Pentagon list threatens US science edge

The Pentagon's expansion of a research security blacklist to include some of China's most prominent universities marks a significant shift in US science policy that could further damage bilateral academic ties and impose substantial costs on US research and innovation, experts said.

The Pentagon last week updated its Section 1286 list, identifying 130 academic and research institutions in China, Russia and Iran. This expands the list from universities and institutions for traditionally having so-called links with military research to leading comprehensive institutions, such as Fudan University and Shanghai Jiao Tong University in China.

Beginning in fiscal year 2026, the Pentagon is barred from using funds for fundamental research involving collaboration with any listed institution. The restrictions cover grants, contracts, equipment sharing, co-authorship and other research activities involving personnel affiliated with the designated institutions.

Failure to report relevant connections or the continuation of prohibited engagements could result in compliance violations and loss of eligibility for federal funding.

China's Ministry of Commerce said on Wednesday that China was very dissatisfied with and firmly opposed to the expanded list, accusing Washington of continuing to "politicize, weaponize and instrumentalize" scientific research cooperation between the two countries.

US experts said the addition of prestigious comprehensive universities signals that Washington is moving toward treating China's broader academic and scientific system as an extension of its strategic and military capabilities.

"I would characterize this as a watershed moment in US science policy," said Denis Simon, a senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.

"Fudan and Shanghai Jiao Tong are … among China's flagship comprehensive universities, comparable in stature to major American research universities," he told China Daily.

"Their inclusion suggests that Washington is becoming less willing to distinguish between elite civilian universities and institutions traditionally associated with defense research," he added. "That represents a major change in the philosophy governing US-China scientific engagement."

Fred S. Teng, president of the America China Public Affairs Institute, said the expansion list suggested Washington was moving beyond efforts to protect clearly defined sensitive technologies and was beginning to treat broad areas of Chinese academic strength as security threats.

"It raises a fundamental question: What concrete goal is the US government trying to achieve — preventing identifiable military applications, slowing China's scientific development or simply reducing engagement?" Teng told China Daily.

'No clear objective'

"Without a clearly defined objective, blacklisting leading civilian universities risks becoming a policy of indiscriminate academic containment," he said.

The new restrictions have already prompted responses from US universities, which are seeking to minimize potential financial, legal and reputational exposure.

Some institutions have issued notices urging faculty members to exercise greater caution in international research and have strengthened screening of foreign partners, co-authorships and informal academic exchanges.

Universities and researchers are also confronting uncertainty over how broadly the rules will be interpreted, including whether previous employment, informal scholarly communication or co-authorship alone constitutes meaningful collaboration with a listed institution.

The effects are likely to extend well beyond the universities explicitly named, Simon said.

US institutions may become more cautious about collaboration with Chinese universities generally because of the growing complexity of compliance and the risk that future additions to the list could retroactively affect research relationships, he said.

The policy is therefore likely to accelerate the fragmentation of the US-China scientific relationship, including in fields that have traditionally relied on open exchanges and multinational research teams. It could also limit US researchers' access to some of the world's most productive scientific institutions, Simon said.

Fudan and Shanghai Jiao Tong conduct internationally recognized research in medicine, artificial intelligence, materials science, engineering, chemistry, physics and other disciplines. Because major scientific advances increasingly emerge from cross-border research networks, restrictions on collaboration with leading contributors could narrow the networks available to US scientists, he said.

Teng noted that the restrictions could weaken joint research programs, disrupt scholar exchanges and reduce US universities' access to highly qualified researchers and important global scientific networks.

Insufficient consideration

Washington, he said, appeared to have given insufficient consideration to the effects on the United States itself, including the potential isolation of US scientists, reduced access to global talent and erosion of US scientific leadership.

"The greater danger is that the United States may impose substantial costs on its own universities, scientists and innovation system without achieving a measurable strategic benefit," Teng said.

Both experts said the restrictions were unlikely to halt China's scientific and technological development.

Teng said the measures might slow some forms of US-China collaboration, but China would probably respond by expanding its domestic research capacity and deepening scientific partnerships with other countries.

The result could be a reorientation of international research networks rather than the suppression of Chinese scientific progress, he said, while US universities could lose access to discoveries, data and talent that would otherwise contribute to US research.

The widening separation could also impede cooperation on global challenges that cannot be effectively addressed by any one country, the experts said.

Pandemic preparedness, infectious disease surveillance, climate science, clean energy, biodiversity, agriculture and basic biomedical research all depend heavily on sustained international collaboration, access to data from multiple regions and the ability of scientists to communicate across borders.

Simon said continued deterioration in scientific relations could make progress in those areas slower and more fragmented.

Teng said scientific separation in public health, climate change, energy and artificial intelligence could leave the United States "less informed, less connected and ultimately less competitive".

liazhu@chinadailyusa.com