Good.
this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2023
6 points (75.0% liked)
BecomeMe
801 readers
1 users here now
Social Experiment. Become Me. What I see, you see.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
For whom? It's clearly disadvantageous for both countries, their populations, and specifically their scientists.
...I guess that it's good for me given that I pay taxes to another BRIC, and China might look for other partners instead? Local science could get a boost.
It's not disadvantageous for the US if continuing the research means giving China a military advantage.
It's general research, not specifically research with direct military application. Excerpt from the article:
Between 2017 and 2021, U.S.-China collaborations accounted for 27% of U.S.-based scientists’ high-quality research in nanoscience, for example, but only 13% of China-based scientists’. The gap in telecommunications was even wider, with collaborations accounting for 10% of China’s output but more than 33% of the U.S.’s.
So note, it includes things like nanoscience and telecommunications.
And, sure, "theoretically" any sort of research could lead to eventual indirect military applications, but in practice USA is hurting itself more than hurting China with this. Specially if China gets a military advantage because of its local research, that now won't be shared with USA.
It’s general research, not specifically research with direct military application.
A lot of AI research isn't specifically done for military purposes, but there are plenty of ways the military can (and does) use it.
Then what I said in the last paragraph still stands.
“theoretically” any sort of research could lead to eventual indirect military applications
No, it does not. Practically, many kinds of research lead to direct military applications.
And the point still stands. In practice USA is hurting itself more than hurting China with this. Specially if China gets a military advantage because of its local research, that now won’t be shared with USA.
And that's only looking at the governments themselves. When we look at the effect on both populations, it's even worse, as this sort of military paranoia is bound to slow down scientific development that would benefit both. Military often doesn't care about this, as it doesn't give a flying fuck to the interests of the population of its state, only the state itself.
Note that even the article itself raises those concerns:
Quotes from the article
The U.S. depends more heavily on China than China does on the U.S. in some strategic areas, according to an analysis by Clarivate of studies in respected journals shared exclusively with The Wall Street Journal.
Scientists interviewed by the Journal said they don’t tend to view their work in terms of national competition, but several said the possibility that their work could hurt the U.S. has been troubling. Many also expressed concerns that as their access to Chinese research diminished, they would lose insights into what Chinese researchers are doing.
In my opinion a better deal, even taking into account that military would happily kill their own mothers on their sleep if suspecting espionage, would be to renegotiate the deal. Shift the focus from specially risky fields to the ones that the military won't screech so much at.
I'm surprised that it would be China. Wouldn't the EU have much more when it comes to science? Then again, it may be the biggest single country, which there are over a billion people in China who could be researchers.
It's probably worth pointing out the U.S. is scrutinizing its own scientists that collaborate with Chinese researchers as it describes in the article.