Why should China compete with the world's high technology?

Twenty minutes later, the man was finally awakened by the onlookers and traffic police.

This phenomenon has existed for two weeks, attracting many villagers to take pictures.

Disclaimer: This article was written by the author who entered the Sohu public platform. In addition to Sohu's official account, the opinions only represent the author himself and do not represent Sohu's position.

"The world's first graphene product is released, and China's graphene technology leads the world", "UK&; Nature magazine pays attention to China science and technology, and China is great! These eight industries lead the world's foreign media: China's innovation will have a far-reaching impact on the world, and China's manufacturing will ensure global competitiveness ... For some time, some articles that "like" China's innovation have been circulated on the Internet, which has excited netizens who care about China's scientific and technological progress.

China's intensive scientific and technological innovation achievements have attracted worldwide attention, which is the result of China government's long-term attention to scientific and technological investment. With the official release of the Outline of National Innovation-Driven Development Strategy, scientific research innovation has been placed at the core of the overall development of the country, and more scientific and technological innovations that the world "likes" will emerge in the future.

However, we must be rational about the praise and affirmation of all countries in the world. We have reason to be proud, but there is no need to become arrogant; We can remain confident, but we should stay awake in the tide of scientific and technological innovation sweeping the world.

In 16 "Chamber", Xinhua Daily Telegraph reporter interviewed Wang He, an academician of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and a professor of the School of Ocean and Earth Sciences of Tongji University, and Rao Yi, a professor of Peking University. They made an objective evaluation of the current situation of scientific and technological innovation in China, and put forward suggestions on what China needs to become a powerful country in science and technology and how to accelerate the innovation drive.

Written by Xinhua Daily Telegraph reporter Joline.

Thematic interview

Academician Wang of China Academy of Sciences

Professor Peking University Rao Yi.

"What we are most praised by the international community is our investment in science and technology and the speed of development, not our scientific research and innovation ability. The number of papers is not the goal pursued by scientific research, or even the main symbol to measure the level of scientific development. In quantity, China's papers have occupied the second place in the world, but in level, they are far from the second place in the world. There is also a phenomenon similar to the "middle income trap" on the road of scientific development. If scientific research innovation cannot be transformed, it will fall into a trap, but this danger can not be seen only from the number of SCI. The main praise is speed, not innovation ability.

Reporter: According to the data quoted by the British magazine Nature, from 2005 to 20 15, the proportion of research papers published in China rose from 13% to 20%, second only to the United States in the world. Among the papers with high citation rate in the world, about 1 in every five papers has the participation of researchers from China; Many top scientific research institutions in China have entered the list of the best scientific research institutions in the world ... It seems that there are more and more positive comments on China's scientific and technological progress. How should we view this change?

Wang: China has indeed made great progress in scientific and technological innovation, but what makes the international community "admire" is mainly the "China speed". More than 20 years ago, Americans were still asking "Who will feed China", but now they are amazed at China's high efficiency, thinking that "collectivist China has won individualistic America", and some even suggested that the China model be put into trial operation in the United States for one day.

Also praised is China's emphasis on science and technology education. China's investment in science and technology has attracted worldwide attention. In the past 30 years, the investment of the National Natural Science Foundation has increased by 300 times, which has become a hot topic for scientists all over the world. A few decades ago, China was a country where "white paper heroes" prevailed and "it is better to take a razor than a scalpel", but now there are 37 million college students and 500,000 overseas students. Both the government and the people attach importance to education and respect science.

Generally speaking, what we are "praised" most by the international community is our scientific and technological investment and development speed, not our scientific and technological innovation ability. But this is not surprising, because we are at different stages of development with European and American countries, and any country makes quantitative progress first, and then makes a qualitative leap.

"Innovation" is only the direction in China, and it has not yet become an advantage. For example, when it comes to scientific and technological progress in China, many people will take the number of SCI (Science Citation Index) papers in China as evidence. I have nothing against SCI itself, but the problem is that sometimes we take it too seriously. In fact, SCI only reflects the average influence of a journal, which is not necessarily related to the weight of a single paper.

I am very opposed to the formulation of multiplying the number of articles by the impact factor, and it is even more ridiculous to give bonuses according to this value. This is an attempt to quantify something that cannot be quantified. Doing scientific research needs money, but more money can't guarantee high-quality research. If everyone is busy looking for money and publishing papers, most people are just repeating their own research. Maybe they didn't do anything at all, but they spent a lot of money. The low quality of performance evaluation is also related to the low overall scientific evaluation standard in China. Generally speaking, the number of scientists with independent thinking and excellent professional ability is still limited.

Reporter: It is undeniable that although a large number of papers are published every year in China, there are not many papers with high influence, and the proportion of major and original innovations is not high enough, which is still far from the "wind vane" of global scientific research and innovation. What does this situation mean?

Wang: Today's scientific research, like the economy, has been globalized. Academia, like the world economy, is polarized: many countries can only export "raw materials", while others "deeply process" raw materials and get theoretical understanding. The underdeveloped countries are glad that raw materials can be exported, and scientists are glad that their data can be used internationally.

In fact, most papers are just fleeting in the history of science and will not enter the treasure house of human knowledge, which is precisely the major difference between intellectual production and material production. Therefore, the number of papers is not the goal pursued by scientific research, or even the main symbol to measure the level of scientific development. In terms of quantity, China's papers have occupied the second place in the world, but in terms of level, they are still far from the "second place in the world". However, quantitative change can cause qualitative change, so it is imperative to seize the good opportunity and promote scientific transformation.

Scientific transformation can also be compared with economic transformation. Some countries, such as Mexico and Malaysia, entered the ranks of middle-income countries in the 1970s, but they are still in the development stage until now, because the transformation of low-end manufacturing industry failed, which prevented the development of high-end manufacturing industry and its access to developed countries.

There is also a phenomenon similar to the "middle income trap" on the road of scientific development. In particular, the data of developing countries are as important as those of developed countries, such as earth science and macrobiology, and some natural phenomena, such as monsoon, are mainly distributed in the "third world", so developing countries will also have unique advantages in "raw materials". Especially in developing countries with vast territory and large population, they can not only provide "raw materials" but also export labor services, and do "labor-intensive" analysis, resulting in a considerable number of articles.

It's like the economy. Low-end manufacturing can also bring middle income, but the vicious circle of pollution, low quality and low price follows. Those who cannot transform will fall into the "middle" trap. The path of scientific development is similar. If you can't transform, you will fall into the trap, but this danger can't be seen only from the number of SCI.

"It is difficult to quantify the evaluation of scientific progress, and in a society with insufficient integrity, it seems that only quantitative evaluation is fair. If it cannot be quantified, it must be quantified. Therefore, many scientific research institutions take the number of papers as the evaluation standard.

We have recruited many young scientists with good scientific research potential, but what kind of environment they will work in, and whether they will become elegant scientists or wolves while competing to improve their scientific research level, I am afraid it is worrying.