Insulin shock therapy (IST), or insulin coma therapy (ICT), emerged as a prominent somatic treatment in psychiatry in the 20th century, gaining wide adoption after its introduction in the 1930s. However, by the late 1950s, ICT's prominence waned in the West due to advancements in psychopharmacology and new evidence questioning its efficacy.

In contrast, China adopted ICT during the 1950s and 1960s within the framework of the "Learning from the Soviet Union" campaign, where Pavlovian reflexology dominated psychiatric theory. Chinese psychiatrists extensively studied ICT, often reaching conclusions divergent from Western perspectives. As a result, ICT continued alongside antipsychotic medications and remained a staple of psychiatric practice in China for several decades.

By the 1970s and 1980s, as China aligned more closely with international academic standards, ICT’s efficacy was reevaluated through comparative studies with antipsychotics. The results mirrored Western findings, diminishing ICT’s clinical relevance. However, unlike the West, Chinese psychiatry maintained ICT’s presence in academic discourse, categorizing it as an "effective but outdated" treatment, thus preserving its legitimacy in historical knowledge.

This paper argues that ICT's continued use in China reflects a broader materialist framework that emphasized somatic explanations for mental illness. Despite its eventual phase-out by the 1980s, ICT’s portrayal as “not good enough” in Chinese textbooks symbolizes a respectful acknowledgment of its historical significance, preserving the contributions of past practitioners while recognizing its diminishing clinical value.

In 2006, China officially joined the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) project, representing the country’s first participation as an equal partner in an international big science collaboration with large-scale facilities. This milestone signified China’s emergence as a pivotal actor within the global scientific and technological community. This study undertakes a historical examination of China’s three successive applications to join the ITER project, analyzing the underlying drivers of this decision within the broader contexts of international scientific exchange and China’s socio-economic development. Notably, despite widespread opposition from prominent figures in China’s scientific community, the Chinese government, spearheaded by the Ministry of Science and Technology, maintained steadfast support for the initiative, ultimately securing membership. This historical case provides valuable insights into the strategic dimensions of international scientific collaboration as an instrument of diplomacy and a stimulation to indigenous scientific projects, particularly in the context of developing countries, where such collaborations often carry multifaceted significance.

Since 1953, many countries such as the Democratic Republic of Germany, the Soviet Union, Denmark, and the United Kingdom have held many industrial exhibitions in Beijing, which gradually stopped in the mid-1980s. These industrial exhibitions, most of which are operated jointly by the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade, established in 1952, and relevant foreign institutions, are aimed at promoting trade and economic development between the two countries, and have been highly valued by the Chinese government leaders. These industrial exhibitions show advanced industrial products and scientific instruments of various countries, which are welcomed by the public and experts. Activities such as "symposia" at industrial exhibitions have promoted scientific and technological exchanges between the two countries. The foreign industrial exhibition held in Beijing, as a place for the transnational flow of technology, is a page that cannot be ignored in the research of history of science and technology of New China, such as Science Diplomacy.