Shortly after taking office, China's new government started drafting the national medium and long-term blueprint for science and technology development in the next 15 to 20 years.

However, to be effective, that blueprint should be based on a science and technology management mechanism that is stable, efficient and fair, something the current system falls short of.

China has, in the past, overemphasized the role the government plays in setting out the direction scientists should take, blind to the fact that science is an endless, unknown frontier that is hard to plan.

The market economy has proven to be more efficient than the planned economy, while China's current science management mechanism, installed in 1950s and tailored to its now abandoned planned economy, has largely remained intact despite the changes in the economy.

China has long recognized the importance of science, however, compared with many foreign countries, it has yet to provide adequate support.

Science, instead of being viewed as an economic engine, is sometimes viewed as a luxury endeavour.

Many in China think that only after the country gets rich will it be able to afford scientific research.

On the other hand, China has always blurred the boundary between science and technology, the latter often receiving more government support than the former, a misleading view that needs to be corrected.

Science is the ultimate foundation of technological innovation.

Japan has long favoured technology more than science; however, realizing the leading role science plays in the economy, it has stepped up its input into science research since its economy stagnated in 1990s.

In order for its science endeavours to be on a healthy development track, China needs to drastically improve its science management mechanism, creating an environment that is conducive to scientific undertakings.

The crux of the reform should focus on the budget allocation mechanism.

Under the current system, many government departments earmark funds for scientific research, instead of a unified budgetary institution solely responsible for science monies.

The approach has not only seriously damaged national science management, but also distracted scientists from research and forced them to put more emphasis on scrounging for funds.

Some of the administrative and logistics personnel in the existing science management mechanism, instead of fully supporting research, often disturb scientists' research work.

Some officials in charge of administrative or budget affairs sometimes overstep their authority to meddle with the specific science subjects, severely interfering with scientists in their research.

More absurdly, many important scientific research evaluations are handled not by leading scientists but by administrative or finance officials.

The result is that non-experts, such as officials from administrative or budget offices, are in charge of the decision-making process.

More often than not, these non-experts learn about specific subjects through media reports which are often not professional.

Ultimately, then, the media unwittingly serve as an indirect guideline, setting China's scientific agenda and direction, while in the United States, that role is taken by leading scientists in related fields.

The overblown power of the administrative personnel in the existing system has resulted in China's higher budget allocation costs than those of scientifically advanced countries.

In the United States, most administrative staff have no such equivalent power in terms of influence or decision-making clout.

Relevant regulations or laws should be worked out to amend this awkward situation.

The current system is not only susceptible to corruption but also helps administrative personnel gear the science budget to their personal advantage.

One common way this is done is by setting up a procurement company claiming to assist scientists is buying the necessary equipment. Then they designate these companies as the only ones allowed to handle the procurement, profiting from those deals.

Effective regulation should be enacted to shut down these companies and fix these loopholes in the current system.

The existing science management system also does not forbid people from setting up companies which are hard to define, whether as State-run science research institutions or private companies. As such, these companies often siphon science money from government as corporate profits.

Those double-faced companies are poorly motivated to compete in the market because they can easily harvest huge profits from the science budget, while the science research institutions often evade proper scientific evaluation using these companies as their cover.

The current system needs to be modified to avoid those companies being set up and mandate the separation of State-run science research institutions and private companies.

It is high time to amend the current science management system in China.

The author is a researcher with School of Medicine, Washington University.