It’s not engagement vs security. The challenge is smart openness: protecting what matters without hurting a great US scientific strength
expectedto be near the top of the agenda. Both administrations are preparing for their first formal dialogue on AI.
Washington has framed much of that conversation around the need for tighter controls on sensitive technologies. That framing is the problem.
export controls, research restrictions and visa limits). The real choice is between indiscriminate restriction and disciplined risk management.
undisclosed affiliations, conflicts of commitment and improper technology transfer. Federal research security policy already requires extensive disclosure of appointments, foreign support, affiliations and potential conflicts of interest and commitment. Advanced computing, semiconductors, quantum science, biotechnology and AI all raise legitimate national security questions, largely because so much of the work is dual-use[end optional trim.
But acknowledging those risks does not require treating every interaction with China as equally dangerous. The challenge is to protect what truly matters without damaging the openness that has long been one of America’s greatest scientific strengths.
Smart openness starts from a simple premise: technologies are not equally sensitive and not every Chinese institution carries the same risk. Military-relevant quantum sensing is not cooperation in basic mathematics or astrophysics. A researcher who conceals ties to a defence laboratory has little in common with a Chinese graduate student studying theoretical chemistry.