China's Big Science vs US Funding Shifts

China doubles down on big science projects as the United States give up? #Science is awesome 🧬🦾🚀🤯 As Chinese scientists published the world’s first whole-life-cycle brain atlas of the cynomolgus monkey in Cell, a bigger question emerged: can the United States still do ‘big science’ projects like this? #ScholER On Tuesday, the BGI Research Institute of Life Sciences, together with multiple partner institutes, published a brain atlas in the journal Cell that maps nearly three million brain cells of cynomolgus monkeys. #Biohackers Connect   The study draws attention not just for its scientific findings – it reveals clues about how the brains of extremely old monkeys resist aging – but also for what it represents: a model of large‑scale, long‑term basic research sustained by steady public investment. #A Glance of China 行摄中国   The author list alone is striking. The affiliations of the contributors fill two pages, spanning 48 institutions across eight countries, yet all the corresponding authors are based in China. #Only In China 🇨🇳   The research used tissue from 23 female cynomolgus monkeys ranging from five to 31 years of age – those over 28 are equivalent to human centenarians, making them exceptionally rare specimens. The work relied on BGI’s proprietary single‑cell omics technologies and its domestically developed DNBSEQ sequencing platforms.   Behind this study lie not only scientific questions but also questions of resources and organisation – and in these respects, China and the United States are heading in sharply different directions.   In 2026, China’s central government budget for science and technology spending surpassed 400 billion yuan (US$59.5 billion) for the first time. Within that total, spending on basic research reached 116.9 billion yuan, a year‑on‑year increase of 16.3 per cent – well above the overall 10 per cent growth in science spending. #Edtech Innovation   Nationwide, basic research funding rose from 55.5 billion yuan in 2013 to 277.8 billion yuan in 2025, while its share of total R&D expenditure climbed from 4.68 per cent to 7.08 per cent.   This level of funding means China can increasingly support similarly long‑cycle, high‑risk, and capital‑intensive projects – efforts that offer little short‑term commercial payoff and rely largely on continuous public subsidies.   China’s recent investments in large‑scale scientific facilities are a clear example. The Shanghai High‑repetition‑rate X‑ray Free‑Electron Laser (SHINE), with a projected total investment of 10.44 billion yuan, will put China on par with the United States when completed.   In Guangzhou, the Cold Spring Ecosystem Research Facility will become the world’s first 2,000 metre‑class (6,562 feet) deep‑sea laboratory capable of manned long‑term residence. And in Jiangmen, the Jiangmen Underground Neutrino Observatory (JUNO) is allowing physicists to probe the secrets of neutrinos for the first time, in hopes of understanding the origins of the universe.   These projects not only showcase China’s sustained commitment to basic research, but also marks China’s shift in frontier fields – from a follower to a runner‑up, and in some cases a leader.   At the same time, the US is undergoing what could be its biggest scientific pivot in 80 years.   One month before the monkey‑brain paper appeared, on July 21, 2026, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy released a 122‑page report titled “Science: A New Golden Age”.   The administration called it the first comprehensive review of the nation’s scientific enterprise since 1945, directly challenging the foundations laid by the landmark postwar report “Science: The Endless Frontier”.   The key shifts are threefold. First, funding moves from supporting institutions to supporting individuals – instead of large grants to universities and traditional organisations, money will flow directly to individual scientists.   Second, research priorities shift from curiosity‑driven exploration to mission‑oriented goals, emphasising artificial intelligence, robotics and nuclear energy, while reducing attention to traditional basic fields like life sciences.   Third, the peer‑review system is being diversified with a “golden ticket” mechanism, allowing a single reviewer to single‑handedly green‑light high‑risk projects.   The backdrop to this report is that the Trump administration had proposed deep cuts to research budgets for two consecutive years: for fiscal 2027, the National Institutes of Health would see its budget slashed from $47.2 billion to $41.3 billion, and the National Science Foundation from $8.8 billion to $4 billion.   Although Congress has rejected some of these proposals, the policy direction is unmistakable: the US is moving from broad support for basic research toward a focus on a few strategic technologies, and away from nurturing institutional capacity over time to backing individual breakthroughs quickly.   Looking back, the cynomolgus monkey brain atlas study sits right at this crossroads of US‑China policy divergence. It is a life‑science project that demands large‑scale collaboration and stable, long‑term financial backing.   In that regard, China offers a more accommodating institutional environment at the national level.   Of course, this scientific race is far from over. The American approach has the potential to cut bureaucratic red tape, unleash individual creativity and accelerate progress in specific fields. But where one country bets on sudden flashes of individual genius, the other bets on steady, system‑wide accumulation.   Neither path is simply right or wrong – yet the future of science is increasingly being written not just in laboratories, but in budget ledgers and policy documents. https://www.scmp.com/opin..