Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'World Affairs' started by beijingwalker, Jun 27, 2012.
China to Overtake Silicon Valley, Claims Report
June 27, 2012, 3:06 PM HKT
followed by India (21%) and Japan (9%) and Korea (9%).
Good to know that India is ahead of Japan
The survey also found that China and the U.S. are the two countries most likely to come up with “disruptive technology breakthroughs” that will have a global impact in the next two to four years.
I could understand China - for example China has been coming up with low cost cellphones and it is a matter of time they start moving up the value chain thereby giving stiff competition to the currently popular brands with eye catching innovations but U.S??
NO WAY , just look at companies from silicon valley
All those companies have offices in Bangalore.
KPMG: China will be Future Tech Innovation Leader
June 27, 2012
By Rob Starr, Content Manager, Big4.com
Technology executives worldwide believe that China and the United States will be at the forefront of future disruptive technologies and the next epicenter for innovation. This according to a Global Technology Innovation survey by KPMG LLP, the audit, tax and advisory firm.
Asked what technology will have a major impact by 2015, 30 percent of the survey respondents globally said Cloud Software as a Service (SaaS) will enable the next indispensable consumer technology. In regard to driving business transformation, 22 percent said Cloud Infrastructure as a Service, followed closely by SaaS, will have the greatest impact. In the U.S., SaaS was the top selection in consumer and enterprise technologies.
Forty-four percent of global respondents said it was likely that what many consider the technology innovation center of the world would shift from Silicon Valley to another country in the next four years, 23 percent of those surveyed said it is unlikely and 34 percent were undecided. Not surprisingly, only 28 percent of the U.S. respondents think the shift is likely, while more than half in ASPAC, and more than 40 percent in EMEA see the move as likely. Of those globally who believe the center will shift, most (44 percent) said it would move to China.
In considering innovation drivers, visionaries and leaders, more business executives globally identified Apple, now led by Tim Cook, and former CEO Steve Jobs as tops in these three areas. As the top company driving disruptive innovation, Apple was followed by Google and Microsoft, according to the survey. Respondents also viewed Jobs as the top global innovation visionary, followed by Bill Gates. In China specifically, executives said Gates was the top visionary and Jack Ma the innovation leader. In India, Infosys was identified as the innovation leader, and in Israel, it was IBM/Lenovo.
KPMG: China will be Future Tech Innovation Leader | Big4.com
i hope so ~
China is not only gaining prominence in the above but also many other scientific achievements like the advance in space, deep sea diving, nano science, bio-medics, material science, green energy ... and this ( published by NYT in January)
Global Research Awards Showcase China’s Gains and Efforts to Retain Scientists
BEIJING — China’s government has thrown billions in recent years into building a top-notch research establishment, hoping to keep its best scientists working here and lure back those who are abroad.
Now comes a hint that that effort is beginning to pay off.
The Howard Hughes Medical Institute, one of the world’s most prestigious research foundations, announced Tuesday that it was honoring 28 biomedical researchers who studied in the United States and then returned to their home nations. Each will receive a five-year research grant of $650,000.
Seven — more than any other nation — are from China.
“They’re incredibly energetic, extremely smart, highly productive and accomplished,” Robert Tjian, president of the institute, said of the Chinese winners in a telephone interview. The 28 are receiving the institute’s first International Early Career Scientist awards.
Founded in 1953 by the eccentric industrialist Howard Hughes, the institute, headquartered in Maryland, is one of the largest philanthropies supporting biomedical research. With an endowment of $17.5 billion, it dispenses about $700 million a year in grants to more than 350 researchers.
Portugal and Spain are each home to five of the winners of the new award. Dr. Tjian said those nations and China have made unusually strong efforts to excel in biomedical research. Italy and South Africa had two winners each, and Brazil, Poland, India, Hungary, Chile, South Korea, and Argentina each had one. The number of applications submitted by scientists from China was matched or nearly matched by scientists in some of the other eligible countries, the institute said.
Four of the seven Chinese winners work at China’s new National Institute of Biological Sciences, which is led by an American-educated scientist, Wang Xiaodong. The remaining three work at Beijing’s Tsinghua University, the Wuhan Institute of Physics and Mathematics in Hubei Province, and Nankai University in Tianjin.
Their research disciplines range from cell genetics to cell proteins and cell mechanics; from immune systems’ behavior to the human genome.
The international awards are an offshoot of a similar Hughes Institute program aimed at promising American scientists. The vast bulk of Hughes grants go to American-based research, Mr. Tjian said, but officials wanted to encourage work in other nations that are supporting high-level science and encourage collaboration between scientists in different nations. They also hope to promote American research tenets — challenging conventional wisdom and authority; rigorous discipline; transparency — abroad.
The number of winners from China, he said, reflects China’s “big investment in research” as well as other factors.
“Young people go where they can flourish the best,” he said. “And those countries have been able to attract young scientists trained in the U.S. to go back.”
“That’s a big hurdle. It used to be that people thought people came here and never went back. But I think now that is starting to change.”
Some of the award winners agreed. “I think it’s very obvious in recent years, and we’re very happy to see that,” Wang Xiaochen, a former doctoral student at the University of Colorado who is now at Beijing’s National Institute of Biological Sciences.
While many if not most Chinese doctoral students who choose to remain in the United States after their studies, she said, in China, “I don’t have to apply for a grant,” while in the United States “the funding situation already is very tough.”
“I think I’d have opportunities, but I’d have to spend a lot of time applying for funding. Here, I don’t have to apply for my own funding. So it’s an easy decision for me,” she said.
Competing for research financing serves a purpose, helping identify worthwhile projects. The United States remains by far the preeminent scientific research locale, financing more than one third of research and development worldwide last year, according to the Battelle Memorial Institute, which is based in Columbus, Ohio, and manages 14 American research laboratories and one in Switzerland.
But a 2010 Battelle report stated that American spending on research was reaching a plateau, while China was overtaking Japan as the second-largest financier of scientific work. Over all, the report stated, the United States spent close to $396 billion on research and development in 2010, compared to about $141 billion in China.
China’s expenses are rising quickly — about 9 percent in 2010-11, the report estimated — while American spending was projected to rise at a 2.7 percent rate.
Many federal research agencies received budget cuts last year, including the White House Office of Science and Technology, which was sliced 30 percent after the Republican-controlled House of Representatives expressed unhappiness over American scientific exchanges with China.
The chairman of the House committee supervising that budget, Representative Frank R. Wolf of Virginia, called such exchanges “a bilateral program with Stalin.”
Already posted a few days back. Duplicate thread.
^ in the above, the OP beijingwalker didnt provide a link and the content of my posting gives additional details!
I dont mind the Mod merges the 2 or keeps them separate!
I did not notice it. I think the Mod need to merge that thread into this one and keep this one as this one has the relevant links (not one but couple of them).
actually the content of all of those (including my link) are secondary reporting which were extracts or the authors re-wrote the contents from the original report by KPMG. here is another one in which the source was from the same report but the content varied a bit:
too much funding for biosciences which is our weak point. instead we need to focus on mathematics, engineering, computer science, physics and chemistry, as they are much easier to apply to direct problems.
Math chem and physics are liberal arts subjects which are difficult to attract funding in every countries especially less from corporate sponsors though I agree they are very important fundamentals to applied and advanced disciplines, in particular, math (statistics) which is important to almost all graduate studies. As for the funding of pure sciences in China, there is none or very few private foundations which can provide financial support to these pure science departments.