This could be understandable if some rationale was provided, but it's worse than that:
> Neither agency has publicly issued new formal guidance describing these requirements. Instead, officials are informing grantees individually, leaving researchers confused and concerned.
They've not even made it official. They're just randomly flagging.
There is a rationale: it is an ideology that Trump uses here. It is very similar to the 1930s, just adapted to a more "modern" era, with entertainment (if people manage to not die due to boredom, watching epic movies such as Melania ...). Did people already forget a certain billionaire raising his right arm? They are trolling on top of pillaging the taxpayers here.
It's interesting after reading briefly about this, but I think previously NIH funding was more permissive to directly awarding funds to foreign nationals/groups. But interestingly enough, China doesn't do the same for say foreign researchers trying to collaborate with chinese researchers. (Unless you already live there etc etc). So it was indeed asymmetrical.
The article says that these restrictions on research with a "foreign component" have been in place since at least 2003 but have only recently been clarified to include the researchers themselves.
It's actually more surprising to me that NIH and NASA research co-authored by non-Americans was supposedly not requiring scrutiny under the "foreign component" rules before this.
> It's actually more surprising to me that NIH and NASA research co-authored by non-Americans was supposedly not requiring scrutiny under the "foreign component" rules before this.
Let us not be fooled by the obvious pretense, please.
Can anyone honestly say that the current administration is a paragon of careful scrutiny and rule-following? If you are wont to agree, then momentarily reflect if this question was ever posed in an earlier presidential administration in your lifetime.
International collaboration is the norm in science.
Telling researchers that they have to get permission before they can co-author a paper with a foreign colleague is insane, unless we're talking about a very small set of highly sensitive areas like nuclear engineering.
I knew that most research had ties to government funding but it was only recently that I realized the scale of it. Along with the pullback of any government funding remotely resembling DEI, policies like the one described in the article wouldn't decimate research from my previous understanding. In terms of influence, it's now clear to me that the government controls anywhere between 75 to 99% of academic research. I feel foolish for believing all the details in subsequent papers from the research about why their work is necessary or important. It turns out, all of it is because the government requested it and really nothing else.
Can we take a step back and review the article and the underlying information? I am very much against any arbitrary and often unnecessary government interference. I also publish.
Lot's of weasel words.
This is not unprecedented. Restrictions tied to foreign collaboration are not new, NIH has done this as far back as 2018 if I recall. Yes, foreign research restrictions have escalated recently.
We have no official statement for either agencies. Collaborating on sensitive or classified material with identified FOCI coauthors is and always have been highly scrutinized activity. Title 32 CFR 117.11 is old. It goes back as far as DoD 5220.22-M in the '90s.
NISPM-33 Office of Science and Technology Policy efforts have been around since 2018 too or so (i am sooo old :/).
This appears to be a continuation of escalation of research-security, rather than a wholly unprecedented break from prior policy.
"In response to Inside Higher Ed’s questions about Science’s reporting, an NIH spokesperson emailed a statement Thursday that referenced just one set of grant programs: the Institutional Development Award (IDeA). NIH’s website says the awards go to Puerto Rico and 23 states that “historically have had low levels of NIH funding."
"The recent update to IDeA grantees was a clarification of longstanding policy, not a new directive,” the spokesperson said. “IDeA program funding has always been restricted to U.S.-based institutions and entities, with foreign institutions, non-domestic components of U.S. organizations, and all foreign components explicitly prohibited. This reflects Congress’s intent that IDeA funds be used exclusively for research capacity building within the United States—and specifically within eligible IDeA states and territories. NIH’s statement didn’t mention any other grant programs or answer multiple written questions.” [1]
The country elects an autocrat who fires experts and puts stooges in positions of power. Surprise-surprise that leads to idiotic policies, some of them mimicking the best hits of Soviet Union.
I can't help but think that there is a deliberate effort to remove the US from it's position in the global geopolitical arena. And not merely as a by-product of policy decisions but specifically to damage the American reputation.
What's really insidious is that they're not allowing these papers to be included in progress reports.
> After removing the 16 papers, “I said, well, Jesus, we’re not reporting anything. It’s very frustrating,” Drummond says. “I don’t know how they’re going to evaluate our productivity.”
This creates bad data where teams look less productive than they actually are. Next year, they'll use that as an excuse to cut funding.
> “The easy route for us would be just to cut off foreign involvement entirely and not include foreign authors. And that to us is a concession to some form of xenophobia.”
I mean, what else so you expect if you elect a majority of actual fascists? A fascist discriminates on every front imaginable. Things haven't become much worse simply because of the filibuster.
This is a reasonable take with possibilities of introducing ways to expedite the verification of researchers and contributors. Foreign or not.
The problem with scientific papers is that there is an exploitive macro economy of how many one can publish without sold evidence or research attached to the paper itself.
Most right-wing politicians behind this kind of thing have no idea how much foreign students are essential for american scientific and technological leadership.
If they are so hell bent on keeping the "Empire at all costs", on keeping America as a hegemon, brain-draining their adversaries is an excellent strategy. Any chinese materials sciences specialist working on hypersonic missiles in America is on one less chinese guy doing the same in China.
One has no rules
Is not precise
One rarely acts
The same way twice
One spurns no device
Practicing the art of the possible
One always picks
The easy fight
One praises fools
One smothers light
One shifts left to right
It's part of the art of the possible
...
One always claims
Mistakes were planned
When risk is slight
One takes one's stand
With much sleight of hand
Politics—the art of the possible
- Evita
We were told by some very brilliant people (Sam Altman, Dario Amodei and to a lesser extent Demis Hassabis), that AI will shortly automate much of Research and we won't need that many researchers anymore.
Therefore, these personnel restrictions shouldn't matter, right?
37 comments
[ 2.3 ms ] story [ 60.4 ms ] thread> Neither agency has publicly issued new formal guidance describing these requirements. Instead, officials are informing grantees individually, leaving researchers confused and concerned.
They've not even made it official. They're just randomly flagging.
It's actually more surprising to me that NIH and NASA research co-authored by non-Americans was supposedly not requiring scrutiny under the "foreign component" rules before this.
Let us not be fooled by the obvious pretense, please.
Can anyone honestly say that the current administration is a paragon of careful scrutiny and rule-following? If you are wont to agree, then momentarily reflect if this question was ever posed in an earlier presidential administration in your lifetime.
Telling researchers that they have to get permission before they can co-author a paper with a foreign colleague is insane, unless we're talking about a very small set of highly sensitive areas like nuclear engineering.
Lot's of weasel words.
This is not unprecedented. Restrictions tied to foreign collaboration are not new, NIH has done this as far back as 2018 if I recall. Yes, foreign research restrictions have escalated recently.
We have no official statement for either agencies. Collaborating on sensitive or classified material with identified FOCI coauthors is and always have been highly scrutinized activity. Title 32 CFR 117.11 is old. It goes back as far as DoD 5220.22-M in the '90s.
NISPM-33 Office of Science and Technology Policy efforts have been around since 2018 too or so (i am sooo old :/).
This appears to be a continuation of escalation of research-security, rather than a wholly unprecedented break from prior policy.
"The recent update to IDeA grantees was a clarification of longstanding policy, not a new directive,” the spokesperson said. “IDeA program funding has always been restricted to U.S.-based institutions and entities, with foreign institutions, non-domestic components of U.S. organizations, and all foreign components explicitly prohibited. This reflects Congress’s intent that IDeA funds be used exclusively for research capacity building within the United States—and specifically within eligible IDeA states and territories. NIH’s statement didn’t mention any other grant programs or answer multiple written questions.” [1]
[1] https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2026/05/22/r...
> After removing the 16 papers, “I said, well, Jesus, we’re not reporting anything. It’s very frustrating,” Drummond says. “I don’t know how they’re going to evaluate our productivity.”
This creates bad data where teams look less productive than they actually are. Next year, they'll use that as an excuse to cut funding.
https://youtu.be/p6Ejmhwb8Sc?si=ovsv05uRHYP2ZrPC
I mean, what else so you expect if you elect a majority of actual fascists? A fascist discriminates on every front imaginable. Things haven't become much worse simply because of the filibuster.
The problem with scientific papers is that there is an exploitive macro economy of how many one can publish without sold evidence or research attached to the paper itself.
Sure, some things are trade-secrets or national security issues or whatnot, but those are already not shared.
More than militarily the US has always led with soft-power (science, culture, etc). We are throwing all this soft-power away.
Perhaps there is a legitimate reason, but like so many things in this administration this feels like a knee-jerk reaction to... Something.
If they are so hell bent on keeping the "Empire at all costs", on keeping America as a hegemon, brain-draining their adversaries is an excellent strategy. Any chinese materials sciences specialist working on hypersonic missiles in America is on one less chinese guy doing the same in China.
Today the rationale for open research is that openness accelerates it. What if you just need more electricity and silicon to accelerate it?
President after President, it goes from bad to worse.
A potato would know to never mess up with researches, the more you limit, the less access and knowledge you have access to.
Therefore, these personnel restrictions shouldn't matter, right?