Continuing negotiations will benefit Chinese and US scientists: Experts
If a science and technology pact between the United States and China is not renewed, the mutual confidence that sustains and underpins bilateral collaboration is bound to suffer, experts say.
"I think the scientific community in both countries want this agreement," Denis Simon, a distinguished fellow at the Institute for China-America Studies in Washington, said on Feb 20 in a panel discussion titled "Renewing the US-China Science and Technology Agreement. Can S&T Cooperation Coexist with Technology Decoupling?" hosted by the institute.
"They want it for its symbolic purposes, and they also want it for that blessing," Simon said.
READ MORE: Analysts call for continued exchanges in science and technology fields
"It bestows to give people confidence in the collaboration. The relationship of collaboration would suffer if we don't have this because it would be seen as an overt act of not having the endorsement of both countries. And that would not bode well for the future of collaboration."
The Science and Technology Cooperation Agreement, signed by US president Jimmy Carter and Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping in 1979, is a framework for governmental collaboration in science and technology between the US and China, under which the two sides work together in areas including agriculture, energy, space and health, as well as educational and scholarly exchanges.
The agreement has been on a five-year renewal cycle since it started and was last extended in 2018. It was given an extra six months in August when officials of both countries engaged in talks to amend and strengthen its provisions.
After this extension the agreement needed to be renewed or extended by Feb 27, but it was not.
"Despite the lack of an update now, I am not pessimistic on this front," said Sourabh Gupta, head of the Trade and Technology Program of the Institute for China-America Studies.
"The relationship is in a better place, and hence there might be no pressing need to formally announce the renewal. The decision on this front has almost certainly been communicated privately to the Chinese side. Besides, if the agreement were to be canceled, that would have been publicly announced."
Gupta said his prognosis was that the agreement has quietly been temporarily renewed again for six months as negotiations to update the agreement continue. "And this might not be the final six-month extension."
In the panel discussion last month Caroline Wagner, a professor of the John Glenn School of Public Affairs at Ohio State University, said her hope is that "we do come to an agreement".
"I know there are different views within the United States. Congress has spoken up actively with concerns. I think we can deal with those concerns. I do believe the relationship is important and is important for both countries at this time. And so the more we can come to an agreement that allows people to continue working together ... the better off."
The US-China relationship in science and technology began because of a political-diplomatic agreement, the Science and Technology Cooperation Agreement, she said.
"Since that agreement was signed, I think we've seen the emergence of huge numbers of people working together.
'Republic of Science'
"There are considerable relationships between US scientists and their Chinese counterparts. And a lot of times scientists are considered to kind of be in the 'Republic of Science' that they are interested in knowledge creation and advancing the frontiers of knowledge and don't pay as much attention to that kind of political wind blowing one way or the other."
However, the agreement is significant because researchers "have to rely on funding", which "has some political ties".
"But ... a good amount of the relationship will continue without too much recourse back to the political."
Simon said the six-month extension since August was for both sides to hold discussions and negotiations. "So they could incorporate a bunch of new factors that needed to be taken into account if there was to be any meaningful future science and technology cooperation."
A big update for the agreement in 2009 led to increasing China-US science and technology activity. The two countries signed new deals under the agreement on joint projects in electric vehicles, renewable energy and the creation of the US-China Clean Energy Research Center, a 10-year research effort between the US Energy Department and China's Ministry of Science and Technology.
In relation to the center the two sides negotiated a supplemental agreement focusing on who would own intellectual property from the collaborative research, including "what was the disposition of it, and who could claim, quote, unquote, ownership of it", Simon said.
"By working that all out beforehand, they saved a lot of concerns and worries that somehow somebody was going to take advantage of the other side.
"We have to basically lay on the table to one another what the principal concerns are. And now a new agreement will be much more reflective of where we are in 2024 than where we were way back in 1979."
ALSO READ: Congressional paranoia creates technical hitch that leaves sci-tech agreement in limbo
Issues for negotiation may include personal safety and security, data, topics on reciprocity, transparency, equal access, intellectual property rights, discussions of good intentions and dispute resolution, Simon said. The big changes in Chinese science and technology capabilities and the involvement of internal domestic consultations are the two key factors that make the negotiations complicated, he said.
Simon spoke highly of the measures China has taken in recent years to improve its research system and increase its investment in research. He also gave suggestions to China on how to overcome or move faster on "bottlenecks", such as the geographic distribution of talent, a shift away from the seniority system and the international engagement of talent to take the system to a higher level.
"There is some opposition to having a new science and technology agreement, especially from certain segments of the US Congress. But I think the fact remains that both countries, both governments, at least seemingly entered into the negotiations in a good faith position, with the hope that some kind of new arrangement could be worked out.
"What no agreement means is that science and technology cooperation does not have the blessing of Beijing and Washington in any formalistic way. I think blessings from the two governments are very important in giving confidence."
