×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Losing Google Would Hit Chinese Science Hard

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 4 years ago | from the talk-to-your-government dept.

Google 161

An anonymous reader writes to share recent statements by Chinese scientists that indicate troubled waters ahead if Google were to pull out of China. "More than three-quarters of scientists in China use the search engine Google as a primary research tool and say their work would be significantly hampered if they were to lose it, a survey showed on Wednesday. In the survey, 84 percent said losing Google would 'somewhat or significantly' hamper their research and 78 percent said international collaborations would be affected. 'Research without Google would be like life without electricity,' one Chinese scientist said in the survey, which asked more than 700 scientists for their views."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

161 comments

"I hope you have the time of your life"- Green Day (2, Interesting)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#31288866)

With all of the "free trade" efforts leading to "We'll take your jobs, thanks," maybe this is something we should inflict on China.

Re:"I hope you have the time of your life"- Green (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31288892)

And by 'we' I assume you mean Google.

How often would you say you pay more for something than you have to?

Re:"I hope you have the time of your life"- Green (2, Insightful)

j-pimp (177072) | more than 4 years ago | (#31288952)

It's an American controlled company, so yes it would be more accurate to say a subset of Americans should deny a subset of Chinese their service.

Semantics aside, google would be better off threatening the Chinese to remove their search access than to actualyl do it. Nothing is stopping the Chinese from building their own search engine.

Re:"I hope you have the time of your life"- Green (2, Interesting)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#31289058)

China often threatens and does replace google.cn with Baidu's site. The thing is, Baidu is not as good of a search as Google, so users would rather see Google.

When somebody is giving you a silly punishment for what you're doing that annoys them... coming up with a way to live with that punishment in place and still do what you want is a great way to frustrate your oppressor.

Re:"I hope you have the time of your life"- Green (5, Informative)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 4 years ago | (#31289300)

More Chinese users use Baidu than Google. It's not an issue of better or worse, it's an issue of focus. Baidu is sino-centric, which for most Chinese is a positive thing, because most users infrequently need international information. However, Chinese scientists need international information all the time, so for them Google makes more sense.

Re:"I hope you have the time of your life"- Green (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31289692)

Can't they use Bing or another search engine ? Google isn't the only thing out there that is international.

Re:"I hope you have the time of your life"- Green (1)

marcansoft (727665) | more than 4 years ago | (#31290314)

International Bing is complete crap, even here in the EU. It falls so much for SEO and linkfarms and spam it's not even funny. A few months back in one of the Google vs Bing discussions I posted an analysis showing just how terribly bad it was, and after some investigation by others it turned out it was a lot better from the US. It looks like Bing is only worth considering if you live on the other side of the pond.

Re:"I hope you have the time of your life"- Green (2, Informative)

XXeR (447912) | more than 4 years ago | (#31289078)

Nothing is stopping the Chinese from building their own search engine.

ummm, Baidu [wikipedia.org]?

Re:"I hope you have the time of your life"- Green (4, Insightful)

Tolkien (664315) | more than 4 years ago | (#31289276)

They have their own search engines (Baidu), but Google is significant because it would impact *international collaboration*. This would be bad for all involved.

Re:"I hope you have the time of your life"- Green (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 4 years ago | (#31289900)

Nothing is stopping the Chinese from building their own search engine.

Microsoft has tried and not managed to equal google. It's not so easy.

Re:"I hope you have the time of your life"- Green (3, Insightful)

haruchai (17472) | more than 4 years ago | (#31289988)

Not to mention, if Google pulls out, China would have a more difficult time to steal their IP to build
a comparable search engine.

I'm only half-kidding

Re:"I hope you have the time of your life"- Green (1)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#31288960)

When somebody is breaking the rules/laws in order to get there, they shouldn't be allowed to present their product on the marketplace.

Re:"I hope you have the time of your life"- Green (2, Interesting)

Targon (17348) | more than 4 years ago | (#31288976)

So, who wants to start up a fundraiser to pay Google to shut down operations in China?

Re:"I hope you have the time of your life"- Green (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31289176)

Count me in. Where I send money?

Re:"I hope you have the time of your life"- Green (3, Funny)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#31289326)

Count me in. Where I send money?

Please send $1 to 'Happy Dude', 742 Evergreen Terrace ...

Re:"I hope you have the time of your life"- Green (5, Funny)

HalifaxRage (640242) | more than 4 years ago | (#31289398)

Why it's the AT-5000 Auto-Dialer. My very first patent. Aw, would you listen to the gibberish they've got you saying, it's sad and alarming. You were designed to alert schoolchildren about snow days and such. Well, let's get you home to Frinky. Hope your wheels still work, bw-hey!

Re:"I hope you have the time of your life"- Green (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31289758)

Parent is not 'trolling'. GP is a Simpsons reference and parent is a Simpsons [wikia.com] reply.

Re:"I hope you have the time of your life"- Green (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31289198)

I would to stop it here as well. One less crap on the internet spoofing on what we do.

Re:"I hope you have the time of your life"- Green (5, Funny)

G33kDragon (699950) | more than 4 years ago | (#31289698)

How about we also commission Google to shutdown services wherever we feel science and technology growth threatens our national security?

No more Iranian Google results for "How to build a nuclear bomb"

Re:"I hope you have the time of your life"- Green (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 4 years ago | (#31290664)

How about we also commission Google to shutdown services wherever we feel science and technology growth threatens our national security?

Unfortunately, that would also shut down the kind of communication which would be needed to encourage those places to stop being a threat to our national security.

Essentially, we can't keep people from being able to build nukes. It's a fundamental property of the Universe that matter can be converted to energy, and the design is obvious enough. The best we can do is try to keep the raw materials out of reach of the actual lunatics, and try to persuade the general population to play nice with us.

Re:"I hope you have the time of your life"- Green (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31289186)

Right, because as an American you're entitled to a job even if you do it less efficiently than someone else. Is that about it?

Re:"I hope you have the time of your life"- Green (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31289274)

No, it's because corporations are entitled to do business even if it kills their employees and they dump PCB's into the water.

What the fuck does a society even exist for if not to provide for its mutual defense from people would would poison them?

Re:"I hope you have the time of your life"- Green (1)

jank1887 (815982) | more than 4 years ago | (#31289308)

no, we're allowed to demand a higher salary while we're at it.

Re:"I hope you have the time of your life"- Green (2, Insightful)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 4 years ago | (#31289854)

If they don't want to hire citizens here, they can incorporate somewhere else.

Survey says.... (4, Interesting)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#31288916)

What's going on when somebody in China is allowed to ask 700 people of any kind about any political issue? Isn't that close to that "voting" thing their leaders are afraid of?

Re:Survey says.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31289666)

Meh... China is corporate oligarchs, just like the US. You really think you get the privilege of voting for someone in the US that hasn't been approved or deeply indebted to our own oligarchs?

Re:Survey says.... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31289916)

Not looking at the journal article, most likely they asked Chinese professors. If you're a professor in China, you're a Party member--exceptions are that few. If you are a corporate scientist in China either you're a Party member or you have the patronage and protection of somebody of importance in the Party. So they're getting the opinion of one faction within the Party not a bunch of average citizens.

Re:Survey says.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31290522)

It doesn't work that way. If it helps the Chinese dictators, they're for it even if it resembles democracy.

Re:Survey says.... (1)

Venik (915777) | more than 4 years ago | (#31291048)

Nevermind the "voting" thing. Without Google China may find itself without scientists. Just as India without Google may find itself out of IT specialists.

Life without electricity! (1, Funny)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 4 years ago | (#31288936)

Knife without a spoon! iPhone without a charger!
Velcro without laces! TV without a remote!
Paper without a pencil! PC without Windows!
China without IP violations! Avocado without a pit!
CD without R *or* W! Keyboard without a PS/2 adapter!
Jacket without a tie! Slashdot without really great posts!

Get your own, you fucking thieves.

Re:Life without electricity! (1)

del_diablo (1747634) | more than 4 years ago | (#31289076)

Well, you only use windows for playing some weird porn games regardless.

Re:Life without electricity! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31289342)

Yeah, that should have said "PC without porn" rather than "PC without Windows."

Re:Life without electricity! (0, Troll)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#31289470)

Knife without a spoon! iPhone without a charger!
Velcro without laces! TV without a remote!
Paper without a pencil! PC without Windows!
China without IP violations! Avocado without a pit!
CD without R *or* W! Keyboard without a PS/2 adapter!
Jacket without a tie! Slashdot without really great posts!

Get your own, you fucking thieves.

Let's see ...
I went to Slashdot on a PC without Windows because my iPhone without a charger didn't have a keyboard or PS/2 adapter and all I had was paper without a pencil. Sitting in jacket without a tie that fasten with velcro without laces I ate my lunch of an avocado without a pit with a knife but without a spoon while watching a story about China without IP violations my TV without a remote or a CD without R *or* W.

That was fun. Let's play again. Now you:
Jerk without a clue!

Re:Life without electricity! (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#31289682)

Knife without a spoon!
Good for carving wooden statues

Velcro without laces!
My shoes have velcro, but no laces.

TV without a remote!
Watched TV without a remote for over 30 years, you lazy little slacker.

Paper without a pencil!
A magazine

PC without Windows!
Linux.

Avocado without a pit!
The best kind.

Keyboard without a PS/2 adapter!
PS2 adaptors are relatively new. The keyboard connector on my old IBM XT looked like a part from a Mac Truck. Newer ones were smaller.

Jacket without a tie!
The necktie is Satan's leash. My jackets are all blue denim. Sheesh, you kids today.

Slashdot without really great posts!
Slashdot with really bad mods. Your post wasn't offtopic, but it wasn't particularly informative, insightful, or funny, either. I'd have modded you overrated.

Re:Life without electricity! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31289732)

Why would you moderate an unmoderated post overrated? In what sense had it been rated at all?

If you really want to punish someone for bad posting, just mark them Funny. Someone else will come along and knock the karma out from under them.

Re:Life without electricity! (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#31290012)

The whole purpose of moderation is to give more weight to good comments, and less to bad or useless ones. If you're logged on with excellent karma or are a subscriber, your comment starts off at a 1 already. I've had plenty of my unmodded comments modded "overrated", and many or maybe even most deserved it. With excellent karma I start with a 1, and the "no karme bonus" checkbox doesn't seem to work.

Moderating a comment down isn't to punish the user, it's to make the comment less visible. "Funny" adds visibility without adding karma. If you're a good poster you shouldn't worry about downmods; I don't.

Re:Life without electricity! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31290482)

A bad comment can still generate a good response and many great threads have terrible parents.

By moderating downwards, you force the entire thread underground (especially if the parent drops to -1) and many users will miss a potentially interesting thread.

Whereas by moderating upwards, you encourage users to write good posts and bring those good posts to the fore.

As an aside, I've taken a look at your posting history and compared it to BAG's. There is a clear difference. You have many posts, but very few of them have any responses or moderation. BAG's has a very high response rate and his moderation is all over the map.

What this says to me is that comments that don't add to the conversation are ignored by both moderators and commenters. OTOH, comments that encourage conversation are lightning rods for moderators. It means, in short, that you shouldn't be proud of not having to worry about getting downmodded. You should be ashamed that your posts are as boring as they are.

Re:Life without electricity! (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#31290976)

A bad comment can still generate a good response and many great threads have terrible parents.

The bad parent will and should be modded down, and the good answers to the bad comment get modded up. Where's the problem there?

By moderating downwards, you force the entire thread underground (especially if the parent drops to -1)

You must be new here -- that isn't how it works. I've seen many +5 informative comments whose parents were -1 trolls. The +5 stands out and the -1 is invisible.

Whereas by moderating upwards, you encourage users to write good posts and bring those good posts to the fore.

Moderating a bad post up only encourages them to make more bad comments.

You have many posts, but very few of them have any responses or moderation.

You're clearly full of shit. I have many posts, and most are modded up and most have responses. I also have well over 200 fans and about 25 freaks, so I'm far from unpopular here. You must have me confused with someone else, or are simply trolling (which I suspect is the case).

So, what they're saying is... (3, Insightful)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 4 years ago | (#31288940)

So, how long, then, until we see the govt "encouraging" Google to get out of China for national security reasons?

Re:So, what they're saying is... (1)

Em Emalb (452530) | more than 4 years ago | (#31288966)

But what about Bing?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrC8WbsGXMc [youtube.com]

Re:So, what they're saying is... (0, Troll)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 4 years ago | (#31289024)

Goddamnit.

There went 6 minutes...

Re:So, what they're saying is... (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#31289486)

Goddamnit.

There went 6 minutes...

Only if you have Flash installed. If not, it was a much shorter visit.

Re:So, what they're saying is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31289814)

Yes, but at least their government is taking bribes, bailouts and all sorts of debt for quick cash for the selected Obama worshipers. Lets face it, their government is doing a better job for MOST of their people and not pandering. Refreshing actually.

What about Baidu? (2, Interesting)

jfengel (409917) | more than 4 years ago | (#31288982)

I was under the impression that Baidu had significantly more market share already. Is there something that Google does particularly well for research that Baidu doesn't? Is it something Baidu would find difficult to replicate?

TFA doesn't even mention Baidu, though the first comment declares it "pretty lame" (with no support that assertion).

Google is a remarkable company and a remarkable search engine, but it shouldn't be that hard for other engines to provide at least a facsimile of what it does in the search area.

Re:What about Baidu? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31289030)

Chinese scientists rely on Google Calculator. Isn't it obvious?

Re:What about Baidu? (1)

Entropius (188861) | more than 4 years ago | (#31290296)

Why not? American scientists use it too.

Just because you have sophisticated tools doesn't mean that you don't need a good old fashioned wrench sometimes.

Re:What about Baidu? (1)

HeckRuler (1369601) | more than 4 years ago | (#31289134)

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the alternatives would be picked up pretty quick. It's literally as easy as configuring a button on a browser. At the end of the day, they may have to deal with slightly less refined searches. Oh noes.

For as mighty as a company as Google is, nations and fields of research are not yet dependent on them. If they ever were locked in with google (as they essentially are with Windows), that is the moment I would jump ship and scream for the blood of the googlites.

Re:What about Baidu? (5, Insightful)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 4 years ago | (#31289420)

...nations and fields of research are not yet dependent on them...

So you're willfully ignoring the testimony of Chinese scientists? That's like watching something fall and then saying you don't believe in gravity.

Baidu is a sino-centric search engine, which for the average Chinese is a positive thing as they don't frequently need international results, but for scientists who constantly need international and multi-lingual results, Baidu doesn't hold a candle to Google. That's why Baidu has the majority of marketshare in China nationally, but is a minority among Chinese scientists.

Re:What about Baidu? (2, Insightful)

HeckRuler (1369601) | more than 4 years ago | (#31290898)

I regularly ignore the testimony of the masses when it comes to religion, politics, economics, and yes, tech as well.
Why? Because at times I'm cynical and think everyone is an idiot. Case in point: The ipod sold well.

So why not Bing, Yahoo, Altavista, Dogpile, yada yada.... Or why not go to a foreign Google site?

Re:What about Baidu? (1)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | more than 4 years ago | (#31289158)

Baidu has reasonable enough results for the Chinese web, but doesn't really search the English web at all. Google.cn does both very well.

I am guessing their problem is that a lot of the papers they wish to read and general scientific world is based on English. As there aren't any other major search engines in China, having only Baidu would be close to having no search engine at all for people who need to search English documents.

Re:What about Baidu? (1)

ljgshkg (1223086) | more than 4 years ago | (#31289270)

That's because of their target market for now eh. If there's a need, I don't see a difficulty expanding their records of other languages.

Or Bing (1)

DeadDecoy (877617) | more than 4 years ago | (#31289208)

I'm sure MS would be happy the facilitate researcher's needs and soak up some of their intellectual talent. Also, I'm not sure how publications are are provided in China, but in the US there are a number of databases targeted towards a specific scientific domain: ACM, iEEE, Medline, etc. So, instead of doing "google: well known database" one would have to be a little less lazy and go "url: well known database" and search for their topic.

On the other hand, if these researchers are looking up google translated publications (even with the flaws involved), I can see how that might hurt them significantly. Having access to the world's research would definitely be better than having access to just one country.

Re:What about Baidu? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31289256)

Basically this is about Google Scholar. (http://scholar.google.com) Ars Technica did a writeup on this a few days ago. To quote a snippet from them:

There are a number of reasons for the scientists' attachment to Google. Although Baidu has done well by tailoring its search service to the sites frequented by the Chinese public, science has remained a field where most of the top research takes place in English. As such, Google's massive index of English-language material, especially works that have found their way into Google Scholar, provide the company's search offerings with distinct advantages. In fact, Google Search and Scholar were the services most often used by the respondents (Maps and Mail were also heavily used).

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/02/chinese-scientists-worry-about-google-pullout.ars

Re:What about Baidu? (3, Interesting)

jank1887 (815982) | more than 4 years ago | (#31289396)

Since these are scientists, I assume that Google Scholar is the thing they'd miss most. Before, you had to subscribe to indexing services (Ovid, Web of Science, etc.) to get access to searchable abstracts, reference spidering, etc. Then, you'd find the article of interest and go to the publisher site to see your options for obtaining the article. Now, I can Google Scholar >95% of the technical literature I'm interested in, I'm shown the multiple versions of a file, some of which might be available for free, I can search a very broad range of topics through a single portal, and it'll take me to the publisher site if that's what's needed.

Can't beat it. Nobody else has anything close for free.

Re:What about Baidu? (2, Insightful)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 4 years ago | (#31289716)

Google is a remarkable company and a remarkable search engine, but it shouldn't be that hard for other engines to provide at least a facsimile of what it does in the search area.

I haven't seen much (in terms of free web-based services) to compete with Google Scholar in terms of searching journals, searching forward and back through their mutual citations, and finding the versions of articles that aren't the main one locked behind the original journal's paywall.

Google Scholar (5, Informative)

Rary (566291) | more than 4 years ago | (#31289010)

My initial reaction to this was "what, they don't have other search engines on the Internet?" I mean, I use Google myself, and I'm quite happy with it, but if it disappeared tomorrow I'd just start using something else.

Then I (gasp!) read TFA, which I know many (most?) of you won't do, so I'll fill you in on the part that the summary missed. The issue here isn't so much that they fear losing Google, but that they fear losing Google Scholar, which, as far as I can tell (although I've never used it), has no free (as in beer) alternatives.

Re:Google Scholar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31289362)

If they are searching for papers, they should be able to read English already.

Unless the GFW blocks the global sites of Google, including Google Scholar, I don't see what the issue is.

Re:Google Scholar (4, Informative)

routerl (976394) | more than 4 years ago | (#31289372)

Google Scholar is the most comprehensive index of scholarly articles in the world, period. Not only are there no free alternatives, there are no alternatives at all. There are services like JSTOR, which only index a limited number of journals from specific services, but nothing that compares to the completeness of Google Scholar (AFAIK). The only real alternative to Scholar is going to individual sites of individual journals and searching for what you're looking for dozens of times in different places. This quickly becomes a day-long project, compared to a 2 minute search.

Re:Google Scholar (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 4 years ago | (#31289794)

The remarkable thing about Google Scholar is that it shows other things on the same level. Blogging, for example, can also be a valid research source (exposition or informal review of papers) and Google Scholar often has that.

Re:Google Scholar (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31290328)

ISI Web of Knowledge [isiknowledge.com] is fairly comprehensive, but it isn't free. Many university libraries pay for it though.

Re:Google Scholar (4, Informative)

Elendil (11919) | more than 4 years ago | (#31290382)

> Google Scholar is the most comprehensive index of scholarly articles in the world, period.

You can't possibly know that, as Google doesn't tell us exactly what's covered by GS.

> Not only are there no free alternatives, there are no alternatives at all.

Wrong. The Web of Knowledge and Scopus (commercial) and Scirus (free) are perfectly valid alternatives. Furthermore, a number of studies in various fields have shown that all of these tools, as well as GS, usually return a number of hits that were not found by the others (again, including GS). Therefore, they can always be seen as complementing each other.

What you cound argue, on another hand, is that GS offers the best quality/price ratio. I for one would accept that.

Re:Google Scholar (1)

steelfood (895457) | more than 4 years ago | (#31290592)

there are no alternatives at all.

Does Google somehow have a monopoly on this information? I find it hard to believe that nobody else has done it. Unless Google Scholar is Good Enough (tm) that nobody else is going to bother.

But then, if Google can do it, I fail to see how anybody else cannot do it. In that case, then Google pulling out of China would only be bad for science until a competing service appears.

Re:Google Scholar (1)

takowl (905807) | more than 4 years ago | (#31291032)

Does Google somehow have a monopoly on this information? I find it hard to believe that nobody else has done it.

Other people have. The two main alternatives are called Web of Knowledge and Scopus. I don't know that any of them is particularly more complete than the others (although I've heard it said that Google Scholar has better coverage of social sciences--I've not tested).

The big difference is that Google Scholar is free. The others, your institution has to pay a subscription to get access.

Re:Google Scholar (1)

introspekt.i (1233118) | more than 4 years ago | (#31291080)

Google Scholar is Good Enough (tm) that nobody else is going to bother.

Nail on the head.

It's free, Google benefits from adwords, and Google has done all the footwork to get the material indexed and searchable. Competitors looking to dupe the service would have to do all the the same steps to only hope to be on par with Google Scholar, which already enjoys a huge following and integration with the rest of the Google suite of search tools. That's not to say it won't happen, but Joe Scholar will have to jump through some massive hoops to create a free (as in beer) index that is both on par with Google's and somehow turns a profit or is self sustaining. Wouldn't envy that job, unless of course it's part of some greater "good idea".

Re:Google Scholar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31290970)

The only real alternative to Scholar is going to individual sites of individual journals and searching for what you're looking for dozens of times in different places. This quickly becomes a day-long project, compared to a 2 minute search.

Or worse. When I was office-bitch for an environmental consulting firm around '85, every other day was a trip into town with a bag of coins to xerox requested papers at various university libraries. Searches were largely based on the citations within papers, so our scientists could easily spend a week or more just getting to the papers they needed. (The rest of my time was spent sorting the in-house library, or driving to out-of-town universities for other papers.)

Even if Chinese scientists have /full/ access to the rest of the net other than Google, I can see why one said the loss would be like living without electricity. The time it takes to do what were trivial things just explodes. And since extra-national scientist don't have that restriction, you might as well just import your science, because yours cannot keep up.

This is an important survey. It underlines and illustrates the core relationship between science and freedom of information, something which is only a theoretical idea to people who are not scientists (and have a pretty dubious concept of "theory" in the first place). It's a wake-up call for both inside and outside China.

Re:Google Scholar (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31289526)

For bio researchers PubMed is far better.
If your paper is not here, you don't exist as a researcher in any bio-med field.
I'm thinking there should be others for other fields.

Re:Google Scholar (3, Insightful)

xkcdFan1011011101111 (1494551) | more than 4 years ago | (#31289734)

PubMed doesn't spit out bibtex entries for papers, show how many citations a paper has, show who has CITED a specific paper, or have near the search power. Google Scholar may not have your field pegged yet, and PubMed might be an important place for your paper to show up, but Google Scholar has vital features that no other search engine has.

Re:Google Scholar (4, Informative)

W3bbo (727049) | more than 4 years ago | (#31289744)

Microsoft Research has their own Academic Search site, which is pretty useful to me (I hardly ever use Google Scholar). It's more focused on academic research papers and the links between authors than the broader net GScholar casts (there's no Patent search, for example) but it is a free alternative. http://academic.research.microsoft.com/ [microsoft.com]

China, research giant... (2, Insightful)

TiggertheMad (556308) | more than 4 years ago | (#31289996)

My initial reaction to this was "what, they don't have other search engines on the Internet?" I mean, I use Google myself, and I'm quite happy with it, but if it disappeared tomorrow I'd just start using something else.

My initial reaction was, "what, China actually conducts its own research rather than steal it?!?!?!"

But that is an unfair generalization. As I thought about it more carefully I realized that of course China does its own research. It is after all, a world leader in industrial espionage, miniature camera technology, and software security. You don't get to the front of such competitive fields without doing a LOT of research in them...

Being IN China necessary? (4, Interesting)

icebike (68054) | more than 4 years ago | (#31289014)

Why would Google have to be IN China for the "scientists" to use it as a search engine?

Just because Google has no offices or data centers in China would not mean it would be unavailable there.

Censored perhaps, but how difficult would it be for "Scientists" to get around that, or be exempted from it?

Re:Being IN China necessary? (1)

del_diablo (1747634) | more than 4 years ago | (#31289138)

For proper search localisation i guess. To get this noticeable search for something using google or ANY search engine in 2 waistly different languages(french and german, US english and japanese, Norwegian and dutch, etc). You will get different terms, but it might just be that google is one of the few that provides PROPERLY outside and inside of the great firewall.

Re:Being IN China necessary? (2, Insightful)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | more than 4 years ago | (#31289194)

Just because Google has no offices or data centers in China would not mean it would be unavailable there.

Well, if you go to China you'll find that it's amazingly easy to trigger the GFW. Browsing the English web is really flaky. Even if the Chinese govt didn't pro-actively block Google (as they have done with Facebook and YouTube) it'd still be a pain to use it.

Censored perhaps, but how difficult would it be for "Scientists" to get around that, or be exempted from it?

I don't think the Chinese government offers "exemptions" except for foreign journalists (sometimes). I also suspect they view circumvention dimly. The whole point of the GFW is to stop smart, influential people from getting ideas they shouldn't!

Re:Being IN China necessary? (4, Informative)

forkazoo (138186) | more than 4 years ago | (#31289238)

Why would Google have to be IN China for the "scientists" to use it as a search engine?
Just because Google has no offices or data centers in China would not mean it would be unavailable there.
Censored perhaps, but how difficult would it be for "Scientists" to get around that, or be exempted from it?

By "censored," you mean blocked. Google's ability to operate in China was dependent on censoring all search results to make sure nothing slipped out. Trying to do that kind of content filtering on the national firewall level would be impractical. Where the physical data centers are located is almosta complete non-issue. It's whether or not Google will restrict their content offerings to Chinese central government standards.

Re:Being IN China necessary? (5, Informative)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 4 years ago | (#31289524)

Its not 'pulling out of china' in the sense of not having an office there.

Its pulling out of china in the sense of removing all ties with the government, stopping censoring, pulling offices back out of the country, and then waiting for China to blacklist them. Possibly blacklisting china's address space themselves if the chinese government doesn't get around to it fast enough to prove the point.

Re:Being IN China necessary? (1)

TorKlingberg (599697) | more than 4 years ago | (#31290316)

Possibly blacklisting china's address space themselves if the chinese government doesn't get around to it fast enough to prove the point.

I see absolutely no reason to believe Google would do that.

Material Support (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31289036)

Yay for trade with China, keeps our relationship stable. But, why oh why do we need to supply material support beyond the bare minimum to our ideological enemy??

... a survey showed. (1)

jamesl (106902) | more than 4 years ago | (#31289116)

Link is to an article that does not name who did the "survey." For all we know the whole thing was made up.

Switch to Bing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31289260)

Couldn't the scientists just switch to bing? It's rising in popularity.. :)

I did not know ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31289344)

... that Google indexed the world's corporate and trade secrets.

Reverse Engineering (3, Insightful)

AP31R0N (723649) | more than 4 years ago | (#31289594)

Losing Google Would Hit Chinese Reverse Engineering Hard

FTfY

Funny thing: our schools are packed with Chinese students and profs.

Rigged survey (0, Troll)

Capt. Skinny (969540) | more than 4 years ago | (#31289674)

More than three-quarters of scientists... say their work would be significantly hampered

84 percent said losing Google would 'somewhat or significantly' hamper their research

Typical example of a survey designed to produce the desired results.

Re:Rigged survey (2, Informative)

Capt. Skinny (969540) | more than 4 years ago | (#31289844)

Sorry, didn't RTFA. Somewhat and significantly are not lumped together in the survey breakdown [nature.com] linked by eldavojohn. Still, providing only three options ('significantly', 'somewhat', and 'not at all') doesn't allow for much precision.

so sad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31289714)

How will they steel technologies now? :) no plagiarism ? come on!

Re:so sad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31289808)

How will they steel technologies now?

Well, you see they take some iron and carbon...

Re:so sad (1)

morgauxo (974071) | more than 4 years ago | (#31289838)

Don't they already have the good ones? It's not like the US will be producing any more for a while...

Then who... (-1, Troll)

morgauxo (974071) | more than 4 years ago | (#31289812)

Now that the US has given up trying to be a leader, if we hamper China's efforts then who on Earth will be making any progress?

Progress capsule (1)

rossdee (243626) | more than 4 years ago | (#31290042)

"who on Earth will be making any progress?"

The Russians. How else are they going to keep the ISS supplied.

Sergey Brin Says... (1)

coaxial (28297) | more than 4 years ago | (#31290120)

"I'm an optimist. I want to find a way to work within the Chinese system and provide more and better information. I think a lot of people think I'm naive, and that may be true." [cnn.com]

Sergey went on to say, "Look, I grew up in Soviet Union. I know authoritarian communist regimes. Let me tell you, falling all over yourself in order to please their every whim and enabling them to maintain their stranglehold on power isn't evil. It's actually good. Good for business that is! Ha! Ha! I kid. Nah. I'm serious."

I must disagree (1)

NaiL2001 (774538) | more than 4 years ago | (#31290304)

Sorry, but loosing google in china may improve the quality of the research if that data is true. What I say is that google, or google scholar is not the best way to search for published works (e.g. there are few and limited options to do search and order results, there is no information of what is and what is not indexed, etc.). Ok, it is not all bad. It is free. Thinking twice this would mean that Chinese researchers will use another search mechanism that may be much more adequate for the purpose.

Control vs. Information (1)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 4 years ago | (#31290602)

Back in '96 I took a social psych class. If you're not familiar, the one sentence reductionist oversimplified explanation of the core theories of social psych is that people are influenced by the talk around them.

One of the (somewhat prophetic?) things I remember my professor talking about was the struggle between freedom of information and scholarship in China. In his view, China either had to choose to shut out internet access to the rest of the world (in which case their scholars would be significantly handicapped relative to everyone else) or allow it (in which case the Chinese people would become more influenced by the ideas of the rest of the world than they had been in the recent past.) The Great Firewall of China being something of a halfway measure that either didn't exist in those days or we didn't know about.

Along similar lines, he liked to say that a decent number of students had come from China to study at our school of Engineering, and that despite anyone's best efforts to focus them on purely scholastic matters, they would go home forever changed by having lived in a country with Steak and Shake.

It's interesting to see this tension at work still as there's talk of Google pulling out of China.

"Research"? (4, Insightful)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 4 years ago | (#31290836)

Chinese "research", eh?

I wonder how much of that research is "find places to steal information from and use it". Seems we've had a fair number of news articles lately about Chinese espionage, and it doesn't take much imagination to see that a lot of the "new" things from China are actually reverse engineered Western items.

Without effective search, I suspect all the shops in China making Apple product knockoffs would be hard pressed to bring products to market. Likewise for many other industries.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...