2020-03-20

The case to STAy

America and China should keep doing research together

Republicans are wrong to want to scrap the Science and Technology Agreement

Oct 12th 2023 |

SINCE DENG XIAOPING and Jimmy Carter struck a deal in 1979, American and Chinese academics have co-operated on scientific research. Like so much else about relations between the two countries, that co-operation is now under threat. As we report this week American and Chinese scientists are writing fewer papers together and the number of Chinese students and researchers entering America has fallen sharply. Now politicians are wavering about whether to renew the Deng-Carter deal, called the Science and Technology Agreement (STA). Republicans want to scrap the pact; Democrats want to renegotiate its terms.

It is easy to understand America’s fears about boosting China’s technological capability, and therefore its ability to wage war. The widespread fear that China has exploited a naive American belief in openness has also sapped the will to work together. China has a long record of ordering Western companies to hand over technologies as a condition of selling into its vast market, and is often accused of intellectual-property theft.

Yet quitting or watering down the STA would be a mistake. To begin with there are few, if any, examples of academic collaboration harming America’s interests. Republicans’ chosen example of research gone wrong is a project in 2018 to share data from jointly launched weather balloons, a tale that plays on fears of aerial spying but does not represent a real security failure. In any case, the STA covers academic research that, in America, ends up easily accessible in academic journals, whoever wrote it. True, Chinese scientists—and by extension China—gain expertise from being involved. But other laws, and a recent executive order by President Joe Biden, restrict the sharing of American expertise in sensitive areas.

In addition, it would be a mistake to think that the gains from collaboration are one-way. China’s scholars match and even outdo America’s in some fields, such as batteries, telecommunications and nanoscience. And because China’s research environment is far more opaque than America’s, Uncle Sam may gain more from peering over the wall than China does.

Collaboration also offers opportunities to influence China’s approach to ethically vexing research. Under sway from America, it has gradually adopted Institutional Review Boards, which oversee work that affects human subjects. Innovation in artificial intelligence and other areas in which China is closer to the frontier of knowledge will raise new ethical quandaries for researchers. American scientists can usefully steer China’s approach there, too.

Last, at a time of tensions between China and America, the STA carries important symbolism. It was the first bilateral accord signed after relations between the two countries were restored. Scrapping it without good reason would feed the idea that America views all Chinese researchers with suspicion. If that deterred more talented Chinese from working in America, opportunities for fruitful cross-fertilisation would go up in smoke. American science benefits from its ability to attract the world’s brightest minds. That would be impeded if it created the impression that it is a closed shop.

Scientific co-operation among rival great powers has a powerful precedent. Joint research by American and Soviet scientists during the cold war led to the detection of gravitational waves, to advances in modelling non-linear dynamics now used to track climate change and to the manufacture of the vaccine that eradicated smallpox. Even as war raged in Vietnam, Soviet scientists were helping build a particle accelerator at Fermilab, 40 miles west of Chicago. The relationship was not symmetrical, but it did bring mutual gains and propel humanity’s progress. Rather than adopting a new model of scientific isolationism, America’s leaders should remember that collaboration in the lab tends to benefit everyone—including America. ■

?著作權(quán)歸作者所有,轉(zhuǎn)載或內(nèi)容合作請聯(lián)系作者
  • 序言:七十年代末扛或,一起剝皮案震驚了整個濱河市芽偏,隨后出現(xiàn)的幾起案子涉瘾,更是在濱河造成了極大的恐慌,老刑警劉巖摊聋,帶你破解...
    沈念sama閱讀 212,332評論 6 493
  • 序言:濱河連續(xù)發(fā)生了三起死亡事件廊镜,死亡現(xiàn)場離奇詭異即碗,居然都是意外死亡,警方通過查閱死者的電腦和手機搞疗,發(fā)現(xiàn)死者居然都...
    沈念sama閱讀 90,508評論 3 385
  • 文/潘曉璐 我一進店門嗓蘑,熙熙樓的掌柜王于貴愁眉苦臉地迎上來,“玉大人匿乃,你說我怎么就攤上這事桩皿。” “怎么了扳埂?”我有些...
    開封第一講書人閱讀 157,812評論 0 348
  • 文/不壞的土叔 我叫張陵业簿,是天一觀的道長。 經(jīng)常有香客問我阳懂,道長梅尤,這世上最難降的妖魔是什么? 我笑而不...
    開封第一講書人閱讀 56,607評論 1 284
  • 正文 為了忘掉前任岩调,我火速辦了婚禮巷燥,結(jié)果婚禮上,老公的妹妹穿的比我還像新娘号枕。我一直安慰自己缰揪,他們只是感情好,可當(dāng)我...
    茶點故事閱讀 65,728評論 6 386
  • 文/花漫 我一把揭開白布葱淳。 她就那樣靜靜地躺著钝腺,像睡著了一般。 火紅的嫁衣襯著肌膚如雪赞厕。 梳的紋絲不亂的頭發(fā)上艳狐,一...
    開封第一講書人閱讀 49,919評論 1 290
  • 那天,我揣著相機與錄音皿桑,去河邊找鬼毫目。 笑死,一個胖子當(dāng)著我的面吹牛诲侮,可吹牛的內(nèi)容都是我干的镀虐。 我是一名探鬼主播,決...
    沈念sama閱讀 39,071評論 3 410
  • 文/蒼蘭香墨 我猛地睜開眼沟绪,長吁一口氣:“原來是場噩夢啊……” “哼刮便!你這毒婦竟也來了?” 一聲冷哼從身側(cè)響起绽慈,我...
    開封第一講書人閱讀 37,802評論 0 268
  • 序言:老撾萬榮一對情侶失蹤诺核,失蹤者是張志新(化名)和其女友劉穎抄肖,沒想到半個月后,有當(dāng)?shù)厝嗽跇淞掷锇l(fā)現(xiàn)了一具尸體窖杀,經(jīng)...
    沈念sama閱讀 44,256評論 1 303
  • 正文 獨居荒郊野嶺守林人離奇死亡,尸身上長有42處帶血的膿包…… 初始之章·張勛 以下內(nèi)容為張勛視角 年9月15日...
    茶點故事閱讀 36,576評論 2 327
  • 正文 我和宋清朗相戀三年裙士,在試婚紗的時候發(fā)現(xiàn)自己被綠了入客。 大學(xué)時的朋友給我發(fā)了我未婚夫和他白月光在一起吃飯的照片。...
    茶點故事閱讀 38,712評論 1 341
  • 序言:一個原本活蹦亂跳的男人離奇死亡腿椎,死狀恐怖桌硫,靈堂內(nèi)的尸體忽然破棺而出,到底是詐尸還是另有隱情啃炸,我是刑警寧澤铆隘,帶...
    沈念sama閱讀 34,389評論 4 332
  • 正文 年R本政府宣布,位于F島的核電站南用,受9級特大地震影響膀钠,放射性物質(zhì)發(fā)生泄漏。R本人自食惡果不足惜裹虫,卻給世界環(huán)境...
    茶點故事閱讀 40,032評論 3 316
  • 文/蒙蒙 一肿嘲、第九天 我趴在偏房一處隱蔽的房頂上張望。 院中可真熱鬧筑公,春花似錦雳窟、人聲如沸。這莊子的主人今日做“春日...
    開封第一講書人閱讀 30,798評論 0 21
  • 文/蒼蘭香墨 我抬頭看了看天上的太陽。三九已至捣作,卻和暖如春誉结,著一層夾襖步出監(jiān)牢的瞬間,已是汗流浹背虾宇。 一陣腳步聲響...
    開封第一講書人閱讀 32,026評論 1 266
  • 我被黑心中介騙來泰國打工搓彻, 沒想到剛下飛機就差點兒被人妖公主榨干…… 1. 我叫王不留,地道東北人嘱朽。 一個月前我還...
    沈念sama閱讀 46,473評論 2 360
  • 正文 我出身青樓旭贬,卻偏偏與公主長得像,于是被迫代替她去往敵國和親搪泳。 傳聞我的和親對象是個殘疾皇子稀轨,可洞房花燭夜當(dāng)晚...
    茶點故事閱讀 43,606評論 2 350

推薦閱讀更多精彩內(nèi)容