President Hu Jintao has made it a goal to turn China into a science powerhouse by 2020. But deep flaws within the academic system and research culture are hindering progress. Unsurprisingly, they are the same or similar problems that have plagued other segments of the mainland's economy: fraud and corruption.
The exposure of two teams of researchers - both from Jinggangshan University in Jiangxi province - for faking the results published in dozens of papers has become an occasion for soul-searching among mainland scientists. Zhong Hua and Liu Tao , who led the two teams that published the faked datasets in international specialist journal Acta Crystallographica Section E, have been sacked and stripped of Communist Party membership. Their punishment was unusually swift and severe. But what they did is not unusual in mainland scientific circles, according to several recent surveys on scientific fraud. Critics believe their case is just the tip of the iceberg and that both have been severely punished to set an example to others.
The system of promotion and remunerations on the mainland emphasises the number of research papers published rather than their quality, and it remains one that relies more on patronage than peer review. Scientists have every incentive to publish by whatever means possible. A study by Wuhan University, for example, makes for disheartening reading. It analyses some 800 websites that offer such services as ghostwriting theses and papers based on fake research, bribing peer reviewers and forging publications in legitimate mainland and international journals. They amount to a full-service production chain in an industry worth one billion yuan (HK$1.13 billion) a year.
The problem has become so serious that the science ministry has commissioned a study, whose results are under wraps because of their sensitive nature. However, according to leaks given to the international science journal Nature, about one in three of the more than 6,000 scientists surveyed have reportedly admitted to plagiarism, falsification or fabrication of data.
It is clear the current system of promotion, funding and incentives needs to be overhauled and brought closer to international best practices. The central government is well aware of the problem and significant moves have been made to improve matters. But the nation's ambition to move up the production value chain to become a scientific and technological powerhouse is compromised until the system is fixed. That, however, will be an uphill battle.
Undeniably, mainland science has grown by leaps and bounds. Publication output is now second only to that of the US. Last year, more than one in 11 science papers published worldwide came from mainland researchers. But quantity does not equate to quality. Too often, ministry bureaucrats without the necessary expertise are in charge of funding and promotion. This leads to patronage and an emphasis on publication numbers. The whole system will benefit if it becomes more decentralised. Competent authorities and independent peer reviewers should play a greater role in determining publication and promotion. A severe but fair and transparent penalty system needs to be put in place, so punishment does not appear arbitrary. For the mainland to move up the global production value chain, it needs a sound base in science and technology, run by honest scientists under a meritocratic system.
