The Soviet Union had great math & science research infrastructure and leaders who were science and technologists. They still had political pressure that conflicted with science.
You don't have to be convinced. I'm in Wuhan right now and self-driving cars and autonomous delivery vehicles are pretty common. They have nice electric Buicks here because the local org that worked with GM for the brand has surpassed GM at building Buicks.
The US of 2026 has specific ideological pressure against scientists that is not nearly as bad as the cultural revolution but in the same direction.
It's not about which science would be good for Americans, or what would be the most effective directions to pursue, which way is best to minimize corruption while we invest in things that benefit everyone -- it's about the existence of particular scientific facts being politically incorrect therefore they must be suppressed, and additionally these scientists are effeminate elites and we hate them.
China does not have these attitudes in 2026. They have problems and are not perfect but they're probably better on "give scientists the ability to influence policy".
My priors are that you can’t remove political pressure on science _anywhere_ it’s a natural outcome of humans doing science. And I’m responding to the specific idea that technical political leaders are immune from that. History shows that’s not true.
The US of 2026 has specific ideological pressure against scientists that is not nearly as bad as the cultural revolution but in the same direction.
It's not about which science would be good for Americans, or what would be the most effective directions to pursue, which way is best to minimize corruption while we invest in things that benefit everyone -- it's about the existence of particular scientific facts being politically incorrect therefore they must be suppressed, and additionally these scientists are effeminate elites and we hate them.
China does not have these attitudes in 2026. They have problems and are not perfect but they're probably better on "give scientists the ability to influence policy".