China Will Lead World Scientific Research By 2020 387
Hugh Pickens writes "An analysis of papers published in 10,500 academic journals across the world shows that, in terms of academic papers published, China is now second only to the US, and will take first place by 2020. Chinese scientists are increasing their output at a far faster rate than counterparts in rival 'emerging' nations such as India, Russia, and Brazil. The number of peer-reviewed papers published by Chinese researchers rose 64-fold over the past 30 years. 'China is out on its own, far ahead of the pack,' says James Wilsdon, of the Royal Society in London. 'If anything, China's recent research performance has exceeded even the high expectations of four or five years ago.' According to Wilsdon, three main factors are driving Chinese research. First is the government's enormous investment, with funding increases far above the rate of inflation, at all levels of the system from schools to postgraduate research. Second is the organized flow of knowledge from basic science to commercial applications. And third is the efficient and flexible way in which China is tapping the expertise of its extensive scientific diaspora in North America and Europe, tempting back mid-career scientists with deals that allow them to spend part of the year working in the West and part in China." Here's the Financial Times's original article.
Re:To summarize... (Score:5, Informative)
Read http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/08/28/060828fa_fact2?currentPage=all for more on how the Chinese approach science...
Re:To summarize... (Score:4, Informative)
Spys? That's quite harsh. There's many scientists from different countries working all around the globe. Many European ones in the US as well, and US scientists in Europe for instance. If a US scientist works in the EU, does that make him a traitor or a spy? It makes him a scientist. Science advances through different information being shared and further developed on. China and the US are not in a war, so to label them as spies seems rather odd.
"Emerging"? (Score:5, Informative)
rival 'emerging' nations such as India, Russia, and Brazil.
It was 18th century when Russia was "emerging" in scientific research.
Re:To summarize... (Score:2, Informative)
The USSR propped up its research by doing the same thing (see nuclear weapons) and ultimately lost when better counter measures were taken to stop them.
Really? What else did nice US propaganda workers tell you?
Holy fuck, of all things, USSR had one of the best nuclear research programs in the world.
Re:Maybe the US should pay scientists decent wages (Score:1, Informative)
Academic reserchers are paid very well in the US compared to most countries. Take a look at post-doc wages in France or Italy...
The brain drain isn't geographical, it's is people moving away from research into more lucrative fields (eg. finance).
Re:Beehives and ant colonies are efficient too (Score:3, Informative)
You haven't been to China, have you? It's less beehive and more wild west.
Re:And yet (Score:2, Informative)
Imperialism? How about Tibet and East Turkistan? How about they have border disputes with several of their neighbors going as far as claiming an entire Indian state? Oh, they're way into Imperialism.
Re:To summarize... (Score:4, Informative)
Fatherland. Motherland is Mother Russia
Re:To summarize... (Score:2, Informative)
Um, way to miss the point entirely?
Re:To summarize... (Score:3, Informative)
As far as I know, they did not provide anything of importance.
Then you don't know much. Google "Alexander Feklisov" to get started. People like Klaus Fuchs handed over voluminous amounts of extremely detailed information. The Joe 1 device was an almost exact copy of the Fat Man because Beria insisted starting with proven designs first. Yes, it is true the Soviets had extremely capable talent like Kurchatov and he used the espionage in the best possible way. The spy information was primarily used as a check and confirmation of their own progress. If a young physicist came in his office with a hot sounding idea, Kurchatov would open a safe, look at some papers, and then say "No, try again." So they both came up with their own theoretical understanding as quickly as possible while avoiding costly blind alleys that we had to go down. Another example of a blind alley avoided was something called "Wigner's Disease" that very nearly required an extensive refit of the Hanford enrichment facilities.
After the initial device, the Soviets didn't copy nearly as much but the espionage allowed their initial development to focus almost exclusively on productive ideas and shaved years off their nuclear program.
Re:And yet (Score:3, Informative)
Their submarines are good enough to sneak up on US carriers, and they have demonstrated that they can shoot down satellites. Now I ask myself where the US will be with carriers on the bottom of the oceans and no satellites to coordinate communications for combined arms or provide overhead intelligence.
Regarding this. Last time I checked into it (and I will admit that was a few years ago) United States aircraft carriers are deployed as part of a large battle group known as a task force. They patrol their various portions of the globe, and perform their missions, with a rather sizable escort fleet of both submarines and destroyers. That means that, while Chinese (and any other country's) submarines are perfectly capable of sneaking up on US carriers, they must manage to do so without being detected by a large wing (I believe somewhere between 10 to 25 destroyers and/or submarines) of other naval craft that are designed specifically for sub hunting and killing. That's not simple task. It takes years worth of battle experience to become good at that kind of submarine warfare. That said, I think that it should be noted that there is a lot more to naval and, in general, military strategy than pure numbers. Disagree with me on that if you want, but if I recall correctly the size of the Iraq standing army was actually significantly larger than the US force sent over there. It was superior technology and strategy that put the US on top. While, as you pointed out, China is not Iraq, strategy is a big deal in any engagement and I would not underestimate the schools of American military strategy. We love our armies, it's what we do.
Regarding the satellite attacks you mentioned. Perhaps China is willing to knock out satellites as a means of warfare. If they do that, they will be polluting various orbits with a crapton of debris that is hard to track and avoid. If any country starts 'shooting down' satellites, it will make space a mess for everyone, not just the US. If China or any other country attempts this, that and that alone could be a significant factor in creating a rather large coalition against them. Furthermore, it would make it difficult for China to use GEO orbits for communications as well which, while it could be done, is kind of silly. GEO comm sats really are the quickest and most effective communication on the battlefield. To do away with it entirely is not the best idea, especially when you have spent a significant portion of time ramping up your own space program. Blowing up satellites in orbit to disable US military communications could work as an effective strategy if you can successfully communicate in a more organized fashion without that communication option yourself. Maybe China can do this, maybe they cannot, I don't know. What I do know is that the US military is all about backups and redundancy. If GPS and the other military comm sats are attacked and the networks are taken down, I can guarantee you that US commanders have a back up communications plan...probably two or three in fact.
They have a space program. They also have nuclear weapons. Combine the two and that means they can put a nuclear bomb anywhere on the planet with an ICBM. What's not known is their accuracy, but who needs accuracy if you have a multi-megaton device?
Their capabilities are still nowhere near those of the former Soviet Union. The advantage that the US has in having an over active defense lobby is that we are still producing military systems for fighting a war with the Soviets. One of the largest funded branches of military development right now is MDS (missile defense systems). We are slowly, but surely, building a very effective network of anti-ICBM technology. Take a look at the