ABSTRACT

The surging R&D investment in life sciences and the rise of biotechnology in East Asia are often interpreted as “neo-techno-nationalism.” This view is especially dominant when decoding China’s burgeoning bioindustry. While many recognize the increasing ratio of scientific personnel trained abroad, the government agencies are regarded as the principal driver. Through an investigation of Chinese stem cells and synthetic biology, this chapter suggests the need for an alternative view in comprehending how the interplay of the national and global shapes the organization of science on the ground and who the architects of the research system are. Originally, stem cells were promoted by top-down government directives and state funding. But since 2006, there emerged a multiplicity of social actors (individuals, professional networks, civil groups) influencing the governance of stem cell research. Not only was there a diversification of research funding and a developing constellation of localized research policies, but certain areas which were traditionally under national monopoly (such as stem cell banks) had been challenged by globally connected civil initiatives. Comparatively, the emergence of synthetic biology in China since 2007 has shown a different pathway. In contrast to stem cell research, its early progress was closely aligned with transnational scientific initiatives and largely supported by foreign funding. However, this origin did not lead to an abandonment of a national agenda. In a joint proposal made by leading Chinese synthetic biologists to the Ministry of Science and Technology at the end of 2009, a “Big Question” approach was put forward, which aimed to inaugurate a centralized national agenda to bring synergy among domestic experts. As such, stem cell research and synthetic biology offer complementary insights on the nature of scientific governance in China. Contradictory as their development trajectories seem, both the displacement and reinstatement of government dominance challenge a simple techno-nationalism explanation. As the chapter demonstrates, they highlight an emerging cosmopolitan mindset in China’s life sciences. As the interviews conducted with the stakeholders reveal the development of biotechnology was not achieved through a zero-sum wrestling between the national and global, but rather through a social synthesis of aligning national R&D resources and actors with the transnational scientific community. Energized by their extensive global networks and a universalistic scientific progress discourse, Chinese synthetic bio and stem cell scientists, as well as grass-root movements, have pressured the Chinese government to introduce national regulations and organizational resources in line with transnational standards in order to increase the capacity of life sciences in China. In these developments, the transnational figures prominently in the restructuring of national scientific governance structures.