The question of how science and technology (S & T) should be governed, or regulated, is an issue that has received considerable attention in advanced industrial societies. Interest in the subject rose rapidly in the aftermath of World War II and the development of nuclear weapons. As a result, the impacts of scientific and technological advances became a central focus of science governance. In addition, though, the ever-increasing importance of science and technology (S & T) for the well-being of modern societies, especially with regard to national defense and economic competitiveness, has also led to sustained concerns for ensuring that national policies and institutions are suitable for building and enhancing national scientific and technological capabilities. However, in spite of extensive public policy development, and the growth of an extensive academic literature on science policy and innovation, there is still no single, authoritative conceptual framework for considering the optimal form for regulation and governance of science and technology. As we discuss in this paper, enormous changes have occurred in the governance and regulation of science and technology, but the state-of-play in China also reflects its distinctive historical, development, and political path. By considering a series of factors affecting rewards and incentives, personal mobility, communications and project selection, control and evaluation, we suggest that three foundational governance models are discernible in contemporary China. We refer to these as the bureaucratic-professional, the professional, and the market-oriented models
