Public Interest Science in China
This article appeared in Nucleus, the former magazine of the Union of Concerned Scientists Vol. 15 No. 1 Spring 1993, by Lisbeth Gronlund and David Wright, Senior Staff Scientists
Although science has always been an international discipline, the existence of independent technical analysts working on public policy issues remains largely a Western phenomenon. With the great number of public interest groups in the United States, and their increasing influence on US policy, it is easy to take their existence for granted. But even in this country the appearance of nongovernmental technical analysts is relatively recent. In the late 1960s, for example, the only people called to testify on military issues before the Senate Armed Services Committee were government or Pentagon officials, and typically only those who supported the administration's position. Today, civilian experts from a broad range of backgrounds testify before Congress on these matters. In general, the amount of information that is publicly available on technical policy issues has increased dramatically over the past couple of decades, due largely to the work of university researchers and public interest groups such as UCS.
To encourage the development of independent public interest science in other countries, especially Russia and China, we have been involved for several years in helping bring young scientists from the West together with their counterparts in other countries. This past August we traveled to Shanghai to join 60 other scientists from around the world who work on arms control, energy, or environmental issues for 10 days of workshops and informal discussions.
Since 1989 there have been four international meetings for young physical scientists working on these issues: two in Moscow (1989, 1991) and one in Princeton (1990), in addition to the recent one in Shanghai. The participants have come from Brazil, China, Germany, Ghana, Great Britain, India, Russia, Sweden, and the United States. One goal of these meetings is to foster closer ties among public interest scientists working in different countries, in order to create a more international community of these researchers. The efforts have been very successful: Several participants have told us that the meetings changed their lives by making them aware of a community of like-minded scientists and starting them on new career tracks.
By taking advantage of computer mail and FAX machines, we have kept in contact with these researchers between meetings and visits. Early in the unfolding of the ill-fated coup attempt in August 1991, for example, our Russian colleagues sent us messages by computer mail saying that they expected it to fail. We have also been able to supply our international colleagues with books, reports, and articles published in the West -- information that is otherwise unavailable to them. And we have brought one Chinese and six Russian scientists to the United States so far for study and research with existing university research groups. These young scientists have continued policy-related work in their own countries.
The first international meeting grew out of a conversation between Frank von Hippel, a physicist at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public Affairs, and Roald Sagdeev, a physicist at the Soviet Space Research Institute, in which they discussed ways of taking advantage of glasnost to encourage young Soviet scientists to work on arms control issues. What emerged was a plan to bring to Moscow a dozen young US scientists who were engaged in such work full-time, to serve as both role models and colleagues. The 10-day meeting, held in September 1989, was hosted by the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology (MPTI), one of Russia's foremost technical institutes. Founded after World War II to train scientists for the Soviet nuclear program, the Institute had been closed to all foreigners until a year prior to the meeting. MPTI's new Rector strongly supported such exchanges with the West to help ensure that it would remain open.
The participants at this meeting (including Michael Brower of the UCS research staff) found that they shared a broad set of common interests, and a strong feeling of camaraderie developed. As a result, we came away from that first meeting with a strong commitment to continuing the process. Responding to the interest expressed by the Russian participants, the subsequent meetings were expanded to focus on energy and environmental issues, as well as military security and arms control.
As a direct result of these meetings, a Center for Arms Control, Energy, and Environmental Studies has been established at MPTI in Moscow (with help in part from US foundations). This Center is the only place of its kind in Russia for training scientists to carry out analysis on policy-related issues. It has developed a good reputation in the Moscow security policy community and with the Russian Foreign Ministry.
Although the Russians embraced the exchanges, the Chinese delegations at the first three meetings were relatively small, typically including only four people -- not all of whom were either young or scientists. At the end of the 1991 meeting, however, the Chinese delegation proposed hosting the 1992 meeting -- a sign that they were interested in expanding their participation. This proposal was originally met with some concern by the Western organizers, for two reasons. The first concern was that the more senior Chinese scientists would organize and dominate the meeting, preventing input from their younger counterparts -- those for whom the meeting was designed. The second was whether it was appropriate to hold an international meeting in China, given its repressive human rights policies.
The first concern was allayed when the Chinese proposed that the meeting be held at Fudan University in Shanghai, where the principal organizer would be Shen Dingli. We knew Dr. Shen from the United States, as, after receiving his Ph.D. in physics from Fudan, he had spent two years working on arms issues with von Hippel at Princeton. He returned to Fudan last year to start a new Program on Arms Control and Regional Security, which is the only university-based program in China on this subject. Dr. Shen had also been at the previous summer meetings, and we were confident that he would organize this meeting in the spirit of the others.
The fact that this meeting was intended to encourage independent policy analysis in China, and that holding it there was controversial within official circles, also eased our concerns that this meeting would be used by the Chinese government to show its acceptance by the international community.
About half of the 60 participants were Chinese scientists from universities and institutes in Beijing and Shanghai; the rest came from Brazil, Germany, Russia, Sweden, and the United States. The Chinese participants were a very impressive group -- capable, open-minded young scientists, who appeared to have a genuine interest in pursuing security, energy, or environmental issues as a career. In addition, there were several more senior researchers who provided important links to prominent Chinese research centers in Shanghai and Beijing.
The discussion proved to be open and fruitful, and the younger Chinese scientists felt free to speak openly in front of their more senior counterparts. Following a presentation by the director of the Shanghai Environmental Sciences Institute about government plans for an enormous hydroelectric project, for example, two young Chinese participants openly criticized the project. They asked pointed questions about what alternatives had been considered, and what consideration had been given to the impact on the environment and the large number of people who would be displaced.
Each day of the meeting began with a plenary lecture attended by all the participants. The group then split into two workshop sessions, one on environmental and energy issues and the other on international security issues. In these workshops, each participant gave a presentation of his or her work, which was then discussed by the group (the meeting was conducted in English).
As was true for the previous meetings, however, some of the most useful interactions took place outside the formal part of the meeting: over meals, during informal discussion meetings held in the evenings, or walking through downtown Shanghai. As part of the meeting, the participants spent two days together visiting Wu Xi and Su Zhou, two small cities in the countryside a few hours from Shanghai. (The group also went together to see the famous Shanghai acrobatics team -- only two weeks before it defected in Canada.) It was during this informal time that we really began to see what it is like to live and work as a scientist in China, how the political environment affects people's lives and how it may be changing, how our friends feel about the mandatory one-child policy (they don't like it), and how they view the West. Our hosts were surprised by the fact that we found the bustling street markets, bicycle traffic, and cramped living quarters equally as interesting as the famous tourist sites. As with our Russian colleagues, we discovered a commonality and personal rapport that went well beyond our professional interests.
During our time in Shanghai, and from a series of meetings with research groups in Beijing following the Shanghai meeting, we made contacts with many of the foremost Chinese research groups working on arms control, energy, and environmental issues. In addition to continuing contacts with these groups, several Western researchers are pursuing possibilities for joint research. We are particularly interested in finding ways to support the new Arms Control and Regional Security Program at Fudan. We and the other US organizers are also trying to help several more promising young researchers come to the United States to work with a research group. A fifth international meeting will likely be held next summer in the United States, which we will broaden to include more scientists from developing countries.
As was clear from our visit, there is currently very little political space in China to engage in independent policy analysis of security issues. Although we found that there is very solid work being done on energy and environmental issues, there is also a limit to the criticism that can be leveled at government energy and environmental policies. But what we found in China led us to believe that the day that an independent scientific organization like UCS could exist in China is drawing nearer.
We can anticipate that there will be significant changes in China in the future. By identifying and assisting those young scientists who have both the desire and the ability to engage in this kind of work, we hope that they will be able to take advantage of opportunities as they emerge. And by supporting what independent work does exist in China and creating ties between Chinese and Western researchers, we hope to break down the barriers a little further.
