Meanwhile DOGE has cancelled more than $2 billion in federal research grants. The US is shooting itself in the foot when it should be competing at its best.
The administration is also pressing for a 55% budget cut to the National Science Foundation. If there's any doubt about the seriousness of that situation, the director has resigned over it.
So much of policy success comes down to doing obvious and reasonable things, and most of the problem is how to incentivize making those choices. For all China's flaws, they've figured this out.
The best news here is that we might finally have a prosaic means to escape our modern-era applied biotech stagnation, the same way solar has appeared as a means to kick the feet out of traditional energy sources. China is pretty new to being an R&D powerhouse, but there are few more worthy causes.
Well during the Cold War with U.S./USSR conflict there was a lot of competition that heralded many new technologies, especially the dual use technologies that are good for both civilian and military uses. I can imagine something happening again if the U.S. had good leadership.
Competing with it is a problem for conservativism. Some admittedly loose reasoning:
Conservativism preserves currently widely accepted structures, including ideas, by ridiculing and excluding new ones; social structures, by outlawing / persecuting / demonizing new ones as a threat to 'our traditions' and 'way of life'; businesses, through tariffs and other anti-competitive measures - the House GOP is considering a bill that reduces antitrust powers, for example; existing economic sectors, by government picking winners and funding them, limiting the economy to what is popular and that the government already understands, such as manufacturing; etc.
Remember the land of the individual, of personal freedom, of opportunity, that by its culture generated invention and innovation that other places, without that culture, couldn't match. What China, which is limited by central control, is doing is copying well-established innovations - a biotech industry that relies on clinical trials. Cutting edge stuff - decades ago.
What has made the US successful is creating, innovating, and moving on to the next thing - things the government and most of the public are far behind on. Look at the boom in the IT industry over the last several decades (also no longer cutting edge except in limited ways).
How can that happen now? The US has currently embraced relatively extreme conservatism. People are afraid to offer challenging ideas, and make their money from rent and from squeezing revenue from old ideas (the stereotypical private equity model). They can't go anywhere except by pleasing the oligarchy, now including the government.
While agree with the whole analysis, I do wonder if most/enough/all the ones supporting the regime change in US are really conservatives ("embraced extreme conservatism") or they just feel/are "left behind" hence they want any change. People might not care who is in power (although they will suffer the consequences), but if after 4 years they do not live better they will say "let's change" - without really checking what is the alternative...
In the end, alternation of rulers is probably on average healthier than having the same guys over and over, but it is no guarantee of success.
Meanwhile DOGE has cancelled more than $2 billion in federal research grants. The US is shooting itself in the foot when it should be competing at its best.
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/nih-layoffs-budget-cuts-med...
The administration is also pressing for a 55% budget cut to the National Science Foundation. If there's any doubt about the seriousness of that situation, the director has resigned over it.
https://www.science.org/content/article/nsf-director-resign-...
So much of policy success comes down to doing obvious and reasonable things, and most of the problem is how to incentivize making those choices. For all China's flaws, they've figured this out.
The best news here is that we might finally have a prosaic means to escape our modern-era applied biotech stagnation, the same way solar has appeared as a means to kick the feet out of traditional energy sources. China is pretty new to being an R&D powerhouse, but there are few more worthy causes.
The best outcome for the current China/U.S conflict is lots of peaceful competition that forces each society to innovate.
Well during the Cold War with U.S./USSR conflict there was a lot of competition that heralded many new technologies, especially the dual use technologies that are good for both civilian and military uses. I can imagine something happening again if the U.S. had good leadership.
Competing with it is a problem for conservativism. Some admittedly loose reasoning:
Conservativism preserves currently widely accepted structures, including ideas, by ridiculing and excluding new ones; social structures, by outlawing / persecuting / demonizing new ones as a threat to 'our traditions' and 'way of life'; businesses, through tariffs and other anti-competitive measures - the House GOP is considering a bill that reduces antitrust powers, for example; existing economic sectors, by government picking winners and funding them, limiting the economy to what is popular and that the government already understands, such as manufacturing; etc.
Remember the land of the individual, of personal freedom, of opportunity, that by its culture generated invention and innovation that other places, without that culture, couldn't match. What China, which is limited by central control, is doing is copying well-established innovations - a biotech industry that relies on clinical trials. Cutting edge stuff - decades ago.
What has made the US successful is creating, innovating, and moving on to the next thing - things the government and most of the public are far behind on. Look at the boom in the IT industry over the last several decades (also no longer cutting edge except in limited ways).
How can that happen now? The US has currently embraced relatively extreme conservatism. People are afraid to offer challenging ideas, and make their money from rent and from squeezing revenue from old ideas (the stereotypical private equity model). They can't go anywhere except by pleasing the oligarchy, now including the government.
While agree with the whole analysis, I do wonder if most/enough/all the ones supporting the regime change in US are really conservatives ("embraced extreme conservatism") or they just feel/are "left behind" hence they want any change. People might not care who is in power (although they will suffer the consequences), but if after 4 years they do not live better they will say "let's change" - without really checking what is the alternative...
In the end, alternation of rulers is probably on average healthier than having the same guys over and over, but it is no guarantee of success.
China is having a boom in everything, not just in clinical trials.