I think for a lot of people this whole saga is probably the first time that they realize that a ton of original work is done in Asia, rather than that it is just our manufacturing hub. They have to adjust their mental model to account for a view of Asia that is in important ways outstripping the West in terms of resources and combined brain power. The amount of scientific output in Asia is astounding, and the number of active scientists dwarfs the numbers in the West. If they would switch to stop publishing in English it would be quite amusing.

Well, most of HN still has the mentality that China can only copy/steal as perpetuated by the media.

It was true 20 years ago when China had to catch up in everything.

The thinking needs to be updated.

Heck, just look at the chemistry publications from top US and European universities. Chances are, there's one or more Chinese names in most of them.

That's an oddly defensive take.

Only because I was responding to an oddly offensive take.

Not really though. Bad science comes from all over the world. It's bizarre to think that there couldn't be a Chinese Jan Hendrik Schön.

I never said the Chinese is an exception.

I was only following the logic of the original question and your initial reply.

You inferred logic that was never present in my reply. It's a correlation/causation error. As it is fully possible for things to happen in China that are not caused by the specific character and nature of Chinese people; pointing out that something has happened in China is not an implication that it's caused some the special nature of Chinese people or Chinese society.

You don't see how your logic can be misinterpreted?

Original question: Why aren't labs outside of China publishing results?

Your answer: Because good rigorous science takes time to produce.

Logical interpretation of your answer: Chinese universities are producing bad, unrigorous science because they're publishing their findings so fast.

If you go out of your way to look for uncharitable ways of interpreting what others are saying, you will find them.

Instead of going on the offensive and taking such an uncharitable interpretation as a given, if you truly can find no charitable interpretation[1], maybe ask for a clarification rather than jumping to conclusions about unspoken implications.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

You can apply that principle to yourself.

You go out of your way to look for uncharitable ways of interpreting how others are interpreting your messages.

Lmao, all that implied was that rushed papers don't have time for in depth analysis, only reproducing the material without further insight. Which is absolutely true; we're not super-human, it takes time to replicate the material and then time to disseminate why/how it works.