Science's Conversation with Jiang Zemin

Editor Ellis Rubinstein's exclusive interview with Chinese president Jiang Zemin (News Focus, “China's leader commits to basic research, global science,” 16 June, p. [1950][1]) covers many interesting topics relating to research and teaching of science, which is appropriate to the journal's focus. Nevertheless, too narrow a focus may cause one to overlook important data. Absent from the article is any mention of China's liquidation of tens of millions of dissidents ([1][2]), its extensive system of prison camps, its repression of religious minorities, its recent threat to use force against Taiwan, or its cultural and physical genocide in Tibet. Indeed, a Policy Forum by Peichang Zhang et al. (“China's forest policy for the 21st century,” 23 June, p. [2135][3]) shows a map of China in which Tibet is labeled “Xizang,” with “Tibet” in parentheses. In all probability, in a few years both the Tibetan culture and the parentheses will disappear. It is understandable that Jiang would limit the areas of discussion or edit the transcript, though these restrictions are not mentioned in the article. It is less understandable that the interview would be published without any editorial comment. Are readers to assume that science exists in an ethical vacuum? Are scientists mere technicians, performing complex tasks with no responsibility for how the results will be used? Scientific exchange, like trade, will strengthen China, but to what end? Einstein remarked that humanity's greatest problem is a perfection of means but a confusion of ends. This confusion will not be resolved if the question of ends is not posed. 1. [↵][4]1. J.-L. Margolin, 2. P. Rigoulot, 3. S. Courtois 4. et al. , Science 's Conversation with Jiang Zemin, (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999)chapter 4. # Science 's Conversation with Jiang Zemin {#article-title-3} It is gratifying to note that Dr. Stolinsky agrees with the appropriateness of Science 's questions for China's president, considering the journal's focus. His implication, however, that we should have asked the president to defend his country's “liquidation of tens of millions of dissidents” and so forth should be put in perspective. There is no agreement—even in Western countries—on what Dr. Stolinsky calls “data.” Even if there were, Mr. Jiang has not been found to be personally implicated in the brutal repression during the Mao period, when many of China's current leaders suffered to some degree. Therefore, I believe that it would have been inappropriate for a scientific journal to ask questions of this sort when granted such an unprecedented interview. I should also point out that there has been an important consequence of the interview that may not be known to many Western readers of Science . Nearly every important Chinese newspaper printed a reliable translation of the questions and answers and featured this translation on its front page. As a result, many scientists and government officials in China are grateful to Science , viewing the journal as a conduit for their president to announce his support for increasingly open interchange with the West, that he admires the American commitment to diversity of thought, and that he encourages the free movement of China's young scientists. These views are not considered within China to be trivial indicators of their president's personal commitment to opening up China. [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.288.5473.1950 [2]: #ref-1 [3]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.288.5474.2135 [4]: #xref-ref-1-1 "View reference 1 in text"