The Chinese Communist Party has accomplished something rare in American politics today: uniting Democrats and Republicans around a common enemy. Unfortunately, mad concern about Chinese influence threatens America’s ability to attract the top talent it needs to maintain global leadership in science and higher education.
The damage caused by the Ministry of Justice has now been dissolved China initiative still echoes. It was designed to counter economic espionage and threats to national security from China and in some cases resulted in researchers and academics of Chinese descent being placed under surveillance house arrest or taken away in handcuffs on charges of concealing ties to China, cases that ended in acquittals or were later dropped.
The program led to some prosecutions before being shut down last year. But it turned lives and careers upside down and created an atmosphere of fear. Some ethnic Chinese scientists feel disproportionate that their ethnicity and connections to China hinder their professional advancement and their chances of obtaining—and willingness to apply for—research funding in the United States. a research among scientists of Chinese descent at US universities, found last year that significant percentages of respondents felt unwelcome in the United States, with 86 percent saying the current climate is making it more difficult for the United States to attract top international students than it was five years ago.
This should set alarm bells ringing in Washington. economic and military advantage based on superior science, technology and innovation – and the battle for talent is global.
Studies show that the best science is often done by international research teams, presumably because researchers can choose from a wider range of potential partners. When we discourage international cooperation in the absence of clear national security concerns, we limit the pool of possible collaborators, potentially weakening the investigation.
This is especially true when it comes to China, which has become a scientific power.
China was second only to the United States in terms of total spending research and development from 2018, according to figures from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Chinese publisher of research papers has grownby one measure, to 25 percent by 2020 from less than 1 percent of the pre-1990 global total.
This work is of increasing quality. According to some calculations, Chinese papers are more often cited by academics in their own work (an indication of a paper’s impact) than those of any other country. Academics also choose their partners based on who can best help them advance their work, and researchers at U.S. universities have been choosing co-authors from China more often than from any other country for years, according to a study. report from the National Science Foundation. Questions have been raised about Chinese academic fraud and low quality patentsbut more work is needed to assess how widespread these problems are.
Concerns about academic cooperation with China are justified. Below the Chinese model, civilian organizations and companies are sometimes required to support the country’s military. I have heard enough to believe that some Chinese students in America may be reporting what happens in class to agents in China and that some Chinese scholars have secret agreements to pass on what they have learned at home.
The Chinese government has contributed to the deterioration of academic cooperation. Doing research in China is more difficult than it has been in years because of an increasing emphasis there on ideology and national security, an ever-widening range of sensitive topics, declining academic freedom and, until they ended last December, the suffocating effect of nearly three years zero Covid policy.
But let’s not race China to the bottom. America’s failure to attract top international research talent harms America’s prospects for scientific advancement and, ultimately, America’s economic and national strength.
There is no doubt that the current circumstances call for more transparency among scientists. Universities should lead this change, with scientists paying more attention to the implications of collaborating with foreign scientists. Sweden, for example, has developed frames for assessing risk through more structured due diligence of research partners, including assessing complications that may arise when collaborating with scientists from authoritarian countries.
But we must not let this get in the way of ensuring that the United States remains the best place in the world to study science, technology, engineering and mathematics and entices graduates from abroad to stay here after graduating. Still, the number of U.S. visas issued to Chinese students has been on the rise plummeted. To reverse this, visa processes must be streamlined, backlogs must be cleared and talented individuals must be given more opportunities to obtain green cards. America trains and educates some of the world’s brightest people; we need to get more and keep them here.
Likewise, more Americans need to learn about China. The number of American students studying in China already was decreasing from a peak of about 15,000 in 2011-2012; during the pandemic that plummeted to less than 400. China is and will remain a crucial global player; understanding its internal dynamics will be important for people working in different fields. Yet we risk having an entire generation of Americans who know little about China.
We should do that immediately restart the Fulbright program in China, which sent thousands of Chinese and Americans between the two countries for research and learning until it was shut down during the Trump administration, and increase federal funding for Chinese study programs at our universities.
Opening up American higher education to the world is not about helping China get strong, nor should we deceive ourselves about Beijing’s intentions. It’s about exuding confidence in the strength and virtues of our system to ensure that America continues to be the best country in the world for learning and research.
Danny Murphy is executive director of the Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Business and Government at Harvard Kennedy School and former executive director of the Fairbank Center for Chinese Studies at Harvard.
The Times is committed to publishing a variety of letters to the editor. We would love to hear what you think of this or any of our articles. Here are a few tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.
Follow the New York Times opinion section Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) And Instagram.