Prize-worthy Proof

Compared to Chinese writer Mo Yan’s 2012 Nobel Prize in Literature， Tu Youyou’s Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine caused a much greater public sensation in China， because a Chinese national had never before received a Nobel in the natural sciences， despite the country’s vast investment in scientific development. Since 1957， altogether 12 people of Chinese ethnicity have won a Nobel Prize， most of whom were born and raised in a foreign country， particularly the US， or long ago abandoned their Chinese nationality. For a long time， the Chinese scientific community’s empty awards cabinet has been an easy mark for critics eager to find fault with China’s government-led scientific research system.

Tu’s Nobel win was seen as a victory over such criticism. However， many opponents viewed her achievement as an exception to the rule， due to the special historical circumstances of her discovery， arguing that the controversy surrounding her actually embodies the defects of China’s scientific research system in which political and administrative elements have played too big a role.

Whole-nation System

Zhang Boli， the director of Tu’s organization， the China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences， is a supporter of the Chinese system. He described Tu’s prize as “a victory for China’s ‘whole-nation’ system，” referring to a system in which an entire nation’s resources and materials are fully utilized to conduct government-supported research.

“Tu’s discovery was based on the joint efforts of scientists and researchers all over the country at that time，” he told the media. “I believe one of the directions China’s future medical research should take is that of the whole-nation system.”

Adapted from policies in the former Soviet Union， the wholenation system specializes in centralizing resources and materials， distributing them to government-approved projects and facilitating the coordination of different undertakings under the government’s orders. As a typical socialist country， China has implemented such a system in many fields， including sports and scientific development， and has made some great achievements， including the country’s first atomic bomb， the development of hybrid rice， and， more recently， the Tiangong space lab project.

These fruits of whole-nation labor， including Tu’s recent Nobel Prize， are cited by the system’s supporters as proof that it works. In the 2010 annual planning session for economic reform， the Chinese government proposed to further promote the whole-nation system in 16 scientific fields， including aerospace， airplanes， nuclear power stations and pharmaceuticals， claiming that such a system is helpful in rapidly narrowing the gap between China and developed countries.“Given China’s shortage in advanced technology and talent， it is more necessary for us to concentrate on key fields，” said Mei Yonghong， then policy director of China’s Ministry of Science and Technology. “The whole-nation system is not exclusive to China. Many other countries， including the US， also centralize national resources to[concentrate on] strategic projects，” he added.

Yet the government’s proposal still caused some experts and observers to protest， cautioning that the political and administrative elements inherent to the system would actually obstruct， rather than further， China’s scientific development.

“[In the old days]， many promising research [endeavors] were obstructed by political causes. For example， as the [discredited] Russian pseudoscientist T.D. Lysenko’s [counter-Mendelian] genetic theory was forcibly promoted throughout China in the 1950s， other genetic theories were suppressed，” Huang Yanzhong， a senior global health researcher with the Council on Foreign Relations， wrote in a NewsChina article about China’s scientific research system.

In Huang’s eyes， Tu’s discovery of the extraction technique of an anti-malarial compound was more a “miracle” of the Cultural Revolution， thanks to the wartime demand for a malaria cure， than a direct result of the whole-nation system. He wrote that many other important research projects at the time were forced to cease activity or be abandoned， as the scientists conducting them were labeled as “rightists.” Tang Feifan， a renowned Chinese medical professor in the 1950s， for example， committed suicide in 1958 after being pilloried during the anti-rightist campaign. However， he was the researcher who first independently extracted Chlamydia trachomatis， a breakthrough discovery that led to the treatment of the eye infection trachoma and one which Huang believes is deserving of a Nobel Prize.

Similar concerns have not disappeared in the present day， although China has long been free of anti-rightist campaigns. After Chinese President Xi Jinping proposed to promote soccer nationwide in early 2015， media reports worried that children would be forced to play a sport they don’t like. Basketball star Yao Ming also told Xinhua News Agency that he hoped local governments would not sideline other sports， like basketball， when promoting soccer.

In an interview with NewsChina in 2012， Du Heng （a pseudonym）， a researcher from a Beijing-based scientific research institute， complained that under administrative leadership， China’s input in scientific research was not “scientific” C the government focuses more on fundamental research， while research with practical applications that is more sensitive to market demands is often desperate for funds. Tu Youyou （front） accepts a national science prize

“The government has interfered too much in both project selection and investment. Once the government endorses a project， it will naturally be granted many privileges， which， however， might go against the laws of scientific research and impair creativity，” Bai Zhili， a professor at the Peking University School of Government， told NewsChina.

Collectivism

Given the “joint effort” which characterizes the whole-nation system， collectivism is deeply held in the minds of supporters， especially in Tu’s era， when people were taught to value country and society more than individuality， and personal “heroics” were criticized. At that time， few researchers were allowed to publish their results as individuals. Tu’s discovery， for example， was not published until 1977 and bore a collective name rather than her own， a leading cause for some of the controversy muddying her Nobel Prize win.

Tu’s supporters have criticized the collectivism and egalitarianism associated with the whole-nation system for covering up individual contributions， while many others worried that under the current system， in which a project is often entrusted to a known leader rather than the creator of an idea， the wrong people might end up getting credit.

“A Chinese researcher with a lower rank would often be marginalized when his/her team publishes the results of their experiment， and worse， his/her credit might be given to some leader [instead]，” another Beijing-based researcher who asked to remain anonymous told NewsChina.

In an interview with China Youth Daily， Li Zhenzhen， a scientific policy researcher at the Chinese Academy of Sciences， agreed that China’s current scientific research system actually “did a poor job in fairly appraising the contributions of each of the participants” in a research project.

Despite Tu’s global accolades， she has never earned the title of academician， China’s highest academic title， raising eyebrows over the legitimacy of this appraisal system. Although some people， such as the popular blogger Fang Zhouzi， alleged that Tu was never named to the Academy because of her “unpleasant” character and overstatements of her scientific contributions， many others， including Zhang Boli， admitted that China’s appraisal system for scientific researchers has incorporated too many non-scientific elements to be infallible.

Vanity Fair

Many have viewed the strong political and administrative influence in China’s scientific research as a major obstacle for creativity for several years. In 2011， Rao Yi， a renowned Chinese science professor， publicly announced that he will never put himself up for academician status and criticized China’s scientific research institutions for not“caring about scientific research.”

China has put a growing amount of money into scientific research since the Reform and Opening-up period began in 1979， becoming the world’s second-biggest investor in scientific endeavors in 2011， only to find that most of Chinese scientists’ achievements are copycats or modified versions of work done by Western peers.

For example， Princeton University computer science professor Li Kai said that China’s Project 863， a government-led high-tech project， failed to make a successful prototype despite its 29 years of operation， let alone a patentable technology that could occupy the global market. Rao Yi described China’s scientific research as “picking up breadcrumbs from the West.”

“Much of the [scientific research] funds [the government has allocated] are wasted， I believe，” wrote Chinese academic Xiong Bingqi on his blog. He holds a doctorate in education and is well known for questioning China’s scientific research system. “The true road for scientific research is that a researcher devotes himself to a project after getting funding， and then those in scientific circles appraise his work based on his achievements. The practice， however， gets distorted in China， where many researchers see projects as an honor and then use these ‘honors’ to apply for bigger national projects with more financial support，” he said. After that， he added， the cycle continues.

“Given that the Chinese [scientific research] system actually cares little about the achievement of a project and how it is conducted， but instead weighs an applicant’s administrative title and background more heavily， government funds often flow to those who hold a higher administrative rank or keep a good relationship with others in academic circles rather than those who truly concentrate on research. As a result， many projects ‘end’ when the money is granted，”he added.

Tu Youyou was actually deemed very lucky in many people’s eyes， since， if it hadn’t been for the Cultural Revolution， a researcher holding only the title of “assistant” at the time might never have a chance to participate in such a big government project. Du Heng， the Beijing-based researcher， also told NewsChina that many enterprises have spent too much time and money keeping good relationships with the government in order to keep the flow of cash coming， while their actual research has been pushed aside.

“I am quite surprised that in China， the purely scientific title ‘academician’ is an administrative title even higher than that of ‘professor’ or‘doctor，’ and [that it directly affects] the holder’s income，” said senior global health researcher Huang Yanzhong. “In an environment that values official titles and hierarchy， the ‘academician’ title has become a tool to fish for fame and benefits.”

Given that Chinese institutions usually base scientists’ promotions on the number of papers they have published， many people feel obligated to focus their efforts on projects that may more easily lead to publishing a paper. Some even resort to plagiarism. In August， international publisher Springer revoked a total of 64 papers published by its subsidiaries for alleged plagiarism or cheating， the authors of which were all Chinese. Chinese domestic media reports have also exposed many scientists who had allegedly embezzled research funds or faked their academic background.

The whole-nation system’s opponents， including Rao Yi and Xiong Bingqi， have never denied the advantages of government-led projects， especially when it comes to financing and cooperation. Instead， they push for what they deem “de-administration，” namely， the cessation of direct government involvement in the leading and appraisal of any scientific research. “China should explore a new micro level of government management in scientific research， with scientific bodies having the freedom to self-manage specific projects，” said Xiong Bingqi.

“Tu Youyou’s Nobel Prize will not be of historical significance until it leads to a deeper reform of the Chinese scientific research system，”commented Huang Yanzhong.