Background

The U.S. government's significant strengthening of regulations regarding international collaboration in scientific research funded by its budget has sent shockwaves through the academic community. In particular, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has, based on guidelines such as the recently released NOT-OD-26-084, begun treating collaborations with foreign research institutions that are not properly reported as 'Foreign Component.' Previously, activities such as reviewing or discussing data with foreign universities or research institutes were generally accepted practices in the academic community. However, now, the inclusion of foreign co-authors in papers without prior approval is becoming a risk factor that could lead to funding recovery or audit procedures.

This has caused significant anxiety in the U.S. genetics and biotechnology industries, as they fear that government funding may be completely suspended or that they may be investigated for intellectual property leakage.

Key Findings

This strict regulation has even affected George Church, a professor at Harvard Medical School (HMS) and considered one of the most influential geneticists in the world. Professor Church removed his name from the author list of a genetics paper he was preparing with foreign co-researchers and moved it to the 'Acknowledgements' section. This is believed to be a measure to prevent administrative disadvantages that could arise from being listed as a co-author without going through the regulatory agency's prior approval process. The unprecedented event of a world-renowned scholar being excluded from the author list of a joint research paper triggered a large-scale exodus among other U.S.-based researchers involved. Fearing that they too could become targets, they began to demand the withdrawal of the paper or their resignation as authors.

The U.S. government's unilateral regulatory standards have been criticized for hindering academic communication and acting as a catalyst for the collapse of the research ecosystem.

Significance and Outlook

The U.S. administration's security guidelines, which are being promoted under the guise of protecting intellectual property and strengthening security, are difficult to avoid criticism that they are significantly undermining academic autonomy, despite the stated goal of protecting national interests. The restriction of scientific exchange in cutting-edge bio-fields such as genomics, where global collaboration is essential, raises concerns that it will accelerate the isolation of the U.S. scientific community. Countries such as Canada, France, and Australia have already begun to actively attract talented researchers by revising their immigration systems to take advantage of the U.S.'s strict regulations.

If the U.S. government fails to find a balance between research security and open scientific exchange, it could lead to long-term stagnation in basic science research and a decline in national competitiveness.