David Michael Miller
Espionage, corruption and deceit.
We don’t typically associate these words with science, but their use is becoming more common as policymakers and scientists debate how to best protect taxpayer-funded research from foreign influence. The heart of this discussion lies in finding the balance between defending science and preserving international collaboration.
Concerns of foreign influence have intensified in recent years as the number of related research misconduct reports increases. The exact number is not publicly known because science agencies calculate their own numbers and details are considered sensitive information. We do know that the nation’s largest science agency, the National Institutes of Health, began looking into these issues in August 2018 and has since investigated 250 scientists; 180 cases are still open.
These reports typically involve improper disclosure of foreign funding, which can cause conflicts of interest, hinder federal agencies’ ability to appropriately distribute funding, and obscure potential concerns for national security if multiple countries fund defense-related science such as nuclear energy or artificial intelligence.
Rarer and more egregious incidences can include espionage. In 2013, a foreign scientist at the Medical College of Wisconsin was charged with stealing cancer research from the college. He claimed the research was his own and that he didn’t intend to reap any monetary gain from the offense, or cause any loss to the Medical College. He was charged with economic espionage but eventually pleaded to a lesser charge.
Instances like this have made foreign influence on research a leading issue in Congress and across the nation.
To protect U.S. research, Congress has proposed several bills that would increase oversight and vetting of scientists, especially those with foreign ties. Federal science agencies have established rules that limit employee relations with foreign entities. Many universities, including the University of Wisconsin-Madison, have also provided updated guidelines to researchers to prevent misconduct.
While these steps will help protect the nation’s scientific intellectual property, we researchers worry that some restrictions will impede scientific progress by profiling foreign scientists, creating hostile climates, and limiting international collaboration.
One hallmark of successful science is a collaborative environment where researchers of all backgrounds and disciplines can work together to pursue academic discovery and technological development. As a doctoral student in microbiology at UW-Madison, I have personally benefited from international collaboration.
UW-Madison alone has 6,306 international students, about 14 percent of the student population. That number grows each year. International students are integral to a thriving university community because they represent the brightest minds from across the globe and bring unique perspectives that diversify and enrich discussions both in the classroom and the lab. My interactions with international students in my graduate program have undoubtedly made me a better scientist.
The benefits of international collaboration also extend beyond campus. My lab works with scientists from Brazil, China, Costa Rica, and Japan. Together, we can perform experiments that would otherwise be extremely difficult alone because we have access to each other’s shared resources and expertise. Our collaborative approach to science benefits not only our institutions and local communities, but also the global scientific community.
These foreign collaborations and scientific progress are threatened when some researchers exploit this open environment or when government oversight impedes international partnerships. How the nation balances protecting our science while promoting international collaboration will dictate whether science can thrive in the U.S.
Congress is moving the right way with the Securing American Science and Technology Act (H.R. 3038). It proactively defends federally funded research by creating an interagency working group of federal science and security agencies to coordinate the government’s protection of science. The working group would be charged with identifying threats to research, creating standardized policies and best practices for research security and conduct, and evaluating their impact on international collaboration.
The bill also directly engages the scientific community to address researchers’ concerns and to share effective practices. With over 100 endorsements from science organizations, including UW-Madison, this bipartisan bill has strong support from the scientific community.
It stands out from competing legislation about foreign influence because it addresses concerns from both Congress and the scientific community without actively hindering participation of international scientists or imposing burdensome requirements on universities, both of which would delay research progress.
The good news is that this bipartisan bill is now folded into the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act; the bad news is that the authorization act is currently stalled in Congress.
Legislators and scientists must remember our shared goals to protect rather than impede scientific progress. Protecting taxpayer-funded research from foreign influence can be achieved without disrupting international collaboration.
Edna Chiang is a PhD student in the Microbiology Doctoral Training Program at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
