Recently, young Chinese mathematicians Wang Hong and Deng Yu had won the Fields Medal; Chinese large models like DeepSeek continue to expand their influence within the global developer ecosystem; and Unitree Robotics keeps driving the deployment of humanoid robots and embodied AI into real-world scenarios.

Spanning the distinct realms of basic research, cutting-edge technology and advanced manufacturing, these developments collectively showcase a remarkable surge of young Chinese scientific and technological talent - all occurring almost simultaneously.

This shift brings to mind two famous questions from the past: the "Qian Xuesen Question" and the "Needham Question." A well-known question about why Chinese schools fail to produce world-class innovative talent was attributed to Qian Xuesen, a revered scientist considered the father of China's missile and space programs. Meanwhile, Joseph Needham, a distinguished British biochemist and sinologist, pondered why the modern scientific revolution did not originate in China, despite the country's long-standing leadership in science and technology in ancient times.

Today, China is answering these questions through a steady stream of outstanding talent and technological achievements. Thus, the reverse of the "Needham Question" emerges: How does China, having long lagged behind in technology in modern times, manage to rebuild its modern scientific and technological system so quickly and establish a leading edge in fields such as AI, robotics, mathematics and new energy?

Shifts in the nature of questions often reflect underlying changes in understanding. China's pursuit of self-reliance and strength in science and technology is not merely an emergency response to external attempts to impose "throat-cutting" restrictions. It is a long-term strategy aimed at continuously achieving new technological breakthroughs.

Guided by this strategy, closer linkages and synergies are emerging among basic research, talent development, engineering and development, manufacturing systems, enterprise innovation, and market application.

Nowadays, the emergence of the reverse of the "Needham Question" indicates that the old narrative is no longer adequate to explain the new reality.

In the early stages of reform and opening-up, China's industrial and scientific research foundations were relatively weak; the practical path forward at that time involved technology importation, assimilation and large-scale production.

Decades later, the fundamental conditions for China's scientific and technological development have changed significantly. The development trajectory has shifted from one-way technology importation to a model where importation, assimilation and improvement proceed alongside original innovation.

Some in the West misunderstand China's science and technology, partly because they keep viewing China solely through the lens of "catching up." For a long time, Western discourse has attributed China's technological progress to factors such as imitation, subsidies, technology transfer and even unfair competition.

However, this narrative clearly fails to capture the full picture of China's current technological development. While imitation can help a latecomer narrow the initial gap, it cannot sustain simultaneous breakthroughs across multiple frontier fields - such as basic mathematics, AI, biotechnology and robotics - over the long term. Industrial policy can steer the allocation of resources, but it cannot automatically generate high-level research outcomes, complex engineering systems or recognition from the global developer community.

The objective reality is that China's technological achievements and enhanced capabilities stem from decades of efforts involving the expansion of education, including higher education, investment in research and development, industrial accumulation, and mechanisms for talent development. This process has been driven by national strategies and public investment, while also unfolding amid market competition, individual choices and numerous setbacks.

Attributing China's technological progress solely to "unfair competition" undermines the West's own judgment, causing it to overlook issues such as its own declining manufacturing capacity, a shortage of engineering talent and the slow translation of research findings into practical applications.

The "Needham Question" prompts reflection on history, and the "Qian Xuesen Question" articulates expectations regarding talent, while the reverse of the "Needham Question" illustrates the reality of China's renewed scientific and technological journey.

These three historic propositions ultimately converge on a single answer: A country's scientific and technological future depends on respecting knowledge, valuing talent and maintaining patience, as well as linking individual creativity with a comprehensive national innovation system to forge a dynamic, pioneering and organic whole.