The rise of communist China has long raised a question about the strength of its scientific research capabilities. Setting aside politics, measuring the output, impact, and quality of scientific research is an extremely challenging task.
So, what is the level of China’s scientific research and output?
Even under the most ideal circumstances, measuring scientific research and its various aspects is difficult. For example, Katalin Kariko won the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 2023 for her achievements in mRNA vaccine research, but before that, she struggled with projects not being well-received by the academic community, facing funding rejections, and ultimately being denied tenure by the University of Pennsylvania. Many universities incentivize researchers to focus on the quantity of research papers, leading to a proliferation of low-quality papers published in low-tier or pay-to-publish journals. If quantity is not the solution, how do we measure quality? One common standard used in academia is the number of times other researchers cite a paper. However, this approach has its drawbacks, as many papers are highly cited for errors as counterexamples, just one of many issues. It is widely known that top journals have serious publication issues, from prioritizing friends and colleagues for publication opportunities in other journals to failing to verify data, resulting in research that cannot withstand scrutiny.
So, how should we understand the claim that China is the world’s leading scientific superpower?
Having worked at Peking University for nearly a decade, I can unequivocally say that China has made significant strides in the field of science. Nearly two decades ago, the Chinese government prioritized substantial investments, hiring researchers from China and around the world across various disciplines to promote research and output. Colleagues I have met and collaborated with graduated from excellent schools and engage in high-quality research activities.
However, there is also a downside. The massive investment has brought about tremendous pressure to publish (high-quality) papers or risk losing one’s job. This pressure has led to research misconduct, as well as examples of writing low-quality papers to ensure passage through research reviews. In China, professors and others, including nonviolent offenders, can benefit from owning patents. This has resulted in a large number of worthless patents flooding the market, creating a thriving secondary market where people can purchase patents to advance their careers.
Recently, some Chinese professors conducted research on the research pressures facing universities. Their research findings, based on interviews with professors and graduate students nationwide, though expected, are still shocking. Given the pressure university leaders face to build world-class institutions, deans choose to turn a blind eye deliberately or choose not to delve deeply into quality issues. As one university leader pointed out in an article: “We should not be too strict in identifying and punishing research misconduct.”
To be fair, foreign scholars also face similar pressures, as evidenced by research scandals involving data fabrication at prestigious American universities. Faculty worldwide face the same research pressures, and it was only relatively recently that American administrators became aware of reviewing research integrity issues. However, a vast majority of retractions due to plagiarism and data falsification come from Chinese universities and research institutes.
Complicating matters, China excels in some fields of research. In certain hard sciences like physics, biology, and computer science, some Chinese scientists are at the forefront globally.
Given the numerous challenges in measuring the quality and output of scientific research, what truly matters is how this translates into advanced products, outputs, and creativity. When viewed through a broader lens of measurement, China falls notably behind other countries. Even the Communist Party of China recently expressed concerns about America’s global leadership in artificial intelligence.
As Beijing has pointed out, China is emulating the American model and updating for the Chinese market. In fact, prominent Chinese startups are utilizing open-source code and tailoring it for the Chinese market, which has raised concerns in Beijing due to national pride. Despite the multitude of papers, China will continue to lag behind the United States.
China’s scientific research has undoubtedly made significant progress, attributed to human capital, high educational attainment, and rapid growth in research funding. However, China’s scientific research also faces the same entrenched problems plaguing Chinese society as a whole: a cumbersome party-state system controlling everything, centralizing output goals while seldom considering distortions or if these outputs hold value. Even corruption within the government manifests in Chinese universities. Papers written using ChatGPT and false data appear to come directly from authorities.
While China has made tremendous strides in scientific research, it should not be regarded as a scientific superpower.
Author’s Bio:
Christopher Balding, a former professor at Fulbright University Vietnam and the HSBC Business School at Peking University, specializes in studying the Chinese economy, financial markets, and technology. As a senior fellow at the Henry Jackson Society, he lived in China and Vietnam for over a decade before moving to the United States.