Fundamental Research Shouldn't Face Restrictions, OSTP Nominee Says
Although the U.S. should be concerned about university espionage and research theft, it shouldn’t place restrictions on fundamental research, said Arati Prabhakar, President Joe Biden’s nominee for director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, speaking during a Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation hearing this week. She said the U.S. has some “real issues” involving research security, which “have to be wrestled with” but not in a way that stifles innovation and hurts American competitiveness.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Fundamental research should be “conducted in a way that's open and widely available to the research community,” said Prabhakar, former director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. “That's not true as you move into product development, it's not true as you move deeper into applied work. But that is something to keep in mind for the earliest stages of research.”
The U.S. should be concerned about “espionage” from foreign governments, but “we don't want to inappropriately go after individuals who are earnestly working on their research and are not out of line,” she said. “I think these are some of the conflicts that people are wrestling with.”
Although universities and research institutions have urged the Commerce Department against placing export controls on fundamental research (see 2012020044), officials are grappling with whether and how controls should apply (see 2205030045). The Bureau of Industry and Security recently announced a university outreach plan in an effort to help improve researchers’ export compliance, particularly because the provisions in the Export Administration Regulations related to fundamental research are among the “most complex” (see 2206290019).
University officials have most recently warned BIS against moving forward with proposed controls over brain computer interface technology, which they said would be premature and slow academic research of an emerging technology that could have important humanitarian uses (see 2201100010). BIS in May suggested it was leaning toward at least some restrictions (see 2205050019).
Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., said the U.S. needs better coordination across federal agencies to pinpoint and protect the technologies China is looking to dominate. “Unfortunately, if you come to the United States, there's one list from the Director of National Intelligence, another list from the CIA, another list from the Commerce Department, a fourth from OSTP,” Warner said during the hearing. “I think OSTP, when properly led, may be the only place that can look across all jurisdictions.”
Warner also pointed to the need for better leadership at standards-setting bodies. He said the U.S. has fallen “a little bit asleep at the switch,” which has allowed China to lead in important technology standards and procedures. BIS is considering a rule to clarify how export controls are applied in the context of international standards-setting bodies to better allow U.S. companies to participate in bodies that have members designated on the Entity List (see 2207080010). “OSTP, I think, could play an extraordinarily important role” here, Warner said.