News India Times

www.newsindiatimes.com – that’s all you need to know Opinion News India Times (June 7, 2025 - June 13, 2025) June 13, 2025 4 Disclaimer:The views and opinions expressed on this page are those of the authors and Parikh Worldwide Media does not officially endorse, and is not responsible or liable for them. America’s CampusWars And Its China Connection T he US announced last week it is revoking the visas of hundreds of Chinese nationals studying and researching in high-value science and engineer- ing fields. This sweeping decision by the Trump administration represents a major escalation in tensions with Beijing and is aimed at curbing what it de- scribes as the Chinese Communist Party’s efforts to steal US intellectual property through academic institutions. The decision has triggered protests from American universities and reignited debates about immigration, openness, and national security. But it also marks a turn- ing point. For the first time in decades, the US is limiting academic access on national security grounds—a move that, while controversial, is not without justification. As someone who has taught at Duke, Stanford, Har- vard, and Carnegie Mellon, I have long believed in the power of openness. The US has led in innovation precise- ly because it has welcomed the world’s brightest minds. Over the last four decades, its top universities have drawn extraordinary talent from countries like China and India. These students have earned advanced degrees, contrib- uted to major breakthroughs, launched start-ups, and helped build the US tech economy. Many of my students from China and India were among the most diligent, creative, and capable I have taught. At Carnegie Mellon’s Silicon Valley campus, where I taught a course on exponential innovation — covering Artificial Intelligence (AI), robotics, cybersecurity, and synthetic biology —more than half of the class was Chi- nese. Most of them were outstanding and will no doubt go on to do great things. But not all Chinese students come to the US solely to learn. In 2005, I was teaching a course and conducting research at Duke University comparing engineering edu- cation in the US, China, and India. One Chinese student stood out — not for academic excellence, but for disinter- est. When I asked him why he had enrolled, he told me plainly: His father was in the Chinese military, and he had been sent — on a government scholarship — to study, make contacts, and report back. Years later, a European institute contacted me to verify a recommendation letter I had supposedly written for him. I had written no such letter. It had been forged — presumably to help him gain access to sensitive research. In other cases, I met Chinese students who openly said they were on Chinese military-sponsored programmes. They worked hard to align themselves with professors conducting cutting-edge research in photonics, quan- tum devices, and advanced materials—fields with clear military applications. To be clear, this is not the norm. I estimate that only a small, single-digit percentage of Chinese students are sent abroad with such strategic intentions. But even a small number, when operating in critical research envi- ronments, can have an outsized impact. What troubles me more is how US universities often look the other way. At every institution where I taught, professors routinely received invitations from Chinese universities to collaborate or attend conferences — with business-class airfare, honorariums, and perks for spouses. Visiting researchers from Chinese State-linked institutions were welcomed with little scrutiny. Everyone seemed to treat it as business as usual. I myself received dozens of such invitations. I declined nearly all of them, except for a research trip to Hong Kong organized by the NewYork Academy of Sciences which paid $5,000. I also hosted Chinese scholars at Stanford and CMU, receiving modest stipends. At the time, my col- leagues assured me this was routine and did not require disclosure. But in hindsight, I see how easily these en- gagements can blur into influence operations, especially in the absence of transparency. Meanwhile, America’s own immigration system con- tinues to undermine its competitiveness. Because it is so difficult for foreign students to stay after graduation, nearly all of my Chinese students returned home. They took with them the knowledge, networks, and experi- ence they gained in the US — and many will now use that to advance China’s strategic goals. If the class had been made up of 80% American citizens and 20% foreign students committed to contributing to the US, that would have felt balanced. But what I witnessed was lopsided. I increasingly worried that I might be helping train technologists who would later compete with democratic countries. That was one of the reasons I chose to step away from teaching. This doesn’t warrant blanket bans. The US must re- main open to the world’s talent, but it also must be smart. Visa and research screening should include affiliations, risk, and research domains. If a student or researcher has ties to the Chinese military or a State-backed research initiative, they should not be allowed into the country or granted access to sensitive technologies or federally funded labs. Universities must also be held accountable. They should be required to fully disclose all foreign funding sources. Faculty should not be permitted to accept undis- closed compensation or enter into informal partnerships with institutions tied to adversarial governments. Sensi- tive research, particularly in dual-use technologies, must be governed by stronger security protocols — on par with those used by government contractors and national laboratories. China is not just another academic peer. It is a surveil- lance State, a strategic rival, and an authoritarian regime with a declared ambition to dominate critical technologies. It does not separate research from national interest, unlike democracies such as the US and India, which must now work together to protect the integrity of their institutions.. Vivek Wadhwa is CEO, Vionix Biosciences. The views expressed are personal. -(Usedwith author’s permission) ByVivekWadhwa Universities And The Government: Which Needs The Other More? W e frequently hear of late that universities are “dependent on federal money,” as though they were passive beneficiaries of govern- ment largesse. The reality is closer to the op- posite: The federal government depends on universities to conduct the research that keeps our nation healthy, safe and economically competitive. If you’ve ever followed turn-by-turn directions using GPS, you’ve benefited from technology the Pentagon de- veloped in partnership with university scientists. And the revolutionary gene-editing tool CRISPR, now poised to cure genetic diseases, was born from university research underwritten by grants from the National Institutes of Health. From public health to high-tech innovation to na- tional security, U.S. universities have quietly become the workhorses of national progress and prosperity. But now, further achievement is at risk as the Trump administra- tion wields federal funding as a cudgel to bring universi- ties into line on unrelated matters. New NIH funding has been scaled back by more than $2 billion since January, not counting the billions of dollars in grant money that has been frozen at several universities, including Northwestern, where I work. President Donald Trump’s budget proposes slashing next year’s NIH budget by 40 percent, on top of a 56 percent cut to the National Science Foundation. To put this in context, an analysis by economists at American Uni- versity shows that even a 25 percent decrease in federal research funding would cause a reduction in U.S. gross domestic product similar to the decline experienced dur- ing the Great Recession. If this continues, society as a whole will be the loser. The government-university alliance has been a corner- stone of U.S. innovation sinceWorldWar II, when federal investments in academic science helped spawn advances such as radar, antibiotics and the computer. Ever since, Washington’s support for university-based research has fueled progress that private industry cannot or will not fund. Think of the long-shot ideas - decoding the human genome or CAR-T therapy for cancer - that require pa- tience and curiosity-driven inquiry. Federal grants make them possible. Some corporate laboratories, such as Bell Labs, once pursued such fundamental research, but they no longer do because shareholders got tired of waiting for discoveries to mature into profits. In other words, if universities don’t explore these frontiers, no one else will - and we’ll all be worse off for it. Federal research funding isn’t a handout to higher education; it’s a strategic investment. The government doesn’t fund university labs to help the schools’ bottom lines - it funds the best ideas and people to meet national priorities. Grants are awarded through highly competitive processes to the most qualified scientists, whether they’re investigating cancer cures or new energy materials. The resulting discoveries spill over to benefit all of society - new medicines, new companies, new military capabili- ties. This has been called one of the most productive part- nerships in American history, and for good reason. The economic payoffs have been enormous: Google was born from a Stanford University graduate research project funded in part by the National Science Foundation, and entire biotech and pharmaceutical industries trace their roots to university breakthroughs funded by the NIH. The national security benefits have been equally important. The Defense Department has long relied on university researchers for such innovations as advanced materials, night-vision goggles and quantum computing. And the public health impacts cannot be overstated. NIH-supported academic research is unlocking treat- ments for diseases such as ALS, Alzheimer’s and cancer. In short, universities have become the federal govern- ment’s indispensable problem-solvers in science and technology. And even private-sector research and devel- opment is dependent on university labs, which train their workforces and make the basic science discoveries that private labs depend upon to translate and monetize. Paradoxically, though universities deliver so much value through federal research, they are not increas- ingly dependent on Uncle Sam’s dollars. In fact, data shows that, in recent years, the federal share of academic research funding has declined instead of grown. In 2012, federal money paid for about 61 percent of all research at U.S. universities; today it covers only about 55 percent. Far from being a growing subsidy, federal support has lagged even as research needs have expanded and as competitors such as China have increased their invest- ments in science. By contrast, it’s the federal government that leans ever more on academia. A steadily growing share of U.S. re- search and development is performed at universities, and our nation’s scientific research enterprise, an important driver of our economic prosperity, is now heavily pow- By Carole LaBonne PHOTO:CourtesyVivekWadhwa - Continued On Page 5