---
title: "Science and Civilisation in China"
chunk: 2/3
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_Civilisation_in_China"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:37:17.599687+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---

=== Critical acclaim ===
Groff Conklin of Galaxy Science Fiction in 1955 said that Vol. 1 "presents a richly patterned tapestry of the development of civilization in the Far East", and that "it is for everyone who is intrigued by the unknown, whether future (science fiction) or past (scientific history)".
Jonathan Spence wrote in a 1982 New York Times article "this work is the most ambitious undertaking in Chinese studies during this century".
The New York Times obituary for Needham stated that students of China hail Needham's encyclopedia and compare him to Charles Darwin in terms of importance regarding scientific knowledge.
In 1999 Roger Hart published Beyond Science and Civilization: A Post-Needham Critique giving more analysis of Needham's work about how sciences of the West and China differed in practice to make for different historical attributes.
According to Arun Bala, the author of The Dialogue of Civilizations in the Birth of Modern Science, Needham postulates that scientific knowledge may evolve to more closely resemble Chinese philosophical views of nature; signifying his belief in Chinese inherent wisdom.

=== Criticism from scholars ===
Science and Civilisation in China  was welcomed and is highly regarded among scholars because of its extensive comparative coverage of Chinese innovations. He established that scientific advancements, and analytical ingenuity were abundant in China in early modern times. Needham pointed to basic Chinese inventions ended up in the west, including the magnetic compass, and the mechanical clock, and printing. Needham also wrote that once these inventions reached  they had a great impact on social life, and helped to stimulate the economy, as well as usher in the Scientific Revolution. Other scholars criticized his Marxist background, his understanding of Chinese culture, and his methodology.
Historian Robert Finlay suggested "Needham never shied away from bold generalizations" and "employs many outdated concepts and makes countless unsupported assertions". Finlay points out that Needham never focuses on individual states and regions, instead he places Chinese, Indian, Islamic, and Western achievements within the context of reciprocal relations of Eurasian cultures.
Editor of Volume 6, Nathan Sivin and Needham's research collaborator Lu Gwei-djen include updated research to support some of Needham's claims. However, Sivin is critical of Needham suggesting more research is required citing his assumptions of Taoism's role in promoting scientific feats in China.
Sociologist Toby E. Huff gives an overview of Needham's singular legacy in his book The Rise of Early Modern Science: Islam, China, and the West. But Huff suggests that Needham gave many misleading impressions regarding China's supposed scientific advantages over the west.

== The Needham Question ==

=== Origins ===
After his extensive research of Chinese innovations, Joseph Needham became concerned with the question: Why did modern science stop developing in China after the 16th century? Needham believed this was due to China’s sociopolitical system which was not affected by Chinese inventions. China did not have a structure in which merchants could profit from their inventions, unlike the West. Once Chinese inventions reached Europe, they revolutionized their sociopolitical system, which used the inventions to dominate political rivals. According to Needham, Chinese innovations, such as gunpowder, the compass, paper, and printing, helped transform European feudalism into capitalism. By the end of the 15th century, Europe was actively financing scientific discoveries, and nautical exploration. The paradox of this conclusion was that Europe surpassed China in scientific innovations, using Chinese technologies.

=== Re-formulation ===
After several volumes of Science and Civilisation in China had been published, Needham was questioned about his theory of the origin of science in the West. Needham, troubled by past criticism and dismissal of his work as Marxist theory, declined to publicly state his relationship to Marxism. Later, in Needham’s work The Grand Titration, he re-framed his question as: “why, between the first century BC and the fifteenth century AD, Chinese civilization was much more efficient than occidental in applying human natural knowledge to practical human needs?” The reformulation of the question, changed the narrative of Science and Civilisation in China. Initially, the question centered around China’s failure to develop scientifically after the 16th century. The focus shifted towards an examination of China’s accomplishments prior to development in Europe, this focus was addressed throughout Science and Civilisation in China.
Needham's attempt to uncover the reasoning behind China's rise and fall as an elite scientific and technologically advanced nation has been expounded upon and debated for decades including Justin Yifu Lin's University of Chicago journal article "The Needham Puzzle".