A review of perspectives on science and research in China

Contributed by Ying Jiang

Many have been impressed by the pace of technology-industrialization in China. The US is especially worried about China's development of clean energy-related fields and superior student test scores in science and math (albeit in just the relatively advanced coastal city of Shanghai). However, the true might of China as a knowledge and technology creator has also been repeatedly called into question, owing to its reputation for lacking a healthy and fair environment for both fundamental research and product-forming processes.

In the latter aspect, Westerners are familiar with the controversial state of affairs regarding intellectual property. As for basic scientific research, unethical behavior too pervades. Scientific fraud committed includes data fabrication, falsification, plagiarism (and splitting of results into different reports, an act that, while not unethical strictly speaking, increases the number of publication at the cost of reducing the scholarly impact, if not integrity, of the researched work). A debate in the Times early this year presented a variety of opinions on R&D in China, ranging from the deeply critical (corruptive, stifling ambience) to the optimistic (support for R&D comes from the top). As the year proceeded, a case of nationwide cheating committed by Zhang Wuben, a nutrition therapist with fraudulent credentials, was massive enough to catch the attention of foreign media. The Times re-opened the topic of Chinese fraud by presenting statistics and examples, and alarming quotes from overseas Chinese students who take fraud to be a social necessity.

It is a known view that those at the policy level could be ultimately responsible for the irresponsible and soul-wrecking activities of scholars. Even if one had respected the scientific spirit and wanted to keep his integrity, he couldn't do so without battling issues to do with survival. This opinion finds proof recently in a Science editorial co-authored by Yigong Shi and Yi Rao The authors describe with candor and denounced with urgency the demeriting manner in which the top bureaucratic agencies assign scientific funding to scientists who gain preferential status through personal relationship building. The article did not hint the existence of other rumored, more sordid aspects of the process, for example, of bureaucrats making the recommendation taking a fraction of the grant money. Should cases of corruption be severe in extent or even exist, saving the scientific culture of China may be tougher yet.

What the Times called an integrity problem the journalist Sam Geall, in an earlier article in the New Humanist, described with more insight and with reference to more fundamental issues concerning the psyche of the Chinese scientific community (or of Chinese people on certain levels): "repeatedly stymied by ideology, superstition, bureaucratic thinking and fear of dissent". With this, one delves into the different realm of knowledge known as the Chinese (or Asian to some great extent) work culture, and whether it's antithetical to scientific achievements - a subject that has surfaced to scrutiny lately. The Asian culture is generally characterized as collectivistic with the stress of an individual to his superiors being an important component of his ties to the society. This results in manners of knowledge-intake - rote-learning, following known texts and procedures - that is undesirable for creative thinking and excellence. The general stress of interpersonal ties in a collectivistic society can also be used to explain intellectual cronyism, a practice seemingly in fundamental contrast to the employment of the scientific method (based on impersonal observation and deduction).

The question is, is there hope? In another Science article on the Asian R&D scene, the authors proposed "8 recommendations" which constitute general policy and education reforms. In general, they believe a new wave of "enlightened politicians and scientific leadership" would be the key to truly start nurturing great scientific talents and institutes in Asia (China of course included). Till then, the West may still hold its pride for a while for being the founder and upholder of the spirit of modern science.

Sources: NYTimes, The New Yorker, The New Humanist, Science

Ying Jiang: Anti-Three-Vulgarities Movement

It is rare (and fun) when cultural matters at home in China get caught on by the Western media. The quality of interpretations vary, but many are rather accurate. This August, there was an article in the Economist alliteratively entitled "Functionaries vs Fun: Party Poopers". It described Hu Jintao's resolve earlier to eradicate the "Three Vulgarities" from popular entertainment - "低俗、庸俗、媚俗". Before I start to attempt the impossible translation to distinguish the three, I thought it's greatly illuminating to state that the word "俗" could take the neutral meaning of traditional or/ie popular culture, or a negative connotation when prefixed with the words above: 低 = low; 庸 = mundane; 媚 = fawning/populist. In its fierce and compact style, the Economist rolled its eyes at the act of party functionaries infiltrating popular TV variety shows, presenting "politically correct entertainment". Eg, a match-making show was forbidden to talk about money being a criteria for spouse selection. (The wide contrast between the communist ideal of material minimalism and the materialistic reality of the Chinese society makes an entirely different discussion.) It's a story about censorship. What caught my attention was a brief mention of the CCTV condemnation of the crosstalk artist Guo Degang, in which incident culminated the irony of the Anti-Three Vulgarities - might I say? - Movement.

Guo Degang is known for his popular gigs, in the form of crosstalk - a fast vanishing or politicizing traditional comedic form, that are relevant to social reality and at the same time fairly funny. Those two qualities, to the understanding of most of the Chinese masses, are related - the latter results from the former; a comedian needs to be grounded in real-life materials. In early August, Guo "defended the actions of one of his pupils who beat a television reporter for arriving uninvited at Mr Guo’s home". In the official press, he was branded as being "vulgar", choosing a "江湖" (another impossible phrase: a society outside of official governance, a world where actions and interactions are more immediate, mainly a result of personal/emotional/short-term decisions) styled attitude. Among the netizens, sympathy almost entirely lies with Guo. Here're some of their comments with regards to the "branding":

"我觉得央视作为媒体，不应该带有这么严重的舆论倾向性。对某些不明真相群众会产生误导。"
"I think CCTV as a media body should not carry such serious bias towards the public opinion [it's trying to create]. This'll cause misunderstanding to people who don't know the truth."

"老郭这下栽了吧，和央视斗，地产商都不行，你能行，真是的"
"Old Mr Guo, now you taste defeat. Want to fight with CCTV? Even real estate companies can't. You thought you could??" (sarcasm implied)

Furthermore, comparison in the degree of "vulgarity" has once been drawn between Guo and Xiao Shenyang in a pretty decent Chinese article (which since I haven't been able to find again on the internet). Xiao Shenyang has a feminine stage persona, dresses in drag and constantly tells jokes with sexual connotations - performances that more than a few would describe as being truly vulgar. However, he has appeared on the official Chinese New Year televised show for two years now, garnering obvious official support, allegedly due to his steering clear of politically sensitive contents. This is not to say he doesn't enjoy popular support. After all, "俗" could be popular or vulgar. The line, as many others in China, could be rather arbitrary.

Incidentally, the Newsweek feature of Xiao Shenyang drew comments defending the comedian, mainly out of against-Western-media anger. What do the Chinese people really think? Who's really vulgar? Who should we "anti" (反)?

CB Editorial: "Pan Gu": Punishing Punk-rock

Contributor: Ying Jiang

Some years ago I heard the song "nu cai" ("The Slavish"), an early hit of the Chinese Jiangxi-based underground punk rock band "Pan Gu" (Apparently there's a wiki article more sentimental in tone in simplified Chinese.) (Pan Gu's the name of the Chinese mythical creator of heaven and earth). I was struck then by the intense anger that came through as the vocalist essentially sang (or hollered) like a man that had everything taken away from him, half in tears, half turning into a beast, shouting himself hoarse. That directness in anger and offensiveness in lyrics is rare even in Chinese rock music, which is in general depressing.

(I asked Cui Jian why that is so during a reception for a little culture-exchange concert inStanford, and he flatly denied that Chinese rock is depressing, saying "if you are familiar with foreign rock music, it's much darker and more violent. Those who speak dirty words out loud are the cleanest in their souls. Those who speak properly have the dirtiest souls." The audience agreed with him and I then gave up arguing. The fact is Chinese rock is based on a society cruel in real life, and is performed by people with a hopeless, cuttingly sardonic outlook and plunges listeners into suicidal moods. Father of rock music, leader of a brand new cult of cultural sensitivity, and can't differentiate depression from noise? Give me a break! Well I'm side-tracking.)

For some reason I wanted to listen to "nu cai" again. Couldn't find it on youtube; googled "Pan Gu" and learnt that not only is it "underground", despised by general Chinese rock muscians (due to its shoddily produced music, almost non-existent instrumental talent, and punk being in general less popular), but has also been hated/loved by the Chinese people since 2004, where they openly declared support for Taiwan independence in a concert, an act of immense political significance. Since then exiled and living in Sweden, its political message has been overtly anti-CCP. The western sojourn seems to be endowing the musicians an ability of adopting attitudes on some issues that have come to exemplify the West's attitude towards China's human rights issues, eg freeing Tibet, boy-cotting of the Olympics etc.

What are some of the responses to the rebellious band? Some whole-heartedly support the nihilism, some call them traitors, some call them talentless sops who use politics as an attention grabber, and some just find some of the songs plain funny. As much as I appreciate humor as an attitude more desirable than anger or depression, I can't deny that more sombre consequences for the Chinese society are in order as rebellious instances like Pan Gu get more common. The band probably has little political impact (as compared to eg a journalist who has more information that matters); its coarse musicianship prevents serious expansion of fan base. However it seems (to me) just a matter of time before a group of significant intellect, capability, power and size gather and start to pose real challenges. What will happen then? Has the "system" thought about it?