Protective measures over IP theft discourage investment and deters the flow of scientific exchange between China and US.

The US government—reflecting rare bipartisan consensus—has, of late, undertaken increasingly expansive and intrusive actions to stem the illicit flow of proprietary secrets and intellectual property to China. These actions also aim to reduce the benefits that accrue to China from expertise acquired by Chinese scholars and students during visits or extended stays in the United States. Underlying this consensus is evidence that China is stealing valuable proprietary information from the United States, characterized by FBI Director Christopher Wray as “a whole of society effort to steal from the United States” (1).

Although these government actions are well-intentioned, significant harm has resulted. The benefits to the United States from the influx of talented Chinese students, immigrant scientists, and visiting scholars to our universities have largely been ignored or poorly understood by policymakers. Numerous examples highlight the importance for the United States of welcoming talent from around the world, but most particularly from China. Understanding the implications of these examples underscores just how much we lose by enacting Draconian measures to stop Chinese scientists from coming to the United States.

Many of the concerns focused on intellectual property theft, economic competitiveness, and advancing military capabilities—extensively discussed in numerous articles and policy papers (2, 3)—are well founded. However, as professors of physics pursuing basic research, we argue that government must take into account the serious costs of restrictive US policies—adopted or proposed—that are seen as responses to these threats, particularly as they relate to fundamental scientific research at US universities.

Important Trade-Offs

No discussion of national policy and legislation should be undertaken without a serious cost–benefit analysis. US universities have achieved their world-leading stature as a direct consequence of their openness to outstanding students and scholars from around the world. In turn, our universities have been key to our national scientific and economic preeminence. The core missions of US universities are the production of new knowledge and the training of students, including new scientists—not the generation of proprietary intellectual property or patents (4).

The United States is a country of immigrants. The genius of our system is that from the earliest days, we have been able to attract dedicated, talented, ambitious people from around the world. Whether from the East or the West, their contributions have been fundamental to our economic and societal development.

The genius of our system is that from the earliest days, we have been able to attract dedicated, talented, ambitious people from around the world.

Immigrants from China have high levels of participation in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields (5). When the US government denies a visa to a brilliant young Chinese scientist, it’s very unlikely that they are actually preventing a spy from entering the country. Much more likely: losing major contributions from a talented young person. When federal agents have questioned—or worse, prosecuted—innocent Chinese or Chinese-American scientists, the intent has often been to intimidate a much larger community of scientists, particularly Chinese-American scientists. Chinese students and scholars are hence discouraged from coming to the United States, and those who are here are discouraged from remaining. American scientists—especially Chinese-American scientists—or have become wary of collaborations with Chinese counterparts, even when such collaborations promise to be helpful or even essential to the research being undertaken. And they are increasingly afraid to apply for US government research funding, thus discouraging potentially important work. For the most part, the current policies are counterproductive; they fail to adequately weigh the benefits of active exchange of ideas and people with China.

One of the clearest examples of downsides came in the wake of World War II. Aerospace engineer and physicist Qian Xuesen (6) received his education in China before the war and hence before the conclusion of the Communist Revolution. Qian’s graduate study was at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and the California Institute of Technology. He went on to make significant contributions to US missile and rocketry development and worked on the Manhattan Project during World War II. Qian cofounded the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, and was widely recognized for brilliant and original contributions to many fields of science, both extremely practical and highly fundamental. However, during the McCarthy period in the early 1950s, he came under suspicion for having Communist sympathies and consequently lost his clearance; ultimately, he was placed under house arrest.

Qian apparently stated his reluctance to contribute to any US endeavor intended to be deployed in an armed conflict between China and the United States. This is not equivalent to treason. Of course, we cannot know what was in his heart, but no evidence has ever been produced that he engaged in espionage or passed any classified information to China. Indeed, many other American scientists at the time expressed concerns about using science to enable war. Eventually, after spending 5 years under house arrest, Qian was allowed to return to China. Once in China, Qian became a leading contributor to their missile and rocket development programs and to their nuclear program. He was known as the “Father of Chinese Rocketry” and lavishly honored by the Chinese government. Then-Under Secretary of the Navy Dan Kimball has been quoted (7) as saying, “It was the stupidest thing this country ever did. He was no more a Communist than I was, and we forced him to go.” Whatever one might imagine were the security benefits of expelling Qian, it’s very hard to believe that they were in any way commensurate with the losses.