Report on the Workshop on
U.S.-China S&T Policy Challenges for the Decade
Beijing, June 24-25, 2002
The Joint Advisory Council to the U.S.-China Cooperation Program in Science Policy, Research, and Education held its first joint meeting in Beijing, June 24 and 25, 2002 at the headquarters of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC). (Copies of the Workshop Agenda and Participants Lists are attached.) The purpose of the meeting was to develop a Blueprint for the Future of the Decade of Science Policy Dialogues through discussion of the following five topics:
In essence, the meeting of the Joint Advisory Council was an opportunity for both sides to discuss its priorities and interests together without necessarily reaching any specific conclusions or answers other than those that might come forth easily as of interest to both sides. While no document emerged from the meeting as concrete or as specific as the concept of "blueprint" implies, many good ideas were tabled and discussed; and the Advisory Council concluded by drawing up a list of 22 subject areas worthy of priority attention under future science policy dialogues. (See list at end of this Report). In addition, there was a consensus that each side should proceed independently with any advice that it may choose to give to its own policy-makers. It was also agreed that the concept of a joint comparative science policy dialogue should be pursued, possibly linked with, or in tandem with, the next meeting of the U.S.-China Joint Commission on Cooperation in Science and Technology. (Such a dialogue did in fact occur in 2006 with the approval of both sides of the Joint Commission.)
U.S. Cochair, Dr. Frederick Bernthal, suggested the need to develop a "roadmap" for the future that would include topics/policy areas, such as a specific set of workshops on how policy is formulated in both countries. He then suggested a set of issues and questions that should be taken up in the workshop:
An additional issue suggested from the floor was whether drug companies should be included in discussions of bioethics (referring to the fact that the first policy dialogue on Biotechnology and Biomedicine – see below –did not include drug companies on the grounds that dialogue would be easier among the participants the first time around without drug companies present and that rules for choosing which companies would be represented had not yet been established).
This was followed by summary reports on previous policy dialogues including the Biotech and Biomedicine Workshop, summarized by Prof. Qiao Youlin, and the Second Technical Innovation Workshop, summarized by Prof. Chen Jin of Zhejiang University. Prof. Qiao made reference to the controversy caused by the Harvard Study that resulted in the president of Harvard issuing an apology at Beijing University. Prof. Chen Jin mentioned the determination of the participants on both sides to hold a third meeting with a greater balance between innovation and management issues. He also referred to e-innovation, service innovation, and forming a stable standing committee focused on innovation issues. The Biotech/Biomed Dialogue and the Innovation Dialogue both identified new areas of research. The question that was raised was how to promote cooperation in these new areas?
Lillian Wu underscored the tremendous importance of the topic of technical innovation. She added specific comments about education and training and establishing of standards as two key areas. She also identified two important policy questions:
The main part of the meeting was then devoted to discussing how to conceptualize and plan future policy dialogues that can best address the following key policy areas:
1. Basic research
2. Industrial research
3. Science and engineering education
4. Public attitudes toward science and technology
5. Technology and the economy
Dr. Mary Bullock, President of Agnes Scott College and a noted scholar on U.S. – China scientific relations, expressed surprise at the boldness of launching and engaging in a ten-year outlook on science policy (here referring to the Decade of Science Policy Dialogues agreed to by the U.S. National Science Foundation and NSFC and now being implemented by Prof. J. Thomas Ratchford of George Mason University). She raised several questions about the group’s mandate and about how to proceed indicating that it would be crucial to answer these questions if the ten-year outlook wanted to be effective in influencing policy-makers:
Then we need to ask ourselves what is the impact on society and what does it cost?
Han Yu talked about how forums are formed and how they influence the three areas including policymaking and communications. He also talked about realizing the 3Cs: more communication, more concerns (i.e., society, academia, and government), and more contributions. And asked how these can be improved.
He listed the following subjects for the future:
Zhu Zuoyan mentioned several important areas including cloning, GMOs and how to educate people to understand them, stem cell research, and birth control. He suggested that we need a discussion on bioethics involving people with strong opinions both ways. He added that we should invite more people who are not in the science community to engage in the discussions.
Fred Bernthal commented that cloning often brings in questions of religion. On GMOs he mentioned fear of impact and the need for risk assessment and risk benefit analysis. He also mentioned nuclear power as an important topical area.
Lilian Wu said that we should investigate best cases such as why Research Triangle Park in Raleigh, NC (RTP) is so successful.
Xue Lan suggested that we should focus on the framework:
Kathie Olsen asked what kinds of programs we could do that would raise the policy questions. Policy discussions influence programs, which in turn influence policy.
Lilian Wu suggested that some focus should be given to environmental sciences including cleaner energy and alternative energy sources.
Huan Haijun asked how we reform the current framework of university, government and industry to encourage basic research? And how do we transfer scientific research to industry and improve the linkage? He characterized these as concerns about government and societal investment on basic research. He suggested that we consider output indicators for basic research, not jut input figures such as percentage of GDP.
Chuan-sheng Liu raised several areas of concern including:
Xue Lan listed five topics of interest:
He mentioned the COSEPUP report on how to evaluate basic research and also the GPRA requirements for evaluation. Globalization also raises the issue of global governance of S&T. He suggested holding an Advanced Studies Institute on Science Policy.
On the last day of the meeting (June 25th ), a table of issues and concerns was drawn up including 22 topics for potential inclusion in the policy dialogues:
The meeting concluded with a suggestion that the two sides meet again in 3 years to evaluate progress to that point.
Notes prepared by Advisory Council member
Alexander P. De Angelis
P.O. Box 397
Hamilton, Virginia 20159