The US Is Turning Away From Its Biggest Scientific Partner at a Precarious Time (wsj.com) 131
One of the most productive scientific collaborations of the 21st century is pulling apart, as deteriorating relations between the U.S. and China lead researchers to sever ties. From a report: The decoupling, which began in recent years with investigations into Chinese researchers in the U.S., has accelerated as tensions have risen between the superpowers. Now some U.S. lawmakers are pushing to let a landmark agreement to cooperate on science and technology, signed in 1979 and renewed routinely since, expire this month. China has built itself into a powerful engine of scientific discovery in recent decades, partly with American help, and many in Washington fear that China could gain a security and military advantage unless the U.S. takes decisive steps to cut off cooperation in scientific research.
Many scientists warn, however, that Washington would be severing ties as China is making its greatest contributions to scientific advancements, and cutting it off risks slowing American progress in critical areas such as biotechnology, clean energy and telecommunications. While the U.S. remains the world's pre-eminent science power, fundamental scientific research has grown borderless in the era of globalization, much as business has. More than 40% of America's scientific production -- measured by the number of high-quality papers that U.S.-based scientists produce -- involves cooperation with researchers abroad, according to Clarivate, a London-based data firm that tracks global scientific research. China and the U.S. are each other's No. 1 partner in producing scientific research, with collaborative research between the two consistently among the most-cited papers across fields, according to an analysis of Clarivate's data by Caroline Wagner, a professor of public policy at Ohio State University.
Many scientists warn, however, that Washington would be severing ties as China is making its greatest contributions to scientific advancements, and cutting it off risks slowing American progress in critical areas such as biotechnology, clean energy and telecommunications. While the U.S. remains the world's pre-eminent science power, fundamental scientific research has grown borderless in the era of globalization, much as business has. More than 40% of America's scientific production -- measured by the number of high-quality papers that U.S.-based scientists produce -- involves cooperation with researchers abroad, according to Clarivate, a London-based data firm that tracks global scientific research. China and the U.S. are each other's No. 1 partner in producing scientific research, with collaborative research between the two consistently among the most-cited papers across fields, according to an analysis of Clarivate's data by Caroline Wagner, a professor of public policy at Ohio State University.
Don't trust China.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Don't trust the US government, either. The obvious fact is that cutting off collaboration will hurt Both the US and China severely.
And would it even be worth it in the slightest to sacrifice innovations in critical areas of the economy for some temporary illusion of military advantage? This is a major failing of countries still acting as if they wish to dominate each other - when it is no longer possible; Military superiority doesn't exactly matter anymore - A few nukes, and both countries are extin
Re: (Score:2)
If this is true, then how is it that Ukraine is still resisting Russia's attempt to take it over?
Re: (Score:2)
If this is true, then how is it that Ukraine is still resisting Russia's attempt to take it over?
In case you didn't notice... This is not an all-out war, and Ukraine is FAR from having military superiority over Russia -- Military superiority doesn't even grant victory. So that does not contradict the above at all.
Russia's capabilities are superior.. and if Russia liked they could actually turn the whole country to a wasteland with some targeted WMDs; However, the consequences for Russia would be enorm
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The UK already made this mistake. Left the EU's Horizon programme for science, found that the promises given about matching funding were all lies, and anyway science doesn't care about borders or who you are allowed to collaborate with.
Now the UK is crawling back, asking to be let in again.
As for China, China has a lot of money to invest in science. And it's going to invest it regardless of if we collaborate or not. In fact, not collaborating might make it invest more.
Re: (Score:1)
Like the US gov't doesn't spy?
However, one difference is that the Chinese gov't assists in NON-military industrial espionage. I won't say it never happened, but it's rare the US has done such to anyone's knowledge.
Re:Don't trust China.. (Score:5, Insightful)
1) no country is trustworthy. Countries have interests, not friends.
2) true about trade partners and wars, generally if the trade is considered fair by both sides
3) absolutely not. Why would we "share the world" with the CCP? Did they stop killing political prisoners for organs for their elderly ruling class? Did they free the Uighur and stop raping their women en masse? Do they now allow the Falun Gong to practice their religion without joining the same organ donation line as political prisoners? And sooooo many more, y'all get the point
4) China will be no harsher on Taiwan than a dead government from 30+ years ago? Taiwan became a democracy with elected government in 1996 after a ~20 year transition from dictatorship where life improved over time. You want to reverse those gains and send all those millions of Taiwanese back into slavery under the harsh CCP dictatorship?
5) Still thinking about 4... wow.......
Re:Don't trust China.. (Score:5, Insightful)
And this one alone is a deal killer.
Trade with China is in NO WAY fair.
Requiring partnership with CHICOM govt if you want to do business there.
Currently manipulation to keep a better deal against the dollar.
Their partnerships with our enemies.
Constant corporate spying and theft sponsored and carried out by the Chinese govt.
China is just a US enemy, plain and simple. The quicker we can get away from any dependence on them the better.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This has always been the problem. Chinese governments _in general_ have a 3000-year history of viewing and treating all other countries as tribute states at best. You want to be allowed to do business with a Chinese company? Well, then your company must follow Chinese rules, including ones that the Chinese government just makes up especially for you, rules that Chinese companies don't have to follow. Also your government must exempt Chinese companies from *its* ru
A little history lesson (Score:4, Interesting)
And this policy was the direct cause of the Opium Wars. The Chinese were forbidden to buy from us and were only allowed to sell to us for silver. Given time, all of the silver in Europe would have ended up in China. Then, the British found out that there were large numbers of Chinese who were willing to buy opium, even though it had been banned. They didn't like the idea of becoming drug dealers, but it wasn't long before they were smuggling opium into China and selling it for silver, which they then used to buy chinese goods for export to Europe. The Imperial Government tried to stop it, and it wasn't long before war broke out.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, the British had no qualms about becoming drug dealers. At the time opium was widely used in Europe anyway, and wasn't illegal. It was in fact prescribed by doctors for all sorts of aliments.
In any case, the British rarely thought twice about doing stuff that screwed over other people, and I say that as a Brit who knows a bit of history.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lol, that doesn't even qualify as a bad reply. Your first post was trash, you got schooled. I hope you learned something about the world.
In what way exactly what what I said in any way incorrect?
If you want to be taken seriously by anyone other than your mommy you need to actually explain yourself not spew like a child.
I expect silence or more spew with no explanation or details.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I do not want to share the world with tyrants. I certainly do not think they can be trusted to police anything, as their track record cle
Re:Don't trust China.. (Score:4, Interesting)
It is time for our leaders to suck it up and re-establish trade to create a global future that sees the US and China sharing the burden of world police and acting cooperatively in that effort
It sounds so easy, doesn't it?
China is simply too big to ignore, we have to continue engaging with them, but it would be wise to do so with caution, because there's a trouble ahead for China.
China is a country in which multiple crises are brewing. They are leaving an era of non-sustainable economic growth based on the enormous underultilization of labor in their old Communist system, and have no experience managing their country with modest levels of growth. They are no longer a low wage country and now have to compete with cheaper countries. They are riding an enormous real estate bubble which funds virtually all of their local and regional government. And they are facing a catastrophic demographic transition; they've got a birth rate slightly lower than the US but with only a quarter the per capita income, and they have very little provision for dealing with people aging out of the working population and the impact that will have on their very small families.
In a democracy when a government stumbles into a crisis, the party in power gets kicked out. It's not fair, it's not even necessarily rational, but ironically that change of government produces a kind of stability. Blaming the old guys gives the new government wiggle room to deal with the problem.
In an autocracy the leadership has to take dramatic, even harsh action in response to a crisis. It probably needs to find scapegoats. Of course all governments scapegoat, but a government that can't be removed needs them so much more.
Maybe it'll all work out for them; maybe under Xi's leadership they'll dodge all the bullets heading for them, and if so, glory to comrade Xi; he'll go down in history as on of the greatest leaders of any modern country. But if things don't work out, dealing with a stressed, destabilized China is going to be a big problem for anyone who "partners" with them.
The question is... (Score:5, Insightful)
The question is not whether the U.S. and China will lose something because of lesser cooperation. The question is, which side is losing more over this?
Re:The question is... (Score:5, Insightful)
The question is, which side is losing more over this?
Arguably, America is losing more.
In the West, research results are published openly. So the Chinese can still read the journals and learn.
In China, research is less open. If you're not on the inside, you don't see it.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:The question is... (Score:5, Informative)
Also, Chinese "research" is quite often questionable in quality....and honesty.
Re: (Score:1)
Oh, I dunno if that's always the case. Covid worked well enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, Chinese "research" is quite often questionable in quality....and honesty.
Yep, they tried for years to replicate technological developments in the west and found out the only way they could do it was buying parts wholesale and then trying to assemble them locally. Their high speed trains are German, bought in kit form and assembled locally. Their airliners are basically western airliners, Honewell, Thales, GE, SAFRAN, bought from the west, assembled into a poor mans B737/A320.
Of course involved in various industrial espionage incidents however they still cant replicate it. At
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, that's not remotely what's at issue here. Access to scientific publications isn't the threat. The threat is theft of proprietary technology, the designs and implementations that are built on those papers - that's what they're stealing.
And in this area it's definitely China that stands to lose more; there's a good reason so much Chinese shit just looks like clones of Western tech, i.e. why the front of China's J-20 is the spitting image of the F-35 - because it IS the fucking F-35's nose.
No one gives a f
Re: (Score:2)
American research (and European) is often locked behind paywalls. SciHub exists because that is true.
The Chinese publish their research in journals too. Subscription journals, the same as the West.
Often they publish in Chinese too, which means a lot of research is inaccessible to non-Chinese speakers. Not just inaccessible, it is completely invisible to them. Without an English translation, they don't even know that it exists.
Centuries ago research was published in Latin, used as a common language among Eur
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Not everything is a battle. The whole idea of working together is to increase the common good for both China and the US. Ending cooperation or having a trade war means we both lose.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
no, it doesn't, we get nothing from China other than cheap goods.
One of the most interesting things about the "poor downtrodden Chinese workers" meme is that if they were not working for the low wages, they's still be subsistence farming.
Yes, the US buys a lot od inexpensice Chinese goods. But if we insisted that they be paid the same as western workers, we would have no impetus to buy anything from them, so they wouldn't have the impetus to make the cheaper goods, so they probably wouldn't.
I have always thought that the endgame rationale of third world nations was
Re: (Score:2)
Re: The question is... (Score:3)
Doing business with China is promotion of slavery and pollution. We not only can do without that, we cannot continue doing that.
Re: (Score:1)
That was the theory, yes.
In theory there shouldn't be much difference between theory and practice, but in practice there often is.
> Ending cooperation or having a trade war means we both lose.
We only lose whatever we were getting out of the relationship in the first place, almost all of which was negative. We have been putting up with an enormous quantity of horrific behavior and abuse on the theory, original
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is normally a powerful direct relationship between trade and democratization. For whatever reason, it appears that relationship is broken when it comes to China. That might not actually be the case, the CCP is pretty good at controlling public information and may be
Re:The question is... (Score:5, Interesting)
I work in research in EU. The collaboration with research groups from China and Chinese nationals who are at professor level has been less beneficial to us. They like to invite students at their initial study level (e.g. Masters of science or during PhD), learn something with us, maybe publish a paper, then go back to China and create whatever research and industry ventures now with improved knowledge acquired from us and at our cost. For these particular collaborations I know about, China has profited from our knowledge much more than us. When these groups are also lead by a Chinese principal investigator who emigrated in the West, we profit basically zero. They have a large chance to mostly hire Chinese nationals (understandable, cultural proximity) who come and leave, and when the Chinese leader finds a good professor position in China then we are left with nothing, the only who have profited are the students who made a research stay in EU at our taxpayer cost, then went back to China to contribute to products that compete with ours.
There are areas of research such as the humanities, or archaeology / palaeontology where there is no palatable profit and it makes little sense to cut ties with China or the in the past the Soviets, but for technological areas we must consider carefully which areas we should not give economical or technological rivals an access to our hard-earned knowledge and experience.
On another note, Chinese nationals who come after PhD and stay many years, contribute to our research and IP. I'm fine with them and it is not what is being discussed here.
Re: (Score:2)
The obvious questions are:
- Why aren't any useful ideas patented? Chinese courts enforce Western patents, and even if they didn't those products wouldn't be exportable to any country that does.
- Why weren't the ideas exploited in Europe?
Companies I have worked for that worked with Chinese people did those things, and it wasn't a problem. In one case there was a Chinese product with similar functionality to one of ours, but there were also European and Israeli ones within a few years as everyone found ways t
Re: (Score:2)
For certain things, trained people are more relevant than patents. Clever people find ways around patents, in particular when the patent was their original idea.
Patents and scientific papers don't include all the details, even if involuntarily. You only know to repeat something if you have worked with the people who invented it, otherwise you're 2 years late trying to optimize parameters.
Research institutions are entirely dependent on researchers and academics to figure out what in their work and in their m
Re: (Score:2)
Academics don't usually write patents. They employ a patent writer to do it for them.
You link for justice in various countries is interesting. Since this is civil law we are talking about, let's do a like-for-like comparison of civil law related stuff from your own link:
Regulatory enforcement: China 0.48, United States 0.54, difference -0.06.
Civil justice: China 0.51, United States 0.54, difference -0.03.
They don't cover the EU as a whole, but picking the UK because it's where I'm from, they score 0.70 in b
Re: (Score:2)
Academics don't usually write patents. They employ a patent writer to do it for them.
Downsides are: 1. the university takes the submission/consultancy fee from the academic's research funds; 2. working on a patent means the academic cannot publish scientific papers or show results in a conference until the patent is submitted, and in case of possible follow-up patents for different variations or applications, then you cannot publish anything for another 18 months after the submission of the first patent (18 months is the time for a final decision to be reached on the first one, during which
Re:The question is... (Score:5, Insightful)
The main goal in Washington right now is to give other countries (like India and southeast Asia) a chance to grow in science and economy so that China is just one player among many. They believe that stopping cooperation with China will encourage cooperation with other places, even if it's more painful for America in the short term.
Re: (Score:3)
What specifically would the US research world lose from cutting off ties with China?
What discoveries or inventions have they come up with that we benefitted from vs the opposite?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Emitting a bunch of toxic particles is something China does well. They're even better at it than we are, and that's saying something.
Re: (Score:2)
It's also worth noting that at the core of their governing philosophy is the belief that will alone can reshape reality. That what they say is true is what the truth will be. The Soviets and Nazis suffered the same delusion. It seems to be a necessary article of
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Frankly, we are better off without the CCP's "win-win" "mutual" "cooperation". What it means is you give them whatever they want, they don't do anything they don't want to do or give you anything they don't want to give you, they can alter the deal at any time, and you are not allowed to complain about it. Pray they don't alter it any further.
Re:The question is... (Score:5, Informative)
Westinghouse Electric collaborated with China State Power Investment Corp on Gen 3+ nuclear reactors, who then turned around and sold an exact copy of the AP-1000 [wikipedia.org], but bigger. They didn't even bother to change the name, the CAP-1400 [world-nuclear-news.org].
And the latest Chinese fighter, the J-20, is clearly using appropriated technology [theaviationist.com] from the US defense industry.
So given how far they've come with collaborating with the US, what has the US gotten out of it? Cheap manufacturing labor at volume, but I can't see a single product on the market today that utilizes some technology developed in China. And that cheap labor compartively isn't as cheap [statista.com] nor as productive.
So China has a lot more to lose in terms of new technology because they've spent the last decades copying to catch up but not innovating. Whereas the US is looking more and more like it has more to lose by maintaining it's relationship with China.
Re: (Score:2)
W
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
China has nothing the US wants or needs to steal...it's pretty much a one way street in their direction.
The US loses in pretty much all cases with trade the way it is now.
Re: (Score:3)
Just two reasons here...
Batteries
Electric Cars
China has the most advanced battery designs and factories. That's why all of the US auto makers are paying them to build battery factories in the US.
China also has the most advanced EV production in the world... legacy auto could learn a thing or two.
Also...
Solar panels and inverters
Most advanced designs and manufacturers
Re: (Score:2)
We don't want their electric cars.....we can build our own.
We have plenty of lithium in the US (and other minerals), if we'd just let ourselves mine them.
And if we were smart, we'd be cajoling other countries that have minerals we need and making deals like the Chinese are currently doing....
We need to muscle China out of our lives and become independent of them as much as possible.
When China (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:When China (Score:4, Insightful)
We're already not sorry. It can be a profitable arrangement, but not at all costs.
Re:When China (Score:5, Interesting)
Exactly this - for all the posts about the value of cooperation with China being mutually beneficial they ignore China's clear ambition to over take us as the worlds super power, call it whatever you want an uber power etc.
Even if they are not looking to be colonialist, they ARE looking to be the shot caller. This about preservation of western culture and western values - not short term economic growth!
Regardless who is gaining more in terms of papers published or widget counts, or dollars - the reality is China is gaining things that it was unable to culturally produce for itself for at any time in modern history without western partners, and its child aged even by American standards communist regime has also shown little ability to create organically but lots of ability to hover up from abroad.
The mean to dominate and every dollar investment, every bit of information shared makes them a stronger and deadlier foe.
The other bit of it is the research they are doing is progressing faster because they are doing things that would not fly here. COVID probably a lab leak, happened in China because nobody says anything there, where as here someone would have blown the whistle and said hey these practices are unsafe, and this gain of function research is illegal to do with federal funds. Hopefully the lawsuit against EcoHealth Alliance proceeds and is successful - they SHOULD be held responsible for COVID deaths, for working with China on the research.
Re: When China (Score:2)
"Even if they are not looking to be colonialist"
They are. See: Tibet.
Wow, the dictionary for the Google keyboard doesn't appear to have Tibet in it...
Re: When China (Score:2)
I just typed "tibet" in and the top-center suggestion was "Tibet" capitalized. I have adaptive learning turned off, so it's not from my input.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly this - for all the posts about the value of cooperation with China being mutually beneficial they ignore China's clear ambition to over take us as the worlds super power, call it whatever you want an uber power etc.
Probably, though they're unlikely to enjoy the global power the US did after the fall of the USSR.
Even if they are not looking to be colonialist, they ARE looking to be the shot caller.
Unlikely. China's biggest leverage is sheer population, but the West (North America + Europe + Australia) is close, if not bigger. And still far richer.
We may get to a point where China is the single biggest power, but they don't have much in the way of natural allies the way Western nations do.
This about preservation of western culture and western values - not short term economic growth!
I'm not sure where you get this from. Centuries of European dominance didn't destroy Chinese culture and values, why d
Re: (Score:2)
decides to take over Taiwan, we won't be sorry we had an conscious uncoupling from china.
China have been sabre-rattling over Taiwan for decades, absolutely nothing has come of it. They're being especially timid now as Ukraine has shown Russia to be a paper tiger... and the terrain should favour Russia having a land border and it being excellent tank country.
Taiwan is an island with a modern, highly trained and motivated military rather than just some farmers/factory workers with a few days training on an NLAW.
China talks a lot about Taiwan but has never done anything. As long as they cont
Classic PSYOPS troll (Score:5, Insightful)
TFA (and the text of TFS) is absolutely classic psychological ops, warning about the dangers of lack of cooperation - intended to ensure that the nearly unidirectional flow of information keeps going.
The Chinese Communist Party, which 100% owns and operates the Chinese scientific community, is nearly 100% evil, with the same goals as they have had since 1949 - domination by Marxist totalitarian rule. Charmain Mao is dead, and they are using different tactics than before (to appeal to the willing dupes in the West so they can get more cooperation), but the goal is the same.
If a scientist is "cooperating" with the West, you can be sure that they are operating as de facto shills for the party, because if they weren't, they would have no contact and you would never have heard from them.
China lies, steals, cheats, bullies to get the maximum return for their own purposes. Calls for "peaceful" cooperation are just a tactic to weasel more stuff to steal. We could very easily get along without them, they could not get along without us.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep.
Hiring people from China for your industrial, academic, etc. ventures is akin to hiring an espionage spy from your direct competition.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember NFTs? It's a pretty fun dive going back and looking at how that trickled through the financial press up until all my apes gone. This is no different.
Re: (Score:1)
Like Murdoch buying WSJ and being compromised by the closeness of his wife/bodyguard "Cultural Revolution" Deng?
I kid, I kid
WSJ is obviously trying to head feint Biden into making a horrible decision, when will we kick Murdoch out of US media?
Re: (Score:2)
Normally I wouldn't respond to something so obviously inane,. But I have to give you credit, this sort of combination of condescending superior attitude and unfathomable, inconceivable, ignorance and/or naiveté' deserves some recognition.
WSJ, New York Times. etc, are filled with people like you, know *absolutely nothing*, but still assume they are the smartest and most sophisticated people in the room. While being manipulated in the most obvious and crude ways.
Someon
LOL @ "Partner"... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:LOL @ "Partner"... (Score:5, Informative)
Partner implies that both parties bring equal effort and resources to the table. In this case one gives, the other takes, and the corporate CEO's and bureaucrats get richer at the expense of the giver's nation populace.
Years ago, I read a business book by Joe Studwell called The China Dream [amazon.com], basically a history of Western attempts to make money in China and how it usually ends badly for Western "partners". McDonnell-Douglas, in particular, signed a deal to build MD-8X airliners in China with the understanding that the Chinese would buy a bunch and help market them to Asian partners.
China bought two. Two.
McDonnell-Douglas ended up in financial trouble with nothing but red ink to show for their huge Chinese venture, China got the factory and the tooling, and today China builds a "completely domestically designed" airliner called the ARJ21 that just happens to look like a near-carbon copy of the MD-8X [avgeekery.com]. What are the odds, eh?
In my own case, I used to have an Isuzu Rodeo. When I went looking for parts, one of the stories I came across was that China was building an unauthorized copy of the Rodeo so close to the Isuzu design that most of the parts were interchangeable. Isuzu never authorized the production, nor saw a single dime from it.
Basically, anyone going to do business with China for all but the cheapest trinkets is going lose money, Intellectual Property, and be robbed by their own "partners".
Re: (Score:2)
anyone going to do business with China for all but the cheapest trinkets is going lose money, Intellectual Property, and be robbed by their own "partners".
Happens with cheap trinkets too. I knew a guy who lost his shirt having a vape kit made in China, shock amazement they turned around and sold it cheaper to end users than they would sell it to him.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You think the Chinese invented the computer chips he's using?
I doubt the chips were even made in China.
His Chinese clothing will need to be replaced soon as it was cheaply made. Everyone is happy for that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Plenty of Indonesian clothing in USA and some other places but globally china is still 41 percent the supplier.
Re: (Score:2)
Invented? of what relevance is that?
You think europeans or USA people invented lenses? guns?
missiles with warheads? printing press with movable type? planetary gears? seismology with measuring devices? negative numbers? decimals? Chinese did those and a lot more.
over half of chips are purchased from China even if not made there. We line China's pocket, greed bastards in USA snubbed Taiwan back in 1970s to pursue that market. We made China what it is now.
Biggest partner (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, such a good partner that they'll happily host dangerous biological research laboratories which have been banned in the US, then host US researchers working closely with those partners to develop novel biological pathogens and vaccine precursors, such as SARS-CoV-2. And to help out even more, they'll even keep investigators out for two years and burn all the documents! Just requires a compatible government on the US-side and the whole thing can be brushed under the rug.
Re: (Score:1)
You mean it wasn't brushed under the rug in the US? I'm not sure we're paying attention to the same news... but there's been an almost-dismissive attitude towards any Chinese-basis for Covid that I've seen.
Re: (Score:1)
The role of the US's funding, NIH, Peter Daszack of the EcoHealth Alliance, and the FOIA'd documents like Project Defuse have definitely been swept under the rug here. It's acceptable to have a vague level of distrust towards China but no one is informed about the specifics of what's public record so far.
LOL. LMAO even. (Score:2)
China is not in any way, shape or form relevant to science. In fact, never working with China again will probably be a very good thing for the quality of America's research output. Not the quantity, because producing a boatload of worthless publications has been the one strength of Chinese "research" for a long time, but the quality of scientific output can only benefit from having no connection to China whatsoever (speaking from extensive experience...).
Re: (Score:2)
Cutting off cooperation will not... (Score:1)
...stop Chinese scientists from their work
It will just hinder our benefit from it
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Can you name some specific benefits the US has had from Chinese work?
Maybe you meant gain of function virus research?
Re: (Score:1)
You mean that iPhone in your hand, the keyboard you are typing on, the monitor, the motherboard, the lights, the paint, and everything you have been using? All Chinese imports.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean that iPhone in your hand, the keyboard you are typing on, the monitor, the motherboard, the lights, the paint, and everything you have been using? All Chinese imports.
Literally none of the technology for any of that stuff was developed in China. We're talking about the technology, not the goods, which can be manufactured in numerous locations.
Partners?!??!! (Score:2)
/o\ (Score:1)
Didn't read TFS but no way is this going to work. There's a reason science is practised by scientists and politicians stick to that which appears to offer status/control.
No way will the people really directing the future of our species allow the foolishness of those 'in charge' to impact them.
One way or another collaborative science will happen.
This will kill US colleges (Score:1)
Most of US colleges, the only way they make it is Chinese students. The state of China is what keeps the entire US academic sector going, be it public schools where their engineering divisions are almost all Chinese citizens, or even private schools. If China is kicked out, that entire sector of the US will collapse.
Just remember, China educates their citizens for free.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
will unlimited loans they can keep in the black! (Score:2)
will unlimited loans they can keep in the black!
China can't be trusted. (Score:3)
Navigating (Score:1)
Make every be truthful. (Score:2)
We just need AI to summarize and compare reality to claims. No, you're not a free market if...
Imagine what a world might look like if "your privacy" wasn't an excuse to lie to each other.
Good! (Score:2)
China is not a trustworthy, reliable partner to cooperate with.
Neither is RuSSia.
Neither are other warlords the world over.
For those Americans who were unaware of it... (Score:2)
the U.S.-China Agreement on Cooperation in Science and Technology (S&T Agreement) signed in 1979 by then-president Jimmy Carter was the #1 instrument by which the American middle class, over the 50 years that have followed, would be sold out to the wealthiest investors. It enabled the transfer of all manner of American science and tech (much of which had been developed in the US at taxpayer expense, thanks to military and NASA projects that required new tech and were funded by taxpayers) to China. Thi
Surnames (Score:2)
Protections have been broken for a long time (Score:2)
Scientific discovery is expensive and if the people who implement don't share capital with the innovators, it doesn't promote disco
Hard to confirm paywalled articles (Score:2)
Love the Wall Street Journal articles that are paywalled.
The slashdot summary said
More than 40% of America's scientific production -- measured by the number of high-quality papers that U.S.-based scientists produce -- involves cooperation with researchers abroad, according to Clarivate, a London-based data firm that tracks global scientific research. China and the U.S. are each other's No. 1 partner in producing scientific research, with collaborative research between the two consistently among the most-cited papers across fields, according to an analysis of Clarivate's data by Caroline Wagner, a professor of public policy at Ohio State University.
That 40% claim seems dubious at first glance. It's definitely not true in my field of computer systems research, where Chinese submissions and acceptance are usually both quite low relative to papers from the US and Europe. Co-authorship is even lower. Yes, there is quite a bit of co-authorship with Chinese working in the US and Europe, but much less so with Chinese in China.
The top universities in China do get papers acce
Partner? (Score:2)
Also (Score:2)
China is not, has never been, and will never be a superpower. China's entire economy is about to collapse in the next couple of decades.
Comments courtesy of Chinese chatbots (Score:2)
Not to mention TFA. China's plan has been institutionalized stealing of US inventions, full stop, end of fucking story.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes. Absolutely true. And so what?
Countries have interests and allies. They do not have friends.
All countries. The US is not special in this regard.
Re: (Score:2)