China 'to overtake US on science' in two years

This might actually be really good, i mean with the budget they get and there population of scientists and engineers they can create lots of things i wouldn't imagine another place to make. Although my mind might just be into the stereotypes with them being smart and i don't know a think whats happening there in China. (If that sounded rude, im sorry.)

reply to post by boncho

I'm going to say no. Bad information. You would have to be very specific in how they are going to overtake the USA, or in which way they are going to.

Or you could read the unbiased report instead of blindly believing that America is the greatest with very little evidence to back it up.

This is not bad information...this is already happening now.

Originally posted by boncho
I'm going to say no. Bad information. You would have to be very specific in how they are going to overtake the USA, or in which way they are going to.

If you read the article those questions are answered - they are couting the number of papers published in "recognised scientific journals", scientific spending, and hte "quality" of papers as measured by citations in other works.

the measure which will overtake the USA is the number of papers.

The article does say that it might take longer for the quality to improve, but it is also steadily increasing, and also that the total number of apapers published in "the west" including countries such as Japan and France, will take a lot longer to surpass.

reply to post by boncho


So after reading the article (Which I should have done in the first place) it is basically saying that China will be publishing more scientific papers in the coming years. Although it states that the quality will not be up to par on US standards.

This is indicative of all the money being injected into their market right now. And it is certainly a precursor to them becoming a stronger nation.

In my opinion, there army already scares me...and now they have science....

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Yeah, the article is really just a bunch of mental masturbation. If you wanted to gauge this as a position of power you would have to gauge the numbers per capita between China, it's probable allies vs. The US and it's probable allies.

You would then have to scrutinize the quality of the data gathered and also the relevance.

Wow...just saw this thread.....

Obama says too much testing makes education boring

Thats certainly not going to help lol.

Originally posted by Nightstalker44
In my opinion, there army already scares me...and now they have science....

They also have a center-earth mentality.

Hence the name China = zung kwok or zhong guo (depending the romanization your using)

Literally meaning: Middle Country/Nation.

Their culture and foreign policy has always reflected those feelings. If they were to change their outlook on the world, then it would be scary.

reply to post by boncho


The thread title isnt 'China to invade US in two years'. Why are potential allies etc relevant?

I'm pretty sure the (English!) Think Tank that put this report together have considered all relevant variables before publishing.

reply to post by lnr42


Last statistics were done from 1998-2008 which showed the USA producing more scientific development than China. China has over a billion people and all they contributed were 87,000 papers. US produced over 218,000 papers.

I really don't understand what aspect of science you are talking about. When you say science it means EVERYTHING! Do you mean technology? Energy? Physics? Research? Chemistry? Biology?

There is no way China is overtaking the US on every aspect of science, impossible.

Originally posted by lnr42
reply to post by boncho

 

The thread title isnt 'China to invade US in two years'. Why are potential allies etc relevant?

I'm pretty sure the (English!) Think Tank that put this report together have considered all relevant variables before publishing.

What message are they trying to get across exactly?

Along with the growth of the Chinese economy, this is yet another indicator of China's extraordinarily rapid rise as a global force.

"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."

Of course allies are relevant. This paper is stating the obvious (the effects of a massive capital injection into China). In the current political mood throughout the world everyone is being sized up and down for what it has and what it is capable of.

reply to post by Equinox99


Dont shoot the messenger...higher IQs than yours and mine have come up with this data.

And impossible? Really?

Another article on the same paper.

HERE

The changes reflect an emerging new world order in science, emphasising collaboration between nations which have different areas of expertise.

Countries named in this aritcle (which is about the same paper):

Brazil, India and several countries in Asia, the Middle East and North Africa

Iran has said it is committed to a "comprehensive plan for science" which will see research and development investment increased from less than 1% to 4% of its gross domestic product by 2030.

reply to post by Equinox99


They are talking about the numbers of papers that are released in general. By the OP's article, it says that few are cited in research though. The article is right, in the sense that China will have more scientists working and releasing data. Whether or not it is relevant, up to date, or innovative is a different story.

reply to post by lnr42


Just so you now, these think tanks don't do studies out of the goodness of their hearts.

HERE is the link to the official press release of the study from the Royal Society itself. and More Recent

"The Royal Society has launched a major new study which will attempt to answer these questions. Knowledge, Networks and Nations,"

It will examine how international networks of collaboration are changing the way in which scientific research is conducted and funded, and the implications of these developments for global decision makers in science, business, NGOs and government.

^^The big dogs.

Finally, the report considered the role of international scientific collaboration in addressing some of the most pressing global challenges of our time, concentrating on the IPCC, CGIAR, the Gates Foundation, ITER and efforts to deploy carbon capture and storage technology

Professor Llewellyn Smith commented: “Global issues, such as climate change, potential pandemics, bio-diversity, and food, water and energy security, need global approaches . These challenges are interdependent and interrelated, with complicated dynamics that are often overlooked by policies and programmes put in place to address them. Science has a crucial role in identifying and analysing these challenges, and must be considered in parallel with social, economic and political perspectives to find solutions.”

I was wrong earlier, this study isn't mental masturbation, it clearly has a purpose.


Free Masonry and the Royal Society

reply to post by lnr42


i have two takes on this subject the chinese focus is on education and industry and they have the drive and desire to make scientists and engineers while in this country the only thing the youth of americas focus is getting on a reality show.

chinas economic rise is to the simple fact they dont have liberals.


but then agian when on thinks of china i think of cheap crap that doesnt last and breaks easy, the term quality never comes into play.

Originally posted by lnr42
reply to post by Wookiep

 

What makes you think Chinas arent as well?

They have a huge military budget and are even less restricted than the American forces (are supposed to be...).

ETA: Yea the avatars freaky aint it? lol

edit on 28-3-2011 by lnr42 because: (no reason given)

You may be right that China is just now spending much more on their military, but the U.S. has been spending WAY more for decades. Take a look at the figures from 2004-2007.

en.wikipedia.org...

I think it will be quite a while before they catch up.

reply to post by neo96


You were on target until you said this:

chinas economic rise is to the simple fact they dont have liberals.

They don't know the meaning of either liberals or conservatives (in the way you know them). That is a US construct.

reply to post by lnr42


Here are some interesting perspectives...

Obstacles To Innovation In China And India

But today multinationals are beginning to leverage the skills of Indian and Chinese knowledge workers to innovate, and they are building strong R&D capabilities in these markets.

Innovation in China and India, however, has not grown on a truly global, commercially significant scale. Indian companies have yet to come up with significant innovations in entire product lines. Chinese outfits have launched clever but imitative products, and China's R&D capabilities lag those of Taiwan and South Korea.

China and India rank 49th and 50th in the world respectively in terms of productivity growth. Their economies face major challenges to improved innovation. They lack end-to-end logistics, effective infrastructure, and strong regulatory systems. By understanding such weaknesses, corporations can devise alternate strategies and business models to transform the two countries into growth markets.

China's Pharmaceutical Industry Lacks Innovation, Lags Behind

About China Watch

The gap between the Chinese and global pharmaceutical sectors has widened in recent years, according to a new report by the National Research Center for Science and Technology for Development. The study, titled Can China’s Biopharmaceutical Industry Catch Up with Industrialized Countries?, attributes the Chinese lag to incomplete government incentives, a lack of collaboration between domestic research institutes and drug companies, and the absence of effective intellectual property rights.

The report points out that while government subsidies to fuel pharmaceutical development in China have remained strong, the country has not yet created tax incentives or an incentive environment for approving new drugs and managing drug pricing, all of which provide a platform for local pharmaceutical companies to nurture high technologies. Moreover, China’s pharmaceutical industry still lacks independent and efficient research and development capabilities, with poor corporate support for new drug research. The sector is also challenged by a lack of intellectual property rights to effectively protect domestic innovation, contributing to destructive competition in the field.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Thanks Slayer...thats certainly a different perspective.

I cant help but notice however they are both quite old articles and both quite Americentric articles.

So...an out of date American perspective then?