Posted By David J. Rothkopf Share

There are revolutions and there are revolutions. Those sweeping across the Arab world hold out the possibility of breakthroughs that may improve the lives of millions and remake the geopolitics of the region. But there are other revolutions more difficult to capture on camera but far more sweeping in their implications, revolutions that can change the lives of billions and remake the geopolitics and the very economic and technological fiber of the planet.

We know the familiar signs of revolutions in the Middle East. Crowds assembled in public squares. Banners. Nervous governments sending out troops or shuffling cabinets. But the signs of these other revolutions are subtler, harder to spot.

Take for example a story carried by the BBC yesterday that will not earn its own logo and theme music from TV news producers, but which has profound implications whether measured in terms of the changes it portends or the number of lives it may potentially impact.

In that story, it is reported that China is on a course to pass the United States by one important measure to become the world's leader in scientific research within two years. It cites a study by the Royal Society, Britain's national science academy, that analyzes publication trends in scientific literature.

Citing the shifts in the world's scientific output as "dramatic", the Royal Society's report observes, "The scientific league tables are not just about prestige -- they are a barometer of a country's ability to compete on the world stage."

The report reveals that whereas in 1996, the U.S. produced approximately 290,000 scientific papers and China produced just over 25,000, by 2008, the United States had crept forward to just over 316,000 whereas China had increased to about 184,000. While estimates as to the speed China is catching up vary, the report concludes that a simple straight-line projection would put the Chinese ahead of the United States ... and every other country in the world ... in output by 2013.

How did China do it? Simple: They made it a priority. They increased research and development spending 20 percent a year or more every year since 1999 and now invest over $100 billion annually on scientific innovation. It is estimated that five years ago, the Chinese were already producing over 1.5 million new science and engineering graduates a year.

This data resonates on many levels. It suggests a profound shift in the world's intellectual balance of power. This shift is one that is historically linked to the economic vitality and consequent political and military clout of the countries that lead. It suggests a much better future for the people of the world's most populous country and knock-on benefits for their neighbors and trading partners. It suggests a relative decline in influence for the U.S. And, for the people of the Arab world, currently struggling with their own revolutions, it suggests the only true path to real reform, opportunity and empowerment.

It is an axiom of history that the silent revolutions -- like those that periodically come in science and technology -- are far more important than the noisier, bloodier and more publicized political kinds. That's why these subtle indicators of their progress can be even more momentous than the round-the-clock coverage of upheaval that seems to be dominating our attentions at the moment.

It is a certainty that the future of the world be far more greatly influenced by what is happening in a Chinese laboratory than what is happening in the Arab street.

STR/AFP/Getty Images

EXPLORE:CHINA
 

UBOAT53

5:48 PM ET

March 30, 2011

Curiosity

As a scientist who is about to be flooded in Chinese research papers, I'm curious what the politicos think about the estimates that as much as two thirds of Chinese papers don't meet the standards to be published in western journals. This is largely due to corruption within the journals themselves whereby researchers pay to have their papers published to further their careers. If even one half of Chinese papers are fraudulently published, it will be become more and more difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff; meaning that more papers of this quality may hamper Chinese research far more than simply publishing less papers. In science, quantity is not necessarily quality.

 

FLOATINGPOINT

3:05 AM ET

March 31, 2011

It is true that the Chinese

It is true that the Chinese journals have serious problems of accepting publishing payment.

The Royal society uses data from international journals (reads western journals). So here you go. You will still be flooded in papers by Chinese authorship, albeit the research may not be done in China.

 

HURRICANEWARNING

1:06 AM ET

March 31, 2011

say it with me...until china

say it with me...until china changes it's form of government it will never be as powerful as the USA is capable of being. During the cold war, the USSR surpassed us on several key landmarks...who is still standing? Look, China is great, but at some point the are going to have to deal with their incredible poverty, Homogenous population, demographic problems, the educated-unemployed, lack of freedom, horrendous polution, terrible human rights record, how much they are feared and hated by bordering countries, and their lack of important natural resources...save for coal and precious metals. That and they are so closed as a society, that most people from other areas of the world regard them more as space aliens then fellow international citizens. Im just saying...lets put Chinas rise into perspective please.

 

FLOATINGPOINT

2:47 AM ET

March 31, 2011

> say it with me...until

> say it with me...until china changes it's form of government it will never be as powerful as the USA is capable of being.
I agree. A democratic China will be USA's most fearsome rival. I am not sure the USA government really wants that.

> Homogenous population
Don't be fooled by their seemingly the same black hair. That's pretty much as homogenous as you can get. The Chinese is as mixed-blood as are other "races".

> they are so closed as a society
Apparently you don't know a lot more people on Earth live in societies even more "closed" according to your standard.

> most people from other areas of the world regard them more as space aliens then fellow international citizens.
You probably mean most "rich" people. Rich and poor people don't mingle. Wait and see what will happen when average Chinese become rich and Chinese becomes the second (if not first) foreign language in high schools in your neighborhood.

 

TOMBOT

3:24 AM ET

March 31, 2011

Are you kidding?

China has managed to write so many scientific papers as a result of policy. These papers are now required for advancement in many fields. The result is often low quality work simply done to be promoted. The New York Times ran several pieces on plagiarism in China's universities just last year.

As a from University teacher in China, and a current employee at a large Chinese hospital, I know better than to blindly accept the bulk of Chinese research, and so do a large number of Chinese doctors and Chinese professors
.
You missed the most line in the BBC article "One key indicator of the value of any research is the number of times it is quoted by other scientists in their work.
Although China has risen in the "citation" rankings, its performance on this measure lags behind its investment and publication rate."

 

ALEXBC

7:10 AM ET

March 31, 2011

Indeed

" It is estimated that five years ago, the Chinese were already producing over 1.5 million new science and engineering graduates a year."

This statistic has been discredited and dissected many times, including a takedown by Minxei Pei in FP itself. The criteria for what constitutes an "engineer" or a "scientist" in China is nothing like that in other industrialized countries.

For someone whose blog is smugly entitled "How The World Is Really Run," Mr. Rothkopf is often surprisingly naive. Every credit boom or spike in growth, whether in China or Brazil or anywhere else, for him portends a profound change to the basic truths of civilization. If Brazil becomes the fifth largest economy, then suddenly it is "entitled" to a permanent UN seat. Similarly, by his logic, if China simply prioritizes large quantities of research papers, it can upset the entire balance of scientific innovation and become "number one." China currently outpaces even ailing Japan in R&D spending and publication, but which is the more "innovative" country?

Mr. Rothkopf hated Obama's focus on future development through innovation, but apparently he loves the PRC's devotion to the same. It seems that all parties have it wrong, though; innovation is not just about a government consciously driving itself to be more focused on research or on quantity of publication. It is an organic process which often involves many private enterprises and individuals.

In regard to the taunting title of this blog post, no, sorry, the credit-fueled growth of China will not be more significant than the entire political evolution of the Middle East. For one, that evolution is chipping away at the "efficient/benevolent dictatorship" model that China and Russia brought to the forefront over the last decade while the US struggled with issues at home and abroad. Nations like Egypt and Libya are not geopolitical and economic linchpins for many parts of the world: by moving toward representative government, they are boldly moving into a higher stage of social development that China will not reach until it gives up it current trajectory.

 

DANNY BLACK

5:01 PM ET

April 7, 2011

Ah targets

It is what the communists have always been best at. Make the target the number of publications and they will chop what is one paper up into five. I believe the USSR was a strong scientific contender during the cold war and in fact it was keeping up in technology until the KGB spy in charge of stealing western technology was turned.

 

David Rothkopf is the CEO and Editor-at-Large of Foreign Policy. His new book, "Power, Inc.: The Epic Rivalry Between Big Business and Government and the Reckoning that Lies Ahead" is due out from Farrar, Straus & Giroux on March 1.

Read More