[2] Needham's work was the first of its kind to praise Chinese scientific contributions and provide their history and connection to global knowledge in contrast to eurocentric historiography.

[11] Needham became concerned with the exclusion of China in the Western history of science and began to question why the Chinese ceased to develop new techniques after the 16th century.

This addressed only the contributions made by China and had a "warm welcome" from Joseph Needham in the introduction, though in the Beijing Review he criticized that it had "some mistakes ... and various statements that I would like to have seen expressed rather differently".

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)".

[24] 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.

[23] Historian Robert Finlay suggested "Needham never shied away from bold generalizations" and "employs many outdated concepts and makes countless unsupported assertions".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.

However, Sivin is critical of Needham suggesting more research is required citing his assumptions of Taoism's role in promoting scientific feats in China.

[25] 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.

[26] 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?

[23] Needham, troubled by past criticism and dismissal of his work as Marxist theory, declined to publicly state his relationship to Marxism.

[29] Scholars like Roger Hart stated that Needham’s work was significant in helping change the criteria for defining modern science.

[30] Needham and his co-authors are credited for amassing a plethora of evidence regarding the influence and contributions of Chinese technologies and ideas that allowed for the growth of modern science in Europe.

[30] Some historians praise the standard of quality and thoroughness maintained throughout the volumes of Science and Civilization in China,[31] but others questioned the accuracy of its contents.

Joseph Needham contrasted the more “organic” understanding of nature that China held with the “mechanical” perspective through which the West viewed existence.

[30] While certain members of the scientific community viewed China’s science as more of a “pseudoscience,” to Needham, these advancements were part of a proto-scientific period that was later incorporated by the West after the 16th century.

[30] Scholars such as Arun Bala have praised Science and Civilisation in China as the most comprehensive modern survey of the scientific and technological accomplishments of any non-European civilization.