Proposed US rule triggers fears of research decoupling

A proposed United States government rule that could sharply restrict federally funded research collaboration with China has sparked concern among academics, with critics warning it could bring US and Chinese scientific communities close to a "near-complete decoupling".

The Office of Management and Budget, part of the Executive Office of the President, published the proposed rule in May as part of a significant revision of rules governing federal financial assistance and sponsored research, including federal research grants.

The rule was originally scheduled to take effect on Oct 1. But earlier this month, the US Senate passed a bipartisan continuing resolution blocking it from being finalized or enforced until Dec 11.

Under the proposal, political appointees would have greater authority over grant awards traditionally guided by scientific peer review. It cites the Wolf Amendment, which bars scientists from using NASA funding for bilateral collaboration with China, as a model for government-wide restrictions on foreign research collaboration.

Scientific, research, policy and education groups have warned that the proposal could effectively prohibit federal funding for US scientific collaboration with leading Chinese universities and academic institutions.

For scientists who work closely with Chinese counterparts, the potential impact could be substantial.

"In my area of quantum materials, I will lose a lot if I am not able to collaborate and exchange ideas with my theory colleagues in China," said Steven Kivelson, a theoretical physicist at Stanford University.

"Even more drastic, however, is the harm it would do to my science not to be able to communicate directly with my experimental colleagues in China," he said. "In many aspects of making and probing the properties of bulk quantum materials, researchers in China are the world leaders."

Kivelson said that for his research, it is important to understand the details of experiments conducted in university laboratories at several leading Chinese institutions.

He has grants from the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy. So far, his existing collaborations have not been directly affected because the Chinese institutions involved are not among those deemed unacceptable under the proposed guidelines.

"But that may well change, and anyway, I would find it beneficial to be able to collaborate with other wonderful colleagues at various Chinese universities," he said.

In an article encouraging its members to submit public comments, the American Association for the Advancement of Science said the proposal would give the Office of Management and Budget and selected political appointees expansive authority over federal research and development funding, allowing political considerations to override scientific opportunity.

The association also raised concerns that the rule would determine the eligibility of institutions and individuals for federal awards based on vague and undefined terms.

Widespread opposition

The proposed changes have drawn widespread opposition, with nearly 500,000 public comments submitted before the July 13 deadline.

The Washington Post analyzed 50,000 comments and found that at least 88 percent opposed the proposal. About 6 percent supported it, but most of those comments came from a single form letter submitted more than 2,300 times.

The Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, in a comment letter to the Office of Management and Budget, warned that the proposed regulations "will force a near-complete decoupling between the US and Chinese scientific communities".

The institute said the proposal cited a generalized concern about US national security but provided no detailed justification for why a broad ban on US-China scientific cooperation would serve those interests.

"As China is now becoming a global research and innovation leader across a wide range of areas, this would undermine US scientific advances in these areas," the institute said.

It added that reduced understanding of Chinese scientific and technological capabilities "would have a harmful impact on national security in the long run".

Kivelson of Stanford University said legitimate security risks should be addressed to protect relevant portions of the US scientific and technological establishment against possible theft or cyberattack.

"But concerning scientific research being carried out at most US universities, it is a nonissue," he said.

"At Stanford, for example, all classified research and most forms of proprietary research are forbidden on campus. The goal of the research endeavor at Stanford is knowledge generation. We publish our results in the open literature," he said.