In its latest issue, The Economist candidly answers the question it posed five years ago: Will China one day become a scientific superpower? The Economist straightforwardly responds with a resounding "Yes." This clear and unequivocal answer was somewhat unexpected for The Economist, which was skeptical five years ago, but it is indeed a solid truth.
As early as 2019, The Economist, a UK-based but globally influential authoritative political and economic media outlet, raised a rather eye-catching question about China's scientific development: "Can science flourish in an authoritarian state?"
Regardless of the true motive behind The Economist's seemingly provocative and sensational question at the time, and regardless of the exact meaning of the so-called "authoritarian state," this question indeed sparked strong and sustained global curiosity. Fortunately, The Economist is capable of facing issues very rationally and objectively. This is similar to its earlier prediction that Hong Kong would decline after its return to China, but after more than twenty years, Hong Kong has continued to thrive. The Economist had to sincerely admit: "We were wrong." This time, the skepticism raised five years ago has also led to a very objective conclusion: China has already become a scientific superpower. Therefore, whether or not The Economist has specific stances like other Western media, this pragmatic and truth-seeking attitude should be acknowledged.
Undoubtedly, The Economist was also somewhat skeptical of its own question, "yet to be proven." Five years later, The Economist very sincerely (at least in its textual expression) confirms that China's unique political system can indeed lead to outstanding scientific performance. This also proves beyond any doubt, at a high academic theoretical level and in social development practice, China's unwavering development belief: to have cultural confidence and, more importantly, institutional confidence. This scientific and rational conclusion by The Economist further strengthens the Chinese people's confidence in their system.
It is worth noting that in the context of increasing political rifts between the East and the West, and amid a generally skeptical or even negative attitude of Western media towards China, The Economist has published a widely influential, positive long report on China. This includes unequivocal and high-profile affirmations of China's social and political system, which might surprise politicians like Sunak and Biden to some extent. However, it must be acknowledged that the magazine has indeed conducted substantial research, supported by detailed data to justify its fair and objective conclusions. Therefore, the U.S. authorities, who are committed to suppressing China's peaceful rise and development, might be well aware of this, so much so that even former U.S. President Obama predicted years ago that if half of China's 1.4 billion people were as affluent as the American middle class, the days of Americans would not be easy. This is the deep-seated logic behind the U.S. authorities' "America First" policy.
As a globally influential authoritative publication, The Economist certainly does not speak without evidence. It cites statistics from Clarivate, a global professional consulting service company, showing that in 2003, the number of high-quality scientific papers produced by the United States was 20 times that of China; by 2013, this gap had narrowed to four times; and by the latest statistics in 2022, China had surpassed both the United States and the entire European Union in producing high-quality scientific papers. It simply proves that the Chinese are diligently doing practical work.
A Chinese real estate tycoon once answered in an interview with an authoritative American media outlet why China has developed so rapidly: "Over 70% of the topics in the U.S. Congress throughout the year are discussions on matters outside the United States, while the Chinese are never interested in matters outside China. The National People's Congress of China almost never discusses affairs outside China. Comparing the two, which is right and which is wrong, which is superior and which is inferior, is clear at a glance."
The Economist also referenced authoritative data: According to the CWTS Leiden Ranking and the Nature Index, six and seven Chinese academic institutions, respectively, rank among the world's top ten in terms of paper output. Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Zhejiang University, and Peking University are on par with Cambridge, Harvard, and ETH Zurich. Simon Marginson, a professor of higher education at the University of Oxford, marveled that in just one generation, Tsinghua University has astonishingly risen to become the world's number one technology university.
China leads the world in physics, chemistry, environmental science, and engineering, excelling in applied research. In terms of equipment, China boasts various types of supercomputers, the world's largest radio telescope, underground dark matter detectors, the world's most sensitive high-energy cosmic ray detector, and neutrino detectors. The Economist also found that the quantum science research teams in Chinese academic institutions are comparable in scale to commercial teams in Western countries. China registers more patents than any other country in the world, surpassing the combined totals of Europe and Japan.
Of course, it is undeniable that China still has significant room for improvement in many areas of basic research. For example, internationally renowned mathematician Professor Shing-Tung Yau once asserted that China's basic mathematics research was still at the level of the United States in the 1940s (though this assertion is highly controversial). It is well known that high-end chips are still a bottleneck controlled by the U.S. and the West. However, even the United States does not deny that, given time, with the intelligence of the Chinese people, the unwavering determination of the Chinese government, and the nation's concerted efforts, resolving the high-end chip dilemma is only a matter of time.
The Economist, which has always advocated globalization and economic liberalization, kindly reminded the political elites in Washington that trying to suppress China's scientific progress with tricks like export restrictions and sanctions ("Small Yard, High Fence") is futile. The United States has both overestimated its ability to hinder China's scientific progress and underestimated the damage that restrictive measures could inflict on its own scientific development.
Moreover, The Economist objectively pointed out that the issue China faces is not whether scientific research can flourish, but whether scientific achievements can drive the economy back to a prosperous trajectory in a short amount of time. This is indeed a very realistic issue. While China's momentum in scientific research and other innovative fields is impressive and long-term prospects for the Chinese economy remain promising, current market dynamics and confidence are somewhat lacking. Transforming innovative technological research into marketable products and concrete development drivers is the core of China's sustainable high-quality development.
Regardless, The Economist's unequivocal and positive affirmation of China's scientific prowess and its social-political system suited to its national conditions speaks to an undeniable and convincing fact.
Comment