ChinAI #218: Why China reorganized its Ministry of Science and Technology
Plus, a double dose of ChinAI Links (Eight to Exchange)
Greetings from a world where…
the Hawkeye women’s basketball team are national champions in my heart
…As always, the searchable archive of all past issues is here. Please please subscribe here to support ChinAI under a Guardian/Wikipedia-style tipping model (everyone gets the same content but those who can pay support access for all AND compensation for awesome ChinAI contributors).
Feature Translation: The Logic and Significance of the Ministry of Science and Technology’s Reorganization
Context: I shouldn’t have been surprised by the Around the Horn pick from the readers. This one’s for the Chinese tech policy nerds — a 4,000-word deep dive, published in Caijing E-Law (财经E法), on changes to China’s Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST), which were the first points announced in last month’s State Council Institutional Reform Plan.
Key Takeaways: According to one view, the MOST reforms are primarily targeted at centralizing China’s push for technological self-reliance and response to “external containment.”
Zhu Keli, founder of the China Institute of New Economy, pointed out that “MOST’s reorganization was placed at the top of the ‘Reform Plan’ because of the strategic importance and urgency of technological innovation in current national development and international competition.”
The reforms also establish a Central Science and Technology Commission (a party body), for which the reorganized MOST will serve as the administrative body, that will coordinate different bodies to solve “chokehold” issues in core tech areas
Jian Ming’an, a professor at Peking University law school, highlighted that this will lead to more macro-level science and technology policies: “In particular, it is possible to concentrate financial resources, staffing and other aspects of strength, give full play to the role of the new national system, and focus on solving the chokehold problems in certain core technology areas.”
Another view of MOST’s reorganization emphasizes the responsibilities that the ministry is losing after these reforms. The Caijing E-law writers report, “More people tend to think that the new organization after the reform will focus on the general direction…which is conducive to focusing on the improvement of the new national system and the top-level design of technological innovation, while the ‘chokehold’ problem is only (addressed) at the industry level.”
Bureaucratic infighting between MOST and the Ministry of Industry Information Technology (MIIT) is a consistent feature of Chinese technology policy. Caijing E-law interviewed someone who worked in a science and tech department at the provincial government level. They said that cross-departmental coordination was the most difficult aspect of the job: “If a science and technology work item involving the Internet needs to be promoted, the function of formulating technology policies lies with the science and technology department, while the responsibility for promotion and use lies with the industry and information technology department. If the communication and coordination between the two departments are not smooth, the overall progress may be delayed.”
Interestingly, the reform plan transfers key responsibilities to MIIT, including supervision over key high-tech industrial development zones.
The reforms also scale back MOST’s role in managing the distribution of scientific research funding, a key point of contention dating back to the mid-2000s. One problem was inefficient and duplicative funding management: researchers would use the same project, change the framing a little, and apply for support from different departments.
Let me just spell this out for the people in the back who haven’t heard it the first twenty times I’ve written some version of this statement. If you’re looking to understand shifts in Chinese technology policy and your first stop is not Chinese-language writing like this Caijing E-Law article, you’re just doing it wrong — I’m sorry.
A longform report (5959 Chinese characters), four strong reporters, includes key debates about how to interpret the reforms, references to other signifiant texts such as an April 2022 “China Youth Daily” article, and nearly 10 interviews with experts and people who have worked at science and technology departments at the provincial and national level. That’s hard to beat.
***For more details, including how the MOST reforms fit with China’s new National Data Bureau, see FULL TRANSLATION: The Logic and Significance of the Ministry of Science and Technology’s Reorganization
ChinAI Links (Eight to Exchange)
There’s been a little too much plugging of my own work here the past few weeks, let’s do a double dose of ChinAI Links:
Must-read: For Chinese American Scientists, a Chill at the U.S. Border
In Karin Fischer’s essential Latitudes newsletter, “The Asian American Scholar Forum said there have been ‘multiple incidents’ in which scientists and professors have been “harassed or interrogated” at airports or other border crossings. The incidents, which have occurred over the last few months, have sparked fears that federal government scrutiny of researchers with ties to China is continuing…”
Can we go back to the days of “Don’t Do Stupid Shit” as an organizing principle for U.S. policy?
Should-read: Chinese AI groups use cloud services to evade US chip export controls
Speaking of not doing stupid shit, some good, detailed reporting on the messiness of implementing U.S. chip controls by Eleanor Olcott, Qianer Liu, and Demetri Sevastopulo. Impressive work to get information from three senior employees at SenseTime and two staffers from iFlytek.
Should-watch: The pig butchering romance scam - BBC World Service
A previous Around the Horn issue flagged a story about AI being used to defend against “pig-butchering romance scams.” This BBC video, reported by Zhaoyin Feng and Natalia Zuo, traces the stories of two scam victims (one in the U.S. and one in China). The 45-minute video is also available in Chinese.
Should-watch: Whether We Can and Should Develop Strong AI: A Survey in China
The Center for Long-term Artificial Intelligence surveyed 1,032 young and middle-aged students and scholars in AI and related fields, including 63 experts who were invited to participate through invitation from the Beijing Academy of Artificial Intelligence, the China Computer Federation, the Chinese Association for Artificial Intelligence, and the Chinese Association of Automation.
Should-read: ChatGPT vs. Google Translate in Chinese-English translation
Nicole Wu, an Assistant Professor at University of Toronto, shared a cool example on Twitter about ChatGPT’s ability to understand context in other languages.
Should-read: IGP Research Paper: TikTok and US National Security
Back in January 2023, Milton Mueller and Karim Farhat, at Georgia Tech’s Internet Governance Project, provided “a comprehensive national security threat analysis of TikTok.” Amidst all the racket, this is a reasoned, balanced take.
Should-read: What Washington Gets Wrong About China and Technical Standards
For Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Matt Sheehan and Jacob Feldgoise assesses whether China is exercising undue influence in technical standards-setting committees. They draw on “submissions by fifteen U.S.-based private-sector organizations—most of them industry associations that represent many members—to a Request for Information made by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)”
Should-read: The Particular Misery of College-Admissions TikTok
This piece, by Jay Caspian Kang in The New Yorker, made me feel the most this past week.
Thank you for reading and engaging.
These are Jeff Ding's (sometimes) weekly translations of Chinese-language musings on AI and related topics. Jeff is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at George Washington University.
Check out the archive of all past issues here & please subscribe here to support ChinAI under a Guardian/Wikipedia-style tipping model (everyone gets the same content but those who can pay for a subscription will support access for all).
Any suggestions or feedback? Let me know at chinainewsletter@gmail.com or on Twitter at @jjding99