After comparison, it is not difficult to find that the Japanese experience is strikingly similar to the spirit of "Angang Constitution" in China's history, except that the latter was stillborn and has not had any impact on China's innovation system so far (1). On the contrary, in the process of China's economic system reform, many enterprises pay too much attention to property rights and capital operation, and relatively ignore the importance of fully mobilizing the enthusiasm of workers and enterprise capabilities based on technological innovation. The lessons of history are worth remembering. As we know, enterprise capability is the micro-foundation of a country's international competitiveness, which consists of institutional innovation and technological innovation. Institutional innovation without technological innovation does not help to improve the ability of enterprises. Under the new historical conditions, the institutional basis of the birth of "Angang Constitution" has undergone fundamental changes, but the Japanese experience can make us think: Can we creatively transform the spirit of "Angang Constitution" and make it an important factor in the formation of China's innovation system? Although Japan has provided us with useful reference in catching up with technology, its leap-forward scientific and technological development has not been successful. Unlike Japan, whose technological leadership at the end of the 20th century was mainly concentrated in traditional industries, "historians who studied industrial and economic development in the19th century noticed that although Britain kept ahead in traditional industries, by the19th century, this comparison showed that high-tech industries might be the key to technological transcendence. The lesson that Japan's innovation system provides us is that after the catch-up stage is completed, a good domestic scientific research foundation is very important for achieving overall technological transcendence and maintaining a leading position, otherwise the narrowed technological gap will widen; However, domestic basic scientific research cannot be accomplished overnight, and we should attach great importance to it strategically in the early stage of catching up. Of course, developing countries have no comparative advantage in basic research. It is undoubtedly reasonable to concentrate limited resources on application and development in the early stage of development, but it is unwise to ignore the long-term impact of basic scientific research, especially for developing countries like us. We should learn from Japan's experience that Germany, which was backward in the19th century, attached importance to basic scientific research when catching up with Britain, and establish China's national innovation system that adapts to the development of knowledge economy in the 2nd19th century. However, historical experience shows that it is only necessary but not sufficient to attach importance to basic scientific research for the leap-forward development of science and technology, and institutional innovation is the key. At the end of 19, Britain's technological leadership was lost not because of the lack of excellent scientists, but because its traditional scientific and technological system, which mainly focused on personal research and craftsmen, hindered the spread of innovation. Germany and the United States took the lead in promoting major institutional innovations such as enterprise R&D laboratories and technical colleges in order to take advantage of the new knowledge provided by the new scientific revolution, which is the main reason why they first achieved technological transcendence over Britain in new technology fields and then achieved technological transcendence in other fields. Coincidentally, the maintenance of America's leading position in technology at the end of the 20th century is closely related to its institutional innovations such as university system and university-industry alliance. On the contrary, although Japan has achieved great institutional innovation in traditional industries, it still follows the traditional institutional arrangements in basic research and the relationship between basic research and application development, which is the main reason why Japan has encountered difficulties in realizing leap-forward scientific and technological development. At present, China is carrying out basic research and university system reform, and the experiences and lessons of success and failure of the United States and Japan deserve our further in-depth study. Finally, it should be pointed out that the purpose of learning from Japan and the United States is to achieve institutional innovation. This kind of institutional innovation is by no means a simple imitation, and it is not the result of a simple combination of Japanese gradual innovation and American radical innovation. Historical experience reminds us once again that although institutional learning is the most important factor for Germany, the United States and Japan to catch up with Britain, its success lies in formulating innovative systems suitable for its own conditions. Especially with the arrival of the new scientific and technological revolution, unprecedented institutional innovation may be born, and the old institutional experience can no longer adapt. Only by seizing the opportunity and making bold innovations can we finally realize the leap-forward development of science and technology.