The Absurd Remarks of China’s Science and Technology Association on the ‘Nobel Prize’

Chinese paramilitary police stand guard at Tiananmen Square. (China Photos/Getty Images)

[People News] Recently, the winners of the Nobel Prize in various categories have been announced. The recipients of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine include one American and two Germans, while the Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to one American. The Nobel Prize in Chemistry went to one Frenchman and one Japanese, and the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences was awarded to two American scholars.

Among these winners, the one that resonates most painfully with the Chinese is yet another Japanese laureate. In 2025, Japanese scholars are set to win both the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine and the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in the same year. To date, in the first 26 years of this century, Japan has produced 23 Nobel laureates in the natural sciences (including three who are American), while China? A big fat zero.

In 2002, a report from the Chinese Communist Party's Xinhua News Agency mentioned Japan's ambitious goal of '30 Nobel Prizes in 50 years' and criticized it as 'arrogant.' However, the reality has firmly contradicted the CCP's stance, and the reason is straightforward: Japan's educational system and research environment are conducive to scientific research and development, while the situation is quite the opposite in the CCP's China.

On October 9, following yet another Japanese award winner, the official WeChat public account of the CCP's Science and Technology Association, 'Voice of China Association for Science and Technology,' published a commentary titled 'What Do We See During Nobel Prize Season?' The main point is that while the Nobel Prize deserves respect, it should not be viewed as an all-encompassing standard (also referred to as 'certainly not the only measure of science and technology').

The article states that the Nobel Prize focuses on fundamental, original discoveries and has clearly defined disciplinary and application boundaries. It cannot comprehensively measure the overall depth and systemic strength of a country's scientific and technological development. At the same time, scientific honors are subject to the preferences of judging panels and the limitations of their times; they are not the final verdict on scientific value. Put in plain language, the Nobel Prize evaluation process has its shortcomings, and the number of laureates a country has does not necessarily reflect the strength of its scientific and technological development.

This is clearly an attempt to make excuses for China’s lack of Nobel laureates in the natural sciences. After all, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has been in power for more than 70 years. Apart from Tsung-Dao Lee and Chen-Ning Yang, who were based in the United States, and Tu Youyou, the “three-nothing” scientist, who had the good fortune to win a Nobel Prize, what other Chinese scientists have received this honor?

A statement by the China Association for Science and Technology had netizens rolling with laughter. Mimicking the association’s tone and borrowing the formula, “The Nobel Prize deserves respect, but it is not an all-purpose yardstick,” amused netizens began mocking the CCP and the various absurdities under its rule:

The Football Association says the World Cup deserves respect, but the World Cup is by no means an all-purpose yardstick.

The Film Association says the Academy Awards deserve respect, but the Oscars are by no means an all-purpose yardstick.

The Music Association says the Grammy Awards deserve respect, but the Grammys are by no means an all-purpose yardstick.

The Computer Association says the Turing Award deserves respect, but the Turing Award is by no means an all-purpose yardstick.

Your brake pedal failing repeatedly deserves respect, but a brake pedal that keeps failing is by no means an all-purpose yardstick.

Social security deserves respect, but social security is by no means an all-purpose yardstick.

International football rankings deserve respect, but international rankings are by no means an all-purpose yardstick.

International oil prices deserve respect, but international oil prices are by no means an all-purpose yardstick.

Retirement pensions deserve respect, but retirement pensions are by no means an all-purpose yardstick.

…

After seeing these examples, some netizens remarked that there are still quite a few clear-headed people in this world. Many Chinese people have long seen through the CCP’s sour-grapes attitude. Having read this article, why not come up with your own sentence using the same formula and give the CCP something to think about?

(First published by People News) △