Will the US or China lead global scientific innovation?
Editor’s Note:
The physics world was last year stirred up by the findings of a research team at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), which recorded the superconductivity of magic-angle twisted sheets of graphene at 1.7 kelvin (-271.45 C). China has made a hefty commitment to the super-material of strategic significance for technological innovation. The country has been particularly thrilled about the giant leap as 1996-born Cao Yuan, a graduate from the University of Science and Technology of China and a doctoral candidate in physics under MIT professor of physics Pablo Jarillo-Herrero (PJH), is a crucial member of the team led by Jarillo-Herrero. Cao discovered the magic angle and published two papers in the prestigious Nature magazine as first author in March 2018.
Cao enjoys being at MIT and, once he graduates, he has to make his decision about what to do, Jarillo-Herrero revealed in an exclusive interview with Global Times reporter Li Qiaoyi (GT) in Beijing, on the sidelines of the Future Science Prize Forum earlier in November. Jarillo-Herrero also touched on some vital aspects of graphene research and commercialization, China’s technological rise and the resulting unease in the US.
GT: Is China leading the global graphene sphere in terms of research and development (R&D) and commercialization? PJH: China has invested many resources into graphene and two-dimensional materials. I know here in Beijing there’s a very well-known graphene institute. I’m very impressed with the way China is approaching research in materials science, its investment in basic science and also in applications. There are many other countries that have also invested in materials. I’m not sure one can say that China is leading. It’s certainly one of the leaders [among countries] that invest heavily in graphene R&D.
Commercialization is still a little bit lacking, not only in China, but every country, because we’re still figuring out the most important applications for graphene. We have to see. There are already some prototypes, but we need more basic research.
GT: To what extent have US scientists and researchers collaborated with China in the graphene field? Has bilateral collaboration been affected by the trade woes between the two countries?
PJH: In the US, we have benefited enormously from having many talented Chinese students who have come to the US to do their PhDs and post-doctorates. One example is Cao Yuan. He went to the US, joined my group and contributed decisively. He is the first author of the papers where we made our groundbreaking discoveries. I’m extremely happy and have a lot of Chinese students in my group, because I think China has tremendous potential as the population is so large. The contribution China has made to science [by] sending many talented students to the US, Europe and many other places has been tremendous. China, over the past two decades, has grown enormously itself in terms of science, and I think it’s doing very well. I remember 15 or 20 years ago, when I was doing my PhD, I would not normally read Chinese papers to be honest. It didn’t happen. Now I read a Chinese paper every week. Part of it has to do with investment in the education of young people. There’s been some collaboration between Chinese scientists and US scientists, European and Japanese. I’m a little bit worried that now some of these collaborations are a bit more difficult because of global geopolitical tensions. I think that the potential China has is enormous and it’s developing very fast.
It’s true that nowadays, some Chinese scientists and students [ find it difficult] to get their visas, to travel to the US, to participate in conferences or to go to the US for graduate school. I think that’s a shame. I hope that the visa review process, while thorough, can be done faster. Science is a very open field. Scientific enterprise has always been something that unites countries, because people speak the same language of science, physics and mathematics, and I think that’ll be very good, to keep a very open atmosphere in science.
GT: When will graphene chips become a reality? If materialized, will China grow as a chipmaking leader, factoring in its leading position in graphene? PJH: That depends on what you mean by graphene chips. Large-area graphene-sheet wafers that can then be used for other applications – that’s already a reality. People are already able to buy graphene wafers. However, the quality has to improve. Now, if by graphene chips people mean micro-circuits that make use of graphene transistors, we are not there yet. But there are some interesting prototypes of graphene technologies. I’m already aware of some startups which have prototypes of graphene-based cameras, because graphene can detect light – visible light, infrared light, all kinds of light. There are some cameras which are based on graphene and infrared radiation that can penetrate through water and fog. These companies are trying to make graphene infrared cameras, so you can see when you drive through fog and rain, improve the safety of cars and see more easily at night. That’s a niche market. There are many such potential applications.
GT: How big is the technological gap now between China and the US?
PJH: I think there are areas where China is already doing as good as, or in some cases better than, the US. If you think [about] cutting-edge innovation, the US perhaps in some areas still has an edge because it has a longer tradition of risky projects and intellectual innovation. China has been extremely good at taking innovation, then doing R&D and starting companies and manufacturing.
China has excelled in terms of manufacturing and supply chains. It’s also playing an increasingly [important] role in intellectual innovation. It’s probably fair to say that cutting-edge innovations of basic science [are] still produced more in the US than in China. China has been catching up fast, because there is a lot of talent here. It’s not surprising.
Additionally, the US system has traditionally been effective in integrating basic science, funded by the government and private foundations. Lately, the US government [has not been] investing the necessary resources in basic science. By contrast, the Chinese government is doing very well in terms of investing in basic science, but its [private] investment may be lacking a little bit. We need to have both.
GT: Would you agree that a tech cold war has begun between China and the US? PJH: I don’t like the word “war.” There are challenges there, which are largely a question of geopolitics. At the basic level of scientists, the relationship is very cordial as we are very open and look forward to discussions, meetings and very open exchanges. Technology companies at the moment are competing, they want to file patents and make money. I hope both countries will do their best to resolve their differences, because I think the world needs the US and China together, solving the many global challenges that mankind faces.
It would be good for the two countries to be friendly competitors. It’s always good to have a little bit of competition, because innovation happens when there’s competition, but it has to be friendly.