Chinese Academy of Sciences Reforms to Oversee Large Research Projects

As China seeks to reform its science and technology system over the coming decades, the Chinese Academy of Science (CAS) has been under increasing pressure to reinvent itself to maintain its position as the nation's most prominent research institution. In a Policy Forum, Xiyi Yang and colleagues discuss the major challenges faced by the CAS and what has led to its current restructuring efforts under the Pioneer Initiative. According to the authors, by focusing resources on managing large-scale research infrastructure, the CAS may be able to elevate its uniqueness and strategic importance among China's many research institutions. The CAS – which encompasses more than 100 institutes and tens of thousands of researchers nationwide – has played a large role in advancing China's science and technology. However, amidst national efforts to reform China's science and technology program, the CAS has been under pressure to produce original and more visible science breakthroughs to justify its reputation and substantial state-funded budget. Currently, under a new Pioneer Initiative, the CAS is in the process of reorganizing its myriad institutes into four categories – centers focused on basic research, applied science, big-science centers managing large-scale infrastructure, and specialized institutes that address region-specific problems in China. According to Yang et al., emphasis on basic research, applied science, and regional development will not differentiate the CAS much from China's many other science and technology organizations and universities. However, concentrating resources on creating centers of big-science research infrastructure – installations that address "grand challenges of human society," like particle colliders or large astronomical observatories, for example – may bring more distinct competitiveness to the CAS. "The process of turning the CAS into national laboratories oriented toward administering and supervising China's big-science research infrastructure is complicated and even radical and painful, especially given its storied history," write the authors. "It will be less a scientific and more a political, economic, and administrative decision."