Proposed US grant rule sparks fears of scientific decoupling

A proposed US government rule that could drastically restrict federally funded research collaboration with China has sparked confusion and concern among academics, with critics warning it could lead to a near-complete decoupling of the US and Chinese scientific communities.

The Office of Management and Budget, or OMB, part of the executive office of the US president, published the proposed rule in May as part of a significant revision of regulations governing federal financial assistance awards and sponsored research programs, including all federal research grants.

The rule was originally scheduled to take effect on Oct 1. Earlier this month, however, the US Senate passed a bipartisan continuing resolution that blocks the rule from being finalized or enforced until Dec 11.

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

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

For scientists whose work involves close exchanges 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," Steven Kivelson, a theoretical physicist at Stanford University, told China Daily.

"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 own research, it is important to understand the details of experiments being carried out in university laboratories at several leading Chinese institutions.

He has grants from the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy. So far, he said, 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.

The overboard and vague restrictions have also created uncertainty over what kinds of international academic engagement would remain permissible.

"Some of my other involvements with China may be precluded by the new policies," Kivelson said. "I have written to my grant managers and am waiting to hear back, for instance, about whether I am allowed to continue on in my position as one of two editors-in-chief of npj Quantum Materials."

npj Quantum Materials is a peer-reviewed, open-access scientific journal covering quantum materials, their fundamental properties, fabrication and applications. The journal is published in partnership between Nature Publishing Group and China's Nanjing University.

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

The organization also raised concerns that the rule would determine the eligibility of institutions and individuals to receive federal awards on the basis of vague and undefined terms.

The proposed changes have drawn widespread opposition. Nearly 500,000 public comments were submitted to the federal government before the July 13 deadline. The Washington Post analyzed 50,000 of the comments and found that at least 88 percent opposed the proposed rule. Roughly 6 percent expressed support, according to the Post, but the overwhelming majority of those supportive comments came from a single form letter that was submitted more than 2,300 times.

The Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, in a comment letter submitted to the OMB, 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 interests but does not provide a 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 in its letter. Less understanding of Chinese scientific and technological capabilities "would have a harmful impact on national security in the long run".

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

"But concerning scientific research being carried out at most US universities, it is a non-issue," Kivelson 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."

"Bottom line: There is no danger of the theft of secret information by Chinese nationals on Stanford campus, for the good and simple reason that there are no secrets to steal," he said.