Commerce Department rejects proposal on international scholars

WASHINGTON, Feb. 9 — The U.S. Commerce Department has rejected a policy proposal that would have restricted researchers' access to technologies based on country of birth rather than country of citizenship, after the University and peer institutions expressed serious concerns about the proposal.

Other prospective regulations regarding foreign scholars' use of technology remain on the table, however, drawing fire from the University and other U.S. institutions worried about a possible drain on American research capabilities.

Christopher Carter, associate director of the University's Office of Government Affairs in Washington, said the University is pleased with the abandonment of the first proposal. The University's views on the subject, he said, were determined by the need to attract the highest-quality foreign researchers.

"The big concern [about] what impact the proposal would have had," Carter said, "is that we do not want to deter the best and brightest from all over the world — which is really the pool that Princeton and other research universities pull from — from coming here and studying here."

The Commerce Department's original proposal, recorded in the Federal Register in March 2005, recommended requiring foreign nationals who are "originally from countries of concern" to obtain export licenses before accessing sensitive technologies in the United States.

The policy would have applied even if the researchers have become citizens of nations that are not considered "countries of concern" and would not normally require export licenses. The report cited the example of an Iranian-born researcher who had become a citizen of Canada or established permanent residency there.

"The notion is that if a person uses a particular technology and goes back to their home country with knowledge of how that technology is created, then [the technology] is deemed to have been exported and therefore requires a license," explained Barry Toiv, a spokesman for the American Association of Universities (AAU), which opposed the Commerce Department's proposals.

Officials from the Commerce Department could not be reached for comment.

Last June, President Tilghman, who serves on AAU's Executive Committee, sent a letter to the Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security expressing her concern about the proposals, Carter said. During the same month, University Provost Christopher Eisgruber '83 signed on to a similar letter, along with officials from Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Cornell, MIT, Penn and the University of Chicago.

Arguing that many talented foreign scholars currently come to the United States for its research and educational opportunities, Eisgruber's letter noted that 33 percent of the doctorates awarded in science and engineering in 2003 went to temporary residents, including 10 percent to citizens of China.

According to the government's Export Administrations Regulations Database, China is currently flagged for export controls because of "chemical and biological weapons," "nuclear nonproliferation," "national security," "missile technology" and "regional stability."

Put simply, Eisgruber's letter said the proposals were impractical. "We reject the use of country of birth in applying export control regulations," the letter said. "To require the determination of country of birth would require that virtually every international student or researcher provide proof of their birthplace prior to engaging in research."

The proposed rule regarding foreigners' country of birth had been "circulating as late as November" of last year, Carter said. But the Commerce Department abandoned the proposal before the end of the year, with the department's undersecretary David McCormick announcing in a Financial Times column Dec. 13 that export controls would be based "on a foreign national's most recent country of citizenship or permanent residency, not country of birth."

Nevertheless, Toiv said he still has serious concerns about other Commerce Department recommendations, which have not yet been discarded. The remaining proposals would decrease the number of technologies considered a part of "fundamental research," which would force some foreign researchers at U.S. universities to obtain licenses for technologies that have not previously carried licensing requirements.

"In the past, there has always been an exemption for basic research, but the problem here is that that exemption is essentially being set aside," Toiv said. "So the issue here is, what are the rules going to be and how difficult for [universities] will it be?"

Eisgruber's joint letter also expressed concerns about the proposed narrowing of the fundamental research exemption, worrying that the new regulations would drive researchers to "buy lower grade (but not use-controlled) equipment," "shun foreign students and scholars because they are too difficult to work with" and "migrate from forefront research in critical areas because the regulations are too onerous."

Toiv, who took a blunter tone, said the fundamental research issue remains at the heart of the AAU's concerns. "The birth thing was just insult added to injury," he said.

Innovation in America

Tilghman's involvement with AAU also led her to a group dedicated to encouraging and facilitating scientific innovation in America.

A full-page advertisement that appeared in Wednesday's editions of The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post urged America to "increase investments in basic research, improve math and science education, provide incentives for research and development and attract and retain the brightest minds from all around the globe."

The ads were signed by 140 people in all, including several governors; business entrepreneurs, including Eric Schmidt '76, CEO of Google, Inc.; former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright; and 31 university administrators, including Tilghman and the presidents of Yale, Harvard, Columbia and MIT.

"The goal was to bring to the attention of both the public and policymakers in Washington the absolutely critical importance of the United States' continuing to be the world's leader in innovation," Tilghman said in an interview Thursday.

Tilghman cited a National Research Council report titled "Rising Above the Gathering Storm," which described the potential for the United States to lose its "competitive edge" in the world as technology advances, as the impetus for the ads and other efforts to make the issue a topic of discussion.

She also made reference to President Bush's announcement of an American Competitiveness Initiative, which will fund scientific research and the training of high school math and science teachers.

"We're taking all kinds of different approaches to essentially try to keep this issue on the front burner as the President prepares his '07 budget," she said, "and you could hear ... that this issue was actually in the State of the Union for the first time in years."

Arielle Gorin reported from Washington for this article and Matt Davis contributed from Princeton.