Pentagon's scrutiny of normal research collaborations reeks of McCarthyism: China Daily editorial

Academic and research exchanges have been a vibrant and resilient bond in relations between China and the United States. For decades, universities and research institutions from both countries have collaborated closely in science and technology, yielding breakthroughs that benefited not only the two nations but the entire world.

Despite this, the US government has intensified its crackdown on Chinese scientists and researchers in recent years, baselessly alleging that they "threaten national security" by accessing sensitive research and advanced technology.

The so-called "China Initiative", launched by the US Department of Justice in 2018, sought to identify "Chinese spies" in US universities, leading to racial profiling. Though the program was terminated four years later because it was found to be harming the US' technological competitiveness, the US House Select Committee on China last year directed six universities to provide data on Chinese students, claiming that the admission of a large number of Chinese students into science, technology, engineering and mathematics programs might be "at the expense of qualified Americans".

Such discriminatory policies have prompted many US universities to "wind down" partnerships with Chinese universities and restrict the admission of students from China.

The US crackdown on academic exchanges with China is a critical front in its broader strategy to contain China. By severing research ties, Washington aims to stifle China's progress in high-tech fields such as artificial intelligence, semiconductors and biotechnology, where collaborative research has long driven innovation. This strategy is complemented by restricting supply chains and trade, creating an isolated ecosystem intended to limit Chinese access to Western knowledge and markets.

In the latest move, the Pentagon has asked 30 US universities to audit their foreign research partnerships, specifically targeting collaborations with Chinese institutions and entities linked to Confucius Institutes. These universities risk losing future federal research funding if they fail to comply.

In the past few years, the US government has already labeled Confucius Institutes in the country as "foreign missions", and implemented administrative and legislative measures that have effectively forced nearly all of them to close down. This latest round of scrutiny, once again justified as safeguarding "national security", raises concerns about its true purpose.

Instead of enhancing research security or promoting institutional accountability, this initiative is simply intellectual McCarthyism. By casting a wide net of suspicion over academic exchange programs, the Pentagon directive risks stifling the open exchange of ideas and undermining academic freedom. Washington should reflect on whether such measures truly serve the US' national interests, or merely fuel the atmosphere of fear and mistrust surrounding China.

The Pentagon claims it aims to protect research investments from "foreign exploitation", yet it has given the schools only two weeks to submit their findings and mitigation plans. The tight deadline makes the proposed scrutiny either perfunctory or impossible, raising doubts about the feasibility of meaningful results. As a consequence, the schools may feel compelled to end partnerships, disrupting ongoing projects and adversely affecting faculty and students involved in related research.

Moreover, the lack of transparency in selecting universities raises questions about the criteria and processes used to identify "entities of concern". Without clear guidelines, institutions may struggle to navigate this uncertain situation, potentially hindering their ability to engage in meaningful international collaborations and ultimately impacting their competitiveness in global research.

The Pentagon's coercive tactics of pressuring universities into self-audits and scaling back collaboration risk pushing the academic sector into geopolitical rivalry, ultimately harming academic freedom and exchanges in the US.

Scientific research transcends borders, and innovation thrives on cross-border exchanges and sharing of resources. Instead of imposing restrictive measures, the US government should respect the spirit of science, allowing academic institutions to address shared technological challenges and meet development needs to serve the interests of people in both countries and beyond.