NEWS CENTER

新闻中心

奥博资讯

媒体报道

体系论文

首页

Stop Pitting Scientists Against One Another: Viral Hype Should Not Dilute the Spotlight on Scientific Research

发布时间：

2026-07-30

Stop Pitting Scientists Against One Another: Viral Hype Should Not Dilute the Spotlight on Scientific Research

Sun Zuodong

On July 23, 2026, local time, young Chinese mathematician Wang Hong was awarded the Fields Medal, making her the first female Chinese national to receive this prestigious honor. Drawing on the method of multiscale induction, she solved the century-old three-dimensional Kakeya conjecture that had stumped the global mathematics community for decades. A few days later, structural biologist Yan Ning posted a message on social media to congratulate her. She recounted a casual conversation with her mother, who said, “Your work is decent, but Wang Hong is a true genius.” The post quickly went viral online.

This was originally an offhand show of academic admiration between researchers from different disciplines. Yan Ning simply used plain language to express sincere awe at this groundbreaking scientific achievement. However, online public opinion stripped her words of their original context, and self-media outlets repeatedly excerpted fragments to stir up divisive narratives. Countless headlines deliberately framed the story as “Yan Ning admitting she is inferior to Wang Hong,” forcing scholars working in entirely separate research fields into a one-dimensional ranking of merit.

When evaluating the originality of their academic outputs, the two scholars’ work occupies fundamentally different tiers. Wang Hong delivered a complete proof of the three-dimensional Kakeya conjecture—a landmark, ground-breaking theoretical advance in pure mathematics that created something entirely new from nothing. Her multiscale induction method opened an entirely new research frontier for harmonic analysis. Yan Ning’s research centers on resolving membrane protein structures via cryo-electron microscopy, a mature established technical framework. Her work represents systematic advancement within existing research paradigms: it deepens methodological applications and structural datasets in life sciences, yet it has not overhauled the fundamental frameworks underpinning the field. Their research objectives and forms of breakthrough differ drastically. Ranking them crudely with labels like “talent” or “genius” fails to hold up logically under standard academic evaluation criteria.

Scientific inquiry spans countless distinct paths. Some researchers pursue paradigm-shifting breakthroughs that build foundational theories from scratch; others systematically unpack core biological and physical mechanisms; still others translate fundamental discoveries into clinical treatments and industrial applications. Original foundational theoretical research and experimental structural analysis constitute two distinct forms of scientific labor, and they cannot be judged by a single uniform metric. The online frenzy of constant comparison between the two scholars essentially distills profound academic exchanges between leading scientists into trivial entertainment content for clicks. Monumental original research outcomes are reduced to bargaining chips vying for online traffic.

This template of pitting top scientists against each other for traffic has become a repetitive media trope. From Wei Dongyi to Wang Hong, casual remarks made by leading researchers are repeatedly cut, edited and repackaged to spawn unsubstantiated rumors. When public attention shifts from “what the resolution of the three-dimensional Kakeya conjecture achieves” to “who is the greater genius,” the rational atmosphere essential to scientific research steadily erodes. When scientists praise their peers, their intent is to recognize fellow scholars—not to manufacture rivalry. Algorithms amplify contrasts between researchers to drive engagement: the only beneficiaries are traffic distribution platforms, while public understanding of fundamental research suffers irreparable harm.

What truly merits attention is always the research itself. Wang Hong’s proof provides a new analytical tool for the study of wave equations and energy distribution. Yan Ning’s team has made consistent breakthroughs in the structures of glucose transporters and other membrane proteins, accumulating critical data to explain the molecular mechanisms governing all biological activity. Beneath their distinct fields lies a subtle overlap in core logic: Yan Ning uses cryo-electron microscopy to capture dynamic conformations of membrane proteins, effectively tracking the physical carriers of bioelectrical signals. Wang Hong’s multiscale decomposition method offers a mathematical framework for modeling energy transfer in complex systems. Both lines of research converge on one central scientific question: how energy and information cross boundaries across multiple spatial scales.

This core question has long been a major research focus in neuroscience: the mechanism of electrochemical coupling across cell membranes. Information encoding within the nervous system relies on coordinated timing between voltage shifts across cell membranes and nuclear activity, as well as dynamic matching between the spatial structure of membrane proteins and the spatiotemporal patterns of electrical signals. The scale-based inductive reasoning Wang Hong refined within geometric measure theory promises an innovative mathematical toolkit for modeling biological systems across hierarchical scales. Yan Ning’s continuous structural analysis of dynamic membrane proteins lays an experimental foundation for uncovering the coupling rules linking bioelectrical and chemical signals. Condensing the two scholars’ pioneering work into a simplistic head-to-head contest drastically oversimplifies the profound intellectual value of scientific research.

To treat scientists with basic rationality, we must respect disciplinary differences, clarify the distinct tiers of research achievement, refrain from forced cross-field comparisons, and take the time to understand scientific work in its own right. If the public wishes to explore how microscale processes in the brain shape human consciousness and behavior at the macro level, this online frenzy can serve as an opportunity for reflection: within scientific research, what we ought to benchmark and emulate is never the label of a scientist, but the relentless drive to venture into uncharted territory and expand the boundaries of human knowledge.

A simple truth applies to all industries: as long as clear-headed practitioners who uphold objective standards retain space to voice their views, speculative, impetuous trends detached from core pursuits cannot spiral out of control. Scientific research follows the same principle. Neuroscience remains rife with unsolved foundational puzzles. Academic progress requires both respect for established research and room for independent critical thinking. Only by pursuing original research grounded in objective laws and amplifying rational, rigorous academic discourse can we safeguard a quiet, truth-seeking ecosystem for fundamental science.