FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Will a Nobel Prize Change China’s Perspective on Innovation?

On the evening of October 5th, 2015, Tu Youyou, aged 85, received a phone call at her home in Beijing from Adam Smith, congratulating her on sharing half of this year’s Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, for ‘her discoveries concerning a novel therapy against Malaria’. It was four years after Tu received the Lasker Prize the most prestigious in medicine, and about forty years after she and her team discovered the method to isolate Artemisinin from the herb Artemisia annua (qinghao, 青蒿) This herb had been used by Chinese herbalists for thousands of years to treat many illnesses, including Malaria.

When the phone call arrived, Tu was surrounded by her colleagues from the China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences who came to congratulate her, and she received the praise of the top leaders and broad national media coverage. Amid this overwhelming enthusiasm towards China’s long-awaited Nobel[1], a growing number of observers sharpened their criticisms of China’s science and technology institutions, including the Academician election procedures, and debated on what this award meant for Traditional Chinese Medicine.

Attention has also been directed at how well China moves basic science into practical application. An old news report resurfaced on the struggles the Chinese scientists encountered in developing Artemisinin into an acknowledged drug by the World Health Organisation (WHO) to treat Malaria. It was after Tu won the Lasker Prize that the journalist Liu Wu investigated why such a scientific breakthrough was translated into a WHO’s first-line treatment against Malaria by a foreign pharmaceutical company Novartis, while the domestic companies only hold a share of less than 10% in the international anti-Malaria market[2].

While the Nobel Prize awards the greatest discovers of the day, the motivation of the WHO in the Artemisinin story was to choose reliable manufacturers whose products are proven through multi-centred clinical trials and performed according to internationally acknowledged rules and standards[3]. The Chinese scientist team failed in meeting those standards in the early 1980s, and despite the often-cited occurrence of Chinese intellectual property infringement, they had no idea about protecting their own intellectual property. It is considered a hard lesson learned both by Chinese scientists and the nascent pharmaceutical industry, as Zhang accounts in his detailed book chronicling the work of Project 523. The situation is described by McNeil Jr. for the New York Times:

“Different labs in and outside China were working on derivatives [of Artemisinin]. Patent law had vanished under communism, and China never took out Western patents, so there was no way a major drug company could get a monopoly and make big profits. Malaria was a disease of the poor, and today’s big donor funds did not exist… Aid agencies could not buy drugs that were not W.H.O.-approved”.

It was Novartis who finally bought a Chinese patent and developed the drug for use, later selling it to WHO in 2001. Large international donors – The Global Fund to fight HIV/AIDs, TB and Malaria financed by the Gates Foundation and The President’s Malaria Initiative – have enabled mass distribution.

However, things are somewhat different today.

Not only has the pharmaceutical industry witnessed the rise of China to become the second largest market in the world, with considerable development of its domestic companies, but also China’s growing interest in ‘innovation’ has broadened and integrated into political and economic reforms since the early 2000s. When Tu received the news she referred to the importance of the ‘innovation spirit’: “…we worked very hard to find anti-malaria drug artemisinin and to save millions of lives. It shows that as a scientific worker we need innovation spirit to find new things”. The idea of innovation as a driver of the economy and (to a lesser extent) forbearer of social good has become a persuasive one in China.

This was formally enshrined on January 2005, at the Fourth National Congress on Science and Technology, China’s President at the time Hu Jintao announced China’s new development goal in the 21st century: to become an ‘innovation-oriented’ country. Subsequently, a detailed guideline was published titled ‘National Medium- and Long-term Program for Science and Development (2006-2020)’. The concept of 自主创新 (zizhu chuangxin), often translated as ‘indigenous innovation’, was coined and has since attracted worldwide attention.[4]

International commenters still remain concerned about China’s weak performance in upholding intellectual property rights and doubt that China has real innovation capacities – as shown in this Harvard Business Review article. The situation was quite the opposite if we consider Tu’s discovery and such concerns may soon become outdated. In the recent Global Innovation Index 2015 Report, China was identified to be ‘innovation achiever’ and pitted as an exemplar along countries such as India and Kenya. In addition to increasing expenditures on science and technology, Chen et al. (2015) delineated China’s science and technology policy evolution in the past thirty years, and outlined a new wave of policy change initiated by its current leaders, President Xi Jinping and Premier Li Keqiang.

The areas of policy reforms they highlighted ranged from introducing China’s version of the Bayh-Dole Act[5], issuing the 2014-2020 Action Plan on the Implementation of National Intellectual Property Strategy, to fostering grassroots entrepreneurship. It is clear to the Chinese leaders, scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs that innovation is more than discoveries and breakthroughs. And it seems China has started to address some of the concerns in regard to its innovation policies.

In Alfred Nobel’s will, he wrote that ‘prizes [shall be annually distributed] to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit to mankind’. This year’s Nobel Committee awarded Campbell & Ōmura and Tu because their discoveries helped ‘to combat these debilitating diseases that affect hundreds of millions of people annually. The consequences in terms of improved human health and reduced suffering are immeasurable’. Chinese leaders and innovators should keep this critical fact in mind if they are to integrate social innovation into its overall innovation package. Issues such as social and economic inequality cannot be addressed alone, by science and technology, or by the market. Artemisinin shows all of these components matter.

Notes.

[1] The last was in 2012 in Literature and before that Peace in 2010 and Physics in 1957.

[2] Miller and Su had first brought attention to Tu when they had researched the origins of Artemisinin and were able to identify her as one of the main protagonists, even though isolating the efforts of a large scientific project has proved controversial.

[3] Such as WTO’s TRIPS Agreement and WHO’s Good Manufacture Practice.

[4] See: http://www.nesta.org.uk/publications/chinas-absorptive-state-innovation-and-research-china

[5] Allowing universities and public institutions to issue patents from public funding for R&D.

Yeyang Su is a Ph.D candidate at the University of Sussex.

Samantha Vanderslott is a PhD candidate in the Science and Technology Studies department at UCL.

August 15, 2018
Jason Hirthler
Russiagate and the Men with Glass Eyes
Paul Street
Omaorosa’s Book Tour vs. Forty More Murdered Yemeni Children
Charles Pierson
Is Bankruptcy in Your Future?
George Ochenski
The Absolute Futility of ‘Global Dominance’ in the 21st Century
Gary Olson
Are We Governed by Secondary Psychopaths
Fred Guerin
On News, Fake News and Donald Trump
Arshad Khan
A Rip Van Winkle President Sleeps as Proof of Man’s Hand in Climate Change Multiplies and Disasters Strike
P. Sainath
The Unsung Heroism of Hausabai
Georgina Downs
Landmark Glyphosate Cancer Ruling Sets a Precedent for All Those Affected by Crop Poisons
Rev. William Alberts
United We Kneel, Divided We Stand
Chris Gilbert
How to Reactivate Chavismo
Kim C. Domenico
A Coffeehouse Hallucination: The Anti-American Dream Dream
August 14, 2018
Daniel Falcone
On Taking on the Mobilized Capitalist Class in Elections: an Interview With Noam Chomsky
Karl Grossman
Turning Space Into a War Zone
Jonah Raskin
“Fuck Wine Grapes, Fuck Wines”: the Coming Napafication of the World
Manuel García, Jr.
Climate Change Bites Big Business
Alberto Zuppi - Cesar Chelala
Argentina at a Crossroads
Chris Wright
On “Bullshit Jobs”
Rosita A. Sweetman
Dear Jorge: On the Pope’s Visit to Ireland
Binoy Kampmark
Authoritarian Revocations: Australia, Terrorism and Citizenship
Sara Johnson
The Incredible Benefits of Sagebrush and Juniper in the West
Martin Billheimer
White & Red Aunts, Capital Gains and Anarchy
Walter Clemens
Enough Already! Donald J. Trump Resignation Speech
August 13, 2018
Michael Colby
Migrant Injustice: Ben & Jerry’s Farmworker Exploitation
John Davis
California: Waging War on Wildfire
Alex Strauss
Chasing Shadows: Socialism Won’t Go Away Because It is Capitalism’s Antithesis 
Kathy Kelly
U.S. is Complicit in Child Slaughter in Yemen
Fran Shor
The Distemper of White Spite
Chad Hanson
We Know How to Protect Homes From Wildfires. Logging Isn’t the Way to Do It
Faisal Khan
Nawaz Sharif: Has Pakistan’s Houdini Finally Met his End?
Binoy Kampmark
Trump Versus Journalism: the Travails of Fourth Estate
Wim Laven
Honestly Looking at Family Values
Fred Gardner
Exploiting Styron’s Ghost
Dean Baker
Fact-Checking the Fact-Checker on Medicare-for-All
Weekend Edition
August 10, 2018
Friday - Sunday
David Price
Militarizing Space: Starship Troopers, Same As It Ever Was
Andrew Levine
No Attack on Iran, Yet
Melvin Goodman
The CIA’s Double Standard Revisited
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: The Grifter’s Lament
Aidan O'Brien
In Italy, There are 12,000 American Soldiers and 500,000 African Refugees: Connect the Dots 
Robert Fantina
Pity the Democrats and Republicans
Ishmael Reed
Am I More Nordic Than Members of the Alt Right?
Kristine Mattis
Dying of Consumption While Guzzling Snake Oil: a Realist’s Perspective on the Environmental Crisis
James Munson
The Upside of Defeat
Brian Cloughley
Pentagon Spending Funds the Politicians
Pavel Kozhevnikov
Cold War in the Sauna: Notes From a Russian American
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail