China aims to become world technological power by 2049

[doidoi2]

So, anything you wanna share that's on topic? Or when out of arguments you resort to deflecting like the pro bots?

Argue? against what? Against this pearl of wisdom from you?

Cant expect more from a dumb ****** kebap maker anyway.

Why would I do that? Please do continue with your racist rant. I'm all ears.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

This trend happens all over the world and it is not a Chinese phenomenon. Tenure track professorship in all universities are having the same problem. The key to beat this is to raise the bar.


Nobel Prize has never had a place for Math, ever. But they have the Fields Medal instead, Same applies to computer programming, architecture, biology, archaeology ... etc



I think the Nobel Prize committee are changing their evaluation criteria by taking into consideration of the pragmatic side of science / academic disciplines. Charles Kao won the prize in physics in 2009 for his invention of optic fibre. They should have recognised applied science to be as important as empirical studies long ago.

And biomedical research is a route to wealth - definitely!

Think about the patent of a new drug that cures cancer, aids and many other diseases .. or simply pills that can treat hair loss or help growth of hair

The key is eliminating tenure. They talk about "academic freedom" but who is seriously going to bash each other over science and engineering? Tenure is a wolf wearing sheep's clothing and has far surpassed its usefulness. Australia has no tenure.

None of the advanced medicines right now are profitable without government support. Either unit profit is too low relative to RD capital or unit cost is too high. In addition, good medicine reduces its own market. So the answer is to make bad or mediocre medicine. The whole industry encourages collusion, price fixing, subsidies, etc.

That's why there's no anti multidrug resistance TB medicine. It is possible to create 1, and the demand for it is very high, but unit profit is so low it does not justify initial capital expenditure. AIDS medications simply will not survive without government backing since it is the poorest who get the disease the most, the medication requires constant money for the rest of your life, and has a high unit cost. Government pays for it with taxes on goods and services, but those must produce a profit to be taxed.

I don't have much time to explain in greater detail so I'll just say this: I worked in the pharmaceuticals industry. In small companies, you just take big company's off patent drugs and market them as generics, undercutting them with cost because you don't need RD. Production itself, while a complicated problem in itself, can be researched in the scale of months, while a new chemical agent requires years to decades and investment of billions of dollars and during that time, the return on investment is exactly 0.

Just because the subject has a Nobel Prize doesn't mean that all directions of the subject will be able to get the Nobel Prize. Polymers, colloids and liquid crystals are a major research area in physical chemistry. I will bet money that it will not win a Nobel Prize in the future.

Also, Charles Kao did not invent optical fiber for being useful. It was later that it happened to become useful.

 

[ianc1818]

I dont hate the Chinese lol, but if i may be honest, my opinion of you folks went down drastically after stumbling on you over the net.
Neither r we interested to "Fonder" u. Vice-versa.

I have great respect for you ancestors though, Confucius, Sun Tzu, Feng Shui also isn't bad, i think your proverbs are one of the wittiest and funniest i ever read,
Great pretender, 2 face = YOU

i like Chinese food (no dogs and cats) etc.....
Love western "food" ( no..no..no...sluts, bitches, tranny) etc.........