2025年6月17日，英国《自然》杂志发表了专访饶毅的缩写版，在此先有《自然》专访的翻译，后面附饶毅回复的原文，包括《自然》未刊登的：“当影响全世界上百万、或上亿人的疾病如阿尔兹海默症或其他大病，在中国诞生治疗的突破之后，我们才可以说“中国真成了全球生物技术的超级大国”。

饶毅以其美国工作经历帮助振兴中国生命科学

在多年率先改革中国研究机构后，神经科学家饶毅介绍了美国的犹豫为什么可能给中国提供赶上美国的机遇。

饶毅是中国科学和教育领域的领先改革者。1980年代，饶毅在美国开始职业生涯，2007年全职回国后，他振兴中国生命科学研究的举措，包括采用终身教授制和同行评审学术优秀程度。目前，他在北京大学主持一个领先的脑研究实验室，并担任其他领导职务。

饶毅以直言不讳著称。2008年，他放弃美国护照，以抗议前总统乔治·W·布什在 2001年9·11事件后推行的政策。在其纽约的叔叔去世于新冠疫情后，饶毅批评了美国的政策，并强烈反对实验室泄漏论。此外，他还是中国人才引进计划的积极倡导者。

（原回复是：“世界有很多病毒。1918年所谓“西班牙病毒”来自美国军营旁边的美国农民。我们应该责怪美国起源吗？1980年第一例艾滋病在旧金山发现，我们应该责怪旧金山吗？”，“任何有理智的科学家都不应该指责其他国家的科学家。自然灾难以前发生过，以后还会发生，指责其他人是愚蠢的。全世界应该团结起来共同应对自然灾害”。）

《自然》专访饶毅如何看待中国在生命科学的作用，以及中国怎样才能成为生物技术的超级大国。

(原回答在此有个说明“中国的很多自然指数论文并不一定是突破，而可能是热门领域的快速跟踪”。我认为这些数字在统计上能够显示大概趋势，但每一篇文章、每一个工作不能依赖刊物，而需要专家、有水平有公心的专家才能评判其程度）

饶毅：在数学、物理和化学，中国的科研经费已赶上美国，或几乎赶上。而中国获得科研经费支持的生物医学科学家数量少于美国，因为后者有美国国立健康研究院（NIH），世界上最大的医学研究资金来源。中国和美国论文数量上的差距几乎与资金差距成正比。

只要中国没有类似于美国NIH的机构，就会落后于美国。如果美国总统唐纳德·特朗普领导的政府继续削减NIH及其资助机构（包括哈佛大学、哥伦比亚大学）的经费，那么中国很快就会赶上、或超越美国。（原回答还有：“如果特朗普政府减少美国NIH的经费，而美国国会不制止，那就会“让中国的生物医学第一次伟大”。）

在植物生物学领域，根据《自然》指数，中国已领先美国，这同样是因为资金投入水平，中国投入要大得多。中国长期担心粮食安全，因此在植物相关研究方面的投入超过了其他任何国家。

（原回复还有：“如果没人阻止特朗普，那么其科学和教育政策真可以“让中国再次伟大”）

（原回答以此开始：“施一公和我在2010年评论的时候，拖后中国科学的主要因素不是经费，而是关系文化”。）

饶毅：中国要在生物医学超越美国，同时需要资金投入和切实的改革。阻碍中国科学发展的一个主要问题是，诸如人际关系等竞争因素与择优、严谨和卓越背道而驰。至关重要的是建立制度，选拔和支持愿意为中国发展出力的优秀科学家。如果中国让平庸之辈占据上风，那么或许在论文数量上能超过美国，但在质量上却不能。（原回答还有：“中国研究和教育机构真正成功的改革只在机构有足够好的领导专注做好的工作之后”，“真正成功的改革罕见。大多数单位依赖经费增加，不改革，而出现大量经费浪费。”）

例如，1950年，中华人民共和国刚成立时，具有国际教育背景的中国博士学者还很少。但是，从中国科学院（CAS）到北京大学和清华大学，许多担任科学和教育领导职务的有国外博士学位。1976年之后也是如此。

如果你现在看同一层级的领导，从国外获得博士学位的人数很少。中国科学院的院长和副院长，其博士学位全部来自国内院校。然而，中国正在努力吸引最优秀的科学家，尤其是那些毕业于国际顶尖大学的博士。

（原回答还有：“国家领导与真正的优秀和严谨科学力量之间隔有很厚一层庸才”，“国家希望引进最优秀人才的愿望与现实的差距，观察如何化解这种矛盾将很有趣”）

（还有：“我在三十多岁认识到我们时代的美国短视和浅薄，之后决定放弃美国国籍。这不是华盛顿和杰弗逊想象的美国。很多华人批评我2011年在《纽约时报》批美国失去道德领导力、2020年比较中美对新冠的反应。到2025年，他们大多数认识到我一直是对的）

（原回答还有：“当对于影响全世界上百万、或上亿人的疾病如阿尔兹海默症或其他大病，在中国诞生治疗的突破之后，我们才可以说“中国真正成为了全球生物技术的超级大国”）

饶毅：如果允许我猜测，我可能预计中国的生物技术将在农业腾飞，特别是在新型育种。至于生物医学，我预测基因治疗、神经退行性疾病、代谢疾病和癌症将会取得突破，得益于人工智能（AI）和中国的组学数据库。

（原回复还有：“如果你知道1930年代红军从我们江西长征到中国北方，我估计有超过十人在经历过如此艰苦之后，居然寿命超过一百”，“老龄人口对中国成为越来越引人关注的问题”。）

目前，中国的精准医疗落后于美国，因为中国的人类遗传学研究薄弱，而在意义不大的 DNA 测序方面却泛滥成灾。基因治疗则有所不同：美国在犹豫不决，这为中国提供了一个机会。

迄今为止，大学和研究机构是关键角色。新兴研发机构，例如北京的北京生命科学研究院、北京脑科学研究所、首都医学科学创新中心，正在或将发挥越来越重要的作用。或许有一两家机构会令所有人感到意外，但整个生态系统发生改变可能还要十到二十年的时间。

饶毅：我乐观地认为，AI的推动以及特朗普政策带来的压力将促使中国更有效地利用其数据。到目前为止，中国一直未能很好地组织健康数据，主要是因为每家医院以及同一家医院的医生都在为自身利益而争斗。但特朗普政府帮了忙：它禁止中国访问NIH的关键数据库。这使中国的医院和医生意识到，我们必须团结起来共享数据。

（原回答还有：“中国脑研究有显著进步，数量和质量都有。但是中国脑计划的第一个五年很糟糕。我在委员会上，其领导不仅狭隘而且自私。我很高兴换了领导。我拒绝参加委员会，虽然名字还在上面，我也不去开会。我批评其领导不是为了我自己晋级，而是为了科学的好”，“欧洲脑计划是广为人知的笑话”，“美国脑计划也收效甚微”，“这些事实表明各种“计划”很容易失败。大计划应该集中于资料库，但中国没有文库的大计划，很有讽刺意味。英国生物文库现在被认为很有用，但它起初二十年的资助不多”）

饶毅：中国有句古话：近者悦，远者来。中国正在努力改善本国科研人员和企业家的条件，并将拥有一些最好的样本数据库。我主张中国与所有国家共享数据：中国向来心胸宽广，但过去两个世纪中国的相对贫困使其他国家未能充分认识到这一点。一旦世界真正了解我们——爱好和平且慷慨大方——伙伴关系和友谊之花就会绽放。

中国现在对支持科学家的兴趣愈发浓厚。如今的招聘条件比 二十年前好很多。我很高兴能欢迎世界各地的研究人员来到中国。我们确实有处于这样的位置：“人民的科学，人民做科学，科学为人民”。

原文链接

Rao's replies in blue

Reforms

On the Nature Index, life sciences are the major area in which Chinese scientists lag the West. Why do you think this is, and is it likely to change?

Now, many Nature Index papers from China are not true breakthroughs, but fast followers and chasers of hot areas.中国的很多自然指数论文并不一定是突破，而可能是热门领域的快速跟踪。

The answer to your question has to do with funding and the number of scientists. In math, physics and chemistry, Chinese funding has all caught up with the US, or almost. But the number of biomedical scientists in China supported by research funding is lower than that in the US because the latter has the NIH. The lag in papers is almost proportional to the funding difference.

In one area of life sciences, plant biology, China is now clearly ahead of the US in publications and in new discoveries, against because the funding level, in this case much larger in China than that in the US. Chinese research in molecular genetics of crops will lead to surprising returns for the world, I predict.

In 2000, publishing a paper in Plant Cell is a big deal in China, but in one year, China publishes 17 papers in Plant Cell and that was the turning point: China grew exponentially in plant sciences. China has long been worried about food and thus agriculture. China invested more in plant related research than any other country now primarily because of food security. Chinese research in plant biology has gone far beyond just publishing papers by now, with some really important progresses in not only basic plant biology, but also crop improvement.

In the biomedical sciences, China is still behind the US, and will remain so as long as China does not have an NIH or its equivalent. If the Trump administration keep cutting the NIH and NIH-supported institutions from Harvard, Columbia to Hopkins, then China will catch up or surpass the US in the biomedical sciences soon. This was unexpected but we will see whether the US congress will prevent him from Making Chinese Biomedical Sciences Great for the First Time.如果特朗普政府减少美国NIH的经费，而美国国会不制止，那就会“让中国的生物医学第一次伟大”。

You have spoken critically about China’s higher education and research culture. What reforms are needed for China to truly rival the West in biotech innovation?

As Yigong Shi and I have commented in 2010, the major problem hindering Chinese science is not funding, but non-merit based influences such as personal relationships which intentionally go against merit, rigor and excellence. A good system selecting and supporting the best scientists who are willing to work for Chinese development is the key.当施一公和我在2010年评论的时候，拖后中国科学的主要因素不是经费，而是关系文化。

国家领导与真正的优秀和严谨科学力量之间隔有很厚一层庸才。The top leadership of the nation is separated from the real force of excellence and rigor by a thick layer of mediocrity. For example, in 1950, when the republic was new and internationally trained doctorates were few, a significant fraction at the scientific and educational leadership from the Chinese Academy of Sciences to Peking and Tsinghua Universities had doctorates from other countries. In 1978. Freshly out of the leftist Cultural Revolution in 1978, there was again a significant fraction PhDs from other countries in the leadership of CAS, PKU and THU. 

Strikingly, if you look at the same leadership layer now, the absolute number is very very low. At the CAS, all 9 of them (president, vice presidents) are all Chinese doctorates. I am sure that the top leadership of China did not want this, because they are trying very hard to get the best scientists, especially those with doctorates from internationally top universities. So, it will be interesting to observe how this disparity happened and when that will be solved.国家希望引进最优秀人才的愿望与现实的差距，观察如何化解这种矛盾将很有趣。

Truly successful reforms in Chinese research and educational institutions have only happened when there are enough good institutional leaders dedicated to do the good work.中国研究和教育机构真正成功的改革只在机构有足够好的领导专注做好的工作之后。

Truly successful reforms have been rare. Most institutions reply on increased funding, but not reform, so there is much waste of funding.真正成功的改革罕见。大多数单位依赖经费增加，不改革，而出现大量经费浪费。

Science priorities, role of private sector, AI, data

What is your vision for China’s biotech industry by 2050? Can it surpass the U.S. in major areas like gene therapy, precision medicine, or AI-driven biology? What breakthroughs would make you say, "China has truly arrived as a global biotech superpower"?

This depends on whether China further reforms in the biomedical sciences. If it allows mediocrity to prevail, then this will overtake the US in quantity when funding allows, but not in quality. It will take both funding and real reform for China to surpass the US in biomedical sciences. Truly successful reforms in Chinese research and educational institutions require enough good institutional leaders dedicated to do the good work and support the best and the young to gain insights into physiology and provide foundations for treating human diseases.

China is lagging behind the US in precision medicine because we are weak in human genetics, though overly abundant in meaningless DNA sequencing. Gene therapy is different: the US is hesitating, which provides China with an opportunity.

When China discovers a true breakthrough in curing the Alzheimer’s disease or other major diseases affecting millions of people, or one which improves the health of billions of people in the entire world, we can then say “China has truly arrived as a global biotech superpower”.当对于影响全世界上百万、或上亿人的疾病如阿尔兹海默症或其他大病，在中国诞生治疗的突破之后，我们才可以说“中国真正成为了全球生物技术的超级大国”。

How do you see the role of private biotech companies in China’s innovation ecosystem? Can firms like WuXi AppTec or BeiGene become true global biotech giants?

I cannot comment on specific firms. So far, universities and research institutions are the key players. The New R & D Institutions such as NIBS, CIBR and CIMR in Beijing are playing or will play increasingly important roles. Private biotech companies are focused on their own development, so far, but have attracted students to their workforce. Some of them have finally started to do highly competitive innovative research, which is crucial if any intends to become a true global biotech giant. Fast learning and fast following in the past are now changing into competition and more and more cutting-edge innovation. One or two companies may surprise everyone, but it may take another 10 to 20 years for the entire ecosystem to change.

There is a lot of excitement about AI for science, with labs like Shanghai’s In Silicousing big data and other AI tools to make clinical trials more rapid. What is your view on how Ai might transform research? China has massive health data from its large population. Do you think China's regulatory and ethical frameworks will allow it to harness this advantage effectively?

The entire country of China is keen on AI for everything, with support from the top, and enthusiasm in the general population. China will soon put all the regulatory and ethical frameworks to make it work.

As to the massive health data, China has not been able to get that organized or used effectively mainly because all the hospitals (and doctors within the same hospital) are fighting for self-interests (which I call petty interests). But Trump administration has helped: it bans Chinese access to US biomedical databases. This made the Chines hospitals and doctors realize that we all have to be united in sharing. So, I am optimistic that the combined forces of the new tech (AI) and new pressure (Trump nationalism) will drive China to organize and use its data more effectively and more productively.

Which areas of Chinese biotech (e.g., CRISPR, synthetic biology, regenerative medicine, AI-driven drug discovery) have the highest potential for breakthroughs?

This is difficult to predict. But if allowed to speculate, I would predict that Chinese biotech will take off big time in agriculture with new seeds, and as to the biomedical sphere, the prediction would be gene therapy, neurodegenerative diseases, metabolic diseases, cancer, helped by AI and Chinese omics databanks.

How does the reality of China’s aging population impact China’s focus on life sciences? Should we expect Huawei-style national champions of biotech to emerge from China, or would companies like Astra-Zeneca do more research in China? 

There is an anecdote here if you remember the Red Army which began a long march from my home province to northern China in the 1930s. By my guess, more than 10 of them, who lived through such hardship, had lived more than 100 years.如果你知道1930年代红军从我们江西长征到中国北方，我估计有超过十人在经历过如此艰苦之后，居然寿命超过一百。

老龄人口对中国成为越来越引人关注的问题。The aging population weighs heavily on the mind of many in China. China traditionally respects and cares for our seniors perhaps much more than the typical Western country. While caring for seniors seems a social burden, improving the health of millions by life sciences is also both a challenge and an opportunity for research scientists and biotech industry. While China will continue to welcome multinational companies (MNCs) to work in China, Chinese scientists and biotech companies will also prosper, with increasing demands from the aging population.

China has made major investments in brain science, including the China Brain Project. How does this compare to Western brain research, and where do you think China could lead globally?

Brain Research or neuroscience has developed significantly in China over the last 25 years. While the quantity has increased a lot, the quality has also increased, but to a much lesser extent. Chinese neuroscience is highly limited to a narrow area: electrophysiology. It lags far behind in biochemistry, genetics, and molecular biology. The first 5 years of the China Brain Project, of which I was a member of the expert committee, did a terrible job, with its leader not only narrow minded but also simply self-serving. I am glad that the leadership has changed. I refused to serve on it, though my name is kept in its committee, because I criticized the leadership not for my own “advancement” but for the general good of science.中国脑研究有显著进步，数量和质量都有。但是中国脑计划的第一个五年很糟糕。我在委员会上，其领导不仅狭隘而且自私。我很高兴换了领导。我拒绝参加委员会，虽然名字还在上面，我也不去开会。我批评其领导不是为了我自己晋级，而是为了科学的好。

The European Brain Project was widely known as a joke, so we do not need to compare.欧洲脑计划是广为人知的笑话。

The US Brain Initiative has made limited impact, all the “accomplishments” resulted from using technologies (such as imaging or optogenetics) invented before the Initiative, or by other areas during the same period (such as CRISPR-CAS9 and single cell sequencing). By itself, the US Brain Initiative has not resulted in a single breakthrough.美国脑计划也收效甚微。

So, it gives caution to all “initiatives” that all such big projects often fail. Big projects should have focused on databanks, but ironically, none has been well supported. The UK Biobank is now recognized to be very useful, but its funding in the first 20 years was miniscule. The US has lagged behind the UK in biobanks, although it has some.这些事实表明各种“计划”很容易失败。大计划应该集中于资料库，但中国没有文库的大计划，很有讽刺意味。英国生物文库现在被认为很有用，但它起初二十年的资助不多。

Global perspective, and possibilities for China to surpass the US as politics take charge in America

How can China attract and retain top biotech talent, especially amid U.S.-China tensions that make scientific collaboration more difficult?

Will China look for new partners outside the US around the world?

There is a Chinese verb: when you treat those close well, those from a far will join you. China is working on improving conditions for our own researchers and entrepreneurs. In plant biology, for example, Chinese researchers have more support than the

I predict that China will have some of the best biobanks. I am advocating for China to share with all countries: China has traditionally had a big heart, but the relative poverty of the last two centuries had not allowed other countries to realize this. Once the world has seen who we really are: peaceful and generous, partnership and friendship will blossom.

In 2008, you gave up your US passport. Tell us how your feelings about China have changed since then, and the US. In retrospect, do you have any regrets?

Science is truly of the people, by the people, for the people, of the whole world. But it was difficult for China to lead this concept 18 years ago.科学是全世界的：人民的科学，人民做科学，科学为人民。

Over the last 4 decades, China has undergone spectacular transformation. I was first a student in China, then a student and scientist in the US, before I returned to China where I have worked full time for 18 years. I am happy to contribute my own bit in this transformation. When I regretted not having joined earlier, Trumpism provided all of us in China a second chance to work in China for China and for the world.

I decided to renounce US citizenship after I had matured in my 30s to realize the short-sightedness and shallowness of the US in our era. It is not the US we imagined through Washington and Jefferson. Many Chinese criticized me for my 2011 statement in New York Times about the US losing moral leadership and my 2020 comparison of the Chinese and US responses to Covid-19. But by 2025, most have realized that I have been right all along.我在三十多岁认识到我们时代的美国短视和浅薄，之后决定放弃美国国籍。这不是华盛顿和杰弗逊想象的美国。很多华人批评我2011年在《纽约时报》批美国失去道德领导力、2020年比较中美对新冠的反应。到2025年，他们大多数认识到我一直是对的。

China is now even more interested in supporting scientists. The conditions for recruitment are much better now than 18 years ago. I am only glad that I can welcome scientists from all over the world to China. We are in a position to promote “Science of the people, by the people, for the people”.

What have your experiences with the ‘China Initiative’ been, and what do you make of the new Trump administration’s policies with universities like Columbia and institutions like the NIH? How will these policies impact American research? Do you think any of the scientists will come to China? 

Clearly the China Initiative has driven scientists to join China. I am not sure that Trump will keep beating Harvard, NIH, Hopkins and Columbia. If others in the US do not stop him within a year or two, then Trumpist policies on science and education will definitely MAKE CHINA GREAT AGAIN, meaning blossoming of Chinese civilization again. Afterall, China was the most prosperous country in most of the last two thousand years. But we will show the world, we have never been, and will never be, a bully, but a peaceful and generous country, especially when we becomes the most prosperous. We will share our science with the entire world and enjoy its fruits and intellectual pursuit with the world.如果没人阻止特朗普，那么其科学和教育政策真可以“让中国再次伟大”。

Do you have any views on COVID’s origin and the lab leak theory?

There are many other viruses detected around the world. The 1918 “Spanish flu” could be traced to an American farmer who lived near an American military base, should Americans be blamed for its origin? Should anyone blame San Francisco where the first case of AIDS was detected in the 1980s?世界有很多病毒。1918年所谓“西班牙病毒”来自美国军营旁边的美国农民。我们应该责怪美国起源吗？1980年第一例艾滋病在旧金山发现，我们应该责怪旧金山吗？

No rational scientist would point fingers at each other or at other countries about the origin of COVID-19. Natural disasters happened in the past and will happen in the future. It is idiotic to blame anyone when the entire world should be united in confronting natural disasters. The blaming game started by Trump serves the interests of no normal human beings.任何有理智的科学家都不应该指责其他国家的科学家。自然灾难以前发生过，以后还会发生，指责其他人是愚蠢的。全世界应该团结起来共同应对自然灾害。