特朗普科技政策闭关锁国? 美国国家科学委员会公开声明反弹
海归学者发起的公益学术平台
分享信息，整合资源
交流学术，偶尔风月
2018年10月24日，美国国家科学委员会（NSB）就国家安全与科学问题发表公开声明，对特朗普政府近来阻挠打击国际科技交流与合作的举措表示反对。该委员会1950年设立，属于联邦政府机构，其宗旨是制定美国国家科学基金委政策，并就科技和教育政策向总统和国会提供咨询，确保美国科技和教育的政策。
中美科技交流是大家普遍关心问题，并首当其冲，深受近期各种负面事态影响。知社为您编译声明如下，并附英文全文，供大家参考。可以看出，这个声明与前段美国国家卫生研究院（NIH）院长的言论，有很大的出入。对NSB和NIH的红白脸双簧您有何看法，不妨留言与大家分享。
”国家科学委员会
就国家安全和科学问题的声明
基础研究的基石，是自由开放的思想和信息交流。而其科学价值，也映射着美国人民追求自由的理想。这两者的结合，帮助美国引领世界技术革新、推动经济发展、进而保护自由生活。正如政府在2017年《国家安全战略》所指出，“失去创新和技术优势，将对美国繁荣富强产生极其深远的负面影响。”
虽然在某些领域，自由开放对国家安全和竞争力有不利影响，但国家科学委员会坚决重新里根总统颁布的《国家安全决策189号令》的原则：“我们在科学和技术领域的领导地位是国家经济和安全的根本要素。而美国科技的强盛需要一个鼓励创新的环境，自由交流是其关键要素。
这一政策也要求“基础研究的成果在最大可能范围内，（可）不受限制（分享）”，并规范“在国家安全要求管控时，联邦政府资助的大学和实验室在科学、技术和工程领域基础研究所产出的成果，管控机制是加密(classification)。”这一原则在2010年被国防部Ashton Carter次长再次确认，并在更早的2001年被总统国家安全事务助理Condoleezza Rice重申：“确保美国技术领先地位的关键是鼓励开放与合作研究。自由的思想交流与科技创新、繁荣以及美国国家安全的联系不容置疑！”
国家科学委员会强烈支持并进一步强调美国对自由探索、创新及市场的承诺，这样的原则帮助美国增长、吸引、并保持着世界一流的科研力量。
鉴于确保美国技术领先地位的重要性，国家科学委员会强烈要求任何在《国家安全决策189号令》框架外制定限制基础研究新政策前咨询各利益相关方，并充分考虑得失。
作为科学共同体的伙伴，美国的高等院校必须帮助推动科学开放性和完整性，并保护可能影响国家安全和经济竞争力的知识产权。国家科学委员会鼓励受国家科学基金会资助从事基础研究的各个院校采纳公开透明原则并坚守利益冲突和职责冲突的政策。委员会也鼓励各个院校普及教育科研人员如何保护研究的完整性。
Statement of the National Science Board on Security and Science
Fundamental research is built on open exchanges of ideas and information. These scientific values mirror American ideals of freedom, a combination that has helped our country lead the world in technology, driven our economy and that, in turn, protects our freedom. As the Administration warned in its 2017 National Security Strategy, “Losing our innovation and technological edge would have far-reaching negative implications for American prosperity and power.”
While there are domains where openness can be detrimental to national competitiveness or security, the National Science Board (NSB) strongly reaffirms the principle behind President Reagan’s National Security Decision Directive 189 (NSDD-189): “our leadership position in science and technology is an essential element in our economic and physical security. The strength of American science requires a research environment conducive to creativity, an environment in which the free exchange of ideas is a vital component.”
This policy also dictates that “to the maximum extent possible, the products of fundamental research remain unrestricted,” and specifies that “where the national security requires control, the mechanism for control of information generated during federally funded fundamental research in science, technology and engineering at colleges, universities and laboratories is classification.” This principle was reaffirmed by Undersecretary of Defense Ashton Carter in 2010, and earlier by Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs Condoleezza Rice, who noted in 2001: “The key to maintaining U.S. technological preeminence is to encourage open and collaborative basic research. The linkage between the free exchange of ideas and scientific innovation, prosperity, and U.S. national security is undeniable.”
The National Science Board strongly agrees, and further emphasizes that the United States’ commitment to freedom of inquiry, innovation, and the marketplace of ideas has helped the U.S. grow, attract, and retain our world-class science and engineering workforce.
In light of the importance of American technological preeminence for our economy and security, the NSB urges that the development of any new policies that restrict fundamental research beyond NSDD-189 engage all relevant stakeholders and consider both risks and benefits.
As partners in the scientific enterprise, U.S. universities and colleges must help promote scientific openness and integrity and safeguard information that impacts national security and economic competitiveness. The NSB recommends that all institutions conducting fundamental research supported by the National Science Foundation embrace transparency and rigorously adhere to conflict of interest and conflict of commitment policies. The Board also encourages those institutions to educate their communities about how to protect the integrity of research.
扩展阅读
本文系网易新闻·网易号“各有态度”特色内容
媒体转载联系授权请看下方