Scientific leadership cannot be gained or preserved by building higher walls: China Daily editorial

The advancement of science depends on a shared faith that the laws of nature transcend national borders. A physicist in California trusts equations from Beijing; a geneticist in Shanghai builds on the results of experiments in Boston.

However, the United States National Science Foundation's proposed restrictions on research collaboration with hundreds of Chinese institutions blacklisted by the US government challenge this fundamental truth.

This proposal is the outcome of a political climate in the US that has steadily expanded the reach of so-called "national security" concerns, extending from military technologies to semiconductors, artificial intelligence, investment and now scientific research itself.

The underlying philosophy of US policymakers is becoming clear: Pursue "decoupling" wherever possible, constrain China where it remains a formidable competitor, keep it narrowly defined where cooperation cannot be avoided, and keep room for selective engagement where US dependence persists.

Yet science has rarely flourished under such rigid boundaries. Scientific knowledge behaves less like territory than a living ecosystem. Remove one species, and the effects ripple throughout the entire biosphere.

Many US scientists appear acutely aware of that reality. Stanford physicist Peter Michelson has warned that the NSF policy will be "very damaging" to US science, while some observers argue that political pressure has steadily displaced considered scientific judgment.

Once scientific collaboration is viewed primarily through the lens of geopolitical rivalry, the guiding principle of "science knows no borders" ceases to function. Laboratories become extensions of national strategy, international partnerships become potential liabilities and discovery itself risks being subordinate to deterrence.

Ironically, the policy has been proposed at a time when science is entering one of its most transformative eras. AI is rapidly reshaping how research is conducted. AI systems can now read millions of scientific papers, generate hypotheses, design proteins, predict molecular structures and accelerate experiments that previously demanded years of painstaking work.

The emerging paradigm — often called AI for Science — is reducing the advantages traditionally enjoyed by countries that accumulated decades of laboratory infrastructure. Increasingly, success depends not only on legacy institutions but also on access to data, computing capacity, engineering talent and large-scale application scenarios.

That transformation creates opportunities for developing countries. China has invested heavily in AI, advanced manufacturing, supercomputing and research infrastructure. While losing access to some US collaborations undoubtedly carries costs, recent experience suggests another possibility.

Years of US export controls, semiconductor sanctions and technology restrictions have not halted China's innovation drive. On the contrary, they have only served to intensify China's efforts toward indigenous research and technological self-reliance. Scientific ecosystems, like biological organisms, often evolve most rapidly under external pressure.

Meanwhile, the US confronts a quieter challenge — one that cannot be resolved through additional restrictions. The US' scientific strengths have long relied on its extraordinary ability to attract global talent. But a research environment increasingly shaped by political suspicion risks weakening that attraction.

The legacy of the so-called "China Initiative", extensive investigations targeting scientists of Chinese heritage, tighter visa scrutiny and growing constraints on international collaboration have collectively produced a chilling effect across US academia. Consequently, some researchers have chosen destinations other than the US.

This makes one development particularly revealing. In December 2024, Beijing and Washington agreed to extend their bilateral Science and Technology Cooperation Agreement, which was first signed in 1979, for another five years, acknowledging that scientific cooperation continues to serve the interests of both nations and contributes to solving global challenges.

Safeguarding national security is an obligation of every government. The danger lies not in protecting genuine security interests but in stretching the concept until virtually every scientific interaction becomes suspect. "Security" pursued with a zero-sum game mentality and ideological prejudice is indistinguishable from isolation.

While China is seeking to seize the window of opportunity presented by global talent mobility to recruit outstanding young overseas talent and research teams, the question for the US is whether competition requires dismantling an important part of the very international networks that helped propel it to the forefront of science.

Scientific leadership cannot be acquired or preserved by building higher walls. More often, it has been sustained and advanced by creating laboratories so open, so dynamic and so intellectually magnetic that the world's brightest minds have chosen to walk in through the front door.

Whether the US still believes in that model may prove more consequential than any blacklist.