Assessing the Threat to U.S. Funded Research

House Science, Space, and Technology Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight

2025-03-05

Loading video...

Summary

This meeting of the Investigations and Oversight subcommittee focused on assessing and addressing security threats to federally funded research in the United States [ 00:13:49 ]

. Chaired by Rich Dean McCormick, the discussion featured testimony from experts and addressed the critical balance between open scientific collaboration and national security concerns, particularly regarding foreign adversaries like China [ 00:16:19-00:16:41 ] .

Threats from Foreign Adversaries

Witnesses and members expressed significant concern regarding foreign adversaries, particularly China, attempting to acquire U.S. research and technology through various means [ 00:15:38-00:18:27 ]

. China's ambition for global technological leadership and its "whole of nation" strategy, including espionage, intellectual property theft, and talent recruitment programs, were highlighted as major threats . Specific examples of alleged Chinese infiltration into U.S. institutions and research projects, including those tied to military or sensitive technologies, were presented . Concerns were raised about foreign nationals, particularly those linked to PLA institutions, participating in sensitive research areas, with some suggesting stricter vetting or restrictions . It was also noted that China exploits and corrupts U.S. research, sometimes with the "willing participation" of U.S. institutions, and that many threats are "not illicit" but rather exploit systemic vulnerabilities .

Balancing Openness and Security

A central theme was the delicate balance required between maintaining the openness essential for scientific advancement and ensuring robust research security [ 00:16:19-00:16:41 ]

. While acknowledging the benefits of international collaboration and attracting global talent, there was a consensus on the need for guardrails to protect U.S. intellectual property and technological advantage [ 00:16:55-00:17:15 ] . Several speakers emphasized that America's leadership in science was built on a welcoming research environment, but this openness is now being exploited by adversaries . The importance of proper disclosure requirements for foreign funding and collaborations, such as National Security Presidential Memorandum 33 (NSPM 33), was highlighted as a framework to manage these interactions . Dr. Zuber from MIT noted that completely cutting ties could hobble U.S. competitiveness and that collaboration allows for awareness of advancements in countries like China .

Internal Challenges and Policy Responses

The discussion also covered internal challenges within the U.S. research ecosystem and governmental responses. Critiques were made regarding a "systemic disregard for national security considerations" by some academic institutions and a lack of regulatory oversight concerning fundamental research collaborations, particularly with China . Panelists pointed out deficiencies in federal agencies, including a lack of clear and uniform guidance, inadequate interagency data sharing, and insufficient resources for monitoring national security risks post-grant award . A recommendation for a centralized government research security organization was made to improve efficiency, build expertise, and bolster compliance . Concerns were raised about the current administration's actions, such as layoffs and budget cuts at federal science agencies (NSF, NOAA, NIH), which some members argued destabilize the scientific enterprise and create new vulnerabilities that foreign adversaries might exploit [ 01:29:06-01:29:14 ]

. The potential negative impact of NIH capping indirect costs on universities, especially smaller institutions, was also a point of concern, threatening research capacity and U.S. dominance in biomedical research [ 01:29:14-01:29:32 ] . Debates also touched upon the proportion of foreign versus American graduate students in STEM fields and its long-term impact on U.S. talent development .

Tone of the Meeting

The tone of the meeting was largely serious and concerned, reflecting the gravity of national security threats to U.S. research . While there was a strong bipartisan consensus on the importance of protecting U.S. science and technology from foreign adversaries, particularly China, a clear partisan divide emerged regarding the actions of the current administration [ 00:53:33-00:53:45 ]

. Democrats expressed alarm over layoffs, budget cuts, and potential "Doge" influence at federal science agencies, viewing them as self-inflicted wounds that undermine U.S. scientific leadership . Republicans, while acknowledging some potential missteps, emphasized the need to curb waste, fraud, and abuse in government spending to ensure future investments . Overall, the discussions were direct and sometimes critical, but maintained a respectful and professional demeanor among members and witnesses [ 00:18:54 ] . An underlying sense of urgency prevailed regarding the need for effective strategies to secure U.S. research and maintain global competitiveness .