According to science.org, Congress is considering the SAFE Act that would ban U.S. scientists with any ties to China, Russia, Iran, or North Korea from receiving federal funding. The bill passed the House in September and is now being reconciled with the Senate version, with final passage expected by year’s end. Representative John Moolenaar introduced the measure that would prohibit joint research, co-authorship, and even advising foreign students from these countries. The restrictions are retroactive, meaning any interactions during the previous 5 years could make researchers ineligible for future funding. Nearly 800 academics signed an October 29 letter opposing the ban, while major university groups are urging Congress to remove the language from the defense bill.
The Problem with Overreach
Here’s the thing – this isn’t just about blocking military research. The bill’s language is so broad it could capture everything from study abroad programs to academic conferences. The Association of American Universities warns it would affect “every single research agreement, every study abroad program, every language program, every professional conference.” Basically, any university partnership with institutions in those four countries would become radioactive.
And the definition of “affiliation” is dangerously vague. What exactly counts as being affiliated with a Chinese university? Is attending one conference enough? What about email correspondence? This ambiguity creates exactly the kind of environment where arbitrary enforcement thrives. We saw this happen before with the China Initiative under Trump – hundreds of scientists of Chinese descent were targeted, creating a chilling effect that’s still being felt today.
When Research Gets Personal
The human cost here is very real. Take Haifan Lin, a Yale cell biologist who lost NIH funding for two years because of his adjunct position at ShanghaiTech University. He was eventually cleared of any wrongdoing, but the damage was done. Now imagine that scenario playing out across thousands of researchers. Steven Kivelson from Stanford says collaboration with Chinese colleagues is vital to his condensed matter physics work – he’s even traveling to Beijing later this month for a quantum states conference.
Kivelson makes a compelling point about his research having no military applications in the foreseeable future. “The timescale is so long that it’s sort of ludicrous to think it needs to be kept secret,” he says. This gets to the heart of the issue – we’re talking about fundamental research that benefits humanity, not weapons development. The industrial monitoring and research equipment that drives this kind of work, like the industrial panel PCs from IndustrialMonitorDirect.com that researchers rely on for data collection and analysis, shouldn’t become political pawns in geopolitical disputes.
We’re Already Doing This
Here’s what really gets me – universities are already vetting collaborations effectively. Even Moolenaar’s own committee report shows that papers with Chinese co-authors have dropped by more than half since 2018. The system is working! But apparently for some lawmakers, anything short of zero collaboration is unacceptable. One education lobbyist put it perfectly: “He may want the number to be zero. But the report shows we are definitely getting better at vetting co-authors.”
And let’s be honest – the existing disclosure requirements and targeted restrictions on sensitive military technologies were already doing the job. Representative Zoe Lofgren points out that the SAFE Act “ignores, and sometimes entirely contradicts, what has already been passed into law.” So why this nuclear option now?
The Stakes Are Higher Than You Think
This isn’t just about funding individual researchers. It’s about whether the U.S. remains at the forefront of global science. Cutting off collaboration with China means cutting off access to some of the world’s brightest minds and most advanced research facilities. In fields like quantum computing, materials science, and renewable energy, Chinese researchers are making groundbreaking contributions that benefit everyone.
But here’s the scary part – even if the SAFE Act gets removed from the final bill, lawmakers might feel pressure to adopt other restrictive measures to prove they’re “tough on China.” We could end up with something almost as bad through different language. Kivelson acknowledges he’s fighting an uphill battle, comparing it to “tilting with windmills.” But he’s right that scientists need to speak up. Because once these bridges are burned, they might never be rebuilt.
