines in a short
time. Does this affect decisions on scientific and technological
policy?
LY: It is impossible for decision-makers to
know everything well. I majored in machinery control. It is
impossible for me to understand leading-edge life science and
technology. To solve this problem, we should build a method of
democratic science and democratic decision-making. We should depend
on excellent and groundbreaking scientists in this field. We should
not only listen to opinions of domestic scientists, but also read
analyses by foreign scientists and examine the scientific research
plans of the United States, Europe and Japan, which are leaders in
this field.
Sci-tech management departments should consider some strategic
layout according to trends in science development and the
requirements of society. The choices made by the government should
not be too detailed or too microcosmic, because that will hinder
innovative ideas. Many of these actually occur outside the plan.
Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity is definitely an unplanned
outcome.
The main task of the government is to judge where the key field
of our basic research should be and to find and select farsighted
scientists of great potential. Then let them make decisions and
select their research direction. For example, it is widely believed
now that life science is poised to make significant breakthroughs.
Therefore, research on it should be enhanced and the investment
ratio should be increased. This is the common understanding
throughout the world. However, what to do and how to do it are jobs
that the life scientists need to consider. Creative scientists are
welcome to do the research.
Now, the foundations depend on experts to make an appraisal.
Fine. However, if all projects have to be evaluated there, some
unique ideas may not pass the appraisal.
I think scientific groups and foundations of universities should
provide certain funds to aid those who have creative and unique
ideas to carry out their research. The diversity of science should
not be ignored.
In scientific history, a number of significant discoveries were
made accidentally. However, to the scientist himself, the field he
chose was usually the field in which important breakthroughs were
brewing. For example, Francis Crick's discovery of the double helix
structure of DNA seems accidental and out of plan. But in his time,
DNA was already a hot issue. British scientific organizations were
keen on this area. They thought Crick's work was a frontier science
and they should look into it. Although they didn't provide much
money to Crick, at least they accepted his idea and encouraged him
instead of excluding him.
Newsweek: "China Voice" also mentioned
that China's ability to create an environment to attract overseas
Chinese scholars is of vital importance to its future
development.
LY: It is important to establish a platform for
innovation for overseas scholars who want to return to China.
However, it is not realistic for China to try to attract overseas
scholars with American treatment. On the one hand, we need to
create conditions to allow them return; on the other hand, some who
cannot come back for various reasons and stay abroad can also play
their roles. If we have excellent groups in China, we can establish
international cooperation with excellent foreign scientists.
Science is a naturally international innovative activity. The
introduction of famous scientists is important. However, more focus
should be put on young people with more potential.
Newsweek: You read "China Voice." Do
you think other scientific research decision-makers will also read
it?
LY: I think most of them will read it. It will
have impact on China's scientific research system, but we should
not attach excessive importance to it. Domestic scientists are also
conducting wide and in-depth research and discussion on the
problems mentioned in the magazine. We have a common understanding
on many problems. Certainly, it is more helpful for overseas
scholars to join the discussion, too.
We should be confident about China's situation. First, our
education level will continue to improve. Second, China is already
open to the outside world. Our talents can have constant exchange
and cooperation with the world. Now, China is giving great
attention to science and technology. This is very conducive to
scientific development.
Furthermore, China has huge development demand. The scientists'
urge to innovate is one motivation for sci-tech development.
Another is social demand. The demand from society is huge: pressure
on population and health, shortage of resources and energy, and
pressure of global competition?-- they all give impetus to
China's sci-tech development.
(China.org.cn translated by Ni Xiaoqiang and Wang Qian, April
26, 2004)