4 ms·

The US is the world’s science superpower — but for how long?

19 points by pseudolus 2y ago

Prbeek 2y ago
If you look at the kind of content coming out of China especially in physics and chemistry, expecting the US to lead in science in 5 or 10 years is being overly optimistic
- water9 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - sunaookami 2y ago
    Classic sinophobia
- refurb 2y ago
  As a scientist I disagree, at least in my field of chemistry. Any publication of work done in China is suspect unless it came from the labs of a very short list of PIs. It has gotten better over the last couple decades, but of the massive volume, I’d argue maybe 10% is at the level of the West.
  - metalman 2y ago
    A few things about China science,they are getting better,and the rate they are getting better is accelerating and something that is possibly of much greater significance is that China is implimenting new scientific knowledge into products quickly and of even greater significance those implimentations are across the board and at scale another thing to note is that China scales everything and impliments infrastructure accross the board,and to do this,China's engineering is very good,bridges,roads,ports,mines,power plants,hospitals,railways,factorys,etc ,etc, etc,go up big ,fast/on time,on budget and I think that it's by plan that the main focus in China is still on infrastructure,ie: all the best brains are working on infrastructure,but as that is maturing,the focus will shift towards science,and as we all know,there is a great deal left to learn and our infrastructure isn't that great
  - zjp 2y ago
    True. When I worked for a synthetic organic lab the GTAs, who were Indian, told me they don't trust publications from after 1980.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
rramadass 2y ago
Good Article. But i don't think the US has any cause for fear as long as; 1) Go back to the early policies enacted for driving Science & Technology using Public Funding specifically for Specialized Institutes and the overall Education System. 2) Pour more money into the above as much as possible so as to attract top talent into it. 3) Invite Immigration from all over the World with a clear path from Higher Education to Citizenship. 4) Continue to allow the Private Sector to do what it is already doing to great success. And Oh; keep the petty Politics out of it. The US' advantage over China is 3 & 4.
- hulitu 2y ago
  5. make colour revolutions/wars so scientist from those countries go to US.
  - bluenose69 2y ago
    This is a very good point. And it works across the board. The Vietnam War led to many bright and ambitious young people leaving the US. I know. Many of them were my teachers.
- rifhjsnfjf 2y ago
  3 seems irrelevant with regard to China given the difference in population sizes being compensated for (yes yes China's demographics are poorly balanced I've heard it before). I think there's merit to 4 but I'd be curious if China couldn't overcome that if it could iron out some of the academic dishonesty that occurs. And lately a lot of news has made it sound like China is making headway on that one so eventually it may come down to market incentivized research objectives versus centrally set ones.
  - rramadass 2y ago
    > 3 seems irrelevant with regard to China given the difference in population sizes being compensated for Not what i am implying. It is the differences in modes of thinking coming from different cultures that leads to breakthroughs, sustaining development and more. They play off of each other's strengths leading to something unique which is not possible in a mono-cultural country. It is hard to quantify directly but can be measured via its effects on Science/Technology/Economy etc. See the psychologist Richard Nisbett's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_E._Nisbett https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_E._Nisbett) works; The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently...and Why (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geography_of_Thought https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geography_of_Thought) and Intelligence and How to Get It: Why Schools and Cultures Count (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_and_How_to_Get_It https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_and_How_to_Get_It) for some insights.
avazhi 2y ago
“If science and academia become ideological endeavours,” he says, “it’s going to be hard for them to survive.”” The irony of this closing sentence being about 5 paragraphs below a paragraph praising Harris and bashing Trump was noticed by, apparently, nobody at Nature. To be clear, I’m not a fan of Trump and I’ve never voted for him, but surely Nature should just stay out of explicit endorsements and bashing of one or the other political side if they are at all concerned about science becoming an ‘ideological endeavour’. It’s borderline insane to me that they would engage in blatant partisanship right after extolling the value of science at least APPEARING to be politically neutral.
- Log_out_ 2y ago
  How could science, a collaborative international endeavour in most fields survive and thrive with a isolationist government ?
  - melagonster 2y ago
    In fact, for scientists, whether or not to believe in global climate change is a very clear dividing line. Essentially, the existence of climate change is a scientific consensus, and denying its existence is equivalent to rejecting science... But I also want to point out that Nature has different political views from scientists: they want more research funding, which makes sense for a publisher that profits from government research funding worldwide.
    - Log_out_ 2y ago
      What is there to believe in observable reality ? The debate is over, whats left is storms and refugees and idiots who believe that a messagebringing shaman in a lab coat has the power to revert bad news or other idiots that belief that propagating a fast &repent cult will undo the bad news. Meanwhile the news is just bad wether we refuse delivery or won't .
- sriram_malhar 2y ago
  I disagree 100% in this specific case. The Republican Party is choosing to deny climate change, to root out the EPA, to get rid of the NOAA, of all things. This is a cult whose brains have been seized, like in mad cow disease. It must be rooted out. EVERY science publication should come out and do an explicit disendorsement of Trump and the entire party, even if they don't endorse KH.
bluenose69 2y ago
This is a well-informed article, with some very compelling graphics. I don't care a whit what is said about politics or policy, because I doubt that many Nature readers will need help in making decisions about such things. For me, the key is the data. I've never seen so much information, presented so clearly. The trends are quite clear. As someone who works in research, none of what I saw was actually surprising, but the article is a very helpful integrative resource.
herbst 2y ago
Biontech is German company. Let me guess, none of the nobel price guys is actually American?

19 points by pseudolus 2y ago

If you look at the kind of content coming out of China especially in physics and chemistry, expecting the US to lead in science in 5 or 10 years is being overly optimistic

water9 2y ago
[flagged]
- sunaookami 2y ago
  Classic sinophobia
refurb 2y ago
As a scientist I disagree, at least in my field of chemistry. Any publication of work done in China is suspect unless it came from the labs of a very short list of PIs. It has gotten better over the last couple decades, but of the massive volume, I’d argue maybe 10% is at the level of the West.
- metalman 2y ago
  A few things about China science,they are getting better,and the rate they are getting better is accelerating and something that is possibly of much greater significance is that China is implimenting new scientific knowledge into products quickly and of even greater significance those implimentations are across the board and at scale another thing to note is that China scales everything and impliments infrastructure accross the board,and to do this,China's engineering is very good,bridges,roads,ports,mines,power plants,hospitals,railways,factorys,etc ,etc, etc,go up big ,fast/on time,on budget and I think that it's by plan that the main focus in China is still on infrastructure,ie: all the best brains are working on infrastructure,but as that is maturing,the focus will shift towards science,and as we all know,there is a great deal left to learn and our infrastructure isn't that great
- zjp 2y ago
  True. When I worked for a synthetic organic lab the GTAs, who were Indian, told me they don't trust publications from after 1980.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

rramadass 2y ago

Good Article. But i don't think the US has any cause for fear as long as; 1) Go back to the early policies enacted for driving Science & Technology using Public Funding specifically for Specialized Institutes and the overall Education System. 2) Pour more money into the above as much as possible so as to attract top talent into it. 3) Invite Immigration from all over the World with a clear path from Higher Education to Citizenship. 4) Continue to allow the Private Sector to do what it is already doing to great success. And Oh; keep the petty Politics out of it. The US' advantage over China is 3 & 4.

hulitu 2y ago
5. make colour revolutions/wars so scientist from those countries go to US.
- bluenose69 2y ago
  This is a very good point. And it works across the board. The Vietnam War led to many bright and ambitious young people leaving the US. I know. Many of them were my teachers.
rifhjsnfjf 2y ago
3 seems irrelevant with regard to China given the difference in population sizes being compensated for (yes yes China's demographics are poorly balanced I've heard it before). I think there's merit to 4 but I'd be curious if China couldn't overcome that if it could iron out some of the academic dishonesty that occurs. And lately a lot of news has made it sound like China is making headway on that one so eventually it may come down to market incentivized research objectives versus centrally set ones.
- rramadass 2y ago
  > 3 seems irrelevant with regard to China given the difference in population sizes being compensated for Not what i am implying. It is the differences in modes of thinking coming from different cultures that leads to breakthroughs, sustaining development and more. They play off of each other's strengths leading to something unique which is not possible in a mono-cultural country. It is hard to quantify directly but can be measured via its effects on Science/Technology/Economy etc. See the psychologist Richard Nisbett's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_E._Nisbett https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_E._Nisbett) works; The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently...and Why (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geography_of_Thought https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geography_of_Thought) and Intelligence and How to Get It: Why Schools and Cultures Count (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_and_How_to_Get_It https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_and_How_to_Get_It) for some insights.

avazhi 2y ago

“If science and academia become ideological endeavours,” he says, “it’s going to be hard for them to survive.”” The irony of this closing sentence being about 5 paragraphs below a paragraph praising Harris and bashing Trump was noticed by, apparently, nobody at Nature. To be clear, I’m not a fan of Trump and I’ve never voted for him, but surely Nature should just stay out of explicit endorsements and bashing of one or the other political side if they are at all concerned about science becoming an ‘ideological endeavour’. It’s borderline insane to me that they would engage in blatant partisanship right after extolling the value of science at least APPEARING to be politically neutral.

Log_out_ 2y ago
How could science, a collaborative international endeavour in most fields survive and thrive with a isolationist government ?
- melagonster 2y ago
  In fact, for scientists, whether or not to believe in global climate change is a very clear dividing line. Essentially, the existence of climate change is a scientific consensus, and denying its existence is equivalent to rejecting science... But I also want to point out that Nature has different political views from scientists: they want more research funding, which makes sense for a publisher that profits from government research funding worldwide.
  - Log_out_ 2y ago
    What is there to believe in observable reality ? The debate is over, whats left is storms and refugees and idiots who believe that a messagebringing shaman in a lab coat has the power to revert bad news or other idiots that belief that propagating a fast &repent cult will undo the bad news. Meanwhile the news is just bad wether we refuse delivery or won't .
sriram_malhar 2y ago
I disagree 100% in this specific case. The Republican Party is choosing to deny climate change, to root out the EPA, to get rid of the NOAA, of all things. This is a cult whose brains have been seized, like in mad cow disease. It must be rooted out. EVERY science publication should come out and do an explicit disendorsement of Trump and the entire party, even if they don't endorse KH.

bluenose69 2y ago

This is a well-informed article, with some very compelling graphics. I don't care a whit what is said about politics or policy, because I doubt that many Nature readers will need help in making decisions about such things. For me, the key is the data. I've never seen so much information, presented so clearly. The trends are quite clear. As someone who works in research, none of what I saw was actually surprising, but the article is a very helpful integrative resource.

herbst 2y ago

Biontech is German company. Let me guess, none of the nobel price guys is actually American?