How the United States can compete in the twenty-first century is one of the most vexing challenges for policy makers and academics today. Many studies have shown that most science and technology advances with the greatest impact happen in open and diverse environments, under excellent research conditions, with sufficient funding. Since the end of World War II, the United States has been the most attractive country for open research and commercialization of new discoveries. This strategy—partly articulated in science administrator Vannevar Bush’s Endless Frontier report of 1945—leverages federal government investments in research and development (R&D) to enhance economic competitiveness and national security. The combination of a dynamic, open research ecosystem and world-leading science infrastructure provided an exciting work environment leading to groundbreaking discoveries, and propelled economic growth through the second half of the twentieth century. Many other countries have pursued similar strategies to develop their own innovation systems, with the most successful ones sharing certain characteristics:
- Robust government funding across a spectrum of basic and applied research, including research infrastructure that evolves in response to emerging needs and technological advances.
- Industries that leverage ideas generated as a consequence of government-funded R&D, with protections for intellectual property that allow them to assume the risk of moving technologies to the point of commercial viability.
- Talented people with the skills to develop and apply new ideas.
- International collaboration in fundamental research that is published in the open literature and subjected to the scrutiny of peers, the test of reproducibility, and further development.
A healthy, robust R&D innovation system will be essential in the twenty-first century, especially given the challenge posed by competitors such as China, who seek to rival and eclipse the technological, economic, and military strength of the United States. If the United States is to maintain scientific world leadership, it will be critical to maintain and grow funding, cultivate domestic talent, and continue to draw the world’s best and the brightest minds.
A time to rebuild
In the immediate postwar period, the United States was not only the largest funder of fundamental research, it was also larger than the rest of the world combined. While the United States is still the largest funder of fundamental research, over the past few decades it has lost ground, measured as a percentage of GDP. The fraction of the American population pursuing STEM degrees has stagnated and emerging economies have surged ahead. The United States can no longer take for granted that important discoveries will be made here and commercialized by American companies. Nor is the United States today a uniquely attractive destination for researchers.
At the same time, the past two decades have seen efforts to take advantage of the open nature of the US R&D innovation system. These must be responded to thoughtfully, in a way that reflects our values and does not undermine the basis of our success. As a result of these efforts to manipulate the open system, one area that is increasingly at risk is our ability to thrive through international collaboration and flow of talent.
The global norms of scientific collaboration include integrity and trust, transparency, and a sharing of results, all of which form the basis for rapid progress while protecting intellectual-property rights. Countries that do not operate according to these norms pose risks to a healthy R&D ecosystem that must be managed carefully. This essay proposes a blueprint for how to enhance our ability to collaborate with countries that do respect these norms and focus our attention on managing the risks associated with those that do not.
The United States, its allies, and like-minded countries can use this framework to protect and promote a vital innovation base, which will help sustain competitiveness and protect the global norms of science.
A framework for all
The increasing challenge from nations that do not play by the same rules—and have governance systems that exploit the openness of the global system for competitive advantage—demands steps to manage risk while advancing our ability to compete. Although the scientific endeavor has its accepted practices, there is no single, comprehensive international framework to govern open-research practices on a global scale. Several international initiatives and organizations—such as the Budapest Open Access Initiative—have promoted rules to facilitate open-research principles and practices across borders, but none of them is legally binding or imposes any consequences.
It is important to agree on the principles of international collaborations as well as mechanisms for enforcement. Higher-level principles such as transparency and reciprocity need to be codified. These also need to be clear and defended: protection of intellectual property, research integrity, protections for human subjects of research, and ethical behavior regarding pre-publication results and methods.
Working with our allies and like-minded countries is essential to protecting our respective innovation bases. Developing an international agreement—including verification mechanisms—will enable collaborations while guarding against the actions of nations that do not adhere to global norms. An accepted framework of protections will enable streamlined risk-management processes for collaborations among member countries, their institutions, and principal investigators—a kind of PreCheck lane for approval. Countries would have an incentive to adopt the international framework, both to gain access to collaborations in the most innovative research environments and to foster faster progress. Fundamental research as laid out in National Security Decision Directive 189, a benchmark document established in 1985, includes full access to information, free collaboration, access to user facilities, and exchange of personnel, and this structure offers further incentives to be a partner. Meanwhile, funding agencies, relying on a common understanding validated through a suitable mechanism, could focus their risk-management reviews on higher-risk proposals that require more careful scrutiny.
The goal is to bring together as many like-minded nations as possible, participating and benefiting from such open-research enterprises.
Compliance and talent recruitment
Measures to ensure compliance (for example, ISO-like standards, peer reviews, inspections, site visits, and training that covers insider threats and research integrity) need to be developed. Participation would be voluntary, but access to the global research community would be a powerful enticement. Nonparticipation would not prohibit all scientific collaboration, but it would trigger a more stringent review process before engaging. Restrictions for nonparticipants could range from limiting access to research infrastructures, to data, and to researchers and their groups, as well as limiting personnel exchange and cooperation in visa matters. As in an airport, the security line is longer and slower without PreCheck and the examination of baggage more thorough.
This compliance system would be proactive, and it would aim to enhance the speed and effectiveness of the existing US system so that our competitive position is not weakened but rather strengthened.
We also recommend an international framework that recognizes research topics not subject to classification, export controls, or proprietary protection, and that protects against inappropriate use of pre-publication results or the diversion of results without consent. As research moves from fundamental to dual use, export controlled, proprietary, or even classified, existing mechanisms for limiting access come into play.
Effective knowledge transfer rarely comes from reading open publications but instead through access to people, facilities, and data—and insights into what doesn’t work, as well as what does. This risk-management framework will accelerate scientific advancements through such open collaboration with like-minded nations, saving time, energy, and money.
In parallel, the United States must wield an aggressive talent-development strategy. It must include both cultivating domestic talent and welcoming international talent. Both are essential. US researchers should be encouraged to work abroad, both to learn and to bring back ideas and the best talent. Such a program for STEM exchanges could be modeled after existing institutions, such as the Fulbright program. Talented researchers from other countries educated in the United States need opportunities for visas, immigration, jobs, and advanced education—all building blocks of a broad effort to build and retain technological competitiveness.
This proposal was informed by the dialog at the meetings of the National Science, Technology, and Security Roundtable of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, of which Thomas Mason and Anna Puglisi are members. It is put forward by the authors as a reflection of those discussions but is not a product of the Roundtable.
