Structural biologist Shi Yigong, founding president of Westlake University, wrote in a People's Daily essay on basic research that genuine "0 to 1" breakthroughs โ€” original discoveries, not incremental improvements on existing knowledge โ€” usually cannot be planned or scheduled in advance. After centuries of scientific development, he argues, making a discovery "from nothing" gets harder every year, and the breakthroughs that do happen rarely follow anyone's five-year plan.

This is a striking thing for a university president to say, in a country where research targets are often set in advance and measured against them. It's also a useful thing for a parent watching a KS3 child's week get carved into revision blocks and past-paper sessions to sit with.

The essay, and where it comes from

Shi Yigong is a structural biologist and academician of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. His research team achieved international recognition in 2015 for resolving the three-dimensional structure of the spliceosome โ€” a piece of cellular machinery central to how genes are read โ€” a project that took years of unglamorous, low-visibility work before it produced a result the field considered a genuine breakthrough. He later founded Westlake University in Hangzhou, an institution built explicitly around long-horizon basic research rather than short-cycle output targets.

His essay, published in People's Daily as part of a feature on basic research alongside other scientists, makes a specific claim: basic research is the "central hub" from which technological progress ultimately flows, and the genuine breakthroughs within it โ€” the "0 to 1" moments, as opposed to the "1 to N" work of refining and scaling something already known โ€” are not events you can put on a calendar.

"0 to 1" versus "1 to N"

The distinction matters for understanding what kind of thinking is actually being described. "1 to N" work โ€” taking a known method and applying it more widely, faster, or to a new problem โ€” is genuinely valuable and is most of what science and industry actually do day to day. It's also, largely, plannable: you can set a target, break it into milestones, and measure progress against a schedule.

"0 to 1" work is different in kind. It's the moment a genuinely new idea, method, or explanation appears where none existed before. Because nobody can specify in advance what an idea nobody has had yet will look like, it can't be scheduled the way "1 to N" work can. You can create conditions that make it more likely โ€” depth, time, freedom to follow an unexpected result โ€” but you can't order it to happen by a deadline.

Why this matters for how a KS3 student spends their time

A lot of KS3 study time is, reasonably, organised around "1 to N" logic: practise this method until it's reliable, cover this much of the syllabus by this date, drill past papers until the pattern is automatic. This is necessary โ€” reliable execution of known methods is most of what a good exam result requires, and most of what most subjects actually are at this stage.

But Shi Yigong's point is a useful corrective to the idea that this is the only kind of learning worth doing. A student who only ever experiences study as a scheduled march through known material never gets the experience of following a genuine question somewhere unplanned โ€” sitting with something that doesn't immediately resolve, turning it over, being wrong for a while. That experience isn't a distraction from "real" study; per Shi Yigong's argument about how actual breakthroughs happen, it's the only kind of engagement that produces them.

What this looks like in practice, not just in theory

This doesn't mean abandoning structure โ€” Shi Yigong's own institution has plenty of it, just aimed at a longer horizon (see the tree-and-soil argument for how Westlake structures this). What it means practically for a KS3 student is protecting some room, alongside the scheduled revision, for open-ended curiosity that isn't graded on a timetable: a maths problem pursued because it's interesting, not because it's due; a question in biology followed past what the syllabus requires; time spent stuck on something without an adult swooping in to resolve it in the next five minutes.

This is also the logic behind a tutor that refuses to just hand over the answer โ€” see why tutors don't give answers. If every question resolves instantly and cleanly, a student never practises the specific skill Shi Yigong is describing: sitting with something unresolved long enough for an original thought to actually form.

FAQ

What did Shi Yigong say about '0 to 1' breakthroughs?

In a People's Daily essay on basic research, Westlake University president Shi Yigong argued that genuine discoveries "from nothing" are increasingly hard after centuries of scientific development, and that real 0-to-1 breakthroughs usually cannot be planned or scheduled in advance.

Who is Shi Yigong?

A structural biologist, Chinese Academy of Sciences academician, and founding president of Westlake University in Hangzhou. His lab resolved the 3D structure of the spliceosome in 2015. He writes and speaks on basic research and education policy.

If breakthroughs can't be planned, why bother studying hard at all?

Because unplannable breakthroughs still require a prepared mind โ€” years of deep, patient engagement with a subject is what makes a student capable of recognising and pursuing an original idea when it appears. Effort still matters; a rigid, exam-only schedule for all of it is the part worth questioning.

Source

Adapted from ๆ–ฝไธ€ๅ…ฌ (Shi Yigong), "ใ€Š'ไปŽ0ๅˆฐ1'็š„็ช็ ด้ ไป€ไนˆใ€‹" ("What Does a '0 to 1' Breakthrough Depend On?"), People's Daily, 16 May 2026 โ€” part of a joint feature on basic research with ็ชฆ่ดคๅบท (Dou Xiankang) and ้ซ˜ๆ‚ฆ (Gao Yue).

Duke Harewood ยท aitutors.me ยท Updated 14 Jul 2026.