No WSJ, the US does not need China for Science.

The WSJ looks for a new engagement rational, and fails.

There’s one thing you must know about the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) story of August 16^th, 2023, “The U.S. Is Turning Away from Its Biggest Scientific Partner at a Precarious Time”.  It has nothing to do with science.

WSJ writers Karen Hao and Sha Hua advance the unsubstantiated and oddly phrased conclusion that one of the “most productive scientific collaborations of the 21^st century” is between China and the United States. The proof offered for this claim is based on the number of academic & research papers published in scientific journals, many of those journals being in China.

Wuhan lab jokes aside, Hao and Hua base an article about less than the first quarter of this “century” off a research paper from a company, Clarivate, that has a vital financial interest in, wait for it,….Chinese research being accepted abroad and the acceptance of the 1200 Chinese Science Journals it tracks in its index’s as being valid.

It’s the equivalent of studies on fast food nutrition by KFC or seeking advice on insurance regulation from State Farm.  Clarivate in a publicly traded company, it’s not credible in this debate. Same for those interviewed. They do what? Research in China.

Hao and Hua offer up a Clarivate graph showing China overtaking the US in published scientific papers to back their premise. The breakdown of US verse Chinese Scientific Journals is not offered.  Hao and Hua use only the raw number of scientific papers.  No reference to quality is made.

In other words, think of it as if a 3.5 GPA from East Carolina University valued the same as a 3.5 from Stanford.

Again, this leads to more questions.  The Clarivate study shows about 30% of papers produced in the US on telecom research were undertaken jointly with Chinese counterparts.  Chinese Communist Party (CCP) approved joint research with US companies on US telecom technology is valuable to the US?

But then at the bottom of the same Clarivate chart we see that overall, US and Chinese joint papers, are less than 10% of all US scientific papers.  Less than 10%. 

Let’s be big kids, you can replace 10% of anything in the world today and there is no secret sauce for research in China. No, its not an easy road, and yes individuals will be hurt.

Walking away from China hits one group of American’s harder than others. Chinese American scientists. Language and relationships are a huge advantage for Chinese American researchers in China, but we work in France, and not many American researchers have a school mate in Paris or speak French. It’s regrettable there is this disproportionate impact on the Chinese American community, but that’s on the CCP and not the US. Yet it is also here we find the real point of the piece.

Once again, we find the familiar arguments of Karen Hao, the lead reporter here, and the familiar pro-engagement tilt of the WSJ China team. A tilt that is not always incorrect, leads to some solid access, but as I, associates, as well as democratic and human rights causes have learned, is an often-unfriendly tilt if there are questions about engagement with China.

Karen Hao is by far the reporter with the most significant experience in coverage of espionage investigations into the Chinese American scientific community in the US.  She is a champion of Chinese scientists investigated, sometimes unjustly, on charges of espionage.  I don’t often agree with her premise, and certainly I think she downplays the threat and the intent of the Chinese government in targeting Chinese Americans as intelligence assets.  But in the spirit of the old ACLU, you always need a vigilant guard against government overreach. Karen Hao is that guard for Chinese American scientists.  With this piece Hao finds a new angle for her usual drumbeat, while “Team Engagement” tries out another danger in decoupling. Neither can be accused of using science to make their argument.