International collaboration in science: a Chinese perspective

International collaboration has been crucial for boosting science in China in the past few decades. But the role China plays in major international projects largely depends on research ﬁelds and can vary widely. As the country strives to reach new heights in its innovation capacity, there are heated debates over how China can get the most out of international collaboration, what the government’s role should be, and whether Chinese researchers should work alone in some cases to build their strength beyond mainstream science. In a forum organized by National Science Review , its executive associate editor Mu-ming Poo discusses these issues with ﬁve leading scientists in China.


INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION IS IMPORTANT FOR CHINESE SCIENCE FOR A MULTITUDE OF REASONS
X. Cao: Chinese science is part of the global endeavour in pursuing knowledge and making it benefit the mankind. Therefore, international collaboration is absolutely essential. There is no doubt about that. Yao: International collaboration is often driven by a need for sharing resources. But the exchange of ideas is probably more important. And it's not just about who gets the idea first. It's also a matter of discussion and debates and coming up with ideas that one may not come up with on one's own. J. Cao: Experimental particle physics is 'born' to involve international collaboration. No single institute or country alone is able to undertake such a challenging task as the Daya Bay Reactor Neutrino Experiments. Feng: International collaboration is most fruitful when strength and weakness are complementary among concerning parties. China, for example, is quite strong in material science, which researchers abroad are quite interested in. In Europe and the USA, the technological platforms are more advanced, so we are better off collaborating with them to turn our sophisticated materials into superior products. Yao: It's also important for capacity building. With increasing globalization, we need to give young scientists an international perspective through exchangescholar schemes and conducting joint projects. In the past few years, we have also started joint lectures through the internet, so that students in China can take lectures in universities in the USA, providing them the access to advanced ideas and the American way of education.

CHINA HAS BEGUN TO LEAD INTERNATIONAL PROJECTS IN SOME RESEARCH AREAS, BUT CONTINUE TO HAVE A PERIPHERAL ROLE IN OTHERS
J. Cao: While the Daya Bay Reactor Neutrino Experiments are one of the few international projects in which China is in the driving seat, we had a hard time in establishing leadership when we first started. It was a steep learning curve, but it will be much easier for future projects. X. Cao: In medical research, few labs in China have original ideas or solid groundwork, and so most international collaborations in clinical research here are proposed and led by Western scientists. But there has been improvement in recent years, and we have started to see major multicentre clinical trials led by China. Poo: There are also very few China-led international projects in life sciences. Many Chinese labs collaborate with Western FORUM Qiu 319 researchers abroad. There is criticism that their main role is to supply raw data, such as patient samples and cheap labour, and their foreign collaborators provide the idea, lead the project, and get most of the credit. I hope the situation will change dramatically in the near future. Pan: Most Chinese researchers are willing to pay the 'tuition' at the beginning. Even though they have a lot of unique data, they may not have the experience or perspective to make the most out of them. But things will change after they learn from the experience of international collaboration and begin to develop their own ideas. This is a stage China will have to go through. Yao: I agree. In many areas, we have gone from a more passive role of following and learning and to becoming equal partners. In the case of Tibetan Plateau research, we are leading an international programme called the Third Pole Environment, which was launched in 2009 and involves 12 countries. In addition to myself, the programme now has four cochairs from the USA, Germany, Nepal, and India, and has quite significant international impact.

CHINA'S ROLE IN MAJOR INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMMES SHOULD BE PROPORTIONAL TO ITS INPUT
Poo: I wonder whether it's worthwhile participating in a big international project if China only plays a minor role. For instance, China contributed 1% to the Human Genome Project, due to request by a few Chinese scientists, which is almost negligible. Now European scientists are keen for China to contribute to their Human Brain Project, which has a budget of €1 billion a year. The work would involve detailed recording of neural circuitry that can be used in supercomputer simulation which is mainly done in European labs. It's very tedious and Chinese scientists would be used as cheap labour in collecting data for their simulation. Is it really worthwhile getting involved? What will we gain from this? Yao: China has to have a say in international collaboration and make sure that our rights and responsibility are proportional to our input. We've passed the stage of merely providing cheap labour or passively following other countries in major international endeavours.
We've passed the stage of merely providing cheap labour or passively following other countries in major international endeavours.
-Tandong Yao J. Cao: I don't agree. We should, of course, be in the driving seat if we contribute to the majority of funding, as in the case of the Daya Bay project. But there are projects that are worthwhile participating even if we play only a minor part-because we will gain insights into the latest academic and technological development. The key is to ensure that our gain is proportional to our input. Pan: I agree. China should participate in major international programmes even if its role is peripheral. It's important for Chinese scientists to get some experience of international collaboration through such involvement, and they will benefit from new ideas and technologies and capacity building. Feng: There are always a lot of politics in major international projects. We should have dedicated personnel who are not only good scientists but also proficient in the art of negotiation to ensure that China's voice is heard and its interests are sufficiently represented.

AN OVEREMPHASIS ON INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION COULD LEAVE CHINA LITTLE ROOM TO DEVELOP ITS STRENGTH
Poo: There is a major emphasis on international collaboration in China. But I wonder if this is always beneficial and whether this may have in some cases prevented Chinese scientists from developing original ideas. I noticed that, in life sciences at least, Chinese researchers tend to just follow the ideas of their for-eign collaborators-who are often their former supervisors and often have a dominant role in the collaboration. Always following the mainstream science is not healthy for the career development of those researchers or for Chinese science in general. J. Cao: This also happens in particle physics. I think that there is a cultural element in this because Chinese education doesn't encourage leadership or critical thinking, which are a strong emphasis in education in the West, especially the USA.
Feng: This may also be related to the stage of development of a particular field or research team. When the standard of research and technological platforms is improved, we are likely to see more collaboration between Chinese institutions. X. Cao: Maybe in some less developed research areas, the priority is not to have as many international projects as possible but to develop our strength by collaborating with other labs in China. This may be a more effective way to make the most out of unique data resources. Pan: But there is a paradox here. Chinese labs tend to get more credit in China when they work with researchers abroad-even when their collaborators are better recognized for the work in the international community. As evaluation systems in China don't value the contribution from researchers who are not first or corresponding authors, it's more difficult to attribute credit when several Chinese labs work together. And a strange consequence is that it's very difficult to get Chinese researchers to work together even if it's more beneficial to Chinese science.

INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION WORKS BEST WITH A COMBINATION OF GRASS-ROOTS ACADEMIC EXCHANGE AND TOP-DOWN GOVERNMENT SUPPORT
X. Cao: Looking ahead, China needs to think about how to make the most out of international collaboration. There are very few government-led international collaborations at the moment. This needs FORUM to be changed. China will have a stronger presence in the global scientific community if there are more top-down initiatives, which normally come with substantial backing of research fund and better integration of resources. Poo: Indeed. A lot of biomedical data are scattered around in China. It's important to integrate those resources at the national level. This will be a challenging task. When you integrate the resources, there needs to be a unified national standard for the collection of biomedical data and a set of policies for data and credit distribution. There is a lack of a national organization operated by experts, serving the role of US National Institutes of Health in biomedical funding distribution and maintenance of standard in China. The international collaboration is also rather disorganized and ineffective. X. Cao: Here is an example for a pressing need for government leadership: scientists in Europe and the USA are planning major initiatives to take advantage of medical and public-health data, and are calling for participation from institutions around the world. But most people have serious reservations. If an institute invests a lot of money and human resources to collect patients' data, how would it be willing to give them away lightly? This is a problem in big-data science. If China has a top-down policy to support such data collection and integration, we may have an advantage in this kind of international collaboration. J. Cao: In my view, top-down projects won't go very far because, ultimately, scientists have to be interested in the research questions. When international collaboration is successful, regardless of its scale, it always starts at the grass-roots level. Pan: I don't think that the two approaches contradict with one another. International collaboration is most effective when there is grass-roots interest as well as top-down government support. X. Cao: Even if it's a top-down initiative at the beginning, scientists should still be able to find areas of mutual interest and complement each other's strength and weakness. This could form the foundation for future collaboration.
Yao: But the stage must be first set for such initiatives. It can be very risky to launch a major international project at the government level without some existing activities of interaction and collaboration among researchers. Otherwise, it would be like an arranged marriage: it may or may not work out. The stake can be high, especially if a lot of investment is involved.

CHINESE SCIENTISTS DO NOT ALWAYS GET THE CREDIT THEY DESERVE IN INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION
Poo: It's important for scientists to discuss ideas and unpublished data. But there are issues regarding credit attribution in international collaboration between developed and developing countries. Media tend to approach and attribute credits to more established scientists in the West, even though the achievement is the result of a joint effort. Pan: It's true. In 2012, my former supervisor and I published two papers separately in Nature. Even though our paper came out first, Western journalists attributed the credit to my supervisor, who is a much more renowned scientist. Hopefully, this will change with time as Chinese researchers establish their reputation in the international scientific community. J. Cao: There is also a cultural element in some cases. The Chinese culture emphasizes modesty and courtesy. This can be quite a serious problem for those who have never worked in the West before. I have come across situations in which Chinese scientists offered the credit they deserve to their foreign collaborators. Poo: I agree. Some Chinese researchers think that they would offend their former supervisors in the West if they demand the credit they deserve. This is partly why a lot of international collaboration is not equal, and has become an obstacle to the career development of the Chinese researchers. Yao: Outreaching is very important in international collaboration. This is explicitly required by many funding agencies in the USA, but hasn't gained suffi-cient appreciation in China. Chinese scientists need to be more proactive in talking about their work in scientific meetings and to international media outlets. And we should change our attitudes to authorships. In Europe and the USA, there is also an emphasis on international collaboration in major projects. There has to be joint papers or patents, but researchers don't seem to pay that much attention to who is the first or corresponding author.

LEVERAGING INTERNATIONAL
International collaboration is certainly important, but an overemphasis may impede the development of unique and novel approaches in science.
-Mu-ming Poo Yao: The issue of authorship has been taken way too far in China, thereby undermining the spirit of collaboration. We should learn from the West in improving Chinese evaluation systems to encourage not only international collaboration but also cooperation between Chinese researchers and institutions. Only when we know how to work effectively with each other can we form a strong team to compete with other countries. Poo: International collaboration is certainly important, but an overemphasis may impede the development of unique and novel approaches in science, which, in my view, follows the same principle of biological evolution. The diversification of species emerges from isolation in a unique environment. Similarly, a certain degree of isolation is necessary for maintaining a healthy diversity in science. Too much international collaboration will homogenize science, which is not healthy for big countries like China. We shouldn't be content with keeping up with the mainstream science in the West, but should encourage researchers to find their own path and make unique contribution.
Jane Qiu writes for NSR from Beijing, China.