The U.S. government has made international science harder right when it needs it the most - The Washington Post

John P. Moore is a professor of microbiology and immunology at Cornell University’s Weill Cornell Medicine.

A warning to scientists who receive funding from the National Institutes of Health: The U.S. government has thrown up hurdles that make collaborating with researchers from other countries a bureaucratic hassle. And if they don’t follow the rules carefully, they could end up in trouble.

This is the result of policy changes made during the Trump administration that are seriously complicating academic research. The implications are not yet widely understood; it’s time they were. We should seek ways to make restrictive policies less problematic for U.S. scientists, particularly when the world should be working together to end the covid-19 pandemic — and prevent the next one.

The problem stems from a legitimate issue. Trump’s National Security Council became concerned about how U.S. scientists interacted with foreign counterparts. High-profile FBI probes led to criminal cases involving alleged financial misconduct. There were reports of industrial espionage by China and other adversarial nations.

As a result, the government tightened oversight for NIH grantees who work with foreign colleagues. But the rules are so far-reaching that scientific collaborations with literally every nation — including Canada, Australia, Germany, South Africa and Britain — are being tracked and recorded. U.S. scientists are just now realizing they may be in legal jeopardy if strict rules are not followed.

As a recipient of NIH grants myself, I have gained some understanding of the process. NIH grantees must request permission to begin work on any project involving a scientist located abroad, even if the research dollars are spent only in the United States (which is usually the case). Any information exchange can be an “interaction.” A brief discussion with a foreign colleague about the latest developments in the covid-19 pandemic could qualify.

To receive permission, grantees must provide details of the foreign collaboration in a grant application or annual progress report, or send a letter to NIH. I submitted two letters this year, outlining pandemic-related collaborations with scientists in Germany and France, and the various approvals my foreign colleagues had obtained from their national research agencies to spend their own funds. The NIH funneled my requests to the State Department for transmittal to science officers in the Bonn and Paris embassies. I do not know what scrutiny was applied to my foreign counterparts.

Months later, I received the permissions, but another round of correspondence with NIH was necessary before I could receive the next tranche of annual grant funds. Slowing down international collaborations even further are regulations involving the shipment of research reagents to other countries — even if those countries are friendly. During a global pandemic, time matters more than ever.

Compliance is enforced. The government tracks the presence of NIH grant numbers on publications that involve foreign scientists. Lawyers warn us that ignoring the regulations could be serious for individuals and their institutions. With potential involvement from the Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security, it’s hard to think otherwise. One colleague, unaware of the new regulation, had to remove an NIH grant number from a paper at the last minute to avoid possible penalties for an honest error. Thousands of others may have already unknowingly breached the rules. One can only hope the Biden administration responds with tolerance and not prosecutions.

Some U.S. scientists may choose to no longer use NIH grant funds for at least some foreign collaborations, and their counterparts abroad might also have reservations about the new regulations. For the work to continue, researchers would instead have to rely on resources available from private foundations or their universities, which may be difficult to acquire.

In 1985, President Ronald Reagan declared: “The strength of American science requires a research environment conducive to creativity, an environment in which the free exchange of ideas is a vital component.” We now risk overlooking this timeless message. The United States should seek ways to protect its intellectual property without stifling creative, constructive collaborations. And while Chinese espionage may indeed be a national security risk, great care must be taken not to further foster anti-Asian sentiment and push a generation of young Asian Americans away from scientific careers.

There must be room for compromise. Perhaps the U.S. government can pre-clear bona fide universities in “friendly nations” for NIH-funded collaborations. Or perhaps the government could deem some areas of science as insufficiently sensitive to monitor. Such tweaks would eliminate much of the paperwork now flowing between scientists and federal employees.

Does the United States really want the rest of the world to think that it is now watching their scientists? How would our government react if Canada or France decided to track their researchers’ collaborations with Americans? Not too well, I would guess. We should take a cue from our many allies that continue to foster international collaborations — and take down hurdles that are slowing scientific progress.

Read more:

Adblock test (Why?)

"Opinion" - Google News
June 15, 2021 at 07:00PM
https://ift.tt/3vt7AGi

The U.S. government has made international science harder right when it needs it the most - The Washington Post
"Opinion" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2FkSo6m
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update