Talking about why we don't see original domestic scientific research instruments

Instruments are necessary tools for scientific research. They not only automate operating procedures, but some of them are not instruments. A large part of the research funding of many scientific research units in China is used to buy high-end foreign instruments. For example, a 454 high-throughput sequencer will cost 500,000 US dollars. Similar expensive instruments are everywhere. However, why does China rarely have original scientific research equipment, especially biotechnology equipment?

The instrument must first have the need. For example, a very simple electrophoresis apparatus, if no one thought of using electrophoresis to separate charged macromolecules, there would be no birth of this instrument. The demand for R&D tools stems from scientists wanting to look more closely at the things of interest (nucleic acids, proteins, polysaccharides, even cells, chromosomes, tissues, etc.), classify them in more detail, or do faster and repeat work on their hands. Better sex, more efficient, and cheaper prices.

Can Chinese scientists not see such demand? I don't think so. What is the reason for the lack of original instrument development?

There are probably three reasons for this analysis: one is the lack of exploration of original experimental methods; the other is the lack of communication between scientists and engineers and the formation of suitable team opportunities; and third, the lack of reward mechanisms.

Chinese scientists are relatively good at comprehensive induction, but the more detailed distinction is weaker. This kind of demanding practice is likely to make the demand for new instruments dull. In fact, the original spirit of Chinese scientists is very strong. For example, Lu Zuhong Laboratory of Southeast University has a lot of very clever experimental designs and instrument prototypes (such as cap chips, etc.). However, why is there not enough stamina to eventually develop the instrument?

In instrument development, I admire Japanese scientists. For example, Professor Kambara of Hitachi Ltd., for inventing a key technology of capillary electrophoresis for automated sequencing machines, was established by Hitachi as one of the rare four lifelong researchers and given a large number of funds, plus the money provided by the Japanese government. A large team (mostly engineers) specializes in instruments used in single cell research. In this way, five years and ten years later, when the field gets hot, the world must buy instruments from Japan. With such a strategic vision, it is worth learning from this team's ability to organize joint research.

Whether scientists with needs can form teams with experienced engineers is also one of the keys to instrument development. The concept of "units" in China's scientific research institutes, universities and colleges is very strong, and there are few shortcuts for horizontal cooperation between departments and units. As a result, the "Made in China" miracle does not translate into the development of original instruments. Copying other people's instruments is fast, and original R&D cannot be done.

Successful cooperation requires money. Just like the "Professional Team" of the US professional basketball team, the combination of a perfect scientist and engineer requires a lot of investment. Money is used to buy time and buy market opportunities. But where to find money? Is it the first time to find money or to find someone? If there is not a large amount of up-front investment, as long as the instrument is developed to obtain a substantial return from the market, this can also be an effective way to motivate everyone to cooperate. Whether it is money first or money later, there must always be a reasonable reward. This incentive method depends more on the government in China, and on the market in the United States.

There is no original desire, no mechanism to form the best team, no economic support, it is difficult to develop original instruments. The research and development of instruments requires, first and foremost, leaders who can bring scientists and engineers together. People who need to be familiar with the market must have experience and good mechanisms. Not all experiments are worth investing in developing instruments for them, looking at the importance of science, but also the needs of the market; they must also tolerate failures and give the losers a chance to try again.

The most important thing, the first thing to realize, is to "think". The heart does not want to, hard to accomplish.