Follow us on social

Why can't we just let American & Chinese scientists get along?

Why can't we just let American & Chinese scientists get along?

The Science and Technology Agreement is a 45-year-old cornerstone of cooperation, but some in Washington want to kill it

Asia-Pacific

The Science and Technology Agreement (STA) between the United States and China was the first official agreement signed after the normalization of U.S.-China relations in the 1970s. But now after 45 years, it is under threat.

Since it was signed in 1979, the STA has been a cornerstone of bilateral cooperation and the basis for scientific research cooperation between U.S. and Chinese government agencies and universities in areas of basic science like agriculture, clean energy, public health, and the environment.

But today the STA — which has twice received temporary six month extensions over the last year — is due to lapse yet again. It may again receive another temporary extension. But there is no mistaking the way the rise in geopolitical tensions between the U.S. and China has cast a shadow over possibilities for research cooperation between the world’s two leading scientific and technological powers.

Rather than emphasizing the ways cooperation in basic research can lead to mutual and global benefits, U.S.-China technology competition is increasingly viewed as zero sum, with any scientific or technological knowledge gained by China coming at the expense of U.S. national security. House Republicans have made the agreement a target, castigating it as an example of the U.S. “fueling its own destruction” and calling for its cancellation.

Beyond the halls of Congress, the U.S. government has increasingly scrutinized Chinese scientists and researchers in the U.S., fearing espionage or technology theft, which has led to tighter visa controls and added background checks. This climate of growing distrust not only has made renewal of the STA more contentious, it has also has made the re-kindling of overall science and technology cooperation more difficult, especially between Chinese American scientists and engineers and their counterparts back in China.

The U.S. has expressed growing concerns about China’s civil-military fusion strategy, which seeks to integrate civilian scientific research and technological advancements into military applications. The fear is that scientific cooperation could contribute to the advancement of China's military capabilities. Indeed, issues around science and technology have moved to the heart of U.S.-China relations, with export controls and other measures to restrict technology transfer increasing tensions between the two nations. In a recent examination of U.S.-China talks, science and technology were identified, along with Taiwan, as the major priority issues.

But it would be a mistake for agreements to facilitate basic scientific research cooperation such as the STA to become irretrievably damaged by the increase in U.S.-China tensions. The decision on whether to extend, amend, or terminate the STA has profound implications for the global scientific community. The STA provided an over-arching framework for facilitating scientific exchanges, joint research projects, and the sharing of knowledge and technical expertise.

Over the initial four decades of the agreement, this cooperation yielded significant benefits to both sides. The STA facilitated the formation of over 40 protocols for defining cooperative projects, and the establishment of numerous joint projects that advanced research in areas ranging from clean energy to agricultural pest control to public health to high energy physics — making it a vital mechanism for sustaining dialogue and partnership in science and technology.

For the U.S., the STA has provided access to China’s rapidly growing scientific capabilities and a vast pool of high-caliber talent. China, in turn, benefited from exposure to cutting-edge research, direct and in-direct technology transfer, and collaboration with top American institutions. The establishment of the National Natural Science Foundation of China was explicitly modeled after the U.S. National Science Foundation.

Moreover, U.S.-China bilateral cooperation contributed to global scientific progress, particularly in areas where international collaboration is essential. Science and technology cooperation also served as one of the bedrock elements in strengthening the overall bilateral U.S.-China relationship.

Eliminating the STA in the name of national security concerns risks all of these benefits. It also risks abandoning the crucial distinction between basic scientific research on areas of mutual benefit and a more limited range of technologies directly relevant to national security. Indeed, critics of the STA seem to see all scientific or technological exchange as a national security risk to the United States if it could possibly benefit China in any way.

But fully preserving the STA will require not just another temporary renewal, but a thoughtful updating of the agreement to address current concerns about data security, intellectual property theft, and dual use technologies of military relevance. There is no reason why such an update cannot occur.

Indeed, recent versions of the STA, such as the 2018 renegotiation under Trump, have already enhanced controls on intellectual property.

Many of the most pressing issues facing the world today, such as climate change, health pandemics, and food security, require an appreciable level of international cooperation. The U.S. and China, as the world’s two largest economies and leading scientific powers, have a clear responsibility to work together to address these challenges.

For instance, collaboration on climate science and clean energy technologies is crucial for reducing global carbon emissions. Joint research in public health can help prevent and respond to future pandemics more effectively. Renewing the STA with a focus on these global challenges could provide a platform for constructive engagement, even amidst broader geopolitical tensions.

In today’s world of accelerated innovation and interdisciplinary scientific discovery, science and technology advancement depends on cross-border collaboration and exchange of ideas. The U.S. and China have complementary scientific strengths. For example, the U.S. still leads in key areas of basic scientific research and innovation, while China excels in large-scale application and commercialization of technologies.

By working together, both countries can accelerate advancements in critical areas such as artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and biomedical research, including finding a cure for cancer or Alzheimer’s disease. The STA has the potential to facilitate this cooperation, driving scientific progress in selected fields that benefit both nations.

Renewal of the STA could serve as a mechanism for re-building trust and managing competition between the U.S. and China. In addition to bilateral cooperation, the U.S. and China can play a facilitative role in multilateral science and technology initiatives. Issues like climate change and global health are inherently transnational and require the participation of multiple countries. A renewed STA could include commitments to jointly participate in international scientific efforts, thereby both fortifying the productivity of the overall global science and technology ecosystem and preventing the bifurcation of the international science and tech system into American and Chinese spheres of interest.

The future of U.S.-China science and technology cooperation hangs in the balance as renewal of the STA remains uncertain, especially given the political dynamics of the U.S. presidential election. Do both governments have the political will to sign an agreement? Based on several discussions in Beijing last week with Chinese and American contacts who are familiar with negotiations, the two sides are still at the table discussing an updated agreement, which suggests that the door remains open.

But the political obstacles to renewal are significant given geopolitical tensions, security concerns, and the hostility to China in U.S. political rhetoric. However, the opportunities for collaboration in addressing global challenges, advancing scientific progress, and building trust are compelling. There is no prominent global scientific challenge whose meaningful solution will not require Sino-U.S. cooperation.


Scientists at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. (Public domain/US Department of Energy)

Asia-Pacific
Warfare movie A24
Top photo credit: (official trailer for Warfare/A24)
'Warfare': Rare Iraq film that doesn't preach but packs truth

'Warfare': Rare Iraq War film that doesn't preach but packs punch

Media

Unlike Alex Garland’s Civil War, his Warfare, co-directed with war vet Ray Mendoza, is not just another attempt at a realistic portrayal of war, in all its blood and gore. Warfare, based on a true story, is really a parable about the overweening ambition and crushing failure of empire, a microcosm of America’s disastrous adventure in Iraq.

A Navy Seal mission reconnoiters a neighborhood in Ramadi. “I like this house,” says the team commander, reflecting the overconfidence of the empire at its unipolar moment. But it soon becomes clear that the mission has underestimated the enemy, that the whole neighborhood has, in fact, been tracking the Seals’ movements. Surprised and scared, the mission requests to be extricated. But extrication becomes a bloody, hellish experience despite the Seals’ technological edge in weapons, IT, and logistics, and it barely succeeds.

keep readingShow less
vietnam war memorial washington DC
Top photo credit: Washington, DC, May 24, 2024: A visitor reads the names of the fallen soldiers at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial at the National Mall ahead of Memorial Day. (A_Kiphayet/Shutterstock)

Veterans: What we would say to Trump on this Memorial Day

Military Industrial Complex

This Memorial Day comes a month after the 50th anniversary of the Fall of Saigon, which was largely used to recall the collapse of the entire American project in Vietnam. In short, the failure of the war is now viewed as both a rebuke of the American Exceptionalism myth and the rigid Cold War mentality that had Washington in a vice grip for much of the 20th Century.

“The leaders who mismanaged this debacle were never held accountable and remained leading players in the establishment for the rest of their lives,” noted author and professor Stephen Walt in a RS symposium on the war. “The country learned little from this bitter experience, and repeated these same errors in Iraq, Afghanistan, and several other places.”

keep readingShow less
Ukraine war
Top image credit: HC FOTOSTUDIO via shutterstock.com

Should a Russia-Ukraine peace leave territorial control for later?

Europe

Since the beginning of President Donald Trump’s second term, there have been ongoing diplomatic efforts to broker a peace settlement in the three-year-long war between Russia and Ukraine. So far, however, negotiations have failed to bridge the stark divide between the two sides.

Two of the key contentious issues have been post-war security guarantees for Ukraine and the political status of Ukrainian territory claimed or annexed by Russia. Specifically, regarding territorial sovereignty, Ukraine and Russia have rejected the United States' proposal to “freeze” the war along the current line of conflict as a de facto new border. Ukraine has refused to renounce its claims of sovereignty over territories occupied by Russia (including Crimea, which was annexed in 2014). Russia, in turn, has demanded Ukraine’s recognition of Russia’s territorial claim over the entirety of the four Ukrainian regions, which Russia annexed in 2022.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.