Latest / China Considered / Bottom-Up vs. Top-Down: Inside the US and Chinese Innovation Systems with Chenjian Li | China Considered | Hoover Institution

Transcript

Bottom-Up vs. Top-Down: Inside the US and Chinese Innovation Systems with Chenjian Li | China Considered | Hoover Institution · China Considered

• 0:08
  - Welcome to China Considered, a podcast that brings fresh insight
• 0:11
  and informed discussion to one
• 0:13
  of the most consequential issues of our time,
• 0:15
  how China's changing and changing the world.
• 0:18
  I'm Liz Economy, Hargrove Senior Fellow
• 0:20
  and co-director of the Program on the US, China,
• 0:22
  and the World at the Hoover Institution at
• 0:24
  Stanford University.
• 0:26
  Today we're gonna speak with Dr. Chen Lee,
• 0:28
  a renowned molecular geneticist who's on lead from his
• 0:31
  position as university chair at Ping University
• 0:34
  to spend time here at the Hoover Institution
• 0:36
  as research fellow Dr. Lee has worked
• 0:39
  inside both the Chinese and American research systems.
• 0:41
  And we're gonna talk about how those systems differ
• 0:44
  and what those differences mean for the future
• 0:45
  of biotech innovation and global competition. Welcome cj.
• 0:50
  - Thank you, Liz, for inviting me.
• 0:52
  And I've been watching your, this episode by episode
• 0:57
  and I'm glad I can contribute.
• 0:58
  And thanks for everybody for tuning in and listen.
• 1:02
  - Okay, so let's start, you know, from a big picture,
• 1:05
  you have the rare really experience
• 1:09
  of having spent decades in both United States
• 1:12
  and China as a leading innovator
• 1:14
  and leading neuro neuroscientist.
• 1:16
  As you think about the systems, the research sort
• 1:19
  of ecosystems in both the United States
• 1:22
  and China, what do you see as the relative strengths
• 1:24
  and weaknesses of each system?
• 1:27
  - It's a great question.
• 1:29
  I think in discussing that,
• 1:31
  I wanna put something right upfront,
• 1:33
  which is China is developing very fast.
• 1:37
  So whatever we saw 10 years, five years ago may
• 1:41
  or may not apply to today.
• 1:42
  So I'm trying to add a dynamic sense of that.
• 1:47
  If I have to characterize the two systems, if interestingly,
• 1:51
  I will say it's very similar to the economic system
• 1:55
  in which in the United States,
• 1:58
  the strength is really bottom up
• 2:02
  grassroots innovation.
• 2:04
  And on the China side, it's really
• 2:08
  a government supported top down approach.
• 2:12
  For example, in the United States,
• 2:14
  almost every innovation comes from basic research
• 2:18
  that stems from decades
• 2:21
  and decades of professor's work, sometimes obscure.
• 2:26
  And nobody knows what this guy's doing for many, many years.
• 2:30
  And the society as a whole, especially the universities,
• 2:34
  just supported them for decades and suddenly it boomed.
• 2:39
  So it's very grassroots oriented.
• 2:43
  The system is great.
• 2:44
  And that system is particularly good for
• 2:48
  what we called zero to one kind
• 2:51
  of innovation development from nonexisting.
• 2:54
  Nobody imagined that. Two, it's actually may work.
• 3:00
  For example, in ai, in gene editing, all of
• 3:04
  that comes from decades of work that people used
• 3:08
  to laugh at the word in artificial intelligence, right,
• 3:13
  for decades and suddenly it boomed.
• 3:15
  So United States is extremely good in that.
• 3:18
  Now China is catching up fast,
• 3:22
  but so far the way I think it succeeds is still
• 3:27
  in the, not zero to one,
• 3:29
  but one to 100 that range it's government support.
• 3:33
  And I should point out not only central government,
• 3:37
  but local government.
• 3:39
  And that is very strong.
• 3:42
  So for example, if you do have a field
• 3:44
  that they think is important, for example, battery,
• 3:49
  green energy, if they identify that
• 3:52
  as a particular field that is important, they pull billions
• 3:56
  and billions and they're very patient.
• 4:00
  So that is what they're good at.
• 4:02
  But now I think China is learning from the United States
• 4:07
  and trying to strengthen the quote unquote zero
• 4:10
  to one innovation side.
• 4:12
  So that's the biggest one I can describe.
• 4:15
  - So let me pick up on two points.
• 4:18
  Number one, how do you think China is strengthening
• 4:22
  to the zero to one?
• 4:23
  Is it because it's investing more in basic research?
• 4:26
  Is it because Chinese companies are becoming more engaged in
• 4:29
  basic research or what's changed
• 4:33
  to make China become better at it?
• 4:35
  And then you mentioned sort of the past five years
• 4:38
  as a period of acceleration in China.
• 4:41
  To what do you attribute that sort of acceleration period?
• 4:46
  - Yeah, there are several things I can share.
• 4:49
  First of all, I think China
• 4:53
  has been pretty strong,
• 4:56
  supportive in basic research
• 5:00
  from very early days.
• 5:04
  It was a matter of just no money, no expertise,
• 5:08
  and no international exchange.
• 5:10
  And with things like a cultural revolution,
• 5:13
  it really destroyed that side.
• 5:15
  But in, in the blood, I think the appreciation
• 5:20
  for basic research has been there.
• 5:22
  It was revitalized
• 5:24
  after 1976 when Deng Xiaoping came to power
• 5:29
  and reemphasize
• 5:31
  that science education research is important.
• 5:35
  And that has not changed in the administrations
• 5:40
  after Deng Xiaoping.
• 5:41
  So whether it is ING government or Hu Jinta
• 5:45
  or the current one, they pretty much support
• 5:48
  and realize the importance of basic research.
• 5:50
  So that has always been there.
• 5:52
  But the, the support wasn't enough.
• 5:56
  However, in the past years, I will say
• 5:59
  after 2000, the reestablishment,
• 6:03
  the recovery phase basically was done.
• 6:06
  And then it's playing catch up in,
• 6:09
  in some fields it's actually leading.
• 6:12
  So now government officers as well
• 6:16
  as people are seeing the fruit
• 6:19
  of supporting basic research.
• 6:22
  And I think the enthusiasm is now at another level.
• 6:26
  Plus overall the Chinese society is much richer
• 6:31
  than 30 years ago, right?
• 6:33
  It does have the resource to throw around.
• 6:36
  So that gives that practicality say, look,
• 6:40
  if you wanna have a a result, I'll give you
• 6:45
  30 million Chinese r and b without blinking of an eye.
• 6:49
  So go ahead and do it. That is new.
• 6:52
  And so it's, it's a positive cycle moving forward.
• 6:57
  And of course after mimicking going
• 7:02
  behind people for a long while, people realize that,
• 7:05
  why don't we innovate?
• 7:08
  I mean, there's nothing stopping Chinese scientists
• 7:11
  and engineers from inventing something just new.
• 7:15
  So I think of the combination of that makes now
• 7:19
  an unprecedented way of
• 7:23
  focusing both on the zero to one and the one to 100.
• 7:28
  - Yeah, I mean it's always been my sense
• 7:30
  that China's been very good at the sort
• 7:32
  of process innovation, right?
• 7:34
  Making things better. Yeah.
• 7:35
  Whether it's making them run faster or be more efficient
• 7:38
  or whatever it may be, faster acting.
• 7:43
  They're very good at that,
• 7:44
  but they haven't been as good at sort
• 7:47
  of breakthrough invention.
• 7:48
  Right. The sort of what you're, what you're talking about
• 7:51
  with the mRNA, you know, based vaccine, that's, you know,
• 7:55
  something that came out as you said, of decades of research,
• 7:58
  you know, in the United States
• 8:00
  and Europe that weren't really present in China.
• 8:03
  But now you're saying the fruits of the basic research
• 8:07
  are coming to to bear.
• 8:09
  Are there particular areas where you see China
• 8:11
  as like on the cusp of that breakthrough invention
• 8:14
  or where you would say they actually have already had kind
• 8:17
  of a breakthrough invention?
• 8:18
  Something truly new has emerged?
• 8:21
  - There are several that in my field I know,
• 8:25
  but beyond that, I'll mention several.
• 8:27
  I think the green energy, battery science,
• 8:31
  and technology are clearly seen by the world as very,
• 8:36
  very good rare earth material.
• 8:39
  I want to emphasize that it's not
• 8:43
  just a very wasteful,
• 8:46
  environmentally unfriendly thing.
• 8:49
  It's actually four generations
• 8:51
  of scientists in engineering starting from picking
• 8:54
  university professor, improving the efficiency
• 8:59
  and how well it can be done in my field.
• 9:02
  I can dig, go deeper if you allow me, of course,
• 9:07
  the aspiration of inventing, for example, new treatment,
• 9:10
  new drugs for combating human diseases has
• 9:14
  always been there.
• 9:15
  Remember, the only Nobel laureate from China
• 9:20
  - Is a woman - Who's exactly you Dr.
• 9:25
  - Yes, - Yes.
• 9:26
  - She is a women scientist.
• 9:28
  And remember, she, her work is entirely done in China
• 9:32
  during cultural revolution.
• 9:35
  - Yeah. - Unbelievable. As it is, it's treating malaria.
• 9:39
  So the inspiration aspirations always been there,
• 9:42
  but for a long, long time,
• 9:45
  remember China's biomedical research has been
• 9:49
  lagging and it was almost destroyed
• 9:52
  during cultural revolution.
• 9:54
  So from 1976 to year 2000 ish,
• 9:58
  it was a recovery time.
• 10:01
  But then after that, things changed.
• 10:03
  Just as an example in the pharmaceutical industry
• 10:08
  that I'm most most familiar with.
• 10:10
  So the first phase was doing generic drugs, generic drugs.
• 10:15
  Are those drugs already on the market been used
• 10:18
  and the patent expired.
• 10:21
  So you make that. So that was the first phase.
• 10:25
  And then the second phase is called me.
• 10:28
  To me better, meaning there is a target validated,
• 10:33
  there is a drug, but I'm trying
• 10:34
  to make a drug which is either more effective
• 10:38
  or with less side effects, somehow me, to me better.
• 10:43
  It's a little less challenging, but still very, very good.
• 10:48
  The third phase Chinese companies
• 10:52
  and schools experienced was called close follow.
• 10:57
  It's more advanced than the me to me better
• 11:00
  because it starts when the drug is not on the market yet.
• 11:05
  For example, if let's say Merck has a drug in phase two
• 11:09
  clinical trial, then the Chinese company say,
• 11:12
  looks like very promising, let's do it.
• 11:15
  So that's the close follow phase.
• 11:18
  And now I think many, many of the pharma
• 11:21
  or startups are eyeing on truly innovative
• 11:26
  first in class
• 11:28
  and in our field it's called the crown jewel, sort of
• 11:31
  that kind of achievement.
• 11:32
  And I can see a lot of people are doing that
• 11:36
  with government support, with private investment.
• 11:40
  So far China is yet to come up with a true first in class.
• 11:46
  But I predict, given another five years, I will be surprised
• 11:50
  that there is no first in class.
• 11:52
  I expect that there're probably going to be one.
• 11:55
  - Yeah. And I think China's always beating our expectations
• 11:58
  in terms of how fast they are
• 12:01
  to accomplish things once they sent, set their minds to it.
• 12:04
  So it may even be faster than five years. It
• 12:07
  - Could, it could, yeah.
• 12:08
  I, I know several of that, including one of mine.
• 12:12
  It, it's kept coming. What if,
• 12:14
  - Oh, can't we claim, can't we claim yours for,
• 12:17
  for United States?
• 12:18
  - Absolutely. Come. - Are we, maybe,
• 12:20
  maybe it'll be a good sign of, of US China cooperation.
• 12:23
  Yes, you yourself are a sign of US China
• 12:26
  - Cooperation.
• 12:27
  Yeah. Liz, I wanna add another one, which is even the zero
• 12:31
  to one innovation, I will say
• 12:35
  there is a varying degree of difficulties.
• 12:38
  Hmm. Some of them really,
• 12:40
  it will take a genius like Einstein sort of
• 12:46
  new to that kind of people.
• 12:47
  Other ones are manageable. Dr.
• 12:50
  Yoyo too, she was looking at how
• 12:53
  to treat malaria, period.
• 12:56
  You do everything possible and that kind of things.
• 12:59
  It doesn't need Einstein,
• 13:01
  it only need needs pretty good people.
• 13:05
  Really hardworking.
• 13:07
  - Yeah. Maybe a little bit better than pretty good
• 13:09
  people, but Sure. Okay.
• 13:11
  - Then not only China, I think Europe, many Japan,
• 13:15
  Australia, they all have this
• 13:17
  capacity. Right. In that sense.
• 13:19
  - Right. And that's a, I think that's
• 13:20
  a really important point.
• 13:21
  So let's, let's pick up on that issue of, of talent.
• 13:25
  You know, one of the things that people in the United States
• 13:28
  tend to obsess over is, you know,
• 13:30
  when we see these big numbers, right?
• 13:32
  So China's graduating, you know,
• 13:34
  4 million STEM students annually compared
• 13:37
  to 800,000 here in the United States, of whom, you know,
• 13:40
  many are also from China, by the way.
• 13:43
  At the same time, China has a big youth
• 13:46
  unemployment problem.
• 13:47
  We know somewhere between running between 15
• 13:50
  and, you know, 20% over the past few years with a lot
• 13:54
  of graduates who can't find work is, you know,
• 13:57
  what is the reality of sort of the, the China sort
• 14:00
  of stem student talent pool?
• 14:04
  You know, first of all, you know,
• 14:05
  are those 4 million all sort of first in class graduates
• 14:08
  or is there a range, an array kind of, of of,
• 14:12
  of scientific ability, research ability
• 14:15
  and you know, does it include people, for example,
• 14:17
  who've finished, you know, two years
• 14:19
  of an engineering degree or something like that?
• 14:22
  And then, you know, what about the match
• 14:25
  between the 4 million STEM students
• 14:28
  and the labor market in China?
• 14:30
  Is there room for all of them to be employed?
• 14:33
  Or are those, are those high youth unemployment statistics,
• 14:36
  you know, related to, you know, people like me,
• 14:38
  social scientists, and others who simply can't find jobs?
• 14:42
  - Well, you have a very good grasp at science
• 14:46
  and technology questions too, Liz.
• 14:49
  I think your,
• 14:51
  this question actually can be subdivided into several
• 14:55
  sub questions.
• 14:57
  One is we compare the most innovative group of layer
• 15:01
  of people, which people, I mean here in the
• 15:05
  globally, look at that.
• 15:07
  But there's also the next layer of good engineering's
• 15:11
  students and engineers who can carry out not
• 15:16
  that creative, but enough
• 15:19
  and important solid work, right?
• 15:22
  So these are very different.
• 15:24
  So I think it will be fair to compare the top tier
• 15:27
  to top tier, middle to middle in the top tier
• 15:34
  sort of students and, and talents.
• 15:37
  I will say United States is still minute,
• 15:42
  you and I, we are blessed to be at a place
• 15:45
  as at Stanford, right?
• 15:47
  And I was lucky enough to work at Rockefeller University.
• 15:53
  There is a teeny tiny institution with 72 labs,
• 15:57
  but we, we had 26 Nobel Laureates,
• 16:03
  - A hundred incredible research institution,
• 16:04
  - Perhaps it's unbelievable.
• 16:06
  And I worked at Cornell Mount Sinai.
• 16:09
  So the top tier to top tier, I think United States is still
• 16:13
  better in that sense, the most creative ones.
• 16:17
  Now, I also worked at Peking University
• 16:20
  and the Peking Union Medical College,
• 16:22
  another school established by Mr.
• 16:24
  Rockefeller in history.
• 16:26
  And I think top to top, I would rank Peak University,
• 16:31
  Xing Hui University around 20
• 16:35
  or 25 in that range compared to US elite schools.
• 16:40
  And that is very competitive.
• 16:43
  But still, I think there is a, there's a small gap there.
• 16:48
  Now, the next level is quite different.
• 16:50
  The story, Chinese universities
• 16:54
  and technology schools are producing very good engineers.
• 16:58
  They are good at a particular field, particular technology.
• 17:03
  And they do that day in, day out.
• 17:06
  And in that sense, that layer,
• 17:09
  I'm not sure United States has such a, a big advantage.
• 17:14
  - Maybe no advantage. In fact, - I I I hesitate to say that
• 17:17
  - I think you can say it. I think you can say it.
• 17:19
  - No, actually, I honestly doubt that
• 17:22
  because I don't have real experience in that.
• 17:25
  Right. By the way, Purdue University, for example,
• 17:29
  established a new sort of school
• 17:31
  or department really focusing on the chip manufacturing.
• 17:35
  - Yeah. - So their claim is
• 17:37
  don't always just take pride in the design,
• 17:40
  in the best cutting edge,
• 17:43
  but it's important to, to be able to produce it.
• 17:46
  - Right. And - I applaud to that. Yeah.
• 17:48
  United States used to be the country
• 17:52
  for manufacturing, right?
• 17:54
  Look at our steel, automobile,
• 17:58
  chemical engineering,
• 17:59
  pharmaceutical ingredients, everything.
• 18:03
  And now in the past 30 years, I think us sort
• 18:06
  of gave up on that quite a bit, right? Right. In China,
• 18:11
  - I mean, we have no nuclear,
• 18:12
  we wanna revive our nuclear industry,
• 18:14
  but we're hard pressed to find many nuclear engineers.
• 18:18
  We simply don't have that many that even teach that. Right?
• 18:21
  - So even chip, chip engineers, right? Yeah.
• 18:25
  So I think in China, in the past 30 years really
• 18:29
  is leapfrogging
• 18:31
  - Yeah.
• 18:32
  - Forward. It, it just jumps up and up.
• 18:36
  So I think that layer United States has some catch
• 18:41
  up to do because the economy
• 18:45
  system doesn't quite reward the
• 18:49
  engineers, right?
• 18:51
  So those two are, I think this is how I feel in general.
• 18:56
  But in China
• 18:59
  there is a very big unemployment problem
• 19:03
  because you produce so many college students and,
• 19:07
  and university students.
• 19:08
  But the job market is not as good as it was, let's say,
• 19:13
  five years ago or 10 years ago.
• 19:16
  So I think the mismatch is clear
• 19:18
  and that has caught attention
• 19:22
  by the government, by entrepreneurs and educators.
• 19:28
  But the solution is something I do not have.
• 19:33
  How can they solve the problem of unemployment?
• 19:37
  Because remember last year, college grads were about
• 19:42
  12 million and up.
• 19:45
  And how do you find jobs for all of
• 19:46
  that when the economy is shrinking?
• 19:49
  Yeah. So that will remain as a challenge.
• 19:53
  - Yeah. And
• 19:55
  and what about the collaboration between
• 19:59
  academia, between the university and industry?
• 20:02
  I think this is a really important
• 20:06
  story in China.
• 20:08
  How ecosystems develop right?
• 20:12
  From the university, you know, to manufacturing, you know,
• 20:15
  and just scaling up
• 20:16
  where the money coming from the central government can be
• 20:19
  quite crucial.
• 20:20
  Can you talk a little bit about that process in China
• 20:23
  where you think it, how you think it works and,
• 20:25
  and does it work as well as, for example, I think it does,
• 20:29
  - Liz, again, I like the word you used, develop, evolve.
• 20:34
  Because it, it is really changing fast.
• 20:39
  Remember in 1976 it bin says, we,
• 20:44
  we need education, we need science and technology.
• 20:48
  But before 2000 I was in, it was a catching up.
• 20:51
  The real research
• 20:54
  that can be translated into a product
• 20:58
  came even later than that.
• 21:00
  'cause you need about a decade
• 21:02
  to accumulate great research
• 21:05
  that is actually not just fooling people, fooling ourselves,
• 21:09
  but actually can turn into either a chip or a medicine
• 21:13
  or a medical device.
• 21:15
  So I will say it's really
• 21:17
  after 2010 ish,
• 21:20
  there are enough good things that can honestly
• 21:25
  be turned into a product.
• 21:27
  So I will say for the past 15 years, that has been growing
• 21:31
  and P University was among the first ones
• 21:35
  to even have a tech transfer office.
• 21:39
  - Yeah. - As bad as it, it was, but it's learning fast.
• 21:44
  - Yeah. - So it supports people
• 21:48
  to do innovative work.
• 21:51
  Now here is what the top down system is not
• 21:54
  as flexible, supportive as
• 21:59
  that in the United States.
• 22:01
  Stanford is really one of the best examples of
• 22:05
  how things turn out to be from research
• 22:08
  to the development to a final product.
• 22:11
  Right? Many of our graduates are really, really shakers
• 22:16
  and movers in this in different fields.
• 22:19
  And in China it's been developing.
• 22:22
  So suddenly the professors, when they're trying
• 22:25
  to establish something, they're not regarded
• 22:28
  as doing something irresponsible, extra.
• 22:33
  They're not looked down upon anymore.
• 22:36
  They are encouraged to say, well yes, you, you,
• 22:38
  you can actually do that.
• 22:41
  And for example, the system
• 22:44
  that allows leaves of absence, right?
• 22:48
  Was established only a few years ago.
• 22:50
  Surprise
• 22:52
  before professors, when they do something, they have
• 22:54
  to do it sneakily, right?
• 22:56
  You have your day job and your a hundred percent.
• 22:59
  Now you can actually say, look, I need a year off
• 23:02
  to get a startup working.
• 23:06
  All that came within the past 10 years.
• 23:09
  And they're catching up fast.
• 23:11
  I wanna tell you something recently that I think
• 23:17
  developed in China,
• 23:18
  and I think it's extremely powerful
• 23:22
  and potentially important, which is what I called
• 23:27
  the Bridge Over Troubled Water project.
• 23:31
  So for our, for us professors
• 23:34
  to go from basic research, publishing great papers
• 23:39
  to an actual project development to a product,
• 23:43
  whether it's a drug
• 23:44
  or device, the first phase is always the
• 23:48
  hardest for us.
• 23:50
  That is the time we need some funding
• 23:53
  to move from a laboratory to a startup company.
• 23:58
  And the amount varies between, let's say half a million
• 24:01
  to 2 million to about no more than 5 million US dollars.
• 24:07
  That usually is a very hard obstacle for us
• 24:11
  because, I mean, Stanford professors are not poor.
• 24:14
  But coming up with $5 million,
• 24:17
  put it on a project, it's hard.
• 24:20
  Here we usually use angel investors,
• 24:25
  - Right?
• 24:26
  - That way of supporting it. It's a totally market economy.
• 24:29
  But in China, they're not doing it slightly differently.
• 24:33
  So it's a government support plus investment.
• 24:37
  And the way they do it is,
• 24:39
  we'll give you the money you need.
• 24:42
  And as a grant, now we all know 90
• 24:46
  to 95% of startups go bankrupt within five years.
• 24:50
  And they say, that's okay, we understand that.
• 24:53
  However, if you do succeed, we want a share of your company.
• 24:59
  So in that sense, it's similar to
• 25:02
  convertible notes kind of investment vehicle.
• 25:07
  And only thing is the government is doing it,
• 25:10
  the university is doing it.
• 25:12
  That I think is a huge booster
• 25:16
  because many, many, many professors will be saying, yeah,
• 25:20
  I will wanna try it and I'll be responsible.
• 25:23
  No one wants it to be more successful than I, right.
• 25:28
  However, if I fail, I'm not going bankrupt.
• 25:31
  I can still have my regular job.
• 25:34
  I think give it 20 years this policy,
• 25:37
  the bridge over troubled water
• 25:39
  or flying over the Death Valley.
• 25:42
  Two metaphors. I think it's gonna be really powerful.
• 25:47
  - Yeah. I still remember it was a number of years ago
• 25:50
  when Li Chuang was in power.
• 25:54
  He instituted a new policy
• 25:57
  to let university students leave for a year
• 26:00
  or so to do a startup.
• 26:03
  And I thought that is the beginning of a really big shift
• 26:07
  in Chinese thinking.
• 26:08
  Because you know,
• 26:09
  before that, I know I had done some interviews in China
• 26:14
  with technologists and they would say, you know, none
• 26:17
  of the Chinese parents wants their child to go and
• 26:21
  and do a startup to try to be an entrepreneur.
• 26:24
  They want them to go work for a big company,
• 26:26
  either a western company or a state-owned enterprise
• 26:29
  and have job security
• 26:31
  and make good money with good benefits.
• 26:34
  But I think when Leika ch you know, pushed forward with
• 26:37
  that initiative, it really began to crack open a system
• 26:41
  in some ways, you know, China a very, has had forever,
• 26:45
  you know, a very large entrepreneurial spirit,
• 26:48
  which had become, I think,
• 26:49
  encased in the political structure in a way that that sort
• 26:53
  of sometimes smothered it.
• 26:55
  So I thought this was a really, just a really interesting
• 26:58
  and important moment for the young people in the country to,
• 27:02
  - Yeah, Liz, I,
• 27:03
  I can tell you an interesting story in that line.
• 27:07
  'cause at that time I was the vice provost
• 27:09
  for P University Oh.
• 27:10
  And dean of the UMP college,
• 27:12
  we actually allocated a really big sort of
• 27:18
  a floor of a particular building
• 27:20
  to be the innovative center for students.
• 27:24
  - Oh, wow. - And in my UMP college, we were the first one
• 27:28
  to say, it's okay if you leave for a year, no problem.
• 27:31
  We'll support you. And so on and so forth.
• 27:34
  - Yeah. - And I was very happy to see that
• 27:38
  the students actually, I think zero came out of
• 27:43
  that from those things.
• 27:45
  That's, that's not the point.
• 27:47
  That's the point is students at that age, they are daring.
• 27:52
  - Yeah. - They, they are actually writing their business
• 27:54
  proposals with great market analysis
• 27:58
  and all that competitor analysis.
• 28:01
  So these people,
• 28:02
  although they failed at their first project,
• 28:04
  but give it another five, 10 years, they were exposed
• 28:08
  to the entrepreneur kind of thinking.
• 28:12
  And they're not afraid of it.
• 28:13
  They no longer look at Steve Jobs as a, as a God.
• 28:18
  And they look and say, oh actually if there's a good idea,
• 28:22
  I'm willing to do it a second time.
• 28:23
  Right. So I think just to supplement your observation with
• 28:27
  - No, and they don't need to look at Steve
• 28:28
  Jobs anymore anyway.
• 28:29
  They've got Jack Ma, they have their own, you know, sort of
• 28:33
  stars, homegrown entrepreneurs who've really done
• 28:37
  exceptional things.
• 28:39
  So I wanna switch gears a little bit to an issue
• 28:42
  that I know you've thought a lot about and,
• 28:44
  and have some, you know, concerns about.
• 28:46
  And that is the sort of over reliance of the United States
• 28:51
  and much of the rest of the world on Chinese APIs.
• 28:57
  You know, talk to us about the issue here.
• 29:01
  What is the problem that you see?
• 29:04
  - Okay, Liz, let's clarify the abbreviation API
• 29:08
  for the audience because most
• 29:09
  of people think in the, in the computer sense.
• 29:12
  Okay. The API we are talking about here is active
• 29:15
  pharmaceutical ingredients.
• 29:17
  - Thank you. Yes. - I think you are raising a very
• 29:20
  serious question.
• 29:22
  I think if I may, on a personal level, Liz,
• 29:27
  it's actually, I feel a profound sadness
• 29:32
  in discussing this question
• 29:33
  because to me, medicine treatment, these are the
• 29:39
  novel list and across humanity issues, right?
• 29:43
  And it feels, I feel the pain of discussing
• 29:46
  that in the context
• 29:48
  of geopolitical tension and risks.
• 29:52
  But we have to face it.
• 29:54
  So I think the problem is big,
• 29:58
  and I hope I'm not exaggerating
• 30:01
  because I do think it is as serious as weapons
• 30:05
  of mass destruction in the sense
• 30:08
  because those atomic weapons and all that, they're horrible.
• 30:13
  But the drugs we are talking about affects 80%
• 30:18
  of population, whether it's United States
• 30:21
  or other countries, including China.
• 30:24
  That's what API active pharmaceutical ingredients is about.
• 30:30
  The daily drugs like ibuprofen,
• 30:33
  the mundane ones are sleeping pills
• 30:35
  or let's say one has a a a needs a appendicitis.
• 30:40
  It is such a small surgery.
• 30:43
  What about the ca the anesthetics, if you go
• 30:47
  for a CT scan, what about the contrasting agents?
• 30:51
  So these are the things we're talking about.
• 30:54
  And I think there was a figure by
• 31:00
  FDA that people above 65 perc,
• 31:04
  65 years old in the United States, I think it was 85
• 31:09
  or 90% of people take at least one
• 31:12
  drug at least.
• 31:14
  So this is what we are talking about.
• 31:17
  If there is a breakage in the supply chain,
• 31:20
  we are talking about 80% of people will be affected.
• 31:25
  And the question goes beyond the United States, it's Canada,
• 31:29
  it's Australia.
• 31:31
  And to be serious,
• 31:34
  I think if we have such a kind of unfortunate situation,
• 31:39
  poor countries will suffer even more
• 31:42
  because the price will go up like crazy.
• 31:45
  And United States and Europe are probably okay
• 31:49
  because we, we can put up with higher price.
• 31:52
  But what about African countries?
• 31:55
  So I think the question is really
• 31:57
  beyond US China geopolitical now
• 32:02
  I see the problem is globally, I just feel
• 32:06
  for such critical things, chemicals
• 32:09
  and APIs to be
• 32:11
  so heavily depending on one place, right.
• 32:15
  That is dangerous.
• 32:17
  In United States, we have so many drugs
• 32:20
  and APIs, let's say 70,
• 32:22
  80% is dependent on import.
• 32:26
  United States used to make all of them right?
• 32:29
  In New Jersey Then it was shifted to other countries.
• 32:34
  India being one.
• 32:36
  And then, and for interestingly, it started a race
• 32:41
  to the bottom of economy
• 32:44
  because it's, it's not that profitable.
• 32:47
  So whoever can make it cheaper and equal quality wins
• 32:53
  and give 30 years,
• 32:54
  Chinese companies are doing extremely well.
• 32:58
  They're making pro products for Merck,
• 33:01
  Pfizer, AstraZeneca.
• 33:04
  But if you trace back, it's all there now,
• 33:07
  geopolitically it is dangerous not only
• 33:11
  for United States, but for other countries too.
• 33:15
  So I will think for such kind of things, it might be
• 33:19
  a better strategy to have more than one place
• 33:24
  that can produce it in case it needs then you can crank
• 33:28
  up the production.
• 33:30
  But how to do it, I'm still,
• 33:35
  - That was gonna be my next question.
• 33:36
  So what's the, what's the solution?
• 33:38
  I mean, you know, what do we do from here then?
• 33:41
  How do we break, how do we break this dependency? Yeah.
• 33:45
  'cause I think there are two different issues right at hand.
• 33:47
  One is something could happen within China
• 33:50
  that could be problematic.
• 33:51
  So maybe there's a factory explosion. Yes. Yes.
• 33:54
  You know, and, and,
• 33:55
  and that provides some very serious disruption or, and that,
• 33:59
  and I think that is the sort of the global
• 34:01
  where it could have global implications or,
• 34:04
  and we've seen both China now
• 34:06
  and the United States, you know, weaponize their, you know,
• 34:09
  sort of when other countries have dependencies on them,
• 34:12
  you know, weaponize that kind of le leverage
• 34:15
  you could imagine as it did with a little bit
• 34:18
  of the mask diplomacy during CO that China could choose
• 34:22
  to use the APIs like it did with the rare earth,
• 34:26
  for example, recently as a tool of negotiation
• 34:30
  with the United States
• 34:31
  or with other countries
• 34:33
  with which it's having a difficult political relationship.
• 34:35
  And that really wouldn't probably have as much
• 34:38
  of an impact in Africa or other countries.
• 34:41
  But so, so what do we do about it, I guess is the question?
• 34:44
  - Yeah. Yeah. I, I definitely feel, acknowledge
• 34:47
  that something, I'm really trying to think hard,
• 34:50
  but I haven't found
• 34:52
  - A - Good solution.
• 34:53
  But I will tell you what I've been trying to explore.
• 34:57
  One is of course, what they call the friend shore.
• 35:01
  If not United States, then India, some
• 35:05
  of the European countries or those are the places,
• 35:08
  or Mexico could be places that we can have friends.
• 35:12
  Sure. So just don't put all eggs in one basket.
• 35:16
  That's the strategy.
• 35:18
  - Okay. The second, I mean,
• 35:19
  I think sense, oh sorry, go ahead. Yeah,
• 35:20
  - Yeah.
• 35:21
  The second one, I'm, I'm throwing that idea out
• 35:24
  to be criticized.
• 35:25
  I think many people will say that's just not gonna work.
• 35:29
  I think why not invite some
• 35:33
  of the Chinese companies
• 35:34
  to have a subsidiaries in United States?
• 35:38
  Remember for example, attack
• 35:42
  was severely punished by United States government, right?
• 35:48
  Really, really hard time.
• 35:49
  The stock, I think dropped the 92% within two
• 35:53
  days, something like that.
• 35:54
  And then US government says, okay,
• 35:56
  we'll give you eight years.
• 35:57
  Because after looking at that carefully, it's, oh boy,
• 36:00
  - Yeah, we can't live without it, basically.
• 36:02
  Yes, yes. Oops. Big surprise. Yep.
• 36:05
  - But if you look carefully, woo,
• 36:07
  shop tech is establishing factories here in
• 36:10
  the United States.
• 36:12
  So is PAC Gene, so are many other con companies.
• 36:17
  I mean, of course they have their economic reasons,
• 36:21
  they have their sort of incentive to sp
• 36:26
  to, to spread the risk factors.
• 36:29
  But in the United States, I think
• 36:32
  we probably should encourage them to do so
• 36:35
  because in case of what something that we really,
• 36:39
  really don't want it to happen,
• 36:40
  those factories are actually in Texas, in Boston.
• 36:45
  And that will be a source of those drugs.
• 36:51
  And, and I will say that's at least something we should
• 36:55
  think about rather than rejecting that outright
• 37:00
  as another kind of economic invasion.
• 37:03
  So I'm thinking maybe we should think about this a little
• 37:07
  bit more, although I'm, I'm quite uncertain myself.
• 37:11
  - Yeah, no, I think it's a, it's a really,
• 37:13
  it's a really big question
• 37:15
  that I don't think the US government has, has yet, I mean,
• 37:19
  has yet to address, basically.
• 37:20
  Yeah. And we certainly have seen it in, you know,
• 37:22
  battery technology with CATL
• 37:25
  and you know, do we want Chinese companies that are
• 37:30
  ahead basically of US companies
• 37:32
  or have abilities that US companies don't currently have
• 37:36
  to come here
• 37:37
  and to, to manufacture, to provide jobs all good.
• 37:42
  But does that then stunt the ability of, you know,
• 37:46
  homegrown US industry to develop
• 37:49
  and, you know, of course China's experience, you know,
• 37:52
  we could say, can we learn from the Chinese experience in
• 37:55
  the, you know, 1980s through the 1990s Yeah.
• 37:57
  Of welcoming that kind of foreign investment,
• 38:00
  but then requiring certain things from
• 38:03
  those foreign investors.
• 38:05
  Yes. In terms of r and d, you know, investment
• 38:07
  or tech transfer
• 38:09
  or you know, whatever,
• 38:10
  manufacturing a certain amount in order
• 38:12
  to have access to the market.
• 38:13
  They put in many, many different kinds of stipulations
• 38:16
  for access to the Chinese market.
• 38:19
  And I'm not sure whether Chinese companies will be prepared
• 38:23
  to respond in the same way that many American
• 38:27
  and other multinationals did
• 38:30
  when China was just opening up.
• 38:32
  Right. So I think there are some complicated, I think
• 38:36
  around whether or not the United States
• 38:39
  and other countries, right, feel as though they need
• 38:41
  to have their own indigenous to take a word
• 38:44
  that's often applied to China, indigenous innovation,
• 38:47
  indigenous industries,
• 38:48
  or whether we don't need to have that in, in every sector.
• 38:53
  And we should just in fact welcome the Chinese companies
• 38:57
  who are gonna be providing us with both the technology
• 39:00
  that we need and jobs.
• 39:02
  - Yeah. - So
• 39:03
  - One thing, Liz, I wanna give an example to you.
• 39:06
  I mean, just look at Tesla, right?
• 39:10
  Elon Musk in, in Shanghai, Chinese government
• 39:13
  and local government really, really opened their arms to
• 39:18
  El mask and basically whatever you ask,
• 39:20
  we'll get it done next week, right? Something like that.
• 39:23
  - Right? - And their
• 39:25
  long-term thinking is just having you here,
• 39:29
  you train the workers, the engineering engineers,
• 39:32
  and the way you do things, we learn from it,
• 39:36
  - Right?
• 39:37
  - People can be transferred to the next xmi or, or or
• 39:41
  - No, I think that's exactly right.
• 39:42
  Exactly right. That's exactly right.
• 39:44
  And if you read Apple in China, the book that came out not
• 39:47
  that long ago, that's exactly what happened with Foxconn
• 39:51
  and Apple Foxconn based in China though, right.
• 39:55
  And all of their engineers
• 39:56
  and all the, the training that Apple did then went out
• 40:01
  to seed many, many other parts of sort
• 40:04
  of the iPhone ecosystem, for example, throughout China.
• 40:08
  So it's a really fascinating story that does,
• 40:10
  I think exactly what you're saying
• 40:12
  and maybe a really important point to make in the context of
• 40:15
  what the US could gain from this process.
• 40:19
  So I'm really glad that you, you raised that. I think it's,
• 40:22
  - And Liz, I do have a suggestion, again,
• 40:26
  a quite premature one.
• 40:29
  I think we can select areas
• 40:32
  and factories
• 40:34
  or companies that we really want to learn from.
• 40:38
  For example, if there, there's a company
• 40:41
  who does pretty ordinary things
• 40:43
  and just compete with US companies,
• 40:46
  we probably don't quite welcome that.
• 40:49
  However, if it's battery technology, which is prominent,
• 40:54
  we may wanna learn from them.
• 40:56
  - Right. - You know, another one I want to graze
• 41:00
  in awareness is China is no longer the one 30 years ago
• 41:04
  that basically people here always thinks
• 41:07
  that Chinese stole things from United States.
• 41:11
  True or not? Today,
• 41:14
  I think there are some fields Chinese already leading.
• 41:18
  - Absolutely. - And for United States,
• 41:22
  I think we should be confident enough
• 41:24
  to learn from the best, whoever they are.
• 41:27
  It could be a Japanese company,
• 41:28
  it could be Chinese, I don't care.
• 41:31
  A Somalian company.
• 41:32
  If they do something the best, I'll learn from that.
• 41:36
  - Right. - I think we should have this open-mindedness
• 41:41
  and confidence to accommodate
• 41:44
  and true modesty to recognize the,
• 41:47
  our fields we need to learn from other people too.
• 41:53
  - Yes. I happen to agree with you on, on that point,
• 41:57
  I think, and the number
• 41:58
  of those fields will probably increase over time.
• 42:02
  Yeah. So we better better figure out our path forward,
• 42:06
  or we may relegate ourselves to, you know, eventually
• 42:09
  to some sort of second tier innovation nation.
• 42:13
  So let's, let's turn now for a couple of of last questions,
• 42:20
  you know, to the cooperation between the United States
• 42:23
  and China, and we've sort of started
• 42:25
  to move in in that direction.
• 42:28
  You know, the challenge,
• 42:30
  and you kind of epitomize you,
• 42:33
  you yourself in one person are a collaboration basically
• 42:36
  between United States and China.
• 42:38
  But it has become, I think, increasingly difficult
• 42:42
  for American
• 42:43
  and Chinese researchers to collaborate in a number of areas
• 42:48
  that are considered to be somehow sensitive technologies.
• 42:52
  And that I think, number
• 42:54
  of technologies has also increased over time.
• 42:59
  I remember when I was in the administration
• 43:03
  and we had the small yard and the high fence
• 43:05
  and you know, the yard is,
• 43:07
  people kept pointing out quite accurately, the yard seemed
• 43:09
  to be getting bigger and bigger with more
• 43:12
  and more technologies.
• 43:13
  And nobody could quite determine, you know,
• 43:16
  every agency had its own list of
• 43:17
  what constituted critical technologies.
• 43:20
  And so, you know, but,
• 43:23
  but how do you see, you know, are there areas that you,
• 43:26
  where you would say, you know, actually US scientists,
• 43:31
  for the sake of their own, you know, development
• 43:35
  of their own industries, their own sort of fields here
• 43:39
  should not be collaborating with Chinese institutions
• 43:43
  or for reasons of national or economic security.
• 43:46
  So are there areas where you'd say, I don't think
• 43:48
  that's a good idea, or do you think sort of everything
• 43:52
  should be open for some form of cooperation?
• 43:56
  - I think I will go for the first one,
• 43:59
  which is collaborate in as many few
• 44:03
  as national security allows.
• 44:07
  That's a difficult proposition.
• 44:09
  I'll come back to the caveat later. So let me explain.
• 44:14
  I think that's where I, I want
• 44:17
  to wear my global citizen hat.
• 44:21
  Okay. As, as a physician scientist, my career is devoted
• 44:26
  to treating patients.
• 44:27
  And they are Chinese, they're Americans,
• 44:29
  they are Venezuelans.
• 44:31
  I went there for looking at the
• 44:33
  Huntington's disease patients.
• 44:35
  So in these areas,
• 44:37
  they really do have a global impact, a global participation.
• 44:42
  And I think United States leadership is not shying away from
• 44:46
  that, but actually be in it
• 44:49
  and be still a leader in that,
• 44:53
  in treating Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease.
• 44:56
  I will not put a restriction in that.
• 45:00
  Cancer biology, I will say support them.
• 45:04
  If let's say China comes,
• 45:06
  but within next Nobel laureate
• 45:09
  for inventing a drug treating cancer, I will be very happy
• 45:14
  with it because it does not impact United States
• 45:18
  national security in that sense.
• 45:21
  It benefits everybody.
• 45:22
  So those are the groups I think just
• 45:25
  strongly I support collaboration.
• 45:29
  Now, the next group, another extreme, of course,
• 45:32
  it's purely, clearly national security sensitive,
• 45:37
  for example, materials making bombs or,
• 45:41
  or all those military ones.
• 45:43
  I will say it's natural.
• 45:45
  Nobody will allow other countries,
• 45:48
  people getting into it right now, the middle one.
• 45:52
  That's interesting. How do we look at that?
• 45:55
  And here, the caveat I want to mention is
• 45:59
  the line between basic research,
• 46:03
  civilian use technology
• 46:05
  and dual use technology,
• 46:09
  - Yeah.
• 46:10
  - Has been blurred more and more and more.
• 46:14
  For example, let's say mass, that used
• 46:18
  to be the highest intellectual, sort
• 46:21
  of the most pure kind
• 46:25
  of science.
• 46:27
  Now we know algorithm is in every AI product
• 46:32
  in every missile guided, laser guided missile in starlink.
• 46:37
  So the applied mass thing,
• 46:40
  do you call it pure science or dual usage?
• 46:44
  What, how do you draw the line?
• 46:46
  I think that is the part I am hesitating
• 46:50
  and I don't have a great idea how to define that.
• 46:55
  Now I have a second best solution to that.
• 47:00
  It's a practical second best,
• 47:04
  what I call it a poor man's Cadillac approach.
• 47:08
  It is anything that is publicly published
• 47:12
  is probably okay.
• 47:15
  Publication, I refer to both academic journals
• 47:20
  as well as patents Because in both scientific
• 47:24
  journals and patent applications,
• 47:27
  we are required detail, our methodology so
• 47:32
  that quote unquote, people
• 47:35
  with reasonable knowledge can reproduce it.
• 47:39
  This is a requirement when I publish my paper on the top
• 47:43
  journal or even middle journal, this is what I have to do
• 47:46
  because I have to subject myself
• 47:50
  to peer scientists criticism,
• 47:55
  and they should repeat my results.
• 47:57
  If they cannot, I am in trouble. Right.
• 48:01
  So in patent two, in patent application,
• 48:05
  this is a requirement.
• 48:07
  Now for all these things, I,
• 48:09
  I will thank God it's already there.
• 48:12
  I mean, it doesn't make sense. You are keeping a secret.
• 48:14
  It's already there. Then I will not put too
• 48:17
  much of a restriction.
• 48:19
  There are of course, government supported or,
• 48:23
  or you know, military use.
• 48:28
  Those are the ones I will probably cut a very clean one,
• 48:31
  but as long as it's publicly available,
• 48:36
  I will not put too much of a restriction on that.
• 48:40
  - Yeah. I mean I think that's very,
• 48:41
  those are very wise words.
• 48:43
  There are probably still some technologies,
• 48:45
  even semiconductor technology as we've seen, you know,
• 48:48
  what one person considers to be something
• 48:51
  that should be export controlled, another person thinks,
• 48:54
  you know, no, that's no problem.
• 48:57
  And so I think, you know, there, there still,
• 48:59
  it can be very difficult I think to draw that line
• 49:01
  as you suggest.
• 49:03
  But I do think the sort of publication, using that
• 49:06
  as a metric for determining whether
• 49:09
  or not something you know, should be able, you know,
• 49:13
  to be cooperated on and, and,
• 49:15
  and you know, by both sides is at least, at least begins
• 49:19
  to I think address that sort of messy middle, middle area
• 49:23
  that you're talking about.
• 49:24
  - Yeah, yeah. It can be the first line of triage.
• 49:28
  - Yeah. - Then we go to the second, like be more detailed.
• 49:30
  Right. But first line, I, I would probably use that one
• 49:35
  as the first approach.
• 49:38
  - So I wanna, you'd put your, for our, our last, you know,
• 49:41
  question or, so I want you
• 49:42
  to put your policy advice hat back on again.
• 49:46
  And you've been so good about offering,
• 49:48
  I think constructive solutions to some
• 49:50
  of the thorny problems that we've been discussing.
• 49:53
  But, you know, one of the issues, you started off
• 49:56
  by talking about the differences in the system
• 49:58
  and the state, you know, sort
• 50:00
  of driven top down model in China as opposed
• 50:02
  to the grassroots bottom up model of the United States.
• 50:07
  And, and the, I think
• 50:09
  for many people here in the United States, they've come
• 50:13
  to the conclusion or arriving at the conclusion
• 50:16
  that the United States can't simply compete
• 50:18
  this way anymore.
• 50:20
  That that massive state investment in China across
• 50:25
  so many areas that saw, for example, in the made in China,
• 50:29
  2025 technologies, those sort of 10 areas
• 50:32
  of critical cutting edge technologies where, you know, both,
• 50:36
  as you say, the center
• 50:37
  and the local governments just, you know,
• 50:39
  poured money into these, into these areas.
• 50:43
  To the point that, you know, you had hundreds of companies
• 50:45
  around single, single, you know, products competing
• 50:50
  and many could not survive nonetheless, right?
• 50:54
  They've produced, you know,
• 50:55
  some terrific electric vehicles for example.
• 50:59
  But how can the US compete in this environment?
• 51:03
  Because I would suggest
• 51:05
  that it seems like something is missing
• 51:09
  in the US ecosystem today that would enable it
• 51:13
  to compete against this massively sort of subsidized
• 51:18
  Chinese machine.
• 51:20
  - Yeah, great question.
• 51:23
  I do have several very specific
• 51:27
  recommendations.
• 51:28
  - Great. - The first one is basic science funding.
• 51:34
  United States, especially
• 51:37
  after Second World War had a booming
• 51:41
  science technology for decades and decades.
• 51:45
  That's because we actually have been putting a huge
• 51:50
  sort of funding resource to basic research.
• 51:54
  Those are the ones seemingly we don't know,
• 51:58
  we're not quite sure when it was studied.
• 52:00
  But then it turned out to be unbelievably powerful, right?
• 52:06
  So I think the basic science is important.
• 52:11
  And I think we win by having this deep, deep,
• 52:15
  deep roots of greatest science in math, physics,
• 52:19
  chemistry, biology in engineering, computer science.
• 52:24
  At the beginning, I think science goes in a way
• 52:28
  that is different from technology is technologies usually
• 52:32
  have a pretty clear minded endpoint inside.
• 52:36
  Like, I wanna design a robot
• 52:38
  that can do the cooking compound chicken.
• 52:41
  Okay. But science is, when people studied,
• 52:45
  let's say a jellyfish glowing protein called the
• 52:48
  green fluorescent protein.
• 52:50
  Nobody knows how this is gonna be big.
• 52:53
  And eventually it turned out to be a Nobel winning thing.
• 52:58
  So I think the basic science is important.
• 53:01
  That's the source, the fountain of youth
• 53:05
  of all the other things.
• 53:06
  So that is one.
• 53:09
  And I think in that as a scientist
• 53:12
  and physician, I would plea
• 53:15
  the administrations do not cut NIH funding NS funding.
• 53:20
  Because these are our really true function
• 53:23
  of youth function of innovation.
• 53:26
  - Yeah. - The second one is, we should continue our support
• 53:30
  for translational work.
• 53:32
  And here I wanna remind all
• 53:34
  of us United States government has been
• 53:40
  doing unbelievably big
• 53:44
  humongous government programs.
• 53:47
  We should not forget that. Remember the Manhattan Project?
• 53:51
  - Yes, yes, - Of course. It was $2 billion at that time.
• 53:56
  It was completely government support, right?
• 53:59
  The initiation of internet
• 54:03
  was government supported, the moonshot
• 54:07
  was initiated by Kennedy.
• 54:09
  All these are, god knows, billions
• 54:13
  and dollars of projects that
• 54:18
  actually raised our cohesiveness
• 54:20
  and challenge to the whole society,
• 54:24
  whole science and technology.
• 54:25
  And I will say those are the ones we should remember,
• 54:29
  United States government was not shying away
• 54:32
  from these challenges.
• 54:34
  It was, I remember candidates speech
• 54:38
  that we, we do it not because it's easy, but
• 54:41
  because it's hard.
• 54:42
  Right? It was the famous quote.
• 54:44
  - Yeah. Yep, yep. - So I think we should continue that.
• 54:47
  And we need to identify the key areas.
• 54:50
  Obviously we cannot do anything in everything,
• 54:53
  but there are key areas
• 54:55
  and I think we should not shy away from that.
• 54:59
  And the third one is, again, another plea
• 55:03
  to the whole society, not only the government,
• 55:07
  which is United States is great
• 55:10
  because it really invites the global
• 55:13
  talents, right?
• 55:16
  For example, Chinese students here, 86%
• 55:20
  of the PhDs earned in United States state.
• 55:24
  - Yeah. They - Used to 86,
• 55:26
  - Not any, not anymore.
• 55:27
  Not anymore. But yes.
• 55:28
  - So those are the people who made their contributions
• 55:33
  and they identify with the ideology.
• 55:37
  Even Now it's the talents
• 55:41
  that make things work.
• 55:43
  So I will say US has been a magnet
• 55:46
  of attracting globally.
• 55:50
  If you are good, come over here and you have a chance.
• 55:53
  So I think that is so critical.
• 55:56
  I'm not saying homegrown Americans are not good at it.
• 56:00
  That's not the argument I've taught at the
• 56:03
  best institutions.
• 56:05
  And I know how a homegrown kid is just great,
• 56:10
  but absorbing the global talents
• 56:15
  is something that make us great.
• 56:19
  Just look around, right?
• 56:21
  You and I, we have, we are sitting on the same committee
• 56:24
  with Fefe Lee, the ai, like a really
• 56:28
  founding people and where is she come from,
• 56:33
  - Right? And and right from China,
• 56:34
  - No mask, Sergei Bri, just again
• 56:39
  and again, again, I think it is important to welcome
• 56:44
  people around the world, not pushing them away.
• 56:49
  And I do want to add a specific comment on the concern
• 56:54
  that some of the Chinese students here actually returned.
• 56:59
  Some people say, Hey, these are the people
• 57:01
  who brought our technology, our knowledge back to China
• 57:05
  and help China grow.
• 57:07
  Yes. I don't deny
• 57:09
  that China's science technology growth has a huge
• 57:13
  factor from that.
• 57:15
  And I don't deny there are a few malicious cases
• 57:20
  stealing intellectual property probably.
• 57:23
  But I will say by and large, it's a positive influence.
• 57:27
  And I wanna remind people of one thing, the
• 57:32
  science development in China,
• 57:35
  it is a lot more than just allowing Chinese
• 57:40
  to make more products,
• 57:42
  to be innovative in making a device.
• 57:47
  It's actually a way of thinking
• 57:49
  that China's growth is really, really in need of that.
• 57:54
  Because the sense of science is,
• 57:57
  it's about seeking truth relentlessly.
• 58:02
  You think about something
• 58:04
  and you believe the world is not what I think it is.
• 58:07
  It's actually what it is objectively.
• 58:11
  So you go for evidence, you do experiments, get data.
• 58:15
  When you have that, you always look at that
• 58:18
  with cautiousness saying,
• 58:20
  I think I can have a theory explaining
• 58:23
  that, but I could be wrong.
• 58:25
  I'm open to criticisms, I'm open
• 58:28
  to counter arguments,
• 58:31
  and I'm open to, I, I'm very
• 58:36
  at ease in criticizing my coworker's theory as well
• 58:40
  as the other way.
• 58:42
  So that is really important for any society,
• 58:46
  for China to be an open society,
• 58:50
  to build a national consensus.
• 58:52
  So that is, don't forget that aspect.
• 58:56
  This is what people coming the return needs from
• 58:59
  United States.
• 59:00
  They have been trying to bring that aspect into China.
• 59:05
  And I think it is important to recognize that not only ah,
• 59:10
  now they're able to make x, y, Z product.
• 59:14
  So I think we, let's be a little bit, sort
• 59:17
  of more open-minded
• 59:19
  as a global citizen, I would say.
• 59:23
  Let's remember that too.
• 59:26
  - Yeah. So wonderful, wonderful words
• 59:29
  to end on from your mouth to I hope the White House
• 59:33
  to the Trump administration's ears.
• 59:37
  I, I can't thank you enough for sharing, you know,
• 59:40
  both your deep reservoir of knowledge,
• 59:43
  but also just your, your wisdom
• 59:46
  and your thoughtfulness as, as you put it, a global citizen.
• 59:51
  And as somebody who really I think reflects, you know,
• 59:55
  the best of both the United States and China.
• 59:58
  And I'm grateful to Peking University for allowing us
• 1:00:02
  to have you for as long
• 1:00:04
  as they will let us have you here at the Hoover Institution.
• 1:00:07
  So thank you Chen.
• 1:00:09
  - Thank you so much, Liz. It's such a pleasure.
• 1:00:13
  - So if you enjoyed this discussion
• 1:00:15
  and would like more information
• 1:00:17
  and insights on China, please subscribe
• 1:00:20
  to China considered via the Hoover Institution website
• 1:00:23
  or podcast platform of your choice.