Is now ready for the period 1 January 2017 – 31 December 2017.
The Weighted Fraction Count (WFC) of the Nature Index is is probably the single best proxy for quality-adjusted scientific output in the world today. You can read about the methodology here.
The first publicly accessible Nature Index dates to 2013, and covers the year 2012. In just the past five years, China has gone from having 25% of America’s elite science output to close to 50%.
. | Country/territory | AC | FC | WFC |
1 | United States of America (USA) | 25537 | 17764.24 | 15791.8 |
2 | China | 11136 | 7870.2 | 7449.71 |
3 | Germany | 9092 | 4423.53 | 3785.08 |
4 | United Kingdom (UK) | 8146 | 3747.49 | 3087.55 |
5 | Japan | 4761 | 2962.21 | 2679.12 |
6 | France | 5345 | 2330.97 | 1890.01 |
7 | Canada | 3032 | 1390.92 | 1236.33 |
8 | Switzerland | 3053 | 1209.41 | 1080.48 |
9 | South Korea | 1985 | 1092.6 | 1000.22 |
10 | Spain | 3134 | 1220.04 | 950.11 |
11 | India | 1701 | 1085.43 | 935.44 |
12 | Italy | 3373 | 1335.3 | 923.17 |
13 | Australia | 2660 | 1056.63 | 833.15 |
14 | Netherlands | 2692 | 943.84 | 751.98 |
15 | Israel | 1202 | 564.51 | 484.92 |
16 | Singapore | 896 | 481.74 | 480.44 |
17 | Sweden | 1702 | 558.94 | 466.83 |
18 | Russia | 1514 | 497.54 | 389.54 |
19 | Taiwan | 1007 | 384.24 | 343.02 |
20 | Belgium | 1202 | 402.86 | 331.58 |
21 | Austria | 1049 | 355.42 | 318.08 |
22 | Denmark | 1081 | 316.7 | 272.51 |
23 | Brazil | 1086 | 341.38 | 253.22 |
24 | Poland | 1088 | 301.26 | 211.71 |
25 | Norway | 622 | 183.88 | 166.96 |
26 | Czech Republic | 688 | 203.8 | 164.23 |
27 | Finland | 708 | 197.14 | 160.23 |
28 | Chile | 1085 | 234.94 | 109.69 |
29 | Portugal | 573 | 128.74 | 109.11 |
30 | New Zealand | 400 | 118.06 | 107.87 |
31 | Saudi Arabia | 382 | 104.65 | 102.23 |
32 | Ireland | 484 | 117.38 | 101.84 |
33 | Argentina | 436 | 161.01 | 101.38 |
34 | Iran | 282 | 119.49 | 90.63 |
35 | Mexico | 584 | 157.72 | 86.93 |
36 | Hungary | 437 | 98.76 | 72.01 |
37 | South Africa | 588 | 127.25 | 71.95 |
38 | Greece | 433 | 86.5 | 64.35 |
39 | Turkey | 346 | 77.06 | 57.61 |
40 | Pakistan | 179 | 41.37 | 37.28 |
41 | Slovenia | 198 | 39.16 | 36.86 |
42 | Thailand | 224 | 35.98 | 32.28 |
43 | Iceland | 119 | 27.82 | 26.6 |
44 | Estonia | 167 | 32.2 | 24.49 |
45 | Ukraine | 309 | 38.61 | 23.96 |
46 | Croatia | 213 | 30.46 | 22.62 |
47 | Romania | 229 | 21.88 | 19.81 |
48 | Luxembourg | 56 | 14.97 | 14.97 |
49 | Slovakia | 157 | 26.09 | 14.95 |
50 | Colombia | 253 | 18.86 | 13.91 |
51 | United Arab Emirates | 110 | 21.06 | 12.63 |
52 | Lithuania | 118 | 15.18 | 11.73 |
53 | Egypt | 162 | 12.64 | 10.4 |
54 | Serbia | 190 | 16.35 | 8.91 |
55 | Panama | 40 | 8.64 | 8.64 |
56 | Armenia | 186 | 11.73 | 8.41 |
57 | Vietnam | 65 | 10.89 | 8.27 |
58 | Bulgaria | 158 | 13.22 | 8.03 |
59 | Kazakhstan | 31 | 9.14 | 7.71 |
60 | Qatar | 89 | 7.55 | 7.5 |
61 | Malaysia | 139 | 7.96 | 6.73 |
62 | Belarus | 152 | 6.48 | 6.42 |
63 | Indonesia | 52 | 6.51 | 6.41 |
64 | Uruguay | 17 | 6.03 | 6.03 |
65 | Lebanon | 23 | 6.57 | 5.97 |
66 | Ecuador | 99 | 5.99 | 5.68 |
67 | Cyprus | 98 | 6.02 | 5.15 |
68 | Malta | 20 | 6.06 | 4.79 |
69 | Peru | 45 | 4.9 | 4.54 |
70 | Kenya | 17 | 4.51 | 4.51 |
71 | Georgia | 177 | 8.54 | 3.37 |
72 | Tunisia | 23 | 5.03 | 3.07 |
73 | Latvia | 59 | 3.9 | 2.91 |
74 | Morocco | 88 | 2.93 | 2.84 |
75 | Moldova | 11 | 2.79 | 2.79 |
76 | Oman | 11 | 2.76 | 2.76 |
77 | Algeria | 17 | 3.23 | 2.36 |
78 | Philippines | 35 | 2.14 | 2.14 |
79 | Costa Rica | 14 | 4.09 | 1.95 |
80 | Benin | 7 | 1.57 | 1.57 |
81 | Mongolia | 12 | 1.52 | 1.52 |
82 | Azerbaijan | 80 | 1.63 | 1.51 |
83 | Mali | 9 | 1.45 | 1.45 |
84 | Sri Lanka | 53 | 1.36 | 1.36 |
85 | North Korea | 2 | 1.3 | 1.3 |
86 | Madagascar | 7 | 1.3 | 1.3 |
87 | Venezuela | 17 | 2.5 | 1.24 |
88 | Congo | 6 | 1.11 | 1.11 |
89 | Nepal | 7 | 1.22 | 1.1 |
90 | Jordan | 9 | 1.25 | 1.09 |
91 | Uganda | 9 | 1.76 | 1.09 |
92 | Iraq | 19 | 1.11 | 1.05 |
93 | Tanzania | 9 | 1.03 | 1.03 |
94 | Bosnia and Herzegovina | 7 | 1.12 | 1.02 |
95 | Nigeria | 16 | 2.44 | 1.02 |
96 | Ethiopia | 14 | 1.31 | 1 |
97 | Macedonia | 6 | 1.07 | 0.93 |
98 | Brunei | 5 | 0.9 | 0.9 |
99 | Cuba | 21 | 1.1 | 0.83 |
100 | Bangladesh | 10 | 0.81 | 0.81 |
101 | Namibia | 16 | 0.91 | 0.72 |
102 | Monaco | 13 | 0.7 | 0.7 |
103 | Uzbekistan | 8 | 0.89 | 0.68 |
104 | Seychelles | 3 | 0.67 | 0.67 |
105 | Papua New Guinea | 4 | 0.58 | 0.58 |
106 | Botswana | 7 | 0.63 | 0.57 |
107 | Tajikistan | 3 | 1.16 | 0.56 |
108 | Kuwait | 7 | 0.76 | 0.56 |
109 | Malawi | 3 | 0.55 | 0.55 |
110 | Angola | 4 | 0.55 | 0.55 |
111 | Ivory Coast | 5 | 0.53 | 0.53 |
112 | Cameroon | 9 | 0.65 | 0.51 |
113 | Niger | 4 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
114 | Libya | 3 | 0.47 | 0.47 |
115 | Senegal | 3 | 0.97 | 0.44 |
116 | Jamaica | 5 | 0.43 | 0.43 |
117 | Sierra Leone | 3 | 0.41 | 0.41 |
118 | Guatemala | 4 | 0.45 | 0.36 |
119 | Sudan | 3 | 0.56 | 0.36 |
120 | Syria | 1 | 0.33 | 0.33 |
121 | Gabon | 7 | 0.33 | 0.33 |
122 | Burkina Faso | 6 | 0.57 | 0.32 |
123 | Bahamas | 3 | 0.32 | 0.32 |
124 | Fiji | 2 | 0.28 | 0.28 |
125 | Cambodia | 2 | 0.27 | 0.27 |
126 | Ghana | 4 | 0.27 | 0.27 |
127 | Vatican City State (Holy See) | 27 | 0.96 | 0.25 |
128 | Faroe Islands | 1 | 0.25 | 0.25 |
129 | Albania | 2 | 0.24 | 0.24 |
130 | Greenland | 2 | 0.22 | 0.22 |
131 | Maldives | 1 | 0.22 | 0.22 |
132 | East Timor | 1 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
133 | Rwanda | 3 | 0.6 | 0.2 |
134 | Palestinian territories | 31 | 0.19 | 0.19 |
135 | Trinidad and Tobago | 2 | 0.19 | 0.19 |
136 | Nicaragua | 1 | 0.17 | 0.17 |
137 | Bolivia | 2 | 0.17 | 0.17 |
138 | Bahrain | 1 | 0.13 | 0.13 |
139 | Cape Verde | 1 | 0.13 | 0.13 |
140 | Swaziland | 1 | 0.13 | 0.13 |
141 | Saint Kitts and Nevis | 1 | 0.11 | 0.11 |
142 | Liechtenstein | 2 | 0.07 | 0.07 |
143 | Paraguay | 2 | 0.07 | 0.07 |
144 | Honduras | 2 | 0.07 | 0.07 |
145 | Solomon Islands | 1 | 0.06 | 0.06 |
146 | Samoa | 1 | 0.06 | 0.06 |
147 | Gambia | 1 | 0.06 | 0.06 |
148 | Mozambique | 2 | 0.25 | 0.05 |
149 | Zambia | 1 | 0.05 | 0.05 |
150 | Grenada | 1 | 0.05 | 0.05 |
151 | Central African Republic | 1 | 0.05 | 0.05 |
152 | Montenegro | 3 | 0.04 | 0.04 |
153 | Liberia | 1 | 0.04 | 0.04 |
154 | Myanmar | 1 | 0.04 | 0.04 |
155 | Suriname | 1 | 0.03 | 0.03 |
156 | Kyrgyzstan | 1 | 0.03 | 0.03 |
157 | French Polynesia | 2 | 0.16 | 0.03 |
158 | Guinea | 1 | 0.03 | 0.03 |
159 | Laos | 1 | 0.03 | 0.03 |
160 | Zimbabwe | 1 | 0.02 | 0.02 |
161 | Guinea-Bissau | 1 | 0.01 | 0.01 |
.
For the last 30 to 40 years, Chinese nationals have made up the largest group of foreign students in our STEM graduate programs, including the elite programs at MIT, Cal Tech et al. In many STEM graduate programs they constitute an absolute majority of all the enrolled students.
These Chinese students are supported on externally (mostly federal) funded research projects, and they are participating in cutting edge research in many fields. In many cases they create the cutting edge. Because they talk to other students, including Americans, they even get some access to restricted military research. Almost all of these students go home, and take their advanced knowledge with them and away from the US. We lose that knowledge. Hence China now has more supercomputers than we do, they have the two fastest supercomputers, and their supercomputers are entirely homegrown, from the chips to the operating systems.
Russia and China both have industrial sectors that are much more diverse than America’s, and China’s industrial sector is larger than ours: socks to supercomputers. In general, the quality of their manufactured products is every bit as good as ours and in many cases better. Ask Apple or any other “tech” firm. What advantages we have, mostly in military technology, are rapidly being lost. China will be at full parity with the US much sooner than our Ruling Class thinks.
Any theories as to why the Japanese underperform relative to their population size and IQ?
So much for German science having been destroyed by Hitler kicking out the Jews…
Why is Saudi Arabia so good? Why is Slovakia so weak relative to Hungary? Even Romania seems pretty weak, relative to what I’d have expected based on prior knowledge.
King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST) – most productive university in West Asia outside Israel.
https://www.natureindex.com/annual-tables/2017/institution/all/all/regions-Western%20Asia
I recall they hired huge numbers of very good Western professors.
I suspect Germany would have probably been in the lead if such a ranking had been done in earlier decades from the time of its unification to around 1940.
Of course kicking out the Jews didn’t help, but I think the main reasons were:
Americans getting in on the university game, which Germany had dominated during the 19th century.
And of course the war, consequent economic ruin, brain drain abroad, etc.
Probably this: Asians: bright, but not curious?, by James Thompson
Why is Saudi Arabia so good?
That’s pretty easy to answer. Check out the faculty pages of King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, e.g.
Not much local talent there, it would appear.
Related question: what % of US total is “native” American as compared to “imports”? On a worldwide basis, is it possible that ethnic Chinese are already ahead of ethnic “Americans”.
I think this is an important point to make: this is with what in the US would certainly be called bad air and drinking water. Food is somewhat similar, you may get as sick as if you visited Mexico.
Why am I bringing this all up? Well, that is the boilerplate excuse for blacks and Hispanics in the US. I mean, if you ignore, that all those cities had dirtier water and air when they were 95-97% white. And if you don’t believe in invisible racism rays. Or school buildings that have some curse on them.
I wonder how many of these more tropical countries are there because of research on tropical diseases.
Slovakia & Czechia looks strange. We’re talking about two peoples who are basically as similar Norwegians and Swedes, yet even when weighted by population the massive discrepancy is striking. Some variation is normal but such a huge chasm requires some form of thorough explanation.
Any Czech or Slovak who has any clue? (Or anyone else wishing to guess is of course welcome to do so).
P.S. Oh and our score is pathetic. Though we do spend a pitiful amount of our GDP on R&D. I wonder how a list normalised to GDP per capita as well as percentage of GDP spent on R&D would look like. So for instance, a band of those with a per capita GDP (nominal, since research equipment often has to be imported on the international market) with, say, 10-15K, 15-20K and so on and then each group sorted by how much they spend on R&D as a proportion of GDP.
At the same time, a nation’s priorities is also shown by what it spends on. IIRC, South Korea spent quite a bit on R&D as a percentage of GDP even when it was relatively poor, ditto Taiwan.
Very good question. Some countries are being brain-drained by richer countries (yours truly) whereas the richer countries, such as the US, can reap the benefits of this. Germany has also started this process in the last 10-15 years, with the increasing ease of movement of peoples. A great deal of 30-somethings in German universities and research institutions are no longer Germans, though still a minority, a much bigger share than was the case, say, 20 years ago.
I haven’t been to Chinese universities, but it is my impression that the research done their is almost exclusively done by locals. If you only looked at natives, I wouldn’t be surprised if the distance between them and the US shrunk even further, though at this stage it looks like a foregone conclusion at any rate. It’s just a question of time.
I think there is simpler explanation. European, and especially US/UK universities draw the brightest students/professors from much larger pool. Japan is quite isolated and much larger part of the research is done by locals.
Age
Age
Maybe this: Many Slovaks work in the Czech Republic. They are the biggest minority in this regard. As far as I know they rather work in more demanding occupations. It is not the case vice versa. And I guess, in general, more gifted Slovaks emigrate than Czechs (on per captita basis).
Even France does much better at elite research than Japan per capita, and France is sooner losing science human capital (mainly to the US) than gaining it.
In per capita terms, Japan is basically Italy/Spain tier, with their 5-10 point lower IQs.
Slovaks are older than Hungarians? Or younger? Or what? And what does it mean for Saudi Arabia?
“Nature Index” is garbage. Things that get into glamor mags are about an equal mix of great job and total garbage. In the long run, journal impact factor only matters in so far as ~ 95% of things worthwhile the attention are published in the top ~ 50% journals. For which the sole reason is the proliferation of total garbage damps of journals driven by oversize profits of scientific publishing industry.
You should read this: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2018.00037/full
That said, I just generated a list in Life Sciences (something I can judge expertly) and the result is not too bad:
1 United States of America (USA) 8103.18 10106
2 United Kingdom (UK) 1200.22 2222
3 Germany 1072.95 2012
4 Japan 844.22 1327
5 France 632.04 1234
6 Canada 578.44 1084
7 China 554.16 1050
8 Switzerland 301.43 678
9 Australia 285.35 614
10 Netherlands 274.79 687
11 Spain 258.79 570
12 Italy 221.96 572
13 South Korea 189.9 345
14 Israel 183.77 324
15 Sweden 178.77 419
16 Belgium 109.84 302
17 Austria 99.68 242
18 Denmark 96.91 267
19 Singapore 81.58 189
20 Taiwan 79.68 146
Observation: Canada, Spain and Singapore are way higher than they should be. Otherwise, pretty reasonable – except that Germany+UK should be much closer to the total US that they are in the rankings. South Korea and Switzerland both need to be ~3 positions higher.
@Anatoly Karlin
It takes a century to build a great university. Asia’s higher education is still lagging behind, even as Japan.
More than 95% of great scientists from 1800 – 1950 are whites, western countries are still benefiting from it, or “rest on their laurels”.
My guess is that Japan like China and other East Asian countries skew decently towards quantitative fields. A couple of years back, something like 90% of China’s total WFC for Nature was in physical sciences and chemistry alone. Japan’s output in life sciences is better than that of China and South Korea, but in general this skew is fairly clear. The overall Nature Index includes a number of non-quantitative fields, some of which I assume East Asian countries publish relatively little in.
In general, East Asian countries skew towards physics, chemistry, and engineering and away from life sciences, social sciences, and humanities. Japan does better than other East Asian countries in life sciences and China publishes a lot more in computer science and mathematics than other East Asian countries. Japan is a world leader in patenting and high tech manufacturing and in general in East Asia a higher percentage of R&D goes towards applied industrial research. I think this can all be explained by math/verbal split. See also this Simon Marginson article below.
http://www.researchcghe.org/perch/resources/publications/wp9.pdf
The other factor is that Japan has fairly low levels of international collaboration, low English fluency, and is a relatively closed society. While America benefits significantly from foreign Asian STEM talent, most of the STEM work in Japan is done by Japanese.
As far as I can tell, based on Japan’s surge in Nobel prizes since 2000 and based on the numbers of potential future Japanese Nobel laureates, the country does fairly well in terms of elite science and world class scientists. My guess is that the factors I mentioned above can explain why that’s the case despite Japan seemingly lagging on certain other metrics. For instance, average citation rates for Japanese papers typically are fairly lowly even compared to countries like Italy and Spain, yet there’s no real sign that there’s a huge glut of elite modern day Italian or Spanish scientists!
So to summarize, once you move away from IQ and towards math/verbal split, which quite frankly as phenomenon like Spearman’s diminishing returns and history’s myriad examples of cognitively lopsided geniuses like Richard Feymann or Terence Tao suggest is much more useful for understanding elite performance.
Japan’s output in Nature has actually declined in absolute terms over the past 5-10 years, while most other countries have gone up. I think that this can all be explained by math/verbal split, i.e. Japan does fairly well in physics, chemistry, engineering, and material sciences and invests significantly in applied industrial R&D, low levels of international collaboration and English fluency among Japanese and very few foreigners, etc.
Nature metrics are interesting and useful but also need to be analyzed carefully. Indeed, article count numbers probably favor more internationally collaborative countries given that all it takes is one author among all of the authors for a given paper for that paper to count towards a particular nation.
Karlin equates Japan’s elite science performance with that of Italy and Spain based on WFC. Based on average citation rates, Japan is even worse than Italy or Spain in most fields. Yet, Japan has a fairly significant presence of world class scientists and potential future Nobel laureates, while Italy and Spain have minimal such 21st century figures. Surely the factors I alluded to above explain this kind of discrepancy?
See my other comments. I believe there’s no real under-performance once you account for math/verbal split, Japanese insularity leading to much lower levels of international collaboration, and in general lower levels of English fluency among Japanese compared to other Europeans.
To summarize, East Asian cognitive output is skewed towards quantitative STEM fields such as physics, chemistry, and engineering and away from life sciences, medicine, social sciences and humanities. In some non-quantitative scientific fields, there’s probably relatively low levels of East Asian output. When you look at the 21 major science categories listed by ISI, you’ll in fact see that the majority of these are more verbally loaded life science/medicine/social science fields.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Scientific_Information#ISI_Highly_Cited
Apart from Japan, which has pockets of historical strengths in areas of the biological sciences such as for instance immunology or STEM cell research, most of East Asian scientific output is clearly and significantly skewed towards physical sciences and engineering. When you look at the US or the UK, the opposite is clear. The Anglosphere is clearly skewed towards life sciences and medicine. I don’t expect East Asia to challenge the supremacy of the Western countries in verbally loaded scientific fields such as biology of medicine.
https://www.nature.com/articles/515S73a
So where does the missing “excess” human capital in East Asia get allocated? Simple. Towards quantitative industrial R&D. See Karlin’s prior post about the lack of a tech sector in Europe.
http://www.unz.com/akarlin/europe-cant-into-big-tech/
Tech is basically California vs East Asia, with the former skewed towards software and the latter skewed towards hardware. This once again can be explained by math/verbal split.
https://www.ft.com/content/dbb3bc26-413b-11e7-9d56-25f963e998b2
It’s a non-trivial fact that virtually every piece of modern day consumer electronics hardware that you or I use is made in East Asia. This is major major value add.
To conclude, different groups of people will skew towards what they’re naturally good at. East Asians and Europeans today clearly seem to skew towards different areas of specialization. At a high level, East Asian countries clearly tend to prefer the quantitative physical sciences such as physics, chemistry, engineering, etc, while the Anglosphere and other Western countries skew towards life sciences and medicine. East Asian economies are primarily based on hardware and manufacturing, while Western economies tend to be based on software and services. I think all of this can be explained by math/verbal split.
Published papers and citation rank is only useful as a measure for grant distribution. It doesn’t actually measure productive scientific output. (Something that isn’t quantifiable anyways.)
This is one of the facts that usually ends up being ignored in discussions of China versus the US. A non-trivial percentage of American STEM output is done by Chinese Americans.
Take Silicon Valley for instance. At many top tech companies like Uber or Google or the likes, anywhere between 35-50% of workers in technical roles are Asian. A safe bet would be to assume that that’s roughly half Chinese and half Indian. Ethnic Chinese have also had a big impact in hardware in America and Canada. Computer graphics today is basically Nvidia vs AMD, with AMD having purchased ATI Technologies some 12 years ago and melded it with its graphics division. Nvidia was co-founded by Jen Hsun-Huang and ATI Technologies was founded by 4 ethnic Chinese Canadians.
Also, a Chinese American, Feng Zhang, is one of the major players, along with Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier in the development of CRISPR-CAS9.
Chinese Americans are a total of 1.5-1.6% of the American population, but surely contribute significantly more than that to various areas of American STEM. What percentage of the American authors in Nature papers are actually ethnic Chinese?
Yes and no. Publications and citation rates certainly tell you something non-trivial about the state of science in a given country. But I agree careful analyses is needed. For instance, Karlin pointed out Japan’s per capita WFC is on par with that of countries like Spain and Italy. I pointed out that in fact Japan’s average citation rates in most fields are lower than those of Spain or Italy. Ergo Italy/Spain > Japan in elite science right? No.
Based on the surge of Japanese Nobel laureates post 2000 and on the high numbers of world class Japanese scientists and potential future Nobel laureates, Japan clearly excels relative to Spain or Italy, despite initial superficial metrics such as number of articles and average citation rates in Nature. So other factors are at play here.
It means that anony-mouse is a troll.
per Slovakia-literally all the STEMs I know (about 15) do their work abroad – Germany, France, UK or US but most notably, Czechia. Also, I don’t have the source at hand, but I am pretty certain that among the V4, we spend the least on science. Actually, there are not many countries within EU, who spend less.
So that is actually not bad – with not very significant spending increases, we can jump in output considerably.
A-non is right. The emigration of more gifted students to Czechia is indeed one of our (Slovak) largest problems. This is even more pronounced in the case of PhD students. This and literally non-existent governmental support of R&D sector and universities gives the depressing results in the table above (similar big difference is in the rankings of universities, best Slovak ones lag by huge distance behind Charles and Masaryk Universities).
Is it even to Czechia? Weirdly, I’ve met more Slovak Ph.D students at University of Vienna than at Charles University.
This is something which I thought about the other day, namely that both CEOs are Taiwanese-Americans. Taiwan is of course allied with America, but you sort of wonder if there is a Bamboo ceiling of sorts against Chinese-Americans as opposed to Taiwanese-Americans. I’m talking more about cultural self-identification rather than ethnicity(where there is much less difference).
After all, I seem to recall a ridiculous mini-scandal a few years back where the USG basically forbade both AMD and NV to sell their hardware to China because the Chinese were gaining massively in supercomputer performance. The result was that China simply built their own supercomputers, did it better and neither NV or AMD got any business from it.
I wouldn’t be surprised if there is a racialised panic in the upper echelons of the US establishment about specifically Chinese-Americans. We’re not just seeing panic about Russians. I’m seeing streams of articles demonising and smearing
even something as modest as the Confucius Institutes.
This kind of racialised panic is already leading to the mainstreaming of bigotry against Russians in the US and I wouldn’t be surprised if Chinese are next.
@Polish Perspective
Czech and Slovak languages are mutually intelligible. Technical literature in Slovakia are often printed in Czech language, to expand the market (Czechs are not used to read in Slovak language). Slovaks are not perceived as foreigners (foreigner = bad) by the Czechs. Moving from Slovakia to the Czech Republic is not a stressful event full of uncertainty.
As a result lot of Slovaks study at Czech universities, and young scientists tend stay there.
In recent decade Czech government initiated construction of 48 scientific centers, from EU “for science” funds. Huge modern palaces from glass and steel were erected. However, EU funding will end in couple of years, and I predict that not every center will survive.
There is a split, an important one, among the elite populations of the Atlantic Alliance. I use this term to refer to the United States, Canada, Britain, France, Germany, Italy and some smaller Western European nations. The same split can be seen in Australia as well.
On the one hand, the elite business class in these lands do VERY, VERY profitable business in China. Earnings are high, business is booming, what’s not to like? The Han have rolled out a limitless, sumptuous banquet, and the Western elites have truly gorged themselves for DECADES.
On the other hand, China, “unfortunately”, is not Western, nor White, nor even remotely interested in changing its own identity or race. As it grows ever more powerful and advanced, what will happen to the Western Hegemony of the last few centuries?
Polish Perspective, you speak of “panic”. Exhibit A, making a big-deal about China’s investment in the 16+1 Group, saying it interferes in Europe. What? Aren’t these 16 Central-Eastern European nations sovereign states?
I mean you can “interfere” in Prague, Warsaw or Budapest, yes, but “interference” in Brussels is NOT A THING.
So, you have a “quasi-racialized” panic in the upper echelons all across the Western World.