Don’t let geopolitics get in the way of scientific cooperation with China

This fall, the U.S. government made the following decisions: against Instead of fully renewing the U.S.-China science and technology agreement, he supported a short-term extension of just six months to the 44-year agreement.

The agreement was originally created as a symbol of cooperation between the dominant United States and a rising China, and has fostered international cooperation in research and innovation for more than 40 years. Given the rapid development of China’s economy since the agreement was first signed in 1979 and the recent geopolitical tensions that have cast a shadow over this relationship, it warrants a closer look. In my capacity as President and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences, I strongly believe that it is in the interest of world science to advocate for a full renewal of the agreement.

Since its creation, the U.S.-China Science and Technology Agreement has laid the foundation for an unparalleled exchange of knowledge, talent, and resources between two scientific superpowers. The agreement has led to breakthrough discoveries that address common global challenges across borders by fostering scientific cooperation in areas such as energy, health, the environment and agriculture.

Through cooperation between the two countries, China has accelerated the transition away from ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons, thereby accelerating the closing of the ozone hole in the atmosphere. Science and technology agreements also enable the sharing of influenza data used to devise annual vaccines that protect us all from new strains of influenza.

Unfortunately, recent escalating tensions in U.S.-China relations threaten a wide range of scientific discoveries and advances in understanding. Yes, an obvious reiteration regarding the security of intellectual property, the potential for both data and advanced computing power to be used for undesired purposes, and the opacity of information exchange related to the COVID-19 pandemic. There is a problem. But the risks to science of abandoning open cooperation between scientists from both countries outweigh even the most critical views. While critics may have good reason to worry about the transfer of sensitive technology to China and the potential for dual-use technology to be misused for military purposes, the overall value of scientific cooperation may also be , it also fails to assess how much progress China has already made. It developed the scientific ability to develop its own technology, with or without the direct participation of Americans.

Rigorous oversight mechanisms, information-sharing agreements, and a commitment to transparency can help ensure that collaborative processes do not compromise sensitive technologies. Both countries need to publicly commit to upholding ethical standards and respecting each other’s intellectual property rights, especially when it comes to emerging technologies such as 5G and artificial intelligence. Indeed, it is in China’s interest to agree to these standards, given that China itself is a world leader in several technologies.

Skeptics may see this as a naive wish, but history is full of examples of such bilateral scientific cooperation in the face of adversity. At the height of the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union embarked on a Cold War in 1972. Apollo-Soyuz Test Project, the first international manned spaceflight mission. It served as a symbol of détente and laid the foundation for decades of further international cooperation in space exploration. A more recent example was seen during the Ebola outbreak in West Africa. Various countries, including the United States, China, and Russia, have worked together to develop vaccines, treatments, and containment strategies.

Collaboration allows scientists from different countries to share expertise and resources, accelerating the pace of discovery. This benefits humanity as a whole and should be at the heart of our decisions regarding the renewal of science and technology agreements.

Science and technology have always evolved through the exchange of ideas, collaboration across borders, and the free flow of information. Over 40 percent of the high-quality research papers produced by U.S.-based scientists include cooperation We also collaborate with overseas researchers, and China and the United States have become each other’s main partners in producing scientific research.

Attempting to isolate countries from each other’s scientific research will hinder progress, hinder innovation, and hinder our collective ability to address global challenges. This is especially true in the case of climate change, where national borders are not recognized.

Renewing the U.S.-China Science and Technology Agreement, especially at a time of heightened geopolitical tensions, sends a strong message that despite political differences, the pursuit of scientific knowledge, understanding, and solutions transcends borders. I will send it. The history of scientific progress is full of examples of collaborations that have led to amazing advances. The Human Genome Project, the Large Hadron Collider, and the International Space Station all demonstrate the power of global cooperation and how it pushes the boundaries of common human understanding.

At the end of the next six months, the international community faces a crossroads. The decision to renew science and technology agreements should be based on the recognition of the greater benefits that cooperation brings. While there are legitimate concerns, the potential benefits to humanity far outweigh the risks, as long as appropriate safeguards are in place. Renewing the agreement is not only a tribute to the past decades of fruitful cooperation, but also a commitment to a future where science, innovation and progress continue to flourish. This is a declaration that the pursuit of knowledge and understanding remains a solid bridge between nations, even in times of disagreement.

Nicholas B. Dirks is President and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences. He is the author of the book City of Intellect: The Uses and Abuses of the University.