On the issue of how to view Li and Yang's views at odds, we must not fall into the trap of either-or, but must judge which is better or worse, who is right and who is wrong, and | pixabay.com
Core ideas
Since the reform and opening up, Li Zhengdao and Yang Zhenning have different views and suggestions on China's science and technology development strategy. In view of the negation of basic research in the special historical period and the prevalence of utilitarianism after the reform and opening up, Li Zhengdao strongly advocated that China should attach importance to basic scientific research and support China's construction of high-energy accelerators; Yang Zhenning strongly advocated that China should pay more attention to the application of scientific research to meet the urgent needs of national construction in view of the reality of China's backwardness in science and technology and industry, and opposed China's construction of high-energy accelerators.
On the issue of how to view Li and Yang's views on the issue of disagreement, we must not fall into the trap of either-or, but must judge which is better or worse, who is right and who is wrong. Both of their views are profound and well-founded, but they just look at the problem from different angles. Li and Yang have different views, which is a good thing for China's scientific and technological development. The collision of different views can make China's leaders hear different voices, which in turn can make China's scientific and technological strategic decisions more rational, pragmatic and comprehensive.
This article is based on Professor Huang Qingqiao's article "Debate on Foundations and Applications: Different Views and Practical Significance of Li Zhengdao and Yang Zhenning on China's Science and Technology Strategy" published in China Science and Technology Forum No. 1, 2020.
Written by | Huang Qingqiao
● ● ●
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="20" > question: argument between basics and applications </h1>
Since the beginning of reform and opening up, China has accelerated its exploration of the path to national modernization. In this process, the decision-making level has profoundly realized that in order to realize the modernization of the country, it is necessary to vigorously develop science and technology. Therefore, what kind of policy and line to adopt has become a very important question. Modern science and technology is a huge complex system, not only many categories, new branches of science and technology continue to emerge, and science and technology have basic research and applied research. If there is a consensus on the importance of science and technology, there is a great deal of disagreement over whether basic and applied research is more important or how to maintain a balance between the two. In fact, after the founding of the People's Republic of China, the dispute between "tasks with disciplines" and "disciplines promoting tasks" has always existed. However, under the historical conditions of the new period of reform and opening up, old problems have gradually been replaced by new problems.
In the early stage of reform and opening up, China faced a very tangled dilemma: in the face of the "Cultural Revolution" denial of basic science, we needed to correct the chaos, correct the name of basic science, and then vigorously carry out basic research and cultivate scientific and technological talents in the process; however, in the face of the urgent needs of reform, opening up, and national modernization, we must make good use of limited resources and vigorously carry out applied research to solve a large number of urgent practical needs. Logically speaking, basic and applied research are of course important, which does not need to be debated; but in the case of limited resources and many scientific and technological categories, what specific development route should be taken inevitably becomes the focus of debate. Therefore, around the 1980s, the debate around basic and applied research was very fierce, and there was a game between the central decision-making level and the scientific community, within the scientific community, and between the scientific community and the practical community. What attracts people's attention is that in the process of this debate and game, two famous Chinese scientists, Li Zhengdao and Yang Zhenning, also participated in it.
Li and Yang's involvement in the fundamentals and applications debate began with a well-known big-science project in the history of contemporary Chinese science—whether China should develop high-energy physics and build high-energy accelerators. It is very interesting that the opinions and suggestions given by Li and Yang are diametrically opposed, but their arguments are eloquent and reasonable. As a result, the two of them have also expressed a series of opinions and suggestions with different views on how To deal with basic and applied research in China; similarly, their tit-for-tat opinions and suggestions are also very logical and convincing.
Reality is always linked to history. In the context of the era when the world is facing major changes unprecedented in a century, the whole society recognizes the extreme importance of realizing the autonomy and controllability of key core technologies, and together with this, the importance of basic science has once again aroused people's attention. The independent controllability of key core technologies and the high-quality development of basic scientific research have risen to an unprecedented strategic height for national development.
In the context of this era, sorting out and summarizing the different views and suggestions of Li Zhengdao and Yang Zhenning on basic research and applied research may provide some inspiration and reference for the in-depth discussion of practical issues.
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="210" > Li Zhengdao emphasized basic scientific research </h1>
Since his first return to China in September 1972, Li Zhengdao has been "popularizing science" to Chinese leaders, the scientific community and the general public, emphasizing the importance of basic scientific research. He not only directly promoted the construction of the Beijing Positron-Electron Collider, a major project of China's basic scientific research, but also disseminated his basic science ideas through various channels.
We will fully support China in building high-energy accelerators
The development of high-energy physics and the construction of high-energy accelerators in China have a special impact on the history of China's contemporary scientific and technological development because of the special concern of Zhou Enlai, Deng Xiaoping and other leaders. Mr. Zhou Guangzhao believes that "the symbol of Basic Research in China in the 1980s was the high-energy accelerator. [1] Lee Jung-do is the strong supporter and promoter of this "symbol".
The construction of China's high-energy accelerator, from the start of 1972 to the official construction of the small positron-negative electron collider in 1984, after more than ten years, "seven under eight up", during which the opinions of Chinese and foreign scientists have been consulted many times, and a number of engineering schemes have been proposed, and the process is extremely complicated. Lee was involved in the project from the beginning, urging That China to build a positron-negative collider instead of a large proton accelerator, which was eventually adopted by the Chinese government.
On May 21, 1984, Deng Xiaoping received Li Zhengdao. During the talks, Lee reviewed his involvement in the construction of China's high-energy accelerator. He said: "In 1972, when I first returned to China, Premier Zhou in Beijing raised the question of how to make high-energy physics develop in China, and I have been thinking about it since then, mainly to combine the basics and applications. In the autumn of 1976, I sent a complete set of information about the electron collider and related synchrotron radiation to China through the Stanford High Energy Physical Acceleration Institute in the United States. When I came to Beijing for 77 years, I put forward my own idea, proposing to build a smaller, two- or three-billion-electron volt positron collider... At the end of 1977, Professors Yuan Jialuo and Wu Jianxiong wrote a proposal on proton accelerators and asked me to join them. I added an appendix about electron accelerators, which highlights the difference between protons and electrons... In 1978, China decided to build a large proton accelerator, although it was different from my suggestion... In 1981, the country changed the direction of high energy, so I proposed a small electronic collider program... Now it seems that this direction is right. [2] This passage clearly illustrates the role Played by Lee In the construction of the positron-positron collider in Beijing. In addition, in the article "My High-Energy Physics Undertaking with the Motherland"[3], Li Zhengdao recalled in more detail the whole process of his participation in and support for the construction of China's high-energy accelerators.
Mr. Zhou Guangzhao, then president of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, once commented on Li Zhengdao's special role in the construction of China's high-energy physics accelerator: "At that time, many people thought that money should not be spent in this regard. In addition to comrade Xiaoping's persistence at home, there are also the efforts of our Chinese high-energy physics and technology personnel, while abroad, the most crucial thing is Li Zhengdao... Zhengdao never talks about some things in China's development, and always helps and promotes the development of China's science and technology from a positive perspective. ” [1]
Chen Hesheng also had a more specific evaluation: "It should be said that without Mr. Li Zhengdao's vision and tireless efforts to develop China's high-energy physics, there would be no construction and success of the Beijing positron-negative electron collider." From its physical goal selection to the determination of accelerator programs, from engineering design to ordering key equipment in the United States, from talent training to engineering management, from physical research to international cooperation, it all embodies a lot of Mr. Li Zhengdao's painstaking efforts. [4] Chen Hesheng, former director of the Institute of High Energy of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, was a first-hand witness to the creation of the Electron-Positron Collider in Beijing, so his above evaluation is credible.
It is strongly advocated that China should attach importance to basic scientific research
The first time Li Zhengdao returned to China, he noticed the neglect and prejudice of basic scientific research in China. When he returned to China for the second time in May 1974, he presented to Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai the famous "Some Impressions after Visiting Fudan University", put forward suggestions for attaching importance to basic scientific research and cultivating scientific and technological talents, and at premier Zhou Enlai's reception meeting, he fought the "Gang of Four" and stressed the importance of basic scientific research. [3]28-30
This experience also made Li Zhengdao realize that it was not as easy to explain clearly from the historical conditions at that time and let Chinese understand the importance of basic research and its relationship with applied research. Because of this, since then, every time Li Zhengdao returned to China, he had to talk about this issue on different occasions and at different levels, thus forming his distinctive basic scientific outlook.
First, from the perspective of common sense, the indispensability of basic science is explained in a figurative way.
Li Zhengdao believes that in order to make ordinary people outside the scientific community realize the importance of basic scientific research, it is best to use big vernacular, use image metaphors, and use analogies to communicate, so that the effect will be better. To this end, he constantly searched for apt metaphors to illustrate his point with more convincing examples.
Li Zhengdao recalled, "When I first started, I used the analogy of people's hands and siblings to illustrate their inability to be partial. Later, he used the analogy of grain and medicinal herbs to illustrate that although grain is important, no one in the country can engage in grain, and no one should produce medicinal materials. Later, I compared the relationship between water, fish and fish markets, also to illustrate that basic scientific research is fundamental, but the importance of the latter two cannot be ignored. Obviously, without water, there would be no fish; without fish, there would be no fish market. [3] 48 The theory of "water, fish, and fish market" that Lee Jung-dao talks about here is the most relevant and therefore the most famous. According to Lee Jung-do, it was probably in 1984 or 1985 that he first came up with and quoted the metaphor of "water, fish, and fish market" in a conversation with Gu Yu and Liu Huaizu. [5] Li Zhengdao also made an oil poem for this purpose: "Basic science is as clear as water, applied science is raw fish, and product science fish market, one of the three is indispensable." [3] 48 The poem vividly illustrates the relationship between basic science, applied science, and product development, vividly and easily understood. Li Zhengdao often used this metaphor in many occasions when he talked to reporters, as well as in speeches and speeches at some conferences.
Second, the relationship between basic scientific research and applied scientific research is analyzed from the perspective of the history of scientific and technological development.
As a well-known scientist engaged in basic scientific research, Li Zhengdao naturally does not stop at the shallow level of analogy to illustrate the importance of basic science. Li Zhengdao is well versed in the history of science and technology, so he pays special attention to demonstrating the relationship between basic research and applied research from the perspective of the history of the development of modern science and technology. He often mentions the impetus for applied research by several well-known basic research discoveries in the history of science in the 19th and 20th centuries.
One example is Faraday's experiments on electromagnetic interrelationships in the 19th century, which led to the birth of Maxwell's equations at the end of the 19th century. This breakthrough brought about modern means of communication such as generators, electric motors, and telegraph television radars. Another example is two basic studies in the early 20th century, one was The Speed of Light experiment by Michaelson and Morey, which laid the foundation for Einstein's theory of relativity; the second was Planck's equation, which laid the foundation for quantum mechanics.
"All modern scientific and technological developments in the 20th century, such as atomic structure, molecular physics, nuclear energy, lasers, X-rays, semiconductors, and supercomputers, are due to the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics. Man's understanding of the natural world, all the scientific civilizations of the 20th century, are based on these two theories. [6] After in-depth analysis of the history of the development of modern science and technology, especially the situation in the 20th century, Li Zhengdao concluded: "Without today's basic science, there will be no tomorrow's scientific and technological application", and believes that basic research is equivalent to a "general organ" and that "once the general organ moves, the whole below will be launched." [6]136 It should be said that Li Zhengdao profoundly elucidated the relationship between basic science and applied science from the perspective of the history of scientific and technological development, which is very convincing.
Third, the development path of basic science is discussed from the perspective of the experience of developed countries.
From the perspective of the history of the development of science and technology, the relationship between basic science and applied science can only be clarified in the general theoretical sense. However, different countries have different historical backgrounds and will have different development paths. Therefore, from the perspective of historical experience, it is also necessary to clarify how developed countries with science and technology develop basic science and properly handle the relationship between basic science and applied science.
Mr. Lee chose his own examples of the United States and Japan, which rose rapidly after World War II, to illustrate the issue. After reviewing the history of the development of science and technology in the United States and Japan, he pointed out, "When Japan was relatively poor in the early days, it paid more attention to basic research. This has a lot to do with its subsequent scientific success and industrial development. Why should we focus on basic scientific research when countries are poor? That's because the funding required to support basic science is relatively low. [5]143 The situation in the United States is different, "the United States did not pay attention to the foundation at all in the early days", because "when the United States started, it had close relations with Western Europe, and industrial technology had developed to a certain extent... After World War II, Western Europe was devastated by the war, which prompted the United States to attach importance to basic research. ” [5]147
Although the history of Japan and the United States is very different, the recent situation is the same, both countries attach great importance to basic research, "the proportion of basic, applied and development research funding, recently has remained basically at about 15%, 25%, 60%. [5] 147 China's history and national conditions are different from Japan and the United States, so we must take our own path, but some common regular things should also be borrowed and used by me, "The key is to deal with the relationship between the three aspects of foundation, application and development." Only by maintaining a certain proportion of funds can we develop in a coordinated manner. [5] 148 Lee Jung-do's argument is very logical, full of historical sense and international vision.
Since the late 1970s, Lee Has returned to China several times a year. In his limited time back home, Mr. Lee not only advises Chinese leaders on a wide range of issues related to basic scientific research, but also preaches his basic views on basic scientific research and its relationship to applied science at different levels across the country.
In view of Lee's special status and influence, the domestic media are happy to report on his lectures and speeches. Consulting the newspapers and magazines of the time, Lee Zhengdao's remarks and ideas on the relationship between basic and applied science were widely reported at the time. In the early days of reform and opening up, when consultation was still underdeveloped, this played a positive role in reversing the prejudice against basic scientific research in society at that time, broadening people's horizons, and playing a role in ideological enlightenment.
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="211" > Yang Zhenning emphasized applied scientific research </h1>
In contrast to Mr. Lee, Mr. Yang opposed China's construction of large accelerators when he returned to China for the second time in June 1972. Since then, he has also highlighted the need for China to vigorously carry out developmental and applied scientific research. More importantly, Yang Zhenning's emphasis on applied research is equally eloquent and inspiring to Chinese leaders and the Chinese scientific community.
Continued opposition to China's construction of high-energy accelerators
Yang Zhenning first visited China in July 1971, and during his return to China, he mainly visited the "model" projects on various fronts with provincial relatives and did not have in-depth exchanges with the Chinese scientific community. In June 1972, Yang Zhenning returned to China for the second time (Li Zhengdao returned to China for the first time in September of the same year). It was during this return to China that Yang Zhenning began to get involved in the debate over the construction of China's high-energy accelerators.
On July 4, 1972, Yang Zhenning was invited to participate in the symposium on "Development and Prospect of High-Energy Physics" organized by the Chinese Academy of Sciences, at which Chinese physicists proposed that China should build a large-scale high-energy accelerator to catch up with the world's advanced level and cultivate talents in the process. To the surprise of the Chinese scientists attending the symposium, Yang Zhenning opposed China's construction of large high-energy accelerators at the meeting and took a resolute attitude.
"With tens of millions of dollars in investment to develop high-energy accelerators, from the perspective of China's industrial development, it is difficult for me to vote for ... China's steel production last year was 21 million tons, which can be discussed after this figure has tripled. That's one-sixth of the U.S. and Soviet Union, but the U.S. and Soviet union have two-thirds of China's population. China has a lot of other things to do, and China should have a greater contribution to humanity, but I don't think it should be in terms of high-energy accelerators. [7] It should be said that Yang Zhenning, who has a broad vision and an understanding of the situation between China and the United States, is pragmatic.
Indeed, china's economy in 1972 was on the verge of collapse, and it was extremely unrealistic to talk about building large accelerators, and higher education was almost stagnant at the time, and it was impossible to build accelerators without talent. In Yang Zhenning's view, China's top priority is to restore and develop education and cultivate more talents. Although Chinese scientists are very uncomfortable with Yang Zhenning's outspoken opinion, Yang Zhenning's opinion is indeed very reasonable, which is undoubtedly a sobering agent for Chinese scientists in a closed state.
Although Yang Zhenning strongly opposed China's construction of high-energy accelerators, Chinese scientists have their own long-term considerations, and Zhang Wenyu and 18 other scientists jointly wrote a letter to Premier Zhou Enlai in September of that year, proposing to develop China's high-energy physics and build high-energy accelerators. Zhou Enlai personally gave instructions to support. In 1973, the China Institute of High Energy Physics was officially established, and the construction of high-energy accelerators was also put on the agenda. In 1975, the state approved the construction of a 40 billion electron volt proton synchrotron; in 1978, the state approved the construction of a 50 billion electron volt proton synchrotron, and then built a 500 billion volt proton accelerator, known as the "Eighty-Seven Project".
It was also when the "Eighty-Seven Project" was launched that Yang Zhenning returned to China again, and once again openly opposed China's construction of large accelerators "without knowing the times." On August 18, 1978, Deng Xiaoping and Fang Yi received Yang Zhenning, and during the talks, Yang Zhenning made it clear that he was opposed to the construction of a large accelerator in the motherland, so much so that Deng Xiaoping instructed Vice Premier Fang Yi, who was present, to organize experts to talk with Yang Zhenning in detail again. On the afternoon of August 19, Fang Yi led Zhang Wenyu, Zhou Peiyuan, Wu Youxun, Qian Sanqiang, Zhu Hongyuan and other famous physicists to discuss with Yang Zhenning again. Although Yang Zhenning insisted on his opposition, the launch of the "Eighty-Seven Project" has become an established fact. [8] At this time, the Chinese scientific community was more eager to catch up, and it was impossible to step down because of Yang Zhenning's opposition to a major scientific project that was hard to win.
However, the good times did not last long, and the "Eighty-Seven Project" was too greedy and high-minded, and unfortunately, Yang Zhenning said that it did not conform to China's reality, and was forced to step down.
It is said that after the "Eighty-Seven Project" was launched at the end of 1978, it was also opposed by other disciplines in the domestic scientific community because of its huge cost, and it is said that "we can't eat enough here, and the high-energy physics place eats fat there" [8]. Therefore, since 1979, the state has begun to consider adjusting the construction of high-energy accelerators, that is, to step down from the "Eighty-Seven Project".
In January 1980, after the curtain of reform and opening up, the first international large-scale academic conference held in China, the Guangzhou Particle Physics Theory Symposium, was held, and a group of Chinese physicists at home and abroad, including Li Zhengdao and Yang Zhenning, were among the best. During the meeting, Lee Led by Lee Jung-do prepared a letter to the Chinese government calling on the Chinese government to continue to support the construction of high-energy accelerators. The vast majority of physicists present signed the letter, but Yang Zhenning did not. Not only that, but he also wrote a letter to all the scientists who attended the meeting on March 12 of that year, once again publicly stating his views against China's construction of large accelerators. He said: "China's leaders and scientists have been very clear about my opinion ... I can't sign this document without shame, because I think what I really need is not my signature, but the signature of the Chinese people. [8] This is historically remarkable, and yang Zhenning has publicly opposed China's construction of large accelerators for the third time.
At the end of 1981, after more rational and thorough arguments and international consultation, the Chinese government decided to abandon the construction of large proton synchrotrons and instead build smaller positron-negative electron colliders. Shortly after the Chinese government made this decision, at the end of 1981, Yang Zhenning wrote to Deng Xiaoping and Fang Yi again raising objections. Moreover, this time the opinions are more targeted, more specific, more forward-looking, trying to point out the direction of China's scientific research. The impact of this letter is very large, so it is necessary to give a detailed description of the main content of the letter and the relevant situation.
In his letter, Yang Zhenning made clear his opposition to the construction of large accelerators, and went on to profoundly point out that Chinese scientific research "tends to go to two extremes: either paying too much attention to the study of principles, or paying too much attention to the study of products (manufacturing and improvement). Developmental studies that fall somewhere between these two types of research do not seem to be being focused. "Developmental research is a medium-term investment in the hope that the results will increase social productivity in five, ten or twenty years." This kind of investment I think is a very fragile link in the current Chinese science and technology research system. "Principle research results are often famous and loud, and developmental research factories are regarded as wealth and refuse to disclose, so it is easy to have a false impression in China that american principle research funds are much more than developmental research." The opposite is true. Yang Zhenning pointed out that the development research funding in the United States is about 10 times that of the principle research funding." Social support for the study of principles in the United States only began in these 30 years. This order of historical development, first practical and then principled, first short, medium-term and then long-term, is determined by economic laws, and is absolutely not accidental. [9] On the basis of these arguments, Yang Zhenning believes that China should vigorously carry out developmental research and put forward specific suggestions.
It must be admitted that Yang Zhenning's above-mentioned views are very incisive, and have gone beyond the level of discussing things on the basis of facts, but have put forward constructive suggestions of great guiding significance for China's scientific and technological development from the perspective of academic theory, China's actual situation and drawing on international experience.
On December 28, 1981, Deng Xiaoping reviewed Yang Zhenning's letter and issued an important instruction: "The relevant departments should discuss and draw up a plan." [10] It can be seen that Deng Xiaoping attached great importance to the content of this letter. And because Yang Zhenning's letter is reasonable and well-founded, it not only pinpoints the "pain points" of China's scientific and technological development, points out a clear direction for China's scientific and technological strategic development, but also has Deng Xiaoping's clear instructions, so the content of this letter has aroused extensive discussion between the Chinese government and the scientific and technological circles. So much so that on March 5, 1982, Guangming Daily published the main content of the letter in a larger space, and specially added an "editor's note": "I hope that this article can attract the attention of the domestic scientific and technological community, and welcome everyone to express their opinions on the issues raised in this article." [9] This is enough to see the official attitude of China at that time.
Starting with this letter, given that the Chinese government has officially decided to build a positron-positron collider, Yang Zhenning no longer openly opposes China's high-energy accelerator, but advocates that the Chinese government should pay more attention to developmental research, that is, applied scientific research.
It is strongly advocated that China should pay more attention to applied scientific research
As discussed above, when Yang Zhenning returned to China for the second time in 1972 (July 4), he insisted on opposing China's construction of large accelerators on the basis of "tongue fighting"; while Lee Zhengdao first returned to China in September 1972, in this regard, Yang Zhenning stressed that applied science was not specifically aimed at Li Zhengdao. The author believes that Yang Zhenning, as a well-known basic scientist, cannot fail to understand the importance of basic science, and the reason why he highlights that China should pay more attention to applied scientific research is inseparable from his understanding of basic science and his grasp of The current situation in China. In fact, Yang Zhenning's opinions and suggestions also gave great inspiration to the Chinese at the end of the 20th century.
First, the importance of basic scientific research is from a long-term perspective. Yang Zhenning himself is engaged in theoretical physics research, and he cannot deny the industry he is engaged in. However, for the role of basic research, Yang Zhenning stressed that it is not possible to generalize and to make a specific analysis.
In March 1980, Yang Zhenning gave a speech at the Shanghai Association for Science and Technology, and in response to the fact that there were relatively few chemistry students in the 1979 national college entrance examination, he said: "Particle theory physics is a very important discipline. I believe that in 30, 50 or 100 years, it will definitely have a relationship with human daily life, and the study of elementary particles will affect the productivity of the world. However, this is from a long-term perspective. The distribution of long-term investment and short-term investment needs to be different from country to country and cannot be generalized. In China, if I put too much emphasis on what I did, it would have a negative impact. ” [11]
It can be seen that Yang Zhenning particularly emphasized that different countries and different countries have different stages of development, and the strategy of developing basic research should be different. Moreover, he also highlighted not to elevate his research field.
At the end of 1984, Yang Zhenning answered students' questions at Peking University and said: "The problems facing theoretical physics are not the problems that China is currently trying to solve. Theoretical physics seems to be hot in China, which is a superstition. [11] 1022-1023 From the end of May to the beginning of June 1986, Yang Zhenning visited the Graduate School of the University of Science and Technology of China and gave a speech, answering questions from teachers and students: "I guess that high-energy physics will be in a difficult period in the next 30 years. This does not mean that there is no important work, nor does it mean that no one has done it, but it is no longer a booming situation. "Particle physics experiments are getting bigger and bigger, and it's inevitable going downhill over the next 30 years." With fewer and fewer experiments, there are many people doing theory, many of them smart people, so that more and more mathematical tendencies are inevitable. [11]510 It can be seen that Yang Zhenning has his own unique views on basic scientific research, especially high-energy physics.
Second, China in the early days of reform and opening up needed applied scientific research. The reason why Yang Zhenning highlights applied research is closely related to his understanding of the tasks of the times facing China in the early stage of reform and opening up. In his view, China's primary task in the 1980s was to get rid of poverty, so it was necessary to give priority to the development of applied and developmental research in science and technology, which was systematically expounded in his letters to Deng Xiaoping and Fang Yi at the end of 1981. He has maintained this view ever since.
In April 1982, Yang Zhenning said in a conversation with a reporter from Guangming Daily in the United States: "People like me who have a little fame also have a bad impact. There are many young people in the country who want to do my job. However, people like me, China is not in urgent need at the moment. To increase China's social productivity, we need a lot of hands-on people. ” [11]1007
On October 3, 1984, Yang Zhenning said in a conversation with Song Jian, director of the State Science and Technology Commission, and Yan Dongsheng, vice president of the Chinese Academy of Sciences: "Now China should be 'production first', 'production first' and 'production first'", "From the perspective of the interests of the whole nation, investment in basic research unchanged (not increasing) is a choice of first significance", "Temporarily freezing the funding of basic research is the only possible choice that conforms to the interests of the nation." [12] Yang Zhenning's remarks were opposed by some basic scientists in China and were considered to be extreme.
In May 1986, Yang Zhenning was invited by the China Science and Technology research center for development to give a speech, and when talking about the development of high technology, he said: "China sends people to study abroad, mainly not people like me, because this has little effect on China's current economic development." [11] 506 It should be said that Yang Zhenning's views are mainly focused on China's actual needs, and in the case of the 1980s, they were more in line with China's reality.
Third, in light of China's national conditions and practical needs, it is recommended that overseas students broaden their horizons. On January 21, 1984, Yang Zhenning was invited to talk with Chinese visiting scholars and international students in Davis in the United States, saying: "The scientific and technological development required by different societies is different, and the direction of science and technology that can be developed is also different. Since my first visit to New China in 1971, I have repeatedly mentioned that Chinese students studying physics here need to pay more attention to the physical direction that China needs. The high-energy physics I am engaged in is not the direction that China urgently needs, this is the direction that costs money and does not make money. What direction is in line with China's national conditions? For example, the development of solid state physics is more in line with China's national conditions. ” [11]469
From the end of May to the beginning of June 1986, Yang Zhenning visited the Graduate School of the University of Science and Technology of China, and in response to questions from teachers and students, Yang Zhenning said: "For many years, I have said to some people who read physics, unless you feel that it is absolutely necessary to read high-energy physics, or do not read high-energy physics. High-energy physics has nothing to do with China's 'quadrupling' and can even be counterproductive because high-energy physics is too expensive. This does not mean that high-energy physics has no importance, and high-energy physics certainly has importance, but China's problem is a 'quadrupling' problem rather than a high-energy physics problem. ” [13]
Rationally analyzed, Yang Zhenning's opinions and suggestions are based on a good starting point, aiming to hope that young students will have a broader vision and more understanding of the actual needs of the motherland, but Yang Zhenning's words do give people a feeling of extremism.
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="212" > the epochal significance of the debate between foundation and application </h1>
Through the above combing and analysis, we can find that although Li and Yang have different views, their opinions and suggestions to China are also justified and well-founded, and they are all out of patriotism to develop China's affairs, especially science and technology, and not out of selfishness. This must first be made clear.
The divergent views of Li and Yang are mainly due to their different starting points for looking at the China problem and proposing a solution to the China problem. In view of the negation of basic research and its bad influence of the "Cultural Revolution" and the prevalence of utilitarianism in China after the reform and opening up, Li Zhengdao strongly advocated attaching importance to basic scientific research, which is of course not wrong; Yang Zhenning, in view of the reality of China's backwardness in science and technology and industry, strongly advocated that more attention should be paid to applied scientific research to meet the urgent needs of national construction. Therefore, on the issue of how to view Li and Yang's views on the issue of disagreement, we must not fall into the trap of either-or thinking, but must judge which is better or worse, who is right and who is wrong. In fact, the two of them have different views, but they see the problem from different angles.
Originally, both basic scientific research and applied scientific research are very important, and neither can be abandoned, which is not debatable. But this problem has its peculiarities in China. China's modern science has been transplanted from the West, and the development of science and technology has from the very beginning shouldered the heavy mission of saving the people and revitalizing China. This determines that China's scientific and technological development must be closely integrated with national strategies and national needs.
Since the founding of the People's Republic of China, the question of how to balance "disciplines" and "tasks" has been debated endlessly. After the "Cultural Revolution," national construction was on the right track, and financial support was urgently needed in all fields, but the country was very poor, and the scientific research funds allocated to scientific and technological research were extremely limited. This is also the fundamental reason for the dispute between foundation and application in that historical period and the debate between Li and Yang on foundation and application.
Li and Yang were the most influential overseas Chinese scientists of the 20th century. More importantly, both of them are very patriotic. In October 1980, Zhou Guangzhao, who was a visiting scholar in the United States at the time, talked about some views of the Chinese scientist Mo Wei in a letter to Qian Sanqiang, vice president of the Chinese Academy of Sciences: "Mo Wei talked to me three times, talked about some situations and opinions, and he meant that he hoped that I would convey these opinions to China... Some people do not understand the situation in China, some people have selfish intentions, the Chinese government should not trust them... Mo said that according to him, only Li and Yang had no selfish intentions and enthusiastically hoped to do a good job in China. [14] This reflects the evaluation of Li and Yang by overseas Chinese, and the Chinese government attaches great importance to their opinions and suggestions.
In this regard, Li and Yang have different views, which is a good thing for China's scientific and technological development. The collision of different views can make China's leaders hear different voices, which in turn can make China's scientific and technological strategic decisions more rational, pragmatic and comprehensive. Perhaps this is also the greatest practical significance of Li and Yang's debate on the basis and application.
In recent years, there has been a great deal of debate in the scientific community about whether China should build a large accelerator, especially since the publication of Mr. Yang Zhenning's "China Should Not Build a Super Collider Today"[15] and Mr. Wang Yifang's contentious response article "China Should Build a Large Collider Today" [16], which has made the discussion originally limited to the scientific community a hot topic in the social field, and all sectors of society have paid great attention to this topic and expressed their opinions. On the occasion of the author's revision of this article, on June 5, 2019, Science and Technology Daily published an article on the front page entitled ""China should not build a big accelerator" - Academician Ge Molin, a professor of physics at Nankai University, answered the reporter's question of Science and Technology Daily[17], which once again aroused people's attention and hot discussion on this issue.
History always gives some inspiration to reality. This article argues that to sum up history, an in-depth discussion of whether China should build a large accelerator or not is essential:
1
The scientific value and scientific objectives of building large accelerators must be fully examined. At least from the current debate, the views within the scientific community on the scientific value of large accelerators are still very inconsistent, and although there may be different academic views and schools of thought, the main scientific goals for large-scale scientific devices that cost a lot of money should be fully brewed within the scientific community, and some basic consensus should be reached as much as possible. The formation of a certain consensus within the scientific community is a prerequisite for convincing the state and the public.
2
National circumstances must be fully taken into account. Development science can never be separated from the specific conditions of a country, and national conditions are the fundamental conditions for the development of modern science and technology. The fundamental questions of what is the necessity and feasibility of building a large accelerator must be studied in depth, and cannot be blindly affirmed or denied in a preconceived way. Talent and technology reserves, cost and benefit analysis, risk assessment and control, etc., these deep-seated specific issues, all need to be seriously studied in depth.
3
Emphasis must be placed on consolidating public opinion. In contemporary times, the construction of large scientific devices is no longer just a matter within the scientific community, and the social field pays great attention to large scientific devices, which in a certain sense will also affect the decision-making and progress of large scientific devices. Therefore, on the one hand, it is necessary to give a positive and powerful response to the focus of public concern; on the other hand, for the public opinion with scientific basis and broad consensus formed in the public opinion for a long period of time, decision-makers should also actively consider absorbing it, so as to form a positive interaction between decision-makers, the scientific community and the public.
With the continuous enhancement of China's comprehensive national strength, China's scientific and technological undertakings are developing vigorously and rapidly, and the strategy and route of a scientific and technological power are firm and clear. It is foreseeable that in the process of moving towards a scientific and technological power, the construction of many large scientific devices will be proposed, and the topic of whether basic research and applied research is more important and its development route will inevitably be repeatedly involved, hoping that the research in this paper can bring some useful enlightenment.
“
About the Author
Huang Qingqiao is a professor at the Institute of History of Science and Culture of Science, School of Marxism, Shanghai Jiao Tong University.
”
bibliography:
Zhou Guangzhao. Some of my understandings of the political path[G]. Collected Essays on the 80th Birthday of Professor Li Zhengdao, Shanghai: Shanghai Science and Technology Press, 2009:127.
Li Zhengdao. Li Zhengdao[G].Hangzhou:Zhejiang Literature and Art Publishing House,1999:25-26.]
Li Zhengdao. High-energy physics career with my motherland[G]. Selected Writings of Li Zhengdao (Science and Humanities), Shanghai: Shanghai Science and Technology Press, 2008:19-54.
Chen Hesheng. Mr. Li Zhengdao and the development of high-energy physics in China[G]. Collected Essays on the 80th Birthday of Professor Li Zhengdao, Shanghai: Shanghai Science and Technology Press, 2009:77.
Li Zhengdao. Water, Fish and Fish Markets: Some Materials and Reflections on Basic, Applied and Developed Research[G]. Selected Writings of Li Zhengdao (Science and Humanities), Shanghai: Shanghai Science and Technology Press, 2008:150.
Li Zhengdao. Without today's basic science, there would be no tomorrow's scientific and technological applications[G]. Selected Writings of Li Zhengdao (Science and Humanities), Shanghai: Shanghai Science and Technology Press, 2008:136.
Yang Jianye. Yang Zhenning[M].Beijing:Sanlian Bookstore Press,2012:436.]
Jiang Caijian. The Beauty of Norms and Symmetry: Yang Zhenning's Biography[M].Guangzhou:Guangdong Economic Publishing House,2011:9.
Yang Zhenning. Some ideas on the development of science and technology in China[N].Guangming Daily, 1982-03-05.
Central Literature Research Office. Deng Xiaoping Chronicle (1975-1997)[M].Beijing:Central Literature Publishing House,2004:793.]
[11] Yang Zhenning's Collected Writings (Biographies, Speeches, Essays)[G].Shanghai:East China Normal University Press,1998:1003.
Ji Cheng. Li Zhengdaochuan[M].Beijing:International Culture Publishing Company,2010:187.]
Yang Zhenning. Selected Writings of Yang Zhenning: Ten Years of Reading and Teaching[G].Taiwan: Times Publishing Company, 1995:12-13.
Ge Nengquan. Qian Sanqiang's chronology[M].Beijing:Science Press,2013:521.
Yang Zhenning. China is not suitable for building a super collider today[J].Science and Culture Review,2016,13(5):18-19.
Wang Yifang. China should build a large collider today[J].Science and Culture Review,2016,13(5):20-27.
[17] Gao Bo." China should not build a big accelerator"——Academician Ge Molin, professor of physics at Nankai University, answered the question of science and technology daily reporter[N].Science and Technology Daily, 2019-6-5.
![Li Zhengdao welcomed his 95th birthday, wrote a letter of thanks and "reported peace to everyone"[fig]]()