Escalations between the United States and China have created ripples not just across political borders but also through the corridors of scientific research. A new study co-authored by Professor Britta Glennon from the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, examines how the chilling tensions between these two global giants are stifling scientific collaboration and innovation. This effect has become particularly discernible following the drastic downturn in relations initiated during Donald Trump's presidency.
The research team investigated resumes of over 800,000 American and ethnically Chinese graduates specializing in STEM fields to understand the impacts of political tensions on their educational and professional trajectories. The analysis revealed three key areas adversely affected by the strained relations: mobility, collaboration, and productivity.
Firstly, the mobility of ethnically Chinese students headed for U.S.-based PhD programs has sharply declined. Between 2016 to 2019, the likelihood of these students applying to and attending U.S. institutions dropped by 16%. What's more, those who did manage to graduate were 4% less likely to remain in the United States, favoring non-anglophone countries such as Canada and Australia instead.
On the collaboration front, there has been notable stagnation. Chinese researchers have significantly reduced their citations of American science, indicating decreased engagement with scientific work produced by U.S. institutions. Meanwhile, American scientists have continued citing Chinese research without backlash, underpinning an unequal dynamic.
Lastly, the productivity of ethnically Chinese researchers within the U.S. appears to have stumbled, with output decreasing by 2% to 6% as anti-Chinese sentiments swelled. The study points out the correlation between heightened xenophobia and diminishing ability for these researchers to innovate and publish.
Britta Glennon emphasizes the concern surrounding these findings, stating, “The tensions are very much mutual. It’s not a one-sided thing.” She highlights how the hostility stemming from U.S. policies and public perception is damaging scientific advancement on both sides.
This animosity is not isolated. Political rhetoric and legislative actions have escalated deteriorated feelings. During Trump's term, the country witnessed the launch of the China Initiative—a stringent campaign targeting Chinese and Chinese-American researchers due to allegations of intellectual property theft.
Sewing seeds of division, Trump's administration painted China as inherently adversarial. This led to the imposition of barriers against many scholars, leaving them stuck between countries. While trying to safeguard national security, these policies simultaneously hinder the kind of open scientific communities necessary for innovation.
The fallout wasn’t just limited to immigration trends. The case of the COVID-19 pandemic added fuel to the fire, exacerbated by the pandemic's association with anti-Asian sentiments. Observational data noted the increase from 55% to 66% of Americans holding unfavorably views of China from 2015 to 2020—an uptick clearly cognizant of the shifting political narrative surrounding the virus.
The latest findings from Glennon's research ring alarm bells. Scholars and experts are now calling for introspection on what these findings mean for the future of scientific innovation which has traditionally thrived on exchange and diversity across borders.
Simultaneously, the broader diplomatic dilemmas are unfurling, as assessments of the recent ASEAN Summit reveal China's diplomatic strategies and its influence within regional frameworks. Here, the approach China has taken distinguishes itself sharply from the one adopted by the U.S.—a pattern of constructive collaboration versus the competitive tactics employed by Washington.
At the ASEAN Summit, held from Wednesday to Friday, observers noted how China leveraged relationships with countries across Southeast Asia, securing agreements and partnerships. This represented not only China's proactive strategy but also unveiled the underlying challenges faced by the U.S. as it attempts to solidify its own alliances.
According to Bloomberg, even as U.S. representatives criticized China’s actions, Beijing emerged from the summit with successful pacts concerning upgrades to existing trade agreements and influential discussions with regional countries on infrastructure projects.
With these contrasting modes of engagement, China stands at a pivotal moment where it proactively affirms its East Asian camaraderie, unlike the U.S. which, instead of fostering growth, seems to inspire concern surrounding its motives.
Professor Shen Yi of Fudan University provides insight, stating, “The U.S. adopts a passive, fear-based destructive strategy, aiming not to nurture development but rather to stymie progress.” His remarks encapsulate the heart of ASEAN nations' apprehensions toward U.S. tactics, which seek to pin alliances under sectarian motives rather than shared aspirations for prosperity.
The dilemma enjoys complexity as American strategies are increasingly met with skepticism, especially when juxtaposed against the steadily attractive offers stemming from China's Belt and Road Initiative—a collective effort for regional infrastructure and connectivity.
ASEAN countries are not complacent about rising tensions, nor are they oblivious to the geopolitical strategizing at play. Amidst the bluster about “China threats,” nations such as the Philippines find themselves pondering the tangible benefits of cooperation with the U.S., which often fails to deliver meaningful assistance during emergencies compared to relationships cultivated with Beijing.
United States trade relations with China face challenges as well, reinforced by tariffs targeting numerous sectors, including electric vehicles and other technologies. A new row between the U.S. and the EU over tariffs has re-started old debates. The European Council president, Charles Michel, urged China to adapt its behaviors to resolve the bilateral tariff war, indicating the importance of constructive dialogue rather than confrontation.
Beijing's retort emphasized the futility of imposing sanctions, urging for discussions rather than punitive measures. This interplay between the U.S. and China has far-reaching effects beyond trade—impacting science, innovation, and the global community.
From the downsizing of scholar exchanges to rising tensions over trade policies, the intertwined destinies of science, diplomacy, and economic prosperity shout for renewed cooperation. Closing the rift is not only about overcoming mutual distrust but realizing the benefit of collaborating to solve pressing global challenges. A way forward hinges on re-establishing the frameworks for scientific dialogues, shared economic interests, and, perhaps most critically, minimizing the hostile rhetoric crippling effective relationships between the two major world powers.
