As the Nobel Prizes are being handed out this year for Physics, Chemistry and Physiology/Medicine, many people are asking the question, "Where are the Chinese Nobel Prize winners in science?" Before digging more into this question, it's worth stating that using Nobel Prizes in science to measure national science skills is akin to using Olympic gold medals to measure national athleticism -- it cites extreme individual/small group performance and ignores the general population's performance. More generally, winning a Nobel Prize in science reflects a combination of strategy, intelligence, luck, perseverance, training opportunity, research opportunity, funding availability, as well as politics, both academic and national.
The early years of the Nobel Prize were dominated by European scientists -- for the first six years all science winners were European reflecting both the quality of the science in Europe as well as the committee's initial European bias. For the first 25 years of the awarded, Germany dominated the Nobel Prizes in science followed by England and France. For the last few decades, the US has dominated followed by Germany and the UK. So where are the Chinese Nobel Prize winning scientists?
No one born in the mainland China has won the Chemistry or Physiology/Medicine until this year, and all four of the mainland China-born winners of the Physics prize (Charles K. Kao, Daniel C. Tsui, Chen Ning Yang and Tsung-Dao Lee) received their graduate training and did their prize-winning research outside of China (three in the US, one in the UK). The one Taiwan-born Chemistry Prize winner, Yuan Tseh Lee, did his graduate work in the US and has remained here for his prize-winning research. The US has historically benefited from top foreign talent being drawn to our strong academic programs, with many of these foreign-born scientists staying after they graduate. Continuous investment in our undergraduate schools, graduate schools and research institutions will help keep this pattern vibrant, though an increasing number of foreign-born scientists perceive that the career opportunities outside the US are starting to outshine those inside the US.
So when will we see a Nobel Prize winner in science who was trained in China and did their prize-winning research in China? Not for a long time. Although the Chinese government has been investing in its science technology as well as luring established scientists of Chinese descent back to the mainland, it will take years to build a strong infrastructure for cutting-edge research. Additionally, Chinese academia will need to modify their teaching styles to emphasize more creative problem solving, rather than the traditional approach that values wrought memorization. Delays will also be due to the typically decades-long lag between when research occurs and when an award is granted (though this year's Physics prize was an exception). This lag, which allows for validation of the scientific merit and importance, means that great scientific discoveries that occur now will most likely not be awarded until 10, 20 or even 40 years in the future. Lastly, the glaring political influences that have marred some of the recent Peace Prize awards and the early Eurocentricity of many of the awards will need to be avoided so that greatness is recognized fairly, regardless of national origin.
Follow Howard Steven Friedman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/howardsfriedman
This statement reflects negligence of the author. One of the Chemistry Nobel prize winners (Ei-ichi Negishi) this year was born in Changchun, China. He is an ethnic Japanese. Will Chinese in China get Nobel prize in the near future? Probably not. But I am sure that somebody from China will get a Nobel prize in science in 30 years. From time to time, I have been noticing some good work from China. I have trained many Chinese post-doctoral fellows and graduate students in the last 15 years. They are generally quite bright and motivated. In terms of work ethics and creativity, I probably rate them higher than many American trainees. Some of them returned to China to conduct independent research. Quite a few are very productive. In recent years, some of the well established scientists from the US including several of my colleagues, were also lured back to China. The facility and other instrument hardwares for research in China are just as good if not better than those we used here. If China keep throwing money at science, I will not be surprised that they will catch up on us in 2-3 decades.
Naturally. The author is interested in making a political point and to once more bang the 'They do rote learning, we do creativity' drum.
Regardless of disguise, it's still a shot in the culture wars.
@mamababa Based on your comment, I suspect you didn't actually read my article.
The key points included:
- It took decades for Americans to dominate the science Nobel Prizes
- Winning a Nobel Prize in science reflects a combination of strategy, intelligence, luck, perseverance, training opportunity, research opportunity, funding availability, as well as politics, both academic and national.
- It takes years for any country to build a strong infrastructure for innovative research and China is doing that now
- The education system needs to encourage creative thinking in order to do ground-breaking science.
- Time (usually decades) has to pass in order for great science to get recognized
- Political influences have to be minimized so great science is
I've been here for 11 years, I think the kool-aid has probably worn off. One of the great benefits of life as an expat is that one can finally see the forest for the trees; in both countries.
I don't know why your such a fan of rote-memorization learning, (Also the basis for British and European academics, BTW), but IMHO, it has a place in education, but process-oriented, working through strategies also has a place. The system here in HK solely emphasizes rote memorization. The culture also DOES emphasize conformity. There are good things about that, but creativity is not one of them. Sorry if you don't like that fact.
One of the other great benefits of leaving the US is that one can have open dialogue about cultural differences & similarities, that are not value-added or attacks. Over here, we're not in any "Culture War" (I have to admit, I formed these opinions largely with the influence of local & Mainland friends). The reality is that some things one country does better, other things another country does better. EVERY system, (here we're talking about cultural systems) have strengths and weaknesses.
I suggest you do a bit of traveling yourself. The old saying is true, It IS the best education.
When people start moving to China to study, then they can start squawking about not getting Nobel prizes.
Actually putting it to work, to commercialize, is where the rubber meets the road, as the saying goes. Nobel prices are pats on the backs. The real test is how profitable those technologies can be put to use. R&D in China continues to cost 1/4th to 1/5th that in the West. The trend remains.
$4,000 per capita is very low compared to that in the developed nations.
It makes good points. There's a widely used Japanese axiom which is often applied to all of East Asia: the nail that sticks out gets hammered down.
But if one looks at scientific and technological advancements in the world in relation to world politics, government's with military and global political ambitions find ways to foster scientific and technological advancements. Germany was the most advanced country in Europe for much of the first half of the 20th century leading up to WWII. Britain was not far behind. America is now the leading, most powerful, and arguably a global empire today. Those closest to America, such as France, Germany, Britain, have found ways to satisfy the American demands for innovation through discoveries. And the most funds for discoveries come from government funds, in particular military funds.
One could argue that China has made innovations, but in specializing that that it acquires from foreign countries to satisfy China's demands- not cutting edge, but to distinctly satisfy China's needs .
This is mostly the case. I have a close friend who is a research scientist at a university, and spends a lot of time working with candidates. Many from China, capable, but often afraid to 'think outside the box' or take initiative, and its a major problem for many. This may have some roots in the confucius culture.
That being said, the chinese philosophy is also rather pragmatic when something becomes a glaring issue (success is the most important thing), so over time I think it will modify.
I do my best to have my classes be active dialogs with everyone contributing but it isn't easy and it doesn't always work. Usually I will have most of my students actively thinking about the material and discussing the implications while there will always be a non-trivial amount of students who are "waiting for the test questions" and are immune to my efforts. I hope as I do more teaching and become better at my craft, that the percent of students who are "waiting for the test questions" will decline.
I guess it makes child-rearing easier, but the real downside to this is that their childrens' abililty to 'think outside the box', their curiosity and creativity are pretty well extinguished. Exploration and creativity are like muscles, if not used, they atrophy.
Biggest complaint from Western senior managers is that they can't find local Jr. managers that can problem solve or be left to their own devices on anything.
I can't see Beijing even trying to change that as a conformist society is also soooo much easier to control.
IMHO, a very major factor, maybe the largest in this issue as well as China's prospect as 'world-leadership-future'.
There is no Nobel for that.
And yet look at the enablement coming out of these achievements that are continuing - entire industries spring up, employing tens of millions and lifting many from poverty. All exportable tech.
- Fastest supercomputers (technology is known by several of the top countries) to be briefly inaugerated this year (but very soon to be overtaken by IBM again). Price performance at least 10% higher than the next competitor, with the goal of reaching at least a 40% disparity to No. 2 in another decade. Generic architecture assures flexibility with CPU choice.
- Largest network of the highest speed rails, with the most complete vertical integration (from soup to nuts) of any nation.
- Nuclear power plant construction cost latest at $1,227/kwe, with the mythical $1/we projected in 5 years.
- Other more mundane things such as slashing silicon solar PV panel costs from $7 to $1.50/wp in a short 5 years. Wind turbines, of course.
Nobel does not have a "lifting the largest number of people out of poverty" prize either. But does or should China care?
I think China would be quite happy, bursting their buttons with pride for one of their scientist or engineers to recieve such a prestigious award, but no, they're not focusing on that at the moment.
The American education system, well it used to be anyway, before the 'teaching-to-the-test' meme took over, was for process oriented, individual thinking and creative problem solving. That also has it's pluses and minuses.
IMHO, a middle ground, in this and a lot of other aspects of our 2 cultures would be the best of both worlds.
Thanks for your reply.
Just think of how great they could be if they didn't have to worry about being carted off to a re-education camp for voicing their opinions.
Happy now?
The key points included:
- It took decades for Americans to dominate the science Nobel Prizes
- Winning a Nobel Prize in science reflects a combination of strategy, intelligence, luck, perseverance, training opportunity, research opportunity, funding availability, as well as politics, both academic and national.
- It will take years for any country to build a strong infrastructure for innovative research.
- The education system needs to encourage creative thinking in order to do ground-breaking science
- Time has to pass in order for great science to get recognized
- Political influences have to be minimized so great science is rewarded, regardless of nationality