Friday, November 25, 2005
Universities Object to Licensing Research
From November 25, 2005 Financial Times
The US Commerce Department called for public comments last March on a proposal to expand current restrictions on the sharing of advanced research and technology with foreign nationals. The result was an outpouring of opposition, particularly from universities, which have already seen the enrolment of foreign students shrink because of new visa requirements adopted after September 11 2001. "I sit writing this letter one block from the site of the first self-sustaining chain reaction, produced in the 1940s by Enrico Fermi and collaborators," wrote Simon Swordy, a professor of physics, astronomy and astrophysics at the University of Chicago, in one of more than 300 comments on the proposal, running to more than 1,100 pages. "Ironically, if this proposed rule change had existed at that time, Fermi would not have been allowed to use the equipment to do this without a licence, since he was from Italy, then an enemy of the US."
Noting that Edward Teller, the father of the hydrogen bomb, was a citizen of Hungary, then a Soviet bloc country, Prof Swordy wrote: "One might reasonably conclude that the US would not have become a leading nuclear power if the intellectual input of foreign-born nationals had been excluded." The proposal has been under discussion in the administration since the Commerce Department's inspector-general warned in a March 2004 report that the current level of controls was insufficient to stop the transfer of sensitive technology to foreign nationals. Under rules in place since 1994, companies or research universities must apply to the government for an export licence if certain advanced technologies are shared with nationals of China, former Soviet bloc countries and embargoed countries such as Iran, Cuba and North Korea. That requirement covers even research that takes place entirely within the US. Currently, however, an individual's status is determined by his most recent citizenship or country of residence, not his place of birth. That, the report warned, was a serious loophole. Counter-intelligence officials fear that China, in particular, is exploiting this loophole, and that the US has become increasingly vulnerable to Chinese espionage. The tens of thousands of Chinese who have taken out citizenship in Canada or Australia - countries that exchange technology freely with the US - are of particular concern.
"The Chinese intelligence efforts take advantage of our open economic system to advance China's technical modernisation, reduce the US military advantage and undermine our economic competitiveness," Michelle Van Cleave, the national counter-intelligence executive in the new Office of the Director of National Intelligence, told a congressional hearing in September. "Our general culture of openness has provided foreign entities easy access to sophisticated technologies," she said. Ed Krauland, a lawyer with Steptoe and Johnson in Washington, who works with industry groups opposed to the proposal, says: "There's a lot of pressure on the Commerce Department to do this. There is a concern about the leaking of technologies to unreliable countries." But the administration's proposal to address that problem has many universities and companies fearing the cure could be far worse than the problem. The Commerce Department report suggested that the "deemed export" rule be altered to control the sharing of technologies based on a foreign national's country of birth, not his current residence or citizenship. In its most extreme form, the proposal would capture US dual citizens and permanent residents as well as those from the closest US allies such as Canada and the UK. It would also broaden definitions so that even laboratory use of equipment such as sensors and high-end oscilloscopes would be controlled.
Intel, the US semiconductor maker, said it could be forced to apply for hundreds or even thousands of "deemed export licences" annually just to continue its internal R&D. Licences can take as long as six months to be issued by Washington. It said the rule would make Intel far less attractive to highly skilled foreign workers. "US national and economic security is ... illserved by regulation that impedes efforts of US companies to stay ahead technologically and otherwise remain globally competitive." Universities, already hurt by new visa restrictions, see the proposal as one more illconsidered Washington initiative that threatens their status as the world's leading research institutions.
The Association of American Universities, representing 60 top US universities, warned the scheme could "seriously undermine the vitality of American research." [Here, they are basically admitting that the "vitality" of American research derives from imported high tech labor.]Mr Mulvenon says that while US counter-intelligence officials are highly attuned to the threat of Chinese espionage, "they are not really very savvy about what the economic impact of this will be". The most likely outcome appears to be some sort of compromise that will further tighten the deemed export rules but would adopt something short of restricting all those born in China or other controlled countries. Dave Wilkinson, recently named under-secretary of commerce in charge of export controls, told reporters this week that "we're appropriately sensitive to the critical role that foreign nationals play in innovation and research in the US." He said implementation of the new rule "would be very cognisant of that fact, [Good luck with that! ] while also addressing very legitimate national security concerns.
The US Commerce Department called for public comments last March on a proposal to expand current restrictions on the sharing of advanced research and technology with foreign nationals. The result was an outpouring of opposition, particularly from universities, which have already seen the enrolment of foreign students shrink because of new visa requirements adopted after September 11 2001. "I sit writing this letter one block from the site of the first self-sustaining chain reaction, produced in the 1940s by Enrico Fermi and collaborators," wrote Simon Swordy, a professor of physics, astronomy and astrophysics at the University of Chicago, in one of more than 300 comments on the proposal, running to more than 1,100 pages. "Ironically, if this proposed rule change had existed at that time, Fermi would not have been allowed to use the equipment to do this without a licence, since he was from Italy, then an enemy of the US."
Noting that Edward Teller, the father of the hydrogen bomb, was a citizen of Hungary, then a Soviet bloc country, Prof Swordy wrote: "One might reasonably conclude that the US would not have become a leading nuclear power if the intellectual input of foreign-born nationals had been excluded." The proposal has been under discussion in the administration since the Commerce Department's inspector-general warned in a March 2004 report that the current level of controls was insufficient to stop the transfer of sensitive technology to foreign nationals. Under rules in place since 1994, companies or research universities must apply to the government for an export licence if certain advanced technologies are shared with nationals of China, former Soviet bloc countries and embargoed countries such as Iran, Cuba and North Korea. That requirement covers even research that takes place entirely within the US. Currently, however, an individual's status is determined by his most recent citizenship or country of residence, not his place of birth. That, the report warned, was a serious loophole. Counter-intelligence officials fear that China, in particular, is exploiting this loophole, and that the US has become increasingly vulnerable to Chinese espionage. The tens of thousands of Chinese who have taken out citizenship in Canada or Australia - countries that exchange technology freely with the US - are of particular concern.
"The Chinese intelligence efforts take advantage of our open economic system to advance China's technical modernisation, reduce the US military advantage and undermine our economic competitiveness," Michelle Van Cleave, the national counter-intelligence executive in the new Office of the Director of National Intelligence, told a congressional hearing in September. "Our general culture of openness has provided foreign entities easy access to sophisticated technologies," she said. Ed Krauland, a lawyer with Steptoe and Johnson in Washington, who works with industry groups opposed to the proposal, says: "There's a lot of pressure on the Commerce Department to do this. There is a concern about the leaking of technologies to unreliable countries." But the administration's proposal to address that problem has many universities and companies fearing the cure could be far worse than the problem. The Commerce Department report suggested that the "deemed export" rule be altered to control the sharing of technologies based on a foreign national's country of birth, not his current residence or citizenship. In its most extreme form, the proposal would capture US dual citizens and permanent residents as well as those from the closest US allies such as Canada and the UK. It would also broaden definitions so that even laboratory use of equipment such as sensors and high-end oscilloscopes would be controlled.
Intel, the US semiconductor maker, said it could be forced to apply for hundreds or even thousands of "deemed export licences" annually just to continue its internal R&D. Licences can take as long as six months to be issued by Washington. It said the rule would make Intel far less attractive to highly skilled foreign workers. "US national and economic security is ... illserved by regulation that impedes efforts of US companies to stay ahead technologically and otherwise remain globally competitive." Universities, already hurt by new visa restrictions, see the proposal as one more illconsidered Washington initiative that threatens their status as the world's leading research institutions.
The Association of American Universities, representing 60 top US universities, warned the scheme could "seriously undermine the vitality of American research." [Here, they are basically admitting that the "vitality" of American research derives from imported high tech labor.]Mr Mulvenon says that while US counter-intelligence officials are highly attuned to the threat of Chinese espionage, "they are not really very savvy about what the economic impact of this will be". The most likely outcome appears to be some sort of compromise that will further tighten the deemed export rules but would adopt something short of restricting all those born in China or other controlled countries. Dave Wilkinson, recently named under-secretary of commerce in charge of export controls, told reporters this week that "we're appropriately sensitive to the critical role that foreign nationals play in innovation and research in the US." He said implementation of the new rule "would be very cognisant of that fact, [Good luck with that! ] while also addressing very legitimate national security concerns.
# posted by reckoner @ 2:41 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
Faculty build their careers on the backs of these grad Chinese students. It's unlikely the state Department or anybody else in the administration will pay attention to their complaints. That would take more long-term thinking then can be expected from the political establishment.
Post a Comment
<< Home
